Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

**Jack** · Apr 20, 2008, 02:20 am

It's time to abolish these outdated and nonsensical prohibitions.

A sample:

Quote:

Constitution Of The State Of Arkansas Of 1874.

Article 19. Miscellaneous Provisions. § 1. Atheists disqualified from holding office or testifying as witness.
No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.

Article 37 of the Declaration of Rights of the Maryland Constitution That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.

PART IV. CRIMES, PUNISHMENTS AND PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES

TITLE I. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS CHAPTER 272. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY AND GOOD ORDER Chapter 272: Section 36. Blasphemy Section 36. Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three
hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.

The Tennessee Constitution, Article IX, Section 2 No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

Laws and other rules against atheists and agnostics - FreeThoughtPedia

Hurt · Apr 20, 2008, 02:23 am

hm, have there been no attempts to so far?
(It'd be weird if there were no attempts at all, disregarding whether they are successful or not)

Halofan48 · Apr 20, 2008, 02:29 am

It's sad that such laws are in place. They should be removed soon.

nerdvincent · Apr 20, 2008, 02:47 am

I see it from here: fundies fighting to keep them if we try to delete them. I think trying to delete them could bring them back from the graveyard of forgotten law, but we should take that risk. Such laws are just too...republican? to exist.

Anmon · Apr 20, 2008, 03:18 am

Quote:

Quote by: Halofan48

It's sad that such laws are in place. They should be removed soon.

Yes because blasphemy is so important.

tommy5x · Apr 20, 2008, 03:59 am

Are you sure these rules are applied? If ever they were taken to tribunal, or appeared in court on charges relating to them, any sensible judge would overrule them, and meet with his peers to seek their abolishment.

Until they're brought up in court, they almost don't exist.

Recently the British Government abolished 200 outated laws that were brought into courtrooms, but technically it is still legal to shoot a Welshman with a longbow within the ancient walls of Chester.

Nobody has acted on it, so it is latent.

Anmon · Apr 20, 2008, 08:39 am

Well go find a welshman living in the old part of Chester and take him out with a long bow, proudly wave your bow in court to the press as you walk out free.

Winter wind · Apr 20, 2008, 09:14 am

Quote:

Quote by: anmon

Yes because blasphemy is so important.

The testimony of blasphemers shouldn't be disqualified. If it isn't relevant to the case, what difference does it make?

Quote:

Quote by: isherwood

It's time to abolish these outdated and nonsensical prohibitions.

Can't someone just bring it to court? The law would be dead in an instant.

Gods_Mercenary · Apr 20, 2008, 09:20 am

That's what you get for living in arkansas. Plus, it's completely unenforceable, "Umm, sure I beleive in god"

Derach · Apr 20, 2008, 09:25 am

There have to be instances (even in Arkansas) of sharp defense attourneys looking to discredit testimony by bringing these laws to bear.

"That police officer has posted on Volcanvo that he is an atheist, therefore, his testimony should be dismissed"

I mean if a former member of the Arkansas BARR tried to re-define the word 'is' during a legal inquiry, I would imagine SOMEBODY would try to discredit the testimony of an atheist to acquit a client (or themselves).

Gods_Mercenary · Apr 20, 2008, 09:27 am

Then you say "I am no longer an atheist" You can't prove or disprove, so unless hank the hillbilly is judge, you should be dismissed

Winter wind · Apr 20, 2008, 09:39 am

But you shouldn't have to do this. Also, you could just bring it to the supreme court saying the provisions under which you can't testify are unconstitutional.

**Jack** · Apr 20, 2008, 10:33 am

Quote:

Yes because blasphemy is so important.

Actually it's because blasphemy is so unimportant.

Gods_Mercenary · Apr 20, 2008, 10:40 am

Quote:

Quote by: Winter wind

But you shouldn't have to do this. Also, you could just bring it to the supreme court saying the provisions under which you can't testify are unconstitutional.

I agree, but even in AK a court case should do the job w/o appeal.

Anmon · Apr 20, 2008, 11:08 am

Quote:

Quote by: Isherwood

Actually it's because blasphemy is so unimportant.

A lot of people would disagree with that, myself included.

**Jack** · Apr 20, 2008, 11:23 am

So? Debate the topic with substance, your disagreement is noted but unsupported.

Chaossaber314 · Apr 20, 2008, 05:28 pm

Seems like a good reason to remove the swearing in segment from court procedure. Because if one has to swear to a certain deity per procedure, it would make sense that atheists could be excluded not having such a deity themselves to swear an oath toward.

HelioPrime · Apr 20, 2008, 05:29 pm

I don't see a debate here?

I mean its illegal to bounce a pickle twice or kiss your wife on Sunday here in Hartford. Do you think those are honestly even enforced or even less remembered?

I'm sure there are plenty of anti-atheists laws around but if nobody cares or enforces them then you just desiring to wrong an old personal wound. Nobody really cares or even knows about these laws, so in effect its just a personal vendetta to see them removed and atheism brought to the spotlight.

