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