Achilles Posted July 20, 2009 Author Share Posted July 20, 2009 Well now you've done it. Achilles: would you like to argue this point or should I? All you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 @EW--actually, no. What Federal laws prevent atheists from running for higher office b/c they are atheists? Pardon me, but I don't think you said anything about federal laws. Here's what I was referring to: ... but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. "That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefore either in this world or in the world to come." [/Quote] No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state. "No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor who denies the existence of the Supreme Being; ..." "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." "No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth." Sources: http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/43const/pdf/const.pdf http://www.scstatehouse.gov/scconstitution/a04.htm http://www.constitution.legis.state.tx.us/ http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Constitution.html http://www.sos.state.ms.us/pubs/constitution/constitution.asp and there are others. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 A blank wall cannot express an idea, but a wall with writing on it can, so your example and mine aren't really equal. The word 'God' in the right context could actually be part of propaganda, so it's not necissarily just 'a word on the wall'. I would say that the words 'in God we trust' on the wall of a government building is a quite different context than just a wall with the word 'God' on it, but a blank wall is a blank wall wether it is part of a government building or not. Perhaps, but given that context is everything, more words would be required to add context (whether added in your own mind or along it on the wall). W/o context, it's essentially scribbling. Also, the reason for a word not being on a wall gives context as well. The absence of the word could mean several things as well. They didn't have the money to etch it, or perhaps even the desire (for cultural or other reasons) or were forbidden from doing so to appease another group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 Perhaps you didn't see my post that had quotes from all of the state constitutions which specifically state that atheists may not run for higher office. I believe that you said you would consider it an injustice being done. Please, I'd love to hear your point of view. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 Totenkopf is talking about federal laws and you're referring to state laws. Two very different things. And yes, it's high time that those state laws were changed. They should have never been made in the first place, unless it was intended that there would be separate theist states and atheist states, which is obviously not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted July 21, 2009 Author Share Posted July 21, 2009 Totenkopf is talking about federal laws and you're referring to state laws. Two very different things. I guess he thought no one would notice when he tried to move the goalpost. And yes, it's high time that those state laws were changed. They ahould have never been made in the first place, unless it was intended that there would be separate theist states and atheist states, which is obviously not the case. Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 Totenkopf is talking about federal laws and you're referring to state laws. Two very different things. And yes, it's high time that those state laws were changed. They ahould have never been made in the first place, unless it was intended that there would be separate theist states and atheist states, which is obviously not the case. Thanks, but don't waste your breath, Q. ew isn't going to let reading in context get in the way his selective cherry picking. If he bothered to pay attention he'd have seen he stepped in it by conveniently ignoring my reference to state laws in a post from several hours earlier. Since he's clearly behaving in a manner which suggests he is resistant to rational discourse, the only thing to do is ignore him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Avlectus Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 Just my two cents: It represents stability in times that it was needed and desired the many faithful. A majority each time as is still roughly the case today. If it means stability for this country looking at it historically, then good. I see no problem with it. EDIT: I wonder if claiming to be faithful while at the same time as arguing against it isn't a form of deep rooted conceit...perhaps even a double standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 Totenkopf is talking about federal laws and you're referring to state laws. Two very different things. Oh, I'm aware of that. But since he failed to clarify this in the beginning (claiming that there are no "laws in this country which disqualify...") my points were very much valid. And then, of course, when I make the point as to his error, he quickly changes his tune, so to speak. Thanks, but don't waste your breath, Q. ew isn't going to let reading in context get in the way his selective cherry picking. Excuse me, but what is this bull****? I read your original post just fine and then responded accordingly. If he bothered to pay attention he'd have seen he stepped in it by conveniently ignoring my reference to state laws in a post from several hours earlier. Since he's clearly behaving in a manner which suggests he is resistant to rational discourse, the only thing to do is ignore him. Apologies, your highness, for missing said post. That should have been fairly obvious, since I asked you to share your point of view in my most recent post. I would not have posted my query (and perhaps not even my evidence) if I had not overlooked that line. A simple quote of your earlier statement in response would have done nicely, instead of being an ass. _EW_ EDIT:: Also, for future reference - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Dravis Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 If part of what it means to be a law is the possibility of enforcement, then it seems like those bits of state constitutions which Ender cited are law no longer, even though they may remain "on the books." As a symbol of religious descrimination, yes they should be removed. But I don't think they pose any threat to someone's running for public office. In fact, the Supreme Court http://ruled unanimously in 1961 that such clauses are unenforceable. To take such a clause as if it were "law", a binding rule, is stretching the truth of the matter by a wide margin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rake Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 Just my two cents: It represents stability in times that it was needed and desired the many faithful. A majority each time as is still roughly the case today. If it means stability for this country looking at it historically, then good. I see no problem with it. EDIT: I wonder if claiming to be faithful while at the same time as arguing against it isn't a form of deep rooted conceit...perhaps even a double standard. I don't think sacrificing founding principles in the name of stability is the wise... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 @kipper--freedom of religion does not eual freedom from religion except in the sense that the all powerful state isn't forcing you to profess a specific faith. What are you saying? I'm not following? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 You're not truly free to choose your religion (freedom of religion) if the State is forcing you embrace one or not at all (Islamic states or atheistic communist ones). In a country with freedom of religion but without freedom from religeion, you are forced to have a religion and you have to choose one; thus telling you what you can't do in terms of religion. False. The fact that there are even atheists and agnostics in this country (when they could simply emigrate to elsewhere) proves that not to be the case. Freedom from religion = freedom of religion is a nonsequitur. The first involves the absence (forced or otherwise) of religion and the second a choice of a particular religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Avlectus Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 I don't think sacrificing founding principles in the name of stability is the wise... Writing a "In God we trust" motto is hardly sacrificing our principles. The argument is about yay vs. nay on congress spending tax money to have it written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rake Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 Writing a "In God we trust" motto is hardly sacrificing our principles. The argument is about yay vs. nay on congress spending tax money to have it written. That's pretty debatable as I would say it is definitely going against the idea of separation of church and state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 If the words, "There is no God," were etched onto a governmental building, there would be no harm done to theists; yet it would break the same principle that is being broken by engraving "In God We Trust."Indeed, and I'd like anyone here to say with a straight face that they believe that the religious right wouldn't collectively flip their **** if there was any possibility of the phrase "There is no God" being etched into a government building. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 All you're effectively contending here in the end is that both sides are equally excitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Avlectus Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 I guess I could go for a dual excitement scenario. That's pretty debatable as I would say it is definitely going against the idea of separation of church and state. Perhaps you're right in that respect. However, one doesn't *strictly* need church to believe in God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 All you're effectively contending here in the end is that both sides are equally excitable. I assuredly don't disagree with that. My point is merely that it's pretty hypocritical for the religious right to get all pissy that the atheists are suing to keep it out, when they'd be doing the exact same thing were positions reversed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 ET's put forth the best argument in this thread. Any appearance of bias towards either side in this issue, implied or otherwise, should be avoided in accordance with the 1st Amendment. Even when I was a child, I noticed that "In God we trust" didn't jive too well with the concept of separation of church and state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 I assuredly don't disagree with that. My point is merely that it's pretty hypocritical for the religious right to get all pissy that the atheists are suing to keep it out, when they'd be doing the exact same thing were positions reversed. If it was not the national motto, upheld by the Supreme Court as acceptable and not a violation of the First Amendment, then I would agree with you that it is hypocritical, and that it should not be placed in a government building. Until that point, I think it's fine, and the atheist organization is wasting its time and money. But hey, if they want to make a statement, more power to them. It's a free country. Achilles, your argument about how I feel about atheists fails because you generalize inappropriately and work from several incorrect premises. I'm sorry we've gotten to the point where we dislike each other so much that you take anything I say as an insult to you personally and atheists in general. I do not dislike most atheists, and I care a great deal about the ones I consider my friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted July 22, 2009 Author Share Posted July 22, 2009 Achilles, your argument about how I feel about atheists fails because you generalize inappropriately and work from several incorrect premises. Sure, Jae. What are they? I'm sorry we've gotten to the point where we dislike each other so much that you take anything I say as an insult to you personally and atheists in general. First, I don't think you're sorry at all. Second, I don't "take anything you say as an insult to me personally and atheists in general". I do the same thing with your posts that I do with all posts: question inconsistencies and point out fallacies. If you want to discuss what you said, then great. If you want to feign sorrow and hope that no one notices that that it's actually condescension, then I think we both have better things to do with our time, no? I do not dislike most atheists, and I care a great deal about the ones I consider my friends. Kudos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 If it was not the national motto, upheld by the Supreme Court as acceptable and not a violation of the First AmendmentAnd since it would appear that the group bringing forth the lawsuit is of the opine that having 'In God We Trust' as the national motto is problematic, wouldn't this be more or less the appropriate process for them to take to attempt to get that kind of thing changed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth InSidious Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Is not a fundamental principle of your country that, to borrow a maxim, vox populi vox Dei est, or at least, vox populi de lege ferenda? And is the phrase "In God We Trust", according to the source quoted in Achilles' opening post, not approved of by 90% of your nation's populace? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 And since it would appear that the group bringing forth the lawsuit is of the opine that having 'In God We Trust' as the national motto is problematic, wouldn't this be more or less the appropriate process for them to take to attempt to get that kind of thing changed? *Wonders* Hmm....spend $100K on a project---stimulus in action --that most Americans don't have a problem with in principle (except for the part about that nasty little insolvency problem the govt is futhering in general) or wasting a ton of money in a court battle that will likely exceed the $100K of the project. I guess no matter how you look at it....legal fees ftw (ok, to lawyers, anyway ). Perhaps the better thing to do is accept the inevitability of it and then continue to go on a publicity tour about why you think it's wrong. Evolution (I thhought atheists loved that concept ), not revolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.