There are days I wonder why I have Gordon Howie’s blog in the feed on the right, as I read his latest manifesto advocating discrimination and bigotry?
Should Muslims be allowed to occupy public office in America?
The very question itself will bring accusations of racism, bigotry and prejudice. I can handle that.
and…
At a time when radical Islam openly screams “death to America”, and most Muslims are noticeably silent when it comes to condemning that agenda, can our country really afford to trust Muslim-Americans with the sacred responsibility of preserving and protecting our freedom and Christian heritage?
I, for one, need to have some reassurance.
Clearly, he recognizes that his question might “bring accusations of racism, bigotry and prejudice.” Well, no kidding. Because the very question is IS UTTERLY RACIST, BIGOTED and PREJUDICIAL.
Why is Gordon Howie utterly full of s**t past his shoes this morning?
There are a few pieces of paper kept in a vault across the country that would disagree quite strongly with him. Collectively, they’re called the US Constitution, and in particular I point you to a couple of passages contained within the Bill of Rights.
The First Amendment, guaranteeing the free exercise of religion: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Fourteenth Amendment, providing equal protection under the law: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction there of, are citizens of the United States and of the State where in they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
What those passages mean are that there is no “one” religion that is held above any other, and conversely, no law prohibiting the practice of a particular religion. And when it comes to the free exercise of that religion, no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Meaning you can’t be punished for exercising your religion, even Islam, as Howie is directly advocating for.
When Howie asks “Should Muslims be allowed to occupy public office in America?” and claims he needs “some reassurance” to consider that notion, he is directly expressing the same mentality that gave rise to literacy tests to discourage black voting, and other “jim crow” laws to discourage civil participation.
Gordon might be starting with Muslims, but how long until he extends that to Jews, Catholics, and other religions he disagrees with?
You know what they say about the road to hell, which he seems to be heading down. Once you start down that slippery path, we’re all in a lot of trouble.
Gordon is more like Joseph Goebbels every day with his crazy posts. All for the Fatherland.
The problem with Gordon and Stace is they are all about group think and do not want individuals to have an opinion that differs from theirs.
That’s one of the stupidest comments on here I have seen in awhile, and that’s saying something.
too close to home Stace?
Good to see Stace Nelson still has the RINOs seeing him in every post by every anonymous person.
I agree with “anonymous,” what a stupid comment.
Republicans expect “Republicans” to act and vote as Republicans. It’s the RINOs that think being a Republican is bad.
Curious, who is the ghost in the blog that thinks the anonymous poster is Nelson?
odd, the republicans i know think howie is a RINO because he hates the party. he’d love the party if he ran the party, that’s the argument, but that’s never going to happen, so how is howie NOT a rino? rinos don’t have to just be too liberal, they can be too social-conservative or too libertarian to fit the gop too. “stupid” is a stretch, “obvious” is a better fit for the post everyone is calling “stupid” here. calm down.
I bet Steve Hickey agrees with Howie.
I follow his blog just to keep tabs on where his dangerous trains of thought are leading. He continually proves himself nothing more than a bigot.
There are so many great things about this country one can’t really make a list without leaving something out. That said, one of them is people get to say what they want, people get to vote for what and who they want, and people get to say something is stupid.
I know there are people who voted against Rounds because he is Catholic, Thune because he is Baptist/Evangelical Christian, and Ellison because he is Muslim. And, there are people who voted for them for the same reason. And, at the end of the day, it really doesn’t matter because they were elected by a majority of the voters. The why people vote for or against a person are as divergent as there are issues people make judgement on. One’s religion is as legitimate as anything else for one reason- it is the priority of the voter.
Voters qualifications to vote and candidates qualifications to be on the ballot are defined by objective facts like citizenship, age, where they reside, etc. Subjective matters like religious views, policy positions, etc. are matters for voters to weigh and then express themselves at the ballot box.
The suggestion we are going to introduce subjective qualifications to one’s ability to vote or hold office is contrary to the Constitution and American values.
Additionally, during a time when religious liberties (in particular Christian liberties) are being threatened on multiple fronts in our country, I find it appalling a Christian would even advocate something like this because it denigrates our own argument for religious liberty.
“What those passages mean are that there is no “one” religion that is held above any other, and conversely, no law prohibiting the practice of a particular religion. And when it comes to the free exercise of that religion, no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Meaning you can’t be punished for exercising your religion, even Islam, as Howie is directly advocating fo.”
Not accurate. “Exercising religion” and holding public office are NOT the same, and are meaningfully different.
