Separation of church and state ?

[otago]

How is it possible for Mitt Romney to stand for president under US law if you have separation of church and state and he is a bishop of the mormon church ?

I understand the mormons are stating they are just a normal christian church like the Anglican church.

If that is the case is there any reason why say an archbishop from the anglican church cannot be voted in as president ?

Would having a bishop from a church as president tend to push up against the first amendment ?

 

[Tahuti]

The US constitution states that no "religious tests" are to be taken when politicians take office. Barring Romney from presidency for being a high ranking Mormon - or a Jew, Muslim or Atheist - is unconstitutional.

 

[muhtesem insan]

I don't think there should be a problem as long as he gives up his position in church if he's elected.

 

[downtown]

Mitt Romney is not currently a bishop. Bishop is also not a particularly high ranking in the LDS church....it's just a pastor, and we've had several of those run for president.

Even if he was still a Bishop, the church would obviously make him step down, simply because he would not longer have the time to be effective at his job.

 

[classical_hero]

There is no such clause in the US constitution. All the US constitution forbids is the stopping of free expression of religion.

 

[Smellincoffee]

There is no such clause in the US constitution. All the US constitution forbids is the stopping of free expression of religion.

Article VI, paragraoh three:

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.

Amendment 1:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

You can argue about it all you want, but to deny the secular stance of the founding fathers is stupidity. You have to deny not only the entire political contribution of the Enlightenment regarding religion, but their actual language and deeds -- like Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religion", the Treaty of Tripoli, and so on. This is a tired argument. Be honest and stop making it.

 

[Cutlass]

There is no such clause in the US constitution. All the US constitution forbids is the stopping of free expression of religion.

That and any aspect of government forcing people to accept the religious views of others.

 

[Quackers]

Yeah, if we had the OPs way any member of the church/mosque/synagogue would be barred from office. Thats just insanity

 

[Cutlass]

Even George Washington served as a Deacon of his church. Though I can't recall off hand whether he gave that up before or after being president. And a Deacon isn't really much of a church leadership position.

 

[berkut]

How is it possible for Mitt Romney to stand for president under US law if you have separation of church and state and he is a bishop of the mormon church ?

I understand the mormons are stating they are just a normal christian church like the Anglican church.

If that is the case is there any reason why say an archbishop from the anglican church cannot be voted in as president ?

Would having a bishop from a church as president tend to push up against the first amendment ?

Secular state does not means Atheist state. The separation is between the two institutions so even if the pope got elected, his religious believes are a personal trait that shouldn't be considered different then any other ideology

 

[Leoreth]

Is the president allowed to hold a high ranking or deciding position in any organization, while in office, though?

(I see that Mormon bishops don't seem to be particularly high ranking, but as a general question.)

 

[downtown]

Of course he can.

Again, the OP is incorrect. Mitt Romney isn't an LDS Bishop. I'd be surprised if he has a calling at all right now.

 

[Cutlass]

Nothing explicitly forbids it. What is not legal is making public policy based on religious beliefs in such a way that some are compelled to live in accordance with the religious views of others. Or to have a religious test to hold an office. Further, public money or institutions cannot not only force, but cannot support, the ministerial work of any religion.

So the "wall separating church and state" is not a phrase explicitly used, but in practice it is what is meant.

 

[kochman]

Is the president allowed to hold a high ranking or deciding position in any organization, while in office, though?

(I see that Mormon bishops don't seem to be particularly high ranking, but as a general question.)

Absolutely.
We could elect the Pope if he were a natural born US citizen.
If he tried to impose his religion on the people by using the government, that would be unconstitutional... but you can hold whatever position.

In all likelihood, any real religious leader would step down from that position to take the presidency, because the presidency is kind of time consuming.
Remember, even when Obama plays more golf than any president before him, he is still working out there on the links.

 

[Cutlass]

So far, President Obama has taken 61 vacation days after 31 months in office. At this point in their presidencies, George W. Bush had spent 180 days at his ranch where his staff often joined him for meetings. And Ronald Reagan had taken 112 vacation days at his ranch.

Among recent presidents, Bill Clinton took the least time off -- 28 days.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/17/eveningnews/main20093801.shtml

 

[ParadigmShifter]

If he was a bishop would the only being able to move diagonally thing hinder his chances?

 

[kochman]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/17/eveningnews/main20093801.shtml

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/12/obamas-golf-not-like-ike-or-wilson/1

I'd say when you add 90 days of golfing to the 61 days of vacation, Obama's had his fair share of leisure activity...
90 + 61 = 151... (some of those days overlap though)

Ranch days aren't really vacation, since Bush's staff was there... However, I didn't agree with this approach either. We govern in DC, not Crawford, TX or wherever you want to live...

Reagan's number is alarming, what was he doing?!

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Nancy was doing his horoscopes?

EDIT: Because you can't defeat global communism with a Saturn-Uranus conjunction.

 

[classical_hero]

Article VI, paragraoh three:



Amendment 1:



You can argue about it all you want, but to deny the secular stance of the founding fathers is stupidity. You have to deny not only the entire political contribution of the Enlightenment regarding religion, but their actual language and deeds -- like Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religion", the Treaty of Tripoli, and so on. This is a tired argument. Be honest and stop making it.

Not one of those quotes disagree with what I said. What the US constitution forbids is the US ever having a State Religion, where the state and church are basically the one and same, or the exact opposite, where you forbid religious expression. The whole point of the the founding fathers was not to have a situation where one religion is the state, like what happened in much of Europe, thus limiting free speech. A President can be religious, since many of the founding fathers were and so were many of the Presidents.

 

[warpus]

Just because you're a priest doesn't mean you can't run for president. It wouldn't violate the concept of the secular state and/or the separation of church and state.

Of course you would have to give up your post as bishop if you got elected.. there's no way you could handle both jobs. Plus you'd have to check your religion at the door, which might be tough for a bishop. But there is nothing inherently wrong about a bishop getting elected into office in a secular state.

Not one of those quotes disagree with what I said. What the US constitution forbids is the US ever having a State Religion, where the state and church are basically the one and same, or the exact opposite, where you forbid religious expression. The whole point of the the founding fathers was not to have a situation where one religion is the state, like what happened in much of Europe, thus limiting free speech. A President can be religious, since many of the founding fathers were and so were many of the Presidents.

Separation of church and state doesn't mean that you can't have a religious president. It is a fairly important aspect of any secular state, like the U.S.