Talk:No Religious Test Clause

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Constitution Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Constitution, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Constitution of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States ConstitutionWikipedia:WikiProject United States ConstitutionTemplate:WikiProject United States ConstitutionUnited States Constitution articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) thing(s).

South Carolina[edit]

South Carolina's constitution still contains the religious test language requiring belief in a supreme being -- see this clause, for instance -- even though the requirement was found unconstitutional. I think it's appropriate to include SC in the list of states whose constitutions include such requirements. Agathman (talk) 02:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I live in South Carolina and this policy is no longer enforced according to officers, but since that's not valid citation, I suppose that means that you are right and SC needs to be included in the list. Kinghitmanlane (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2012 (EST)

Supreme Court nominations[edit]

There is an interesting article from the Wall Street Journal that claims that leftists have created a religious test on issues like abortion and women's rights, by which Republican nominees are screened for their possible religious views, while Democratic nominees are let off the hook if they do not support causes related to the pro-life movement. [1] ADM (talk) 03:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That article really isn't that interesting, considering that abortion and women's rights are social issues both supported and opposed by people of various religious and nonreligious viewpoints. They're useless as a means of testing anything other than a person's political or social justice leanings. Nightrose (talk) 13:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

States section discrepancies[edit]

The section currently says: "Eight states (Texas, Massachusetts, Maryland, Mississippi, (Article XIV, Section 265), Pennsylvania (Article 1 Section 4), North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee) do include language in their constitutions reqiring state officeholders to have particular religious beliefs..." This sentence needs a {{citation}} tag and/or some fact-checking, as at least one of those is inaccurate (Pennsylvania A1S4 doesn't require religious beliefs of officials, a fact noted later in the article). White Whirlwind 咨 16:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edmunds-Tucker Act[edit]

What does Wikipedia think about the relation between this clause and the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887 specifically this part: "Required an anti-polygamy oath for prospective voters, jurors and public officials." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.84.45 (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania error?[edit]

Hi there

I'm not American, so I just want to propose a change instead of just doing it (I don't feel qualified to mess with your law articles). It seems to me that the Pennsylvania constitution doesn't have a religious test as implied in the current article.

Article 1, section 4 in the Pennsylvania constitution reads:

"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."

http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Constitution.html

It seems to me that this just says that believers shouldn't be disqualified from holding office (seems reasonable...) There is no discrimination against non-believers here.

If you agree, please correct the error.... someone.

yours Even Gran — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evengran (talk • contribs) 19:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Equal rights for atheists, no "ifs" and "buts"?[edit]

Could this sentence from the US-Constitution be interpreted in a way that it would make any discrimination of avowed atheists to be absolutely unconstitutional? (Sorry for my English, it's not my native language.) --78.35.90.59 (talk) 13:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Arjo[reply]

Unsourced section on federal judges[edit]

I undid an edit that claimed that all federal court rulings are null and void because their oaths technically include, "so help me God". This statement is optional, and and no sources were provided for this claim. Qscgy256 (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]