Replies

If you’ll recall, the religions that the ‘tests’ were mainly meant to bar from public office, were Jews and Catholics.

What states did back in the early days of the Republic might have been wrong headed, but they had the legal authority to do it.

Do you think states should be permitted to have policies like that now, or have we wisely gone beyond that?

I think that States should have changed their laws as a result of the changes in society, not have a new paradigm imposed upon them by Judicial diktat.

This is the difference between consent and force.

On the question of banning religions nowadays, my current thinking is that we can't allow Islam to exist in our society because it's tenets are incompatible with our values and our society. I do not see any other religion as comprising the same degree of threat to our civilization as does Islam. (Other than Kali worship)

I think that States should have changed their laws as a result of the changes in society, not have a new paradigm imposed upon them by Judicial diktat

So, we agree. The States ‘should’ have done; but they didn’t. At what point do you think the Judiciary *should* step in? How many decades/centuries?

We didn’t start out discussing Islam; I agree this is a problem. However, I don’t think that what people believe – or say they believe – is as important a factor as what ACTIONs beliefs might lead them to. If those actions are illegal, contrary to our Constitution and values, or threatening to our national security, other aspects of our system ‘kick in’ to rectify the situation. (A ban on immigration from countries harboring terrorist groups, for instance, is not religious discrimination - it’s a self-defensive act in a time of war. We don't allow the execution of women for adultery in this country - that is murder; etc.)

But if Islam itself is incompatible with our values and society, what do you propose we do, consistent with our ideals, about the ones who are here and have been here for perhaps decades – who are citizens and have lived quiet, law-abiding lives? (I’ve known a lot of these people, who are Islamic by birth/culture and live largely secularized lives in America.) Shall we make laws that none of them may ever hold office? Round them up and send them away, since we can’t peer into their souls and determine exactly what they really think/might do in the future? What? They’ve already sworn ‘loyalty oaths’ by becoming citizens.

My point here is simply that Individual Liberty, as a founding, national ideal, is a very messy thing. The nation whose ideal it is will naturally experience crises of changing times/events, and struggle to retain as much as possible of the integrity of its original principles in the face of that change. We can’t always look to the past for answers to entirely new circumstances. We just have to do our best to apply our highest traditional principles to the situations we find ourselves in today.