The US Constitution requires that the president “solemnly swear (or affirm)”–that oath was and is clearly an act with religious meaning. Thus, one questions whether atheists qualify for the presidency as they would not be willing or able to solemnly swear (or affirm)..
By tradition, this oath has been taken on a Bible, and concluded with “So help me God”. By federal statute, all federal officer holders including judges must conclude their oaths with “so help me God”. And “so help me God” is in many state constitutions as requirement of the oath.
So, it’s inaccurate to suggest that the freedom to exercise religion and to associate necessarily means one is therefore fully qualified to take the required oath to serve in a public office.
Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong.
The No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, paragraph 3, and states that:
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.
Are you suggesting that the “religious test” is the same as the solemn oath?
Talk about moving goal posts!
The ORIGINAL post was about freedom of religion and qualifications to hold public office.
Now, you’ve inserted another provision: the religious test.
Which is fine, but I was responding to freedom of religion vis-à-vis holding public office. Thus, your exclamations about being wrong are off target.
Just to confirm, then: you are not saying Howie is right, or questioning at all whether or not a muslim can hold office based on being a muslim? I just want to be sure.
The claim that the [constitutional] freedom to exercise one’s religion or to associate is largely unrelated to the [constitutional] qualifications to hold public office, especially the presidency
The required [constitutional] oath to solemnly swear or affirm is not the same as the religious test provision, otherwise why bother having the bar on religious tests?
The more fascinating question is whether an atheist can [constitutionally] hold a federal public office–the presidency in particular.
I don’t agree with Howie on anything.
“I don’t agree with Howie on anything.”
High five on that.
a political subdivision gets to elect whomever fits all the legal requirements for election. period. howie’s shameless quest for attention and pandering to splinter groups has turned up yet another gem here.
It isn’t a racist question (unless you assume all Muslims are the same race which is a kind of racial stereotyping that could be labelled… Well, you get the picture). It’s a question about divided loyalties, and quite common over this country’s history. The same question was asked (and in some quarters continues to be asked) with regards to Catholics – it was a huge deal in the 1960 elections. It gets asked today about Christians in general – can we be trusted to uphold the secular order? Indeed, many of Howie’s concerns about Muslims could just as easily be raised about him – and are raised about him and those who think as he does.
It’s a legitimate question, too, and one that religious believers of all sorts should ask themselves. Can I be faithful to my God at the same time I am sworn to uphold this political order? In the history of the United States, many have answered that question negatively and neither vote nor run for office on religious grounds. Some will not even work for the government on the grounds that to do so is to submit to worldly (aka demonic) authority.
And that’s fine.
But we should leave it to religious believers to answer this question themselves. Instead of trying to answer for Muslims, Howie should limit himself to answering for Howie.
Anonymous 8:25:
1) No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, paragraph 3): “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all EXECUTIVE (emphasis added as it includes the President) 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 (emphasis added) religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
A strict interpretation of the above makes it quite clear “no religious test” can be imposed. The Supreme Court has ruled so repeatedly that it even to one without a belief in God.
2) The words you mention “solemn swear (or affirm)” has also been interpreted in context of the “No Religious Test Clause” such that if it has “religious meaning” to the person taking the oath, it has religious meaning to that person. However, for one who holds to know religion it is solely personal.
3) The “so help me God” is actually a permissive addition to accommodate those who ascribe religious meaning to the oath and accommodate religious liberty. However, one is not required to utter them for two reasons: First, to require it would be a religious test. Second, it isn’t included in the oath as written in the Constitution.
4) The tradition and custom of taking the oath with one’s hand on the Bible and the utterance of “so help me God” are further permissive accommodations to those who are religious and the concept of religious liberty. But, tradition and custom do not hold the force of law. In fact, there are some religions (7th Day Adventists, Amish or Quakers?) who not only use the “affirm” language because they are only permitted to make an oath to God but also don’t put their hand on a Bible but hold their hand to their side because they can’t give the impression their affirmation is even slightly comparable to their greater oath to God.
When I see attacks on religious liberty and expression (including for Muslims or atheists), I’m always reminded of this quote by MARTIN NIEMÖLLER (anti-Hitler Protestant Minister):
“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
This entire discussion is quite poignant for me. While I’m hopeful for the Supreme Court to rule favorably with regard to “religious conscience” issues with regard to Pharmacists who can’t dispense abortifacients, Doctors who can’t perform abortions, business owners who can’t pay for these things in business provided health plans, I understand what Niemoller is saying. A lot of Christians are saying “You Catholics just have to get with the program. Abortion and birth control are legal.”
