Are religious oaths religious tests? Is every test about religion religious?

[link]When Kai Hagen (D) was sworn in as a new county commissioner recently, he declined to take an oath declaring a belief in the existence of God.

I thought religious tests were barred by the Constitution.

[link]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.

Is there really a difference between querying if someone holds certain religious convictions and seeing if someone is willing to take an oath affirming that they hold certain religious convictions?

[link]Kai says I should not even be writing about his decision. His views about church and state are his own private matter.

Well, yeah. So are his thoughts about unicorns and state, leprechauns and state, etc. But this is America after all, so his views about church and state could certainly affect his chances of being elected. Stating one's religiosity loudly and often is basically necessary for election to pretty much anything. Remember though, making public that private matter is for the purpose of getting votes, not getting past some governmental requirement.

[link]Whether or not he decides to take the oath is important, in my view. It gives voters an insight into his attitude about church-state relations.

It gives everyone an insight into his attitude, not just voters. He obviously thinks they should be kept them separate. (But I'm not quoting that paragraph now so that I can use it later.)

[link]The oath is certainly not required. Thank God for that. There should not be, and is not, any religious test for running for office.

I'm really not that sure on how this idea holds up constitutionally. An oath to the Constitution might be required before holding office, but an oath to some god certainly could not be. The Constitution only prevents religious tests from being used as a qualification for holding the office, not for running for it. I don't think someone needs to be qualified for an office to be able to run for it. Inclusion on official ballots has some requirements, but I don't know exactly what those are. I think a political party could certainly require that a candidate pass a religious test before receiving their endosement. But that would be the party doing so, not the government.

[link]So, it seems to me, that the voters in our city of Clustered Spires do have a right to know, in general terms, what a public servant's views are on religion and the state.

So you want to give every public servant a little test before they can hold office?

The above test survey doesn't actually care about what, if any, religion you belong to. That, I suppose, is one way to argue for it's constitutionality. I'm an atheist and I can easily answer it. Theists certainly seem to have very vocal opinions about it. I think even an agnostic could muster an answer. I must admit that the above is not the same as being asked to confirm belief in the Assumption of Mary or the Holy Trinity. Is any test survey about religion religious?

[link][Circuit Court Clerk] Sandra says, "God-believing people seem to be making the most compromises these days. Department stores can't put up Merry Christmas signs and some places can't have the baby Jesus in the cr?che."

WTF?

How is someone choosing not to affirm belief in your god now a "compromise"?

Department stores are as privately owned as your neighbourhood Christian bookstore and have all the same rights to put up all the religious signs they want. Nobody is stopping them. Really. Trying and attract as wide a customer base as possible is hardly a "compromise".

Specifically what places are you talking about that ban Lord Baby Jesus? I'm guessing those places you are talking about are publicly accessible places the government owns. They're not there help you further your religion. It's hardly a "compromise" that the government doesn't get to go around endorsing any particular religion.

[link]There is no right or wrong answer here.

I'm really confused as to just what the question is here. I can think of several questions I've asked myself up to this point.

1. Is it okay for people to forgo swearing an oath to some deity before assuming public office?
2. Should all public servants be required to answer a test survey about their views on the separation of church and state?
3. Is a test survey about one's views on the separation of church and state a religious test as described in and banned by the constitution?

Whether or not these questions have "right" or "wrong" answers is an interesting philosophical question. But I don't think that is what the commentator means. So, for my purposes I'm going to define "right" as constitutional and "wrong" as unconstitutional. My answers are as follows:

1. Yes.
2. No.
3. Yes.

[link]But it seems to this commentator that if a public servant declines to take an oath supporting God, he should be more than willing to explain his position.

I think Kai already explained his position. It was in the second paragraph.

[link]Kai tells me, "I asked that the declaration not be added to the swearing in ... because I really do believe that one of the most important and unique things that has made our country great is the separation of church and state."

I'm not sure if the commentator feels that this is not sufficient explanation or if he is just making a statement. But he does have a point. It seems to this blogger that everyone who takes an oath supporting any god should be more than willing to explain why they picked that god over all the others or just kept any gods out of it to begin with.