Reply With Quote
the new land of religious persecution.
its true. even in their cons ution somehow....
http://www.citizen-times.com/article...WS01/912080327
credit this to "freedom loving real-american's" eh?
the new land of religious persecution.
Somehow I don't think that will survive a court challenge.
bubba's courtroom is a tree and a rope.
This is old news, no? That article has been in the NCC for more than a century. Maybe Winehole can somehow blame Bush though.
How is this guy an atheist, anyway? He doesn't deny the existence of God. Isn't that kind of necessary to be an atheist?
It's new news because someone is trying to deny office to a man who said "I simply consider the question of denial or acceptance irrelevant."
I wish they had a picture of that Edgerton dude.
Ah, here we go.
Way off. This has nothing to do with Bush.
More to do with you pissing sideways on me. I didn't know you cared. Thanks for making it about me.
Hope this guy gets left alone. Hard to beat the religious establishment down south. I know, I (for the most part) grew up in Alabama.
North Carolina, like many southern states, still has all kinds of bull laws on their books from earlier, less inclusive times. An example: http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-...north-carolina
My fave is "it's against the law to sing off-key". If this is the case, then wouldn't American Idol be banned in that state? jus' sayin
Well, here's the Texas cons ution to prove how advanced we are:
Art. 1, Sec. 4. RELIGIOUS TESTS. No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments,
provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.
Atheists are every bit the huge ing assholes to christians they think the christians are to them and everyone else. I don't blame em for trying.
Obviously the christians are more tolerant than the atheists as well, if they weren't it would never have gotten to the point where the atheists felt comfortable being the complete and total assholes they now nearly universally are. Ironically enough, they are pretty much terrified of turning that at ude on any other religion....
IMO, it was probably the atheists that ed the majority of the reglions up and perverted them into corrupted elements of control, extortion and profit. I mean it obviously wasn't someone that actually believed in the religion that was doing that. It was someone that was using them.
Well, that's a new one. So...the reason the majority of religions are " ed" is because of atheists? So...atheists essentially infiltrated influential positions in every religion to corrupt them from the inside out.
It couldn't just be the case that there are people who believe in God and their religions, but for whatever reason suc bed to the callings of power and greed?
Also, because you don't follow your religion (or any religion for that matter) does not necessarily make you an atheist. Atheists don't believe in a deity. You can doubt organized man-made religion and still believe in a deity.
Besides Mr. Peabody's fine points, and ignoring your atheist-infiltration scenario, I'd add that atheists don't have as extensive a back-catalog of intolerance as religious folk, including the ultimate expression of total-asshole intolerance also known as murder. In fact, besides totalitarian communist states like Stalin's (whose intolerance was not even expressly motivated by atheism considering he killed people for political reasons more than anything -- evidenced by his allowing religious groups to exist, and even creating Birobidzahn to diminish religion-based tumult in the USSR), and China's.
I don't bring this up to suggest that atheists are less capable of being assholes or murderers, but rather that the historical record boasts incalculably more cases of religions picking on atheists than the other way around, which may account for their sometimes shrill condemnation of belief and the policies that fall out of it.
Did you click the link? It illustrates perfectly the point I was making.
It is not my intent to claim that true christians haven't done and won't do asshole ...only to point out many atheists these days are every bit as prone to cramming their beliefs down someones throat...and pretty much represent the other side of the coint rather than the more enlightened view.
And as for the way an atheist could use religion..again I suggest you clink the link I provided.
In closing I'll just repeat, same side, different coin. As I have been saying for years, it's not so much you guys dislike of christianity that bothers me, it's that they are the only thing you dislike.
Dude, I pay money for an education, and what I get is an anti-christian -indoctrination...in classes that are supposed to have nothing do with it. That would piss me off a lot less if I wasn't the one footing the bill entirely for it. I am not paying for that...
I can pretty much make a flow chart that could peg with absolute precision, the belief system of just about every college professor in the country...you guys are not automatically more complex and sophisticated in your beliefs than the typical bible thumper.
I get the point you guys are trying to make about accepting responsibility, however, you hold no one else accountable, and that is just as skewed a viewpoint as someone who holds everyone else accountable.
Same coin, different side.
PS: And I know you won't accept that....accountability. Which is ironic for a variety of reasons.
More ironic than believing the posters in this thread are atheists for having defending them?
Perhaps what you call atheist indoctrination is actually just religious neutrality, which is a necessity in a multicultural society?
You mean the Rev. Jim Jones? C'mon now...
AFA: Religious Tests Are Perfectly Acceptable
Last week we mentioned the situation in North Carolina where conservatives are threatening to sue in an effort to keep an atheist out of office, citing the state Cons ution:When Mr. [Cecil] Bothwell was sworn into office on Monday, he used an alternate oath that does not require officials to swear on a Bible or refer to “Almighty God.”The Supreme Court already ruled unanimously against such religious test provisions back in 1961 in a case out of Maryland:
That has riled conservative advocates, who cite a little-noticed quirk in North Carolina’s Cons ution that disqualifies officeholders “who shall deny the being of Almighty God.” The provision was included when the do ent was drafted in 1868 and was not revised when North Carolina amended its Cons ution in 1971.
One opponent, H. K. Edgerton, is threatening to file suit against the city to challenge Mr. Bothwell’s swearing in. “My father was a Baptist minister,” Mr. Edgerton said. “I’m a Christian man. I have problems with people who don’t believe in God.” Mr. Edgerton is a local civil rights leader and founder of Southern Heritage 411, an organization that promotes the interests of black Southerners.
David Morgan, the head of a conservative weekly newspaper, The Asheville Tribune, said city officials had shirked their duty to uphold the state’s laws by swearing in Mr. Bothwell.We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can cons utionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can cons utionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs ... This Maryland religious test for public office uncons utionally invades the appellant's freedom of belief and religion and therefore cannot be enforced against him.But Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, while not mentioning the Bothwell case specifically, doesn't seem to a) care or b) be aware of the Court's ruling and says that such restrictions are perfectly cons utional:Our secular fundamentalist friends are fond of citing Article VI of our Cons ution as proof that this foundational do ent is non-religious in nature. It reads, ""but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."Of course, we already knew that Fisher had some rather unique views regarding the First Amendment and the separation of church and state and doesn't think that Muslims should be allowed to serve in the military.
It's worthy of note that this applies only to federal offices, for the prior clause makes it clear that the Founders were distinguishing between the federal government - "the United States" - and the legislatures of the individual states, which are referred to as "the several State Legislatures." Both are included in the previous phrase, "all executive Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Cons ution." (emphasis mine)
This makes it clear that while officers at both the state and federal level were required to support the Cons ution, the restriction on the application of a "religious Test" was reserved for officials in the federal government. States were left to apply explicitly religious tests if they chose, and most did.
Almost all states required holders of public office to declare a belief in God, and many went beyond that to require a belief in the inspiration of both the Old and New Testaments, which in effect limited public service to self-professing Christians. This was just fine with the Founders, who wanted the states to have complete liberty in such matters.
But they were also clear that no religious test was to be applied as a condition of public service at the federal level. What the Founders meant by this, however, was this and this alone: an individual did not need to belong to a particular Christian denomination to be eligible for federal office. That's it.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten...tly-acceptable
that's all great and all, but there is no way in the SCOTUS would uphold a religion test today. All they have to do is cite "changing cultural norms on liberty" and they can throw all the history under the bus. Then we got ourselves a new fundamental right.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
