Posted on 06/10/2011 2:46:32 PM PDT by Brookhaven
It doesn't matter much what oaths you require, or what the law says, if no one considers it to be of enough importance to enforce it. Case in point below. Ask yourself if anyone held Barack Obama or the Illinois Democrat Party to the requirements below. Other states have similar laws on the books:
From the Illinois Code:
ARTICLE 7. THE MAKING OF NOMINATIONS BY POLITICAL PARTIES
10 ILCS 5/7-2) (from Ch. 46, par. 7-2)
Sec. 7-2.
[...]
A political party, which at the municipal election in any other municipality or political subdivision, (except townships and school districts), for municipal or other officers therein then next preceding a primary, cast more than 5 per cent of the entire vote cast in such municipality or political subdivision, is hereby declared to be a political party within the meaning of this Article, within said municipality or political subdivision, and shall nominate all municipal or other officers therein under the provisions hereof to the extent and in the cases provided in section 7--1.
Provided, that no political organization or group shall be qualified as a political party hereunder, or given a place on a ballot, which organization or group is associated, directly or indirectly, with Communist, Fascist, Nazi or other un-American principles and engages in activities or propaganda designed to teach subservience to the political principles and ideals of foreign nations or the overthrow by violence of the established constitutional form of government of the United States and the State of Illinois.
(Source: Laws 1943, vol. 2, p. 1.)
(10 ILCS 5/7-10.1) (from Ch. 46, par. 7-10.1)
Sec. 7-10.1. Each petition or certificate of nomination shall include as a part thereof, a statement for each of the candidates filing, or in whose behalf the petition or certificate of nomination is filed, said statement shall be subscribed and sworn to by such candidate or nominee before some officer authorized to take acknowledgment of deeds in this State and shall be in substantially the following form:
United States of America
ss
State of Illinois
I, .... do swear that I am a citizen of the United States and the State of Illinois, that I am not affiliated directly or indirectly with any communist organization or any communist front organization, or any foreign political agency, party, organization or government which advocates the overthrow of constitutional government by force or other means not permitted under the Constitution of the United States or the constitution of this State; that I do not directly or indirectly teach or advocate the overthrow of the government of the United States or of this State or any unlawful change in the form of the governments thereof by force or any unlawful means.
I agree, Islam is more than a religion. This is surprising coming from Keyes. Perhaps he has an explanation that shows Islam and It’s bonded Sharia law does not constitute and is not a political system. The middle east history will be difficult to ignore on the issue.
Israel does have Muslim citizens who serve in their government, by the way. Not members of terrorist organizations like Hamas, though.
I disagree, vehemently!
Do you still wish to claim that "for the most part they are respected"?
“But the Constitution explicitly prohibits officials of the U.S. government from applying religion as a criterion for public trust, whatever their individual inclinations...”
Very well.
But I proffer that, at the time the Constitution was reasoned and written, that those who insisted on a clause barring any “religious tests” did so because they believed that only Christians and perhaps Jews would ever fall under such a test.
I further proffer that not a single delegate to the Constitutional convention ever once believed or imagined that, someday, Islamics would stand to hold government positions under their newly-created Constitution.
To them, this would have seemed unfathomable.
Thus, from their limited perspective, they endeavored to create a document and a government that would pertain solely to Christians and Jews.
But the Constitution’s views and dictates of religious freedom are destined to fail us in a multicultural environment in which a new and definitely foreign culture in our midst will use the protections of that document to gain power and to subvert and perhaps ultimately destroy us.
We MUST begin to apply “a religious test” insofar as it may determine loyalty to the basic foundations of freedom that The West represents and cherishes.
If you disagree with what I’ve written, do you also disagree that ISLAM, in EVERY facet of that religion, also applies “a religious test” to everyone in its domain?
Whether you view Islam simply “as a religion”, or see it for what I believe it to be — a totalitarian political system cloaked behind a “burqha of religion” — it is Islam that is our nemesis.
It does not warrant the protection of the United States Constitution.
Not if that Constitution is to survive, that is.
Just sayin’ .
As I am one who considers Islam a war plan, Keys is practically correct.
If I’m not mistaken, Cain backed off the remarks in question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.