Just because I’m not Muslim doesn’t mean I shouldn’t protect their rights lest my rights become forgotten. In fact, I can’t even believe in America these good Christians should be forced to violate their religious convictions with regard to their views on Life.
Think about it: The “right” for a person to get free birth control (available for their purchase or free at public health clinics if they are poor) transcends one’s religious conviction they are illicit.
“state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”
That phrase has nothing to do with the free exercise of religion or holding public office.
1. “A strict interpretation of the above makes it quite clear “no religious test” can be imposed. The Supreme Court has ruled so repeatedly that it even to one without a belief in God”
100% WRONG.
The SC has ruled that no one can be forced to believe in a god in order to qualify for public office–BUT NOT BASED ON THE BAR ON RELIGIOUS TESTS. Read the cases.
2. “) The words you mention “solemn swear (or affirm)” has also been interpreted in context of the “No Religious Test Clause” such that if it has “religious meaning” to the person taking the oath, it has religious meaning to that person. However, for one who holds to know religion it is solely personal. ”
No court has come close to that conclusion.
3. “The “so help me God” is actually a permissive addition to accommodate those who ascribe religious meaning to the oath and accommodate religious liberty. However, one is not required to utter them for two reasons: First, to require it would be a religious test. Second, it isn’t included in the oath as written in the Constitution. ”
It is included in federal statute, and in many states’ constitutions as I already stated.
4. “But, tradition and custom do not hold the force of law. ”
In many ways though, we are talking about what SHOULD be done as we expect our office holders to UNITE & REPRESENT a diverse population, not divide.
5. “:who not only use the “affirm” language ”
Well, they would be conforming to the consitutional qualifications, right?
6. “Just because I’m not Muslim doesn’t mean I shouldn’t protect their rights lest my rights become forgotten.”
Our Constitution is not a suicide pact.
In other words, how do we accommodate those who wish to use OUR freedoms to destroy those freedoms? Or do we not accommodate them?
P.S. One addition to the oath/affirmation clearly has religious meaning. The allowance to use “affirm” is a specific accommodation to those whose beliefs don’t allow them to make an oath but to God. For those of these particular religions (I keep thinking this is Quakers, Amish, et. al.), the use of “affirm” is specifically to remove the swearing from having religious meaning as those faiths believe. Thus, in addition to atheists and agnostics, there are God-believers who do not apply any religious meaning to the oath/affirmation.
“the use of “affirm” is specifically to remove the swearing from having religious meaning as those faiths believe”
Absolutely not.
““I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States”
The Framers were clear: the swearing or affirmation of the oath (for the presidency at least) must be done “solemnly” , meaning with a religious connotation. Solemnly modifies BOTH swear and affirms. There is no serious constitutionall scholar who claims that the “affirm” was an escape clause for the solemnity of the oath.
This is not true. The affirmation portion was placed in with an eye towards the Quakers, who had religious objections to taking oaths for anything. The affirmation was put in place so they could indicate their fealty to the constitution while saving oaths solely for god. From Joseph Story, an early Supreme Court Justice:
“Oaths have a solemn obligation upon the minds of all reflecting men, and especially upon those who feel a deep sense of accountability to a Supreme being. If, in the ordinary administration of justice in cases of private rights, or personal claims, oaths are required of those, who try, as well as of those, who give testimony, to guard against malice, falsehood, and evasion, surely like guards ought to be to be interposed in the administration of high public trusts, and especially in such, as may concern the welfare and safety of the whole community. But there are know denominations of men, who are conscientiously scrupulous of taking oaths (among which is that pure and distinguished sect of Christians, commonly called Friends, or Quakers,) and therefore, to prevent any unjustifiable exclusion from office, the constitution has permitted a solemn affirmation to be made instead of an oath, and as its equivalent” (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833, pp. 1838ff.).
Do you think people won’t check your claims?
“the constitution has permitted a solemn affirmation to be made instead of an oath”
Exactly as I said.
The “solemn” refers to BOTH swearing & affirming. Being able to “affirm” was NOT a means to avoid the solemnity of the oath/affirmation.
And , “solemnly” by definition and usage, includes a religious connotation.
Thus, one must wonder if an atheist is able to swear (or affirm )in a solemnly manner.
Except solemn does not have that connotation in this context as the affirmation was made explicitly to divorce it from religious connotation so quakers could make it. Read that quote again.
Why use the word “solemn” if the affirmation (or oath) had no force of religious belief behind it? The context and intent was clear that “solemnly” modified both swearing and affirming.
