The clause was written for the purpose of allowing Quakers, who do not swear, to serve in government. Jews also take advantage of it, as do Unitarians, members of various dissenter groups, Orthodox Christians, atheists, Moslems, Buddhists, Hindus and so forth.
The history of the clause is imbedded in the concepts adopted in the Treaty of Westphalia.
we've been over and over this- there is NO 'test of religion' a 'test of religion' would be having the person stand before courts and asked to confirm that they beleive in God- if not, they couldn't get the job- however, there are still some states that DO actually have a TRUE test of religion when running for office- swearing an oath is in no way a 'test of religion' as has been defined by the courts. that argument doesn't hold water as much as oponents of religion would like it to be- As stated a person does NOT have to even agree that there is a God- BUT they had better agree that the majority of citizens DO beleive there is a God and that WE hold it sacred to swear before God- the person is absolutely free to deny the existence of God- but they'd better agree to our mandate of swearing an oath or affirmation. http://sacredscoop.com
I was waiting for someone to point out this fact. Quoting article VI, paragraph 3:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
That pretty much settles the issue of whether Ellison should be barred from using the Koran. However, I look forward to continued debate on the left's eagerness to adhere to America's enemies.