• 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
States do have states rights but they are limited they can have standards but not if it violates rights and or AA/EEO, thats where the line is drawn.

what if the state is mostly male, black, gay, republican should only male black gay republicans be able to run?

You seem to assume laws are stationary ideas. Laws changer all of the time, usually with the circumstances. If for one election or two or three or fifteen the majority of the state it black gay republican males (lol not likely all 4), then a representative who accepts and works for the best of black/gay/republican/males will be accepted as the basis of the states politicians.

But after those elections if say in 5 or 10 years the type of person changes to i don't know white/straight/communist/females and the politicians who accepted and supported black/gay/republican/males now works for the minority instead of the majority, he's not getting reelected, and they might change the law to say only people who work for the better of the white/straight/communist/females.

In conclusion its all for the sake of majority rules.
 
1.)You seem to assume laws are stationary ideas. Laws changer all of the time, usually with the circumstances.
2.) If for one election or two or three or fifteen the majority of the state it black gay republican males (lol not likely all 4), then a representative who accepts and works for the best of black/gay/republican/males will be accepted as the basis of the states politicians.

3.)But after those elections if say in 5 or 10 years the type of person changes to i don't know white/straight/communist/females and the politicians who accepted and supported black/gay/republican/males now works for the minority instead of the majority, he's not getting reelected, and they might change the law to say only people who work for the better of the white/straight/communist/females.

4.) In conclusion its all for the sake of majority rules.

1.) of course not they move and change all the times and theres nothign in my post that even suggest this, in my op i even said id love to see somebody try to enforce this
4.) i picked something obnoxious on purpose :) and yes they will be "accepted" but there should not be any law requiring that or blocking all those who are not male black gay republicans that was my point.

the people can elected who they want every time but the law has no business stopping other people from running in many cases

3.) which is exactly way no law should exist the LAW doesnt pick the candiate the natural voting process does. The law would block the people.
For example say the law doesnt get changed in time and 90% of the people would vote for the white/straight/communist/female but now the law doesnt allow her to run so the people suffer. THis is way no law like this, based on grounds like that should ever exist.

4.) majority does rule but majority doesnt get to infringe on individual rights, hence the ending of slavery, and the establishment of equal rights fro women, minorities and interracial marriage.
80% of the US was againt interracial marriage when it was made legal, it didnt matter because it was an equal and civil rights issue.
 
1.) of course not they move and change all the times and theres nothign in my post that even suggest this, in my op i even said id love to see somebody try to enforce this
4.) i picked something obnoxious on purpose :) and yes they will be "accepted" but there should not be any law requiring that or blocking all those who are not male black gay republicans that was my point.

the people can elected who they want every time but the law has no business stopping other people from running in many cases

3.) which is exactly way no law should exist the LAW doesnt pick the candiate the natural voting process does. The law would block the people.
For example say the law doesnt get changed in time and 90% of the people would vote for the white/straight/communist/female but now the law doesnt allow her to run so the people suffer. THis is way no law like this, based on grounds like that should ever exist.

4.) majority does rule but majority doesnt get to infringe on individual rights, hence the ending of slavery, and the establishment of equal rights fro women, minorities and interracial marriage.
80% of the US was againt interracial marriage when it was made legal, it didnt matter because it was an equal and civil rights issue.

ok ya that does make a bit of sense.
 
I don't think it is constitutional per say, but states do have the rights to decide what standards they hold their representatives to. If those states believe that someone who is against the religion of the majority of the state wouldn't represent the best interest of that state and its people, then they have the right to set those regulations.

Just because a person does not believe in the tenants of a specific religion does not mean that they are unable to represent the best interest of the state and its people, any more than a person who does believe in the tenants of a specific religion will automatically represent the best interest of the state and its people. How many fine, upstanding religious politicians have we seen mired in the scandals of adultery, fraud, greed, bribery, and dishonesty?

The one thing nearly all atheists agree upon is a firm and scrupulous support of the constitutional right of all Americans to practice the religion of their choice, be that religion Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, Hinduism, Buddhism, or no religion at all. It wasn't atheists marching with hateful signs to protest the building of mosques in NYC, Tennessee, and other places around the country. It was the staunchly religious, who were all for the freedom of religion so long as only their own religion was covered.
 
I think there are exceptions such as Washington state just legalizing pot.

The feds did not respect State's medical cannabis laws and they could decide to ignore the new state legalization laws. They have chosen to not do that so far, but they can change their mind.

The relevant principal with atheist bans is that the human rights protected by the constitution and amendments have priority over any federal, state or local law. That is my opinion and the Supreme Court has mostly agreed.
 
The feds did not respect State's medical cannabis laws and they could decide to ignore the new state legalization laws. They have chosen to not do that so far, but they can change their mind.

The relevant principal with atheist bans is that the human rights protected by the constitution and amendments have priority over any federal, state or local law. That is my opinion and the Supreme Court has mostly agreed.

Interesting how Obama picks and chooses which laws he will enforce and ignore.
 
Just because a person does not believe in the tenants of a specific religion does not mean that they are unable to represent the best interest of the state and its people, any more than a person who does believe in the tenants of a specific religion will automatically represent the best interest of the state and its people. How many fine, upstanding religious politicians have we seen mired in the scandals of adultery, fraud, greed, bribery, and dishonesty?

The one thing nearly all atheists agree upon is a firm and scrupulous support of the constitutional right of all Americans to practice the religion of their choice, be that religion Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, Hinduism, Buddhism, or no religion at all. It wasn't atheists marching with hateful signs to protest the building of mosques in NYC, Tennessee, and other places around the country. It was the staunchly religious, who were all for the freedom of religion so long as only their own religion was covered.

