Quote by: Protostar
I am concerned about the mentality of somebody who openy admits his first alegience is to God, and not country. The oath of office requires ones first alegience be to the Constitution of the United States, and if one cannot take the oath honestly, one should not be able to hold the office.
Lets face facts here, if you are busy doing God's work, you cannot manage the biggest nightmare yet created on the face of the Earth. The bible even tells you you cannot serve two masters.
I have the Bohemian Grove footage, and a giant stone owl is NOT an ancient Babylonian god. For fun, do a search online for "owl gods" and see how many turn up(like one or two maybe).
But yeah, they're definately into something. I can give the footage to anyone who's interested. Send me a PM if anyone wants it.
Yes, there probably are atheists in government. They still should not have to hide the fact that they are atheists so the public will vote for them, or so they can be elligable.
I think that you just state that you believe in god, but if you are cought saying you do not believe you are removed from office. So even though an atheist could attain hold a position, they could not be open about their atheism even after attaining the office. In Texas however there is evidence that they might have a religious test you must pass if you admit you not believing in godhow are you supposed to prove you believe in God if you want office in NC
Texas Bill of Rights (A1, S4): 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.
Looking over the Bill of Rights, no where does it say anything about keeping religion out of the government. With that in mind, I think they should change the first amendment to include somthing along the lines of seperating church and state. The states are not breaking any law with their constitutions prohibiting atheists to hold office, but they should be.
Last edited by jt1012751; 9th November 2005 at 04:36 PM.
The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" this has been seen as the "Separation of church and state" clause. I don't think it says anything about this anywhere else in the Constitution.
Note that it says "Congress." It says nothing about the states. If this went to the Supreme Court, they would never hear the case; it's not in their jurisdiction. So that means you'd be arguing against the Texas constitution, in front of the Texas Supreme Court. What do you think are your chances?
An atheist in California sued over the "under God" wording in the Pledge of Allegiance; I'm sure you all remember the case, which involved his daughter and the Pledge being said in school. Guess how that turned out? Come by my classroom any week, and you'll see.
My point? This is an impossible fight. We should try to live up to the intention of the Amendment, and just let anybody do, say, and think whatever the hell they want. When it infringes on our rights -- as with the Pennsylvania school and the Intelligent Design textbook -- then we should sue. But trying to change the paradigm of this government, of this country, to value atheists, just ain't gonna happen. So if you want to change Texas's consitution, get elected there, become controversial, declare you're an atheist, have your opponent demand you be removed from office -- and THEN sue them.
Until that happens? Let it go.
"Would you like some pie, Dr. Stark?"
"Science is my pie. Curiosity, my sweet tooth.
Knowledge is my candy."
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=pledge
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,.."
In 1954 the Congress of the United States made a law respecting an establishment of religion -- "under God" -- into the pledge of Allegience.
In 1864 the Congress of the United States made a law respecting an establishment of religion -- "In God We Trust" -- onto official U.S. currency.
In 1956 a Joint Resolution of the Congress of the United States made a law respecting an establishment of religion -- "In God We Trust" -- as the official motto of the United States, apparently replacing the Motto on the Great Seal of the United States. "E Pluribus Unum"
I'm not sure how everyone's english comprehension is around here, but I can't conceive of how violations of the 1st Amendment could possibly be MORE blatant. Can you?
"E Pluribus Unum" -- "Out of Many, One".
Out of many States, one State.
Out of many nationalities, one nation.
Out of many races, one people.
Out of many religions, an acceptance for all and a preference for none.
.
I don't suffer from insanity... I thoroughly enjoy it
Thanks, SOB. i needed that. I'll even take back the nasty little shot I got in on the Voting in Many Languages thread.
Actually, nah. You can take it and like it.
As this chucklehead shows, you need to have a real grievance to bring change, and the belief that a government document offends your sensibilities is not a real grievance. I don't like the Second Amendment to the Constitution; what would happen if I sued? If I protested? If I ran for public office on a "no on guns" ticket?
Now, if I got shot, like, say, JimBrady, maybe -- oh, no wait. That got repealed, didn't it?
Please, let's keep from making atheists look worse, by making a big damn deal out of words on a page? When it hurts someone, we can fight it. Not until then.
"Would you like some pie, Dr. Stark?"
"Science is my pie. Curiosity, my sweet tooth.
Knowledge is my candy."
