• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Appalling Discrimination against atheist?

What do you think of the laws banning atheist from some offices?

  • Total voters
    97
sawyerloggingon said:
The question has no bearing on this issue and is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who brings up state rights and oil drilling. The topic is atheists being by law not allowed to to serve public office in seven states (and are left in a strange limbo in an eighth). Maybe you've forgotten which thread you're in. The point is the discrimination you like to point to against Christians doesn't exist, while it exists in name against atheists.
 
Dittohead not! said:
We'd be better off to have them swear on the Constitution.


and then demonstrate a knowledge of what is in it.
Click to expand...

Ditto...now that is funny. "Demonstrate a knowledge of what is in it? Because somebody is atheist...there's a likelihood they don't know what's in the Constitution?

Surely you jest...
 
Cardinal said:
Says the guy who brings up state rights and oil drilling. The topic is atheists being by law not allowed to to serve public office in seven states (and are left in a strange limbo in an eighth). Maybe you've forgotten which thread you're in. The point is the discrimination you like to point to against Christians doesn't exist, while it exists in name against atheists.
Click to expand...

I agree it is discrimination against atheist but it is as of now perfectly legal so if you don't like it write your congressman and have him author a law against it. It would be interesting to see exactly who would have the balls to do that in this mostly religious country.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Actually they do have the right to stop an atheist from running, you just don't like it. To bad so sad, write your congressman and get him to author a new law.
Click to expand...

No, you have no right to exert that force against another. You don't have to vote for them, but you cannot steak their political freedoms just because you don't like who they are.
 
Removable Mind said:
Ditto...now that is funny. "Demonstrate a knowledge of what is in it? Because somebody is atheist...there's a likelihood they don't know what's in the Constitution?

Surely you jest...
Click to expand...
I don't think that was what he was getting at.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
No, there are state elected officials and United States elected officials and they are two different things. This is not just my opinion this is fact as evidenced by the reality that states are requiring a religion litmus test and there has been no reaction by the fed. You are clutching at straws here, the constitution went out of it's way to delineate a difference between state and fed regulations.
Click to expand...

Silverman v Campbell seems to disagree.
We affirm the circuit court's holding that South Carolina Constitution art. VI, § 2 and art. XVIII, § 4 violate the First Amendment and the Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution.
Click to expand...
SC Judicial Department
 
wolfsgirl said:
Article 6 section 3 of the constitution.
Click to expand...

Texas doesn't require "A religious test" to run for office. But did you read how the provision is stated in the OP for Texas?

Texas:

"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."[87]
Click to expand...
 
As an atheist I really don't give a ****. If I want to run for office I just keep my mouth shut about it.
 
Texas also has a law on the books saying that if two trains traveling in opposite directions should cross paths, neither can pass until the other proceeds.
They also have a law that states you cannot own a dildo (and most sex stores still call them "cake toppers").
There are states that have laws saying you can't whistle in public, can't put an ice cream cone in your pocket, can't wear jeans on Sundays, etc., etc., etc.

There are also laws on the books which REVOKE or RESCIND laws previously passed, thus invalidating them. Just because you find a law that is still "on the books" doesn't mean it's valid.
 
Removable Mind said:
I've been known to have made mistakes before. I'm human. What was he getting at? He hasn't replied.
Click to expand...
I don't think he was implying that atheists don't know whats in the Constitution, but that it would be a good standard for anyone seeking office. But then, that's just how I took it, so I could be wrong as well. I guess we will just have to wait for him to clear it up.....
 
Removable Mind said:
Texas doesn't require "A religious test" to run for office. But did you read how the provision is stated in the OP for Texas?
Click to expand...

That is a religious test. And it goes against the first amendment.
 
tessaesque said:
As an atheist I really don't give a ****. If I want to run for office I just keep my mouth shut about it.
Click to expand...

I think it's time for an atheist Texan to run...and publicly acknowledge he or she is atheist. Get the issue out of the way. If the State of Texas wants to look like a radical religious state...so be it.
 
wolfsgirl said:
That is a religious test. And it goes against the first amendment.
Click to expand...


How so? What's the test? Now you might claim that Texas is showing religious favor toward Supreme Being believers...but other than that?
 
Fletch said:
I don't think he was implying that atheists don't know whats in the Constitution, but that it would be a good standard for anyone seeking office. But then, that's just how I took it, so I could be wrong as well. I guess we will just have to wait for him to clear it up.....
Click to expand...

Ah...well, that's not a bad idea, actually. But I do hope that wasn't directed at atheist specifically. Maybe he'll chime in.
 
Removable Mind said:
How so? What's the test? Now you might claim that Texas is showing religious favor toward Supreme Being believers...but other than that?
Click to expand...

No religious test means that one does not have to have any religious beliefs, or show any religious beliefs, or claim any religious beliefs. Claiming a supreme being is a religious belief.
 
wolfsgirl said:
No religious test means that one does not have to have any religious beliefs, or show any religious beliefs, or claim any religious beliefs. Claiming a supreme being is a religious belief.
Click to expand...

That makes sense...and that's the way it should be. But unless you're from Texas and see first hand how our government works...well, then you'd understand why they don't particularly care about constitutional issues quite like other states. Perry and his wicked wild bunch have defied the minds of many.
 
Seriously? 15 pages and no one has mentioned that the SCOTUS decided this 52 years ago in Torcaso v Watkins?
Violation of the 1st amendment as applied to the states via the 14th.

Article VI was not applied.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
The federal government was never supposed to be able to trump the states, so yes, the states could say that and it be Constitutional.
Click to expand...

:lol:
.
.
.
 
Ikari said:
No, you have no right to exert that force against another. You don't have to vote for them, but you cannot steak their political freedoms just because you don't like who they are.
Click to expand...

There is no law against what those states are doing so you are just spouting s***.
 
pinqy said:
Seriously? 15 pages and no one has mentioned that the SCOTUS decided this 52 years ago in Torcaso v Watkins?
Violation of the 1st amendment as applied to the states via the 14th.

Article VI was not applied.
Click to expand...

Welp, there ya have it. Guess Texas better clean up its act. It won't anytime soon...but it needs to for a lot of reasons.

Thanks for the post...
 
Removable Mind said:
Bod, if I weren't an atheist...I'd be praying to god that David Taylor Jr. never gets in a seat of authority in any capacity...EVER!
Click to expand...

I doubt we have anything to worry about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom