Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site uwmacc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion,net.politics,net.legal Subject: Re: religion and public life: texas Message-ID: <192@uwmacc.UUCP> Date: Mon, 6-Aug-84 19:20:04 EDT Article-I.D.: uwmacc.192 Posted: Mon Aug 6 19:20:04 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 8-Aug-84 00:43:26 EDT References: <1672@sdccs6.UUCP> Organization: UWisconsin-Madison Academic Comp Center Lines: 24 > [David Whiteman] > Several articles have been debating whether a religious test for > holding a public office is consitutional. Many people have stated > that such a test violates the 1st admendent. That has nothing to do > with the debate. Article six of the consitution specifically states > that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to > any office of the United States or any of its compoment states. > What can be more clearer? Yes, it should be clear, but seems not to be. For instance, the National Organization for Women tried to have a judge removed because they disagreed with his position on abortion, on the grounds that he was a Mormon and, hence, of course he was "biased" (meaning, he failed to be persuaded of the correctness of NOW's doctrine). It is significant that they tried to enforce a religious test upon the judge. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois And he is before all things, and by him all things consist... Colossians 1:17