Maryjane · Apr 20, 2008, 05:31 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Chaossaber314

Seems like a good reason to remove the swearing in segment from court procedure. Because if one has to swear to a certain deity per procedure, it would make sense that atheists could be excluded not having such a deity themselves to swear an oath toward.

I never understood that swearing in thing. Why not make you sign a piece of paper instead? That way it's in writing. Contract law...101.

**Jack** · Apr 20, 2008, 05:31 pm

Quote:

so in effect its just a personal vendetta to see them removed and atheism brought to the spotlight.

So the Establishment Clause should just be ignored? Why not the whole Constitution?

Apr 20, 2008, 02:29 am	#3 (permalink) (top)
Halofan48 Seeking the Unknown Location: Southern California Posts: 1,370	It's sad that such laws are in place. They should be removed soon. Knowledge is power, use it well. Don't fear the unknown, seek to understand it

Apr 20, 2008, 02:47 am	#4 (permalink) (top)
nerdvincent NerdyHippieThing 3.1 Location: Who cares? Posts: 807	I see it from here: fundies fighting to keep them if we try to delete them. I think trying to delete them could bring them back from the graveyard of forgotten law, but we should take that risk. Such laws are just too...republican? to exist. I think, I'm free.

Apr 20, 2008, 03:59 am	#6 (permalink) (top)
tommy5x Erudite Location: England Posts: 132	Are you sure these rules are applied? If ever they were taken to tribunal, or appeared in court on charges relating to them, any sensible judge would overrule them, and meet with his peers to seek their abolishment. Until they're brought up in court, they almost don't exist. Recently the British Government abolished 200 outated laws that were brought into courtrooms, but technically it is still legal to shoot a Welshman with a longbow within the ancient walls of Chester. Nobody has acted on it, so it is latent. When the time comes, that no more can be said, say no more.

Apr 20, 2008, 09:20 am	#9 (permalink) (top)
Gods_Mercenary Altruism Assassin Location: Massachusetts Posts: 5,183	That's what you get for living in arkansas. Plus, it's completely unenforceable, "Umm, sure I beleive in god" “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.” -Albert Einstein

Apr 20, 2008, 09:27 am	#11 (permalink) (top)
Gods_Mercenary Altruism Assassin Location: Massachusetts Posts: 5,183	Then you say "I am no longer an atheist" You can't prove or disprove, so unless hank the hillbilly is judge, you should be dismissed “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.” -Albert Einstein

Apr 20, 2008, 02:23 am	#2 (permalink) (top)
Hurt Lmao'ard. Location: San Diego Posts: 354	hm, have there been no attempts to so far? (It'd be weird if there were no attempts at all, disregarding whether they are successful or not)

Apr 20, 2008, 08:39 am	#7 (permalink) (top)
Anmon BANNED Location: between the good and the bad Posts: 1,330	Well go find a welshman living in the old part of Chester and take him out with a long bow, proudly wave your bow in court to the press as you walk out free.

Apr 20, 2008, 09:25 am	#10 (permalink) (top)
Derach Igneous Magma Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 320	There have to be instances (even in Arkansas) of sharp defense attourneys looking to discredit testimony by bringing these laws to bear. "That police officer has posted on Volcanvo that he is an atheist, therefore, his testimony should be dismissed" I mean if a former member of the Arkansas BARR tried to re-define the word 'is' during a legal inquiry, I would imagine SOMEBODY would try to discredit the testimony of an atheist to acquit a client (or themselves).

Apr 20, 2008, 09:39 am	#12 (permalink) (top)
Winter wind adorable = power Location: Hong Kong, China Posts: 1,858	But you shouldn't have to do this. Also, you could just bring it to the supreme court saying the provisions under which you can't testify are unconstitutional. Don't forget this is all in good fun! "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist." Verbal Kint, "Usual Suspects"

Apr 20, 2008, 11:23 am	#16 (permalink) (top)
Jack formerly Isherwood Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 13,223	So? Debate the topic with substance, your disagreement is noted but unsupported. The Forum Rules Radical Atheist Heathen Queer Let's agree to respect each others views, no matter how wrong yours may be. (Ashleigh Brilliant)

Apr 20, 2008, 05:28 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
Chaossaber314 The Cake is a lie... Location: St. Louis Posts: 2,319	Seems like a good reason to remove the swearing in segment from court procedure. Because if one has to swear to a certain deity per procedure, it would make sense that atheists could be excluded not having such a deity themselves to swear an oath toward. What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

Apr 20, 2008, 05:29 pm	#18 (permalink) (top)
HelioPrime Hucking Fuskies Location: Conn Posts: 2,349	I don't see a debate here? I mean its illegal to bounce a pickle twice or kiss your wife on Sunday here in Hartford. Do you think those are honestly even enforced or even less remembered? I'm sure there are plenty of anti-atheists laws around but if nobody cares or enforces them then you just desiring to wrong an old personal wound. Nobody really cares or even knows about these laws, so in effect its just a personal vendetta to see them removed and atheism brought to the spotlight. What do you say to an atheist who sneezes? Yourdeadthatsit! - Dane Cook