Is George W. Bush guilty of violating Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America? How many people of non-Abrahamic religious belief (Aethist, Pagan, Hindu, Buddhist, etc) has he either appointed or nominated to office?

Comments

Comments

• No it doesn't require him to appoint people of every faith, but if he appoints NO ONE of any other faith, that is strongly, almost unequivocably, indicative of a religious test, is it not?

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on May 21st, 2007

•   I don't see how.  The vast majority of Americans are either Christian or Jewish.  I expect that this is probably even more true when one limits the sample to those who have the education and background to be qualified for the positions in question.  So it stands to reason that any random group of American appointed to certain positions without regard for their religious beliefs are likely to be predominantly Christian or Jewish as well.  If such a group contained a significant number of Atheists, Buddhists, Pagans, Hindus, and other members of very small religious minorities, in greater proportions than these are found in the general population; then THAT would be evidence (but not proof) of religious discrimination.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on May 21st, 2007

• Thank you Bob. Very well put.

  • Report
  

  by Wickels on May 21st, 2007

• Predominately is one thing. ENTIRELY is quite another. Now, let's ask what percentage of the educated - bachelor's degree minimum - American population - that which can be appointed - is not Christian or Jewish. That same percentage one would expect to find in appointments that are selected based upon criteria other than religion, yes? Even in the American population at large, 5-10 percent are Atheist. So, I would expect to see at least ONE Atheist if we were not having a religious test. Perhaps you could possibly address that, Bob?

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on May 21st, 2007

• By your definition of discrimination, any group that contains a larger percentage of one faith than found in the general population is evidence of discrimination. Therefore, any group that contains ONLY one or two religions is, as well. I'm quite sure that the population contains more than one or two religions.

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on May 21st, 2007

•   Well, I admitted that a group of appointees that statistically contained more than the expected number of people of non-Abrahamic religious persuasions would be evidence, BUT NOT PROOF of discrimination.  At the very worst, if this group contains only people who hold Abrahamic faiths, then it is again not proof of anything.
   
    You seem to be trying to make the accusation that the President has specifically looked into the religious beliefs of every candidate for every position to which he's had to appoint someone, and has specifically rejected candidates who he might otherwise have chosen, entirely on the basis of not being of an Abrahamic religion.  I think that if you're going to make such an accusation, then the burden is on you to produce much better evidence to back up this accusation, than merely a statistical aberration. …

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on May 21st, 2007

• … I very much doubt if either of us is anywhere close to qualified to claim to know anything about what candidates the President had to choose from for the positions that he has had to fill, what their religious backgrounds were, and what effect — if any — these backgrounds may have had on whether they were chosen or not.
   
    This really has the look and feel of a desperate attempt to manufacture a scandal where no credible evidence of any such scandal actually exists.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on May 21st, 2007

• I don't know ubout 'scandal' but I get your point, and agree.

  • Report
  

  by Wickels on May 24th, 2007

• How do you manufacture a scandal? That sounds like the comments of someone who disagrees that something is a problem. That doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist, either. What I'm trying to find out is whether or not there is a problem. On the other hand, you contradict yourself. You say that if the rate of nonAbrahamic religions is higher than the general population, that is evidence; therefore, if the group holds higher than the population instance of Abrahmic religions, that also is evidence. No one said it was proof, but it IS worth a closer look. The number of graduates from Pat Robertson's university is enough to raise eyebrows and warrant an investigation.

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on June 5th, 2007

• There were over 150 people from the joke-of-an-instutition known as the Pat Robertson School of Law, working in the Bush administration.
  .
  Shows you where his objecivity is.

  • Report
  

  by ACCOUNT CLOSED on March 6th, 2009

Comments

Comments

Comments

• "The clause is there so that no one can be forced to join a church in order to work in the government." Um, no. The clause is there so that NO religious test (of any kind) can be performed as a requirement for office. Please read the wording. It says nothing about not forcing someone to join a particular religion, denomination, or congregation. It says NO religious TEST.

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on September 7th, 2007

• That is true, but the history of teh clause is explained in the answer.

  • Report
  

  by Someguy on September 7th, 2007

• That is an incomplete history of the clause and its reasoning. It goes much further than just that. Ever read the writings of Thomas Jefferson on the separation of church and state, or the writings of Thomas Paine?

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on September 7th, 2007

• Yes. But the main reason why most settlers left England in the early 1600 to late 1600's was the Anglican Church. The whole concept of separation of church and state originiated with the creation of the Anglican church and the way the kings forced people to join it or be "out of the loop".
  
  Your question is asking if GWB violating the clause. No. There is no test of religion, no religious requirements what so ever. If there were the government unions would be all over him about it.

  • Report
  

  by Someguy on September 7th, 2007

Comments