Seems to me that is for the people of that state to decide not you or anyone in DC.
 
Just because a person does not believe in the tenants of a specific religion does not mean that they are unable to represent the best interest of the state and its people, any more than a person who does believe in the tenants of a specific religion will automatically represent the best interest of the state and its people. How many fine, upstanding religious politicians have we seen mired in the scandals of adultery, fraud, greed, bribery, and dishonesty?

The one thing nearly all atheists agree upon is a firm and scrupulous support of the constitutional right of all Americans to practice the religion of their choice, be that religion Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, Hinduism, Buddhism, or no religion at all. It wasn't atheists marching with hateful signs to protest the building of mosques in NYC, Tennessee, and other places around the country. It was the staunchly religious, who were all for the freedom of religion so long as only their own religion was covered.

" scrupulous support of the constitutional right of all Americans to practice the religion of their choice"
Ha good one. You mean like them putting down christmas toy drives in schools just because they are backed by a religious organization?
 
Yes, it did, pretty definitively. Federal law supersedes state law, doesn't it?

Technically but it is closer to "some of the time/when it works best for politicians" for example, weed is legal in colorado, and state police wont arrest you for smoking it, but us marshals and fed police will. Its that light balance that messes with people.
 
" scrupulous support of the constitutional right of all Americans to practice the religion of their choice"
Ha good one. You mean like them putting down christmas toy drives in schools just because they are backed by a religious organization?

Not familiar with that practice. I am familiar with Westboro Baptist Church. So I guess just because some assholes are religious, that doesn't mean all of them are. Surprise!! :lol:
 
" scrupulous support of the constitutional right of all Americans to practice the religion of their choice"
Ha good one. You mean like them putting down christmas toy drives in schools just because they are backed by a religious organization?
How is a government school supporting a specific religious organization exercising freedom of religion? Whose religious freedom is restricted by ending the practice?

On the other hand, giving official support to one religious group is an endorsement of particular religious beliefs.
 
Has anyone actually been barred from office for being an atheist? There are still laws on the books that you can't drive more than 5 mph and someone has to walk in front with a warning flag.


Joko, there's a few states that have a very sneaky way of saying if you don't believe in god...then you can't run. It's no surprise. We still live in a world that doesn't particularly care for diversity. Societies apparently can't get past cultural or other types of clicks.
 
Nice play on words but when you say other people are wrong you are wrong unless you can prove they are wrong.
Nice play on words?:lol:




It's not just me that says that they are wrong, the U.S. Constitution says that they are wrong.

BTW: That's what I voted in the poll.
 
So you're one of those people who insist that all atheists are exactly alike, but distance yourself from religious whackos who picket veteran funerals and burn Korans in the parking lot, right? Can we spell "hypocrite"? :lamo

Not at all. I realize there are many radicals in all religions who do weird and even things we would consider disgusting. But we cannot attempt to defend a religion or the lack there of ad not realize that what we are defending is as diverse as ourselves. For example: The people deciding who can and cannot run for the political positions are not all religiously bias politicians. Many are actually trying to make it so that the people of that state are recognized for what they are. And if they feel that their better interests are not in supporting non-religious politicians, then it is their choice. LIke i said before to J, it is all about majority.
 
Not at all. I realize there are many radicals in all religions who do weird and even things we would consider disgusting. But we cannot attempt to defend a religion or the lack there of ad not realize that what we are defending is as diverse as ourselves. For example: The people deciding who can and cannot run for the political positions are not all religiously bias politicians. Many are actually trying to make it so that the people of that state are recognized for what they are. And if they feel that their better interests are not in supporting non-religious politicians, then it is their choice. LIke i said before to J, it is all about majority.

And yet the tyranny of the majority brought us slavery, segregation, and bans on interracial marriages. The constitution rather frowns on that, when the majority insists upon infringing on the rights and equality of others. :)

Voters may use their ballots to choose those whose religious backgrounds they prefer. The state, however, may not disallow someone from even running for office because of their age, sex, gender, religious convictions... or lack thereof. So sayeth the constitution.
 
How is a government school supporting a specific religious organization exercising freedom of religion? Whose religious freedom is restricted by ending the practice?

On the other hand, giving official support to one religious group is an endorsement of particular religious beliefs.

It is not the fact that the school is supporting the drive, but the oppression by the atheists that is the restriction talked about.

For your first question, the schools have almost always been an outlet that the churches are able to use to practice their religion. The idea of giving is an important part of christianity, and by closing it off in the schools, you have restricted the access and by extension, the practice of that religion. And yes you could consider the giving in schools to be endorsement of a specific religion, or you could consider it common decency to give children gifts (which is a multi-religious idea) during the holidays.
 
And yet the tyranny of the majority brought us slavery, segregation, and bans on interracial marriages. The constitution rather frowns on that, when the majority insists upon infringing on the rights and equality of others. :)

Voters may use their ballots to choose those whose religious backgrounds they prefer. The state, however, may not disallow someone from even running for office because of their age, sex, gender, religious convictions... or lack thereof. So sayeth the constitution.

Indeed it does, but you have to realize that unless you publicly call them out on it, politicians have a nasty way of getting around certain parts of the law.

And to your part about slavery, segregation, and bans, it has and has almost brought us to war on multiple occasions. If you want it to start, march on washington with thousands of your supporters like MLK jr, or break the country in half and cause civil war like the south did. We're still waiting to see the big movement for same sex marriage.

IF you want change, then you have to get up and do something about it. No one cares what people say on a political forum. What they do care about is action. That is how everything had to be done to get us here now, and its not going to change any time soon until it happens again.
 
Back
Top Bottom