Let me take a page out of your own Little Red Book, there, Mr. Snippy:
Take it to court and change the law. Until you do, the current situation stands.
And I'll stick to my point: have a genuine grievance before you try to take this one on. You can't even argue that you're horribly offended by these words, because you believe all morality -- and therefore the offensiveness of this -- is relative.
English comprehension. Geez.
"Would you like some pie, Dr. Stark?"
"Science is my pie. Curiosity, my sweet tooth.
Knowledge is my candy."
I didn't even post in that thread. You must be obsessed.
Just waiting for it to happen, Coffee :) You mentioned the recent Supreme Court challenge in Elk Grove Unified School District et al. v. Newdow and asked how it turned out. It didn't turn out at all.... the case was never decided on the merits, on which, interestingly enough, the Court complimented the plaintiff. It was thrown out because the Court determined that the plaintiff did not have legal standing to bring the case on behalf of his daughter.
Since the 9th Circuit Court had already ruled in favor of the father, one might assume that another, better challenge might actually get heard on the merits.
This is a perfect example of how "Traditional Values" can trump the ideals we tell ourselves the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution stand for.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,"
Certainly sounds cool, but until 50 years ago, traditional American values determined that non-whites were inferior to whites and could be discriminated against -- by law. Until 30 years ago it was traditional American values that women were inferior to men and could be discriminated against -- by law. In 1964 in La Jolla, CA, part of my home town of San Diego, traditional American values declared that Jews were inferior to Christians and could be discriminated against -- by law.
And so it is with God and the pledge and the Ten Commandments and all the rest. Folks still cling to them as displays of traditional American values, but they're losing in the courts and at some point they're going to have to come to grips with the fact that the American values spelled out in our Constitution said exactly the opposite. Belief in God is an individual right, but can't be promoted by government in any form.
You have no idea how offended I am. For my entire life I've had to listen to men of God tell millions and millions of my fellow citizens, my friends and family, that >I< am the moral equivilant of murderers, thieves, child molesters and communists, that >I< am immoral by definition and that >I< deserve to suffer the most unspeakable agony for all eternity simply because I believe something different... or more specifically, don't believe something.
My ex-wife is a 4th and 5th generation American, just like I am. Her cousin Darryl is a Vietnam vet. Her mother's brother is a vet and her father's oldest brother was a vet, giving the last full measure of devotion in World War II. He didn't come home. The difference is that where my people came from Britain, hers came from Japan, and she and her extended family have remained practicing Buddhists, and Buddhists don't believe in God. So kindly explain to me how her two young children, and the children of other hard-working, law-abiding, tax-paying, war-sacrificing, non-believing American citizens have to pledge allegience to a God they simply don't believe in, or face being set apart from their classmates?
.
Last edited by Sonart; 10th November 2005 at 12:10 AM.
I don't suffer from insanity... I thoroughly enjoy it
I realize that I can not change anything, because, quite frankly, this is not breaking any law or right that we have as american citizens. That was also not the point. The point is, it should be breaking a right we have, we should have the right to believe whatever we want to believe and still get elected to any office regardless. I know that there is no way to win, because we have no case, but the fact still stands that you should not be able to discriminate agaisnt people based on their religious beliefs, or disbeliefs.
You're right; I apologize if I seemed to be making light of the issue. I'm not trying to. I was trying to tell everyone, not just you, that more court cases against words are going to divide the country, and that could lead to more problems than solutions. I only said it because someone posted, "So sue them." When the words actually hurt someone, they have a good basis to make a stink.
Like Sonart's ex-wife, for one. Here, I'll stop playing the fair mediator, and tell you my stance: I'm a teacher, and my classroom hears the Pledge read to us every week; there is a flag in my classroom. I don't make anyone stand up and say it, I don't make anyone sit down. I don't say it myself. I will not pledge allegiance to a country at war, let alone the God part. The only reason I don't turn off the loudspeaker so I don't even have to hear that crap is that I'm a teacher; my subject comes before my politics, and I know that some students would refuse to listen to a word I said if I made such a blatant political statement.
I hate hearing about God. I want everything you want. But I don't believe trying to offend others is the way to get what I want, even if it's satisfying, and a lawsuit about this would be designed to offend, a sort of "See how YOU like it!" jab at the religious right. I argue with the means, not the ends.
"Would you like some pie, Dr. Stark?"
"Science is my pie. Curiosity, my sweet tooth.
Knowledge is my candy."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks