To the liberal extremists, does "separation of church and state" preclude a candidate who actively practices

Question

any religion from running for public office?

Bonus question: what percentage of the constitutional framers would have agreed with you on your answer?

I like wilcow's answer, even though he hates my question.

their fun, ducky

these are way better answers than I expected...intelligent ones, not funny ones.

Answer 1

*sigh* The founding fathers were not concerned about the literal separation of church and state as in "OMG we can't have that paper with the ten commandments here." They were concerned about religious leaders ruling the country. England had an official religion, and the king was the person that decided all of the rules of that religion. It would be something like the Pope running for president, and then banning birth control on the basis of "God thinks it is wrong." Its the idea that one religion should not rule the country, not the idea, that Christianity should be banned from Gov't in all ways. Its a joke the way liberals will interpret that part literally, but ignore the part that says people should be allowed to have guns. Also, athiesm is a religion of its own, so all atheist ideas should be removed from the Government, if you believe that other religions should be as well. Its a silly argument with no real way to win.

Answer 2

No. While I don't call my self a "liberal extremist" I am adamant about keeping the government from being involved in matters of the church. When the school organizes a prayer before class the school "establishes" that religion (regardless of which one) as better.

However the first amendment also protects the free exercise. What this means to me is that the holder of any political office can believe what ever he or she wants, be it in Christ or the flying spaghetti monster. They however should not base the laws they create on their religious beliefs.

I think that is what the founding fathers had in mind when they created the constitution.

While the phrase "separation of church and state" was not used in the constitution, the first amendment is based on this principle. This is evidenced by the use of the phrase by Jefferson.

Answer 3

Separation of Church and State, was not in the Constitution, so I'm not even sure that all the framers of the Constitution would have agreed with it. Thomas Jefferson referred to a"wall of separation between church and state" in a letter written in 1802. It was referenced again in 1878 by the Supreme Court, and several cases referenced the concept beginning in 1947.
What the Constitution says is that the government shall not favor one religion over another, and shall not support one religion to the exclusion of others. It also says that the government may not prohibit the free practice of a religion.
Since the President has to be an American citizen, I would think that the law allowing the free practice of a religion would also apply to him.
I believe that the framers of the Constitution would, by a majority agree with me, because they wrote it.

Answer 4

No, it does not "preclude" them from running for public office. Making use of the expression (the wall of separation) is merely their way of playing games and portraying the politicians that they don't like as being enemies of the Constitution. It's just a lot of rhetoric; divisive rhetoric. They won't have any power to and they won't try to "preclude" anyone. They'll just verbally berate all members of the "religious right." **yawn**

But one thing I want to make clear; I do not have any objection to the idea that the "wall of separation of church and state" phrase is a crucial part of the legislative history of the First Amendment. I merely have a different and much narrower interpretation of what the expression means. Different and narrower than what the Sup. Ct. has been doing with the phrase and different and narrower than what the ACLU and the other leftist organizations believe in.

Answer 5

No... in fact the separation of church and state actually protects their rights to run for office. It also protects our rights by not allowing that person to impose, even with the greatest of majorities (short of a Constitutional Amendment nullifying the First right protected in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights) from imposing their religious 'practices' or beliefs on the general populace.

And Madison and Jefferson would have stood by these statements firmly.

Answer 6

Not a Liberal let alone extremist myself but apparently it does although they put Specter in and he is supposedly a practicing mormon. I would have to agree with about 90% of the constitutional framers

Answer 7

Actually they would have all agreed that everyone had a right to their own religion or not to have one, but that it shouldn't interfere with their job, and that they don't have a right to shove their own ideas on religion down anyone elses throat. They were able to see how religion corrupts SOME people into selfrighteousness and how dangerous that type of ignorance can be.

Answer 8

No, but it does preclude those who bring religion (i.e. cite the bible or any other religious book of choice) into political debates or other places that would be considered to be "on the job" for the politician.

As for the second question, I can not speak for those individuals.

Answer 9

No, and for the bonus : All of them.

okay - I'm not an "extremist" , but why are you even asking them questions ?
please don't encourage the extremists (they are in such a very-very small minority anyway)

Answer 10

There is no such thing as "separation of church and state" it is not in any of the founding documents of this country and is not implied so your question has no real answer and should never have been asked.