Re: [asa] Re: (Santa?) [christians_in_science] Brilliant article by Dawkins

From: gordon brown <Gordon.Brown@Colorado.EDU>
Date: Thu Aug 27 2009 - 18:46:40 EDT

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, Murray Hogg wrote:

> Unfortunately, there are those in Australian who think "separation of Church
> and State" actually means the government is obliged to have a religious test
> for office - so you often hear the same sort of silly arguments as occurred
> in the case of Francis Collins: "You can't appoint him, he's RELIGIOUS!"
> Little do they realize that Section 116 actually makes such discrimination
> unconstitutional - I imagine that although the US Constitution doesn't
> specifically exclude a religious test for office such a test would be
> excluded as contrary to the free exercise of religion, right?

The third paragraph of Article VI of the Constitution of the United States
reads as follows:

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.

Gordon Brown (ASA member)

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Aug 27 18:47:41 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Aug 27 2009 - 18:47:41 EDT