Posted by krprilliman on September 3, 2008 at 7:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Very nicely stated, Mr. Foley; your letter is a breath of fresh air.

Posted by GreenArrow on September 3, 2008 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm glad I don't live in your fairytale land Mr. Foley.....

Posted by jimmypickens on September 3, 2008 at 9:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As a student of history, Mr. Foley, what pray tell were the religious reasons for the Mexican War, War for Texas Independence, American Civil War, War of 1812, Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam? Most knowledgeable historians would certainly dispute your conclusion about wars/religion.

Posted by greatsociety on September 3, 2008 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separate."

-- Ulysses S. Grant

Posted by bird82 on September 3, 2008 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

While I disagree with religion being the cause of all wars (though certainly the cause of some), I whole heartedly agree with the rest of the commentary. Religious litmus tests have no place in politics...too bad that part of the constitution is routinely ignored, as are so many others.

Posted by Orphan_of_Empyr on September 3, 2008 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Foley is mistaken.
Why bound by oath or affirmation if religion is to be ruled out?
Historically "religious test" doesn't refer to whether the candidate is 'religious'. Historically all men in public life were religious, and those private persons who were not, were notorious Jacobins or worse, and as such would not have been 'bound' by any public oath, as they professed the virtue of lies to achieve their desired ends.
"Religious tests" refers to oaths that required specific answers to questions regarding the particulars of worship and belief, such as whether consubstantiation or transubstantiation occurred during the worship service or not, not questions as to whether the candidate believed in the broad principles of the Judeo-Christian traditions, or the essential truth of the Good News of Christ.

Finally no tripe is more stinking than the rotten bon mots, "If it weren't for religion, we wouldn't have any wars." Any social system pervasive enough to organize a large group of men may be, rather arbitrarily, defined to be a religion. If this is done, allowing Communism, as an example, to be classified as a religion, the statement is meaningless, since it effectively means, "without organized human activity there would be no organized activity of humans taking human lives."-- no doubt, true. If only deistic religions are included, the statement is more susceptible to accountability, and demonstrably false. The hundreds of millions of dead at the feet of Pol Pot, Josef Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, and their ilk, did not die because the religiosity of the tyrants mentioned, but because of their antipathy toward human hope and freedom-- which is at the core of religious beliefs in the west.

Posted by Gillett on September 3, 2008 at 7:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Foley. Again, you should actually read the exact words of the Constitution and Article VI and try to understand the words themselves. People like you always like to "add" more than is actually there.

First, the "establishment" clause of the Constitution says NOTHING about the separation of church and state. Second, Article VI says NOTHING about that separation either. You can infer anything you want, but don't try to add something that is not there.

Posted by huckster on September 3, 2008 at 7:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

there should never be an establishment of religion and that includes religious tests to be qualified for public office. but the people have the right to know where the candidates stand on issues including religious beliefs. to argue otherwise is ignorant.

Posted by dalai-llama on September 3, 2008 at 9:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am always surprised at how eager Christians are to tear down the wall between church and state, given the fact that every wall has two sides. Power and influence are two-way streets; ya gotta give a little to get a little, especially in Washington.

What are you willing to trade in order to walk the halls of power?

Posted by wild_bill on September 4, 2008 at 8:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

dalai, not one single thing would I give to "roll" the halls of power. Now if was a matter of walking...ANYWHERE the price might go up a bit... or a whole lot. Wife has already told me she won't move to Austin and she would divorce me before she'd move to Washington DC. That simplifies things a bunch.