you are still free to teach christianity in schools. in my city there are several christian schools where they are able to teach there kids that there was once a talking snake and god created the earth 6000 years ago. most of us prefer that willful ignorance not be used as a learning tool so resist having fables and fairy tales taught in public school.
Having a problem copping to the horrific crimes of white Christian Americans in the name of God and Jesus? Not surprised... Your emotional and fallacy driven response is par for the course, what I expect from you.
if we had religious education in schools as you want there would be pockets of muslim and other religions in america who would want their brand of religion taught in their local school and you would be right back on here complaining that it should be only your religion that be taught. the court has it right. all religion should be banned in public schools.
If 1 per 1000 are willing to do mass murder and the rest of them don't do anything to discourage them you have 1.2 million people that have to be watched, but you never can be sure which 1.2 million it is so I say don't give any of them holidays, it's easier to surveil them at work then at home.... and it's harder to make a bomb at work too........
well so far we have had two terrorist attacks in america that caused mass murder. one was muslim men and one was christian men. i guess we better surveil everybody then. pretty soon you have a police state.
well, there are of course more than 50 christians for every muslim in this country so even based on your logic the chances of a muslim terror attack are about 50 times higher than the chances of a christian one. Even more importantly, the entire chrisitan world loudly and unequivocally condemned the attack. The muslim world's condemnation on the other hand was not only extremely subdued (to put it mildly) but generally went like this: "It [9/11] was a wrong thing to do but it's really not their fault, it's the fault of the US government which refuses to meet the demands of the terrorists and avoid future attacks". And of course you conveniently did not take the first WTC attack into account together with multiple attacks on american and western targets all over the world. They were all carried out by muslims, not christians so you decided to ignore them.
The obvious difference is that there is not a worldwide Christian terrorist conspiracy. There have been so many muslim terrorist attacks worldwide you cannot list them all.
OK sorry, I misunderstood your post. I still don't agree with what you wrote however. Unless I am badly mistaken, the prohibition on religious tests for public office only applied to federal offices. Similarly, the First Amendment prohibition on establishment of religion only applied to the Congress. States were allowed to have official state religions, and some, like Virginia, did exactly that. In the 1960's, the Supreme Court invented the incorporation doctrine and thereby claimed that the 14th Amendment incorporated and applied to the several states the Bill of Rights. Only took them 100 odd years to "discover" that the states that ratified the 14th Amendment also meant to apply the Bill of Rights to themselves.
Acknowledgement to Cornell University Law School United States Constitution Article VI All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. 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. Touting that around as if a religious test was laudable, or misrepresenting the Constitution by applying it only to limited circumstances all in defense of , it must be said , intolerant bigoted christian religious prejudices, is the very hate and jealousy writ large, which the author of that deviant practice is quick to accuse those who refuse his creed of , but who is so proud to deal in himself. More "christians" would do themselves a favor were they to first think about what it is they are actually saying and read and learn the Constitution before they start referencing that silly childish fairy story Bible book in preference, as if to do so were more important. Apology accepted AAA, and with respect I say you are badly mistaken. Not only is Unconstitutional a polite way of describing any religious test , I trust you will be able to agree, it just happens to be a factual one.
I don't want to belabor this, but I'm not sure the text you quote means what you think it says. It says no religious test for an office under "the United States." That does not include state offices. The preceding phrase regarding swearing loyalty expressly includes the states. I don't have time right now to look into this, but I will try to later.