The Framers were men of honor, and that honor involved more than just their word as men–it was their word as men of God.
Quakers were also men of God. and their affirmations were also made with God in mind–they just were not “swearing” to uphold a document, but were very much SOLEMNLY affirming to uphold the document.
The Framers understood that, as does Story. BTW, Story’s views are NOT controlling as to the LAW.
Late addition, and I just saw this. This is one of those “duh” moments. Of course Story’s quote doesn’t carry the force of law, he wrote it in a book. But it does contradict your assertion re: solemnity having religious connotations. The fact that one of the Supreme Court Justices around the infancy of our country said so undermines your points. As to your point that the Quakers were still solemnly, as in with religious connotation, affirming to uphold the constitution: we have contradictory evidence that was timely around the production of the constitution right here in these comments, and you are choosing to ignore it.
Well said Pat!
Anonymous 9:23:
Again the Constitution says: “NO (emphasis added) religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
If prevention of Muslims from being qualified doesn’t violate it, I don’t know why it can’t be applied to Jews, Catholics or evangelical Christians if someone wants to do it.
I’m not going to argue the religious test questions anymore. The language of the Constitution is quite clear. That said, you do bring up some good points (which might be at the heart of the matter.
“Our Constitution is not a suicide pact.” I totally agree. A Muslim who desires “death to America” or an abrogation of the Bill of Rights and other protections afforded in the Constitution AND wants to serve in office for that purpose needs to be exposed during an election. If they get elected and take acts in violation of their oath/affirmation, they can be impeached from office.
“In other words, how do we accommodate those who wish to use OUR freedoms to destroy those freedoms?” We have no obligation to “accommodate” them. The Constitution and laws of the land are to protect our freedoms. If they violate them, they should be prosecuted as prescribed under the law.
“Or do we not accommodate them?” Again, we have not obligation to accommodate them but our efforts to thwart them shouldn’t include abrogating or violating our Constitution and laws. In addition to the words and values embodied in our Constitution, we should act in ways where we protect our own moral authority to enforce the Constitution. If we selectively choose to violate the Constitution and its values, it is nothing more than a piece of paper.
“We have no obligation to “accommodate” them. ”
Yes we do.
Those who, for religious purposes or otherwise, are entitled to the protections of the Constitution (speech, assembly, worship, own weapons) all the while advocating for the subjugation on that same Constitution to their beliefs. AND, our gov’t must accommodate them, as do private citizens operating in the public arena.
Gordon would look better wearing a solid brown shirt when he is on his TV show making statements like this. Sieg heil!
Anonymous 12:29:
Dicta is right and he showed it by giving reference to a ruling.
The word “affirm” just means to state as a fact strongly and without reservation.
Further, look up solemn. it defines it and uses synonyms of: formal, dignified, ceremonious, ceremonial, stately, formal, courtly, majestic, not cheerful or smiling; serious, grave, sober, somber, unsmiling, stern, grim, dour, humorless, deep sincerity, earnest, honest, genuine, firm, heartfelt, wholehearted. Not a single word necessarily implies religious.
Putting solemn and affirm together makes the affirmation more all of the words above but doesn’t create a religious connection. If it did, those with faiths which prevent swearing oaths would be unable to testify in court, serve in office, serve in the military, anything.
THEY CAN’T MAKE ANY PROMISE (MAKE AN OATH) OR USE GOD’S NAME WHEN AFFIRMING AND CONFORM WITH THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
I don’t know how many times it has to be said. The Constitution says there can be no religious test for serving in office. It applies to all denominations of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, paganism, and those of no religion. THERE IS NO LOOPHOLE WHERE ONE CAN PREVENT MUSLIMS OR ATHEISTS FROM SERVING IN OFFICE.
Did you read:
“therefore, to prevent any unjustifiable exclusion from office, the constitution has permitted a solemn affirmation to be made instead of an oath, and as its equivalent”
That specifically contradicts your claim that ” the use of “affirm” is specifically to remove the swearing from having religious meaning as those faiths.”
One still has to SOLEMNLY AFFIRM fealty to the Constitution. And solemnly, by definition, involve a religious character to the statement. If there were no religious connotation or qualification, or if “affirm” was an escape from the religious aspects, why bother with “solemn”? The Framers understood and wrote what they wrote because they wanted the statement of fealty to the Constitution to be MORE THAN a promise–it was a SOLEMN promise.
Now, you may be arguing that a solemn oath or affirmation has since lost its original meaning–circumstances have changed–and now that dilute what the Framers’ words meant, but that’s clearly not what they meant when they wrote the words..
