With respect to the religious test this is a very important point. We have recently had a scandal of sorts in Oregon with one of our members of the Oregon state house Rep. E. Werner Reschke from southern Oregon investigated for comments he made where he suggested only Christians should be lawmakers. What he said in part was:
“You don’t want a materialist, you don’t want an atheist, you don’t want a Muslim, you don’t want, you want somebody who understands what truth is and understands the nature of man, the nature of government and the nature of God.”
Sadly, the committee that investigated this as a possible form of harassment and a hostile workplace voted 3-1 that he didn’t violate the rules as written about a safe and respectful workplace. Interviews by the local NPR affiliate KOPB indicate not all lawmakers agree. It also came to light that he is the Oregon chair of an organization called the National Association of Christian Lawmakers, who are apparently have a conference starting today at (of course) Liberty University. Their goal appears to be to enact legislation in the states to support their Christian Nationalist agenda. They definitely bear watching.
You raise a good point. Feel free to forward my writing to anyone who might be able to use it. That's part of the reason I'm going to the trouble of writing about these things. Part of the reason also is that SCOTUS justices are national leaders. They are highly conscious of that fact. They know they lead by example (including how they make or support decisions) and they lead people in how to think.
It is natural that lower-level officials (federal and state) will follow the example set by Justice Alito and his adherents. It also is natural and inevitable that lower-level officials (directly interacting with much more of the public than SCOTUS) will act even worse (less compliant with the Constitution) than SCOTUS justices. That is one of the objections I have to the methodology of the Dobbs majority (pretending that they can rely on how state officials previously treated women over hundreds of years) to justify their interpretation of our Constitution as it exists today. They have it backwards--and they know it.
With respect to the religious test this is a very important point. We have recently had a scandal of sorts in Oregon with one of our members of the Oregon state house Rep. E. Werner Reschke from southern Oregon investigated for comments he made where he suggested only Christians should be lawmakers. What he said in part was:
“You don’t want a materialist, you don’t want an atheist, you don’t want a Muslim, you don’t want, you want somebody who understands what truth is and understands the nature of man, the nature of government and the nature of God.”
Sadly, the committee that investigated this as a possible form of harassment and a hostile workplace voted 3-1 that he didn’t violate the rules as written about a safe and respectful workplace. Interviews by the local NPR affiliate KOPB indicate not all lawmakers agree. It also came to light that he is the Oregon chair of an organization called the National Association of Christian Lawmakers, who are apparently have a conference starting today at (of course) Liberty University. Their goal appears to be to enact legislation in the states to support their Christian Nationalist agenda. They definitely bear watching.
You raise a good point. Feel free to forward my writing to anyone who might be able to use it. That's part of the reason I'm going to the trouble of writing about these things. Part of the reason also is that SCOTUS justices are national leaders. They are highly conscious of that fact. They know they lead by example (including how they make or support decisions) and they lead people in how to think.
It is natural that lower-level officials (federal and state) will follow the example set by Justice Alito and his adherents. It also is natural and inevitable that lower-level officials (directly interacting with much more of the public than SCOTUS) will act even worse (less compliant with the Constitution) than SCOTUS justices. That is one of the objections I have to the methodology of the Dobbs majority (pretending that they can rely on how state officials previously treated women over hundreds of years) to justify their interpretation of our Constitution as it exists today. They have it backwards--and they know it.