1. Further, look up solemn….. Not a single word necessarily implies religious.
Sorry, but you’ ve been too selective and failed to consider the context of the Framers’ words when writing what they wrote.
Merriam – Webster:
–marked by the invocation of a religious sanction
— marked by the observance of established form or ceremony; specifically : celebrated with full liturgical ceremony
The solemn oath clause CLEALRY is written with a religious connotation as the religious test bar specifically refers to it!
2. “The Constitution says there can be no religious test for serving in office. ”
True, but you fail to note (and have yet to understand) that the Sup.Ct .has NEVER used that clause as a justification to strike down oaths that require a belief in God. Read Torcaso for example.
3. THERE IS NO LOOPHOLE WHERE ONE CAN PREVENT MUSLIMS OR ATHEISTS FROM SERVING IN OFFICE.
You’ve again conflated “religious test” with “taking a solemn oath for an office”. Why would the Constitution require the solemn oath/affirmation but bar a religious test if they meant the same thing? THEY DO NOT!
There is no religious test for holding office and a person of no religion can make a solemn oath or affirmation.
I agree the Supreme Court has never struck down solemn oaths or affirmations because neither require a belief in God.
The real question is if there can be no religious test to serve in office but the person has to make a religious oath/affirmation to serve, isn’t there an effective religious test to serve?
There can be solemn ceremonies in and outside religious settings. The idea solemn only is applicable for religious settings is bonkers. Read closely what Dicta posted from Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story:
“Oaths have a solemn obligation upon the minds of all reflecting men, and especially upon those who feel a deep sense of accountability to a Supreme being.”
Oaths are solemn for ALL and ESPECIALLY for those who believe in God. There would be no need to put in the ESPECIALLY phrase if those who don’t believe in God CAN’T make solemn oaths or affirmation.
Merriam-Webster definition:
1) very serious or formal in manner, behavior, or expression
2) sad and serious
3) done or made sincerely
Yes it goes on in the full definition to say:
1) marked by the invocation of a religious sanction
2 marked by the observance of established form or ceremony; specifically : celebrated with full liturgical ceremony
But, it also says:
3(a) awe-inspiring : sublime
3(b) marked by grave sedateness and earnest sobriety
3(c) somber, gloomy <a solemn gray building
Its synonyms (which means the same thing) are august, distingué, distinguished, imposing, portly, dignified, staid, stately (none of which are necessarily "religious")
Its antonyms (which means its opposite) are flighty, frivolous, giddy, goofy, silly, undignified (none of which are necessarily anti-religious or non-religious)
I think that you’re arguing that “solemnly” have taken on newer meanings–the Framers knew what they were doing when they used “solemnly”, and they were CLEARLY using it in a religious context (why else refer to it in the “religious test” clause?).
I agree that “solemnly” has been diluted into secular nonsense, but that’s another argument.
Wow, I don’t get this. When somebody claims to deny political office in America based on the candidate’s religion, I would hope EVERY Conservative American, and all the other ones too, would scream: “Bullshit” – because the person claiming screening based on faith does NOT believe In America – and that’s the facts Jack
Anonymous 8:57:
I’m not arguing it has taken on a new meaning.
If the word “solemn” clearly implies religious meaning, Quakers could not make even an affirmation and thus are precluded by the “oath and affirmation” requirements to serve in elected office or the military (which they often don’t for religious objection reasons against taking up arms and not because they have to make a “religious affirmation”).
If that is your position, I disagree and so does the Supreme Court.
Please, stop making stuff up.
The Sup. Ct. has never ruled on what constitutes making a ‘solemn” oath or affirmation, or what does not.
You were wrong on the “religious test” clause, and you’re wrong again on what the Sup.Ct says about “solemn.”
You were told to read Torcaso v. Watkins–until then, you’re flailing.
My comments, unchallenged as they remain, largely dealt with what the Framers wrote & thought about making solemn oaths & affirmations. The Sup Ct has yet to weigh in on what “solemn” involves, if anything. But it is clear what the Framers thought and believed and wrote.
You cannot rewrite history so stop trying.
Look, if you have questions about this, just ask.
Making stuff up does nothing for your credibility.
Anonymous 2:11,
Is it your position that an atheist is unable to make a solemn oath or affirmation and thus it was the Founder’s intent that an atheist is unable to serve in office?
Is it your position that if, according to one’s religious tenets, a person is prohibited by his deeply held religious beliefs from making any statement which invokes God, it was the Founder’s intent they can’t serve in office?