• 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
These are bible belt states more than confederate or Republican and if the people of a state want religious politicians in that state it is their choice to make. .....

The people of those states are not allowed the option of voting for an atheist. Even if an atheist won an election they would not be allowed to serve. Until it is struck down or repealed, those old laws could override the people's choice.

It was decided long ago that the civil and human rights protections for individuals in the USA's constitution apply to the states and their laws.
 
But, but, but, the Civil War was about slavery!! Nothing else!! The Anti-Federalist papers were just someone's doodles.

Gotta love revisionist history. I would wager that slavery wasn't even a top 3 concern during that time period. Sure, it probably was to the slaves, which is a no brainer. But to politicians, I'd say it probably wasn't. A good way to think of it is this. Nowadays, politicians don't even care about the poor of America. So if they don't care about actual voting citizens that are struggling financially now, do we really think they cared about a people that weren't even citizens and meant essentially nothing to their re-election efforts? I don't.

This isn't to say that slavery wasn't wrong. It most definitely was. However, as it has been said before, I believe Lincoln used slavery as divisive issue that would put the Union in a positive light and the Confederacy in an "evil" light. Much like our current POTUS has done with Dems and the GOP (The dude thinks he is Lincoln after all). I don't believe Pres Lincoln really gave a crap about blacks much like I don't believe Pres Obama really gives a crap about illegal immigrants. They both just use them as issues that they know the other side is defensive about and will come across as callous and cold about. To be clear, the difference in this is that at least Pres Lincoln was in the right, even if his motives weren't pure. Pres Obama isn't in the right, per se. There are many ways we can tackle immigration that are humane and fair. But that's another thread.

Sorry slick. You are 100% wrong on that little bit at the top. And that is coming from a sweet tea swillin, college football lovin, republican, white, Protestant southern man.

Slavery was THE issue of the war. To say anything else is wrong. Slavery was THE issue for which there was no compromise. Now. That isn't saying that we are white devils down here, and that up in Yankee land they were Heros. No no no. It was an issue of economics.

Some people found it morally wrong. State's rights was a major debate, but the right in question was about who had the final say so...on slavery. Both sides were racist as hell. Many southern people fought for the south because it was their home. It would be equivalent of choosing to fight for the US, or the UN.

You can discuss why slavery was an issue all day long, and my money is on the economics of the issue (industrial north vs rural south...basically the same as now...union vs non union). But there is no discussing why the war was fought...it was slavery.


And incidentally Lincoln was one of the greatest presidents because he had to make calls that many couldn't. Unpopular calls. He also knew that the best form of reconstruction was not military...and the best hope of recovery the south had was killed at the hands of that sonofabitch boothe. He doomed us to at least 2 centuries of economic death.
 
The people of those states are not allowed the option of voting for an atheist. Even if an atheist won an election they would not be allowed to serve. Until it is struck down or repealed, those old laws could override the people's choice.
Not really. The Supreme Court ruled in Torcaso v Watkins (1961) that these religious tests were unconstitutional. They haven't been removed from the constitutions because that's a pain in the ads and unnecessary.
 
Sorry slick. You are 100% wrong on that little bit at the top. And that is coming from a sweet tea swillin, college football lovin, republican, white, Protestant southern man.

Slavery was THE issue of the war. To say anything else is wrong. Slavery was THE issue for which there was no compromise. Now. That isn't saying that we are white devils down here, and that up in Yankee land they were Heros. No no no. It was an issue of economics.

Some people found it morally wrong. State's rights was a major debate, but the right in question was about who had the final say so...on slavery. Both sides were racist as hell. Many southern people fought for the south because it was their home. It would be equivalent of choosing to fight for the US, or the UN.

You can discuss why slavery was an issue all day long, and my money is on the economics of the issue (industrial north vs rural south...basically the same as now...union vs non union). But there is no discussing why the war was fought...it was slavery.


And incidentally Lincoln was one of the greatest presidents because he had to make calls that many couldn't. Unpopular calls. He also knew that the best form of reconstruction was not military...and the best hope of recovery the south had was killed at the hands of that sonofabitch boothe. He doomed us to at least 2 centuries of economic death.
We agree to disagree.
 
Now I’m not an atheist myself and I know many atheists that do believe in religion just don’t think anybody has it right but discrimination is discrimination and it amazed me that these things below are actually in state constitutions. I just learned this in another thread.
The constitutions of these seven US states ban atheists from holding public office:

Arkansas:
"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."[81]

Maryland:
"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.”[82]

Mississippi:
"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state."[83]

North Carolina:
"The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."[84]

South Carolina:
"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."[85]

Tennessee:
"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."[86]

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]

An eighth state constitution discriminates against atheists by affording special protection to theists only.
Pennsylvania:
"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."[88]

Discrimination against atheists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That’s appalling to me and the purest form of bigotry and discrimination IMO. SO I’m curious where you stand.
I’d love to see someone try to enforce this so it can be defeated and destroyed like it should, wonder if there are any recent cases of it.

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

I’m against it
it violates the constitution and should be removed
it’s discrimination
it’s bigotry
it’s disgusting
I support this
it does NOT violate the constitution and should stand
it’s NOT discrimination
it’s NOT bigotry
it’s righteousness

Although I personally probably would not vote for an avowed atheist, all Americans have the right to participate in our democracy (representative republic for those on a kick to disassociate the branding of the Democratic Party from how American government is defined.)

- I want my elected officials to be married with children. That would likely mean he cares deeply about how his performance is judged by the people he loves most across gender lines and generations as well as wanting to leave the country in better condition for future generations of his children and grandchildren.

- I want my elected officials not to live in the petty, school-yard bully political culture.

- I want my elected officials to see elected office as employees of their constituents, not their constituents' bosses.

- I want my elected officials to be as least as smart as me, preferably smarter.

- I want my elected officials to believe in the God of the Bible. This would likely mean he shares my values and more important, with the power that comes with elective office, he'll be someone who believes he's accountable to someone other than himself or his political opposition where due to the way things operate in America he probably doesn't have a high opinion of. I've aso noticed that people who are vocal about their atheism tend to be activists about it. There woud be I think a reasonable concern that a vocal atheist in office would use the power of the office to suppress the rights of people of faith.

All of these are my personal references but I do not think should be legal requirements for elective office.
 
Last edited:
Although I personally probably would not vote for an avowed atheist, all Americans have the right to participate in our democracy (representative republic for those on a kick to disassociate the branding of the Democratic Party from how American government is defined.)

- I want my elected officials to be married with children. That would likely mean he cares deeply about how his performance is judged by the people he loves most across gender lines and generations as well as wanting to leave the country in better condition for future generations of his children and grandchildren.

- I want my elected officials not to live in the petty, school-yard bully political culture.

- I want my elected officials to see elected office as employees of their constituents, not their constituents' bosses.

- I want my elected officials to be as least as smart as me, preferably smarter.

- I want my elected officials to believe in the God of the Bible. This would likely mean he shares my values and more important, with the power that comes with elective office, he'll be someone who believes he's accountable to someone other than himself or his political opposition where due to the way things operate in America he probably doesn't have a high opinion of. I've aso noticed that people who are vocal about their atheism tend to be activists about it. There woud be I think a reasonable concern that a vocal atheist in office would use the power of the office to suppress the rights of people of faith.

All of these are my personal references but I do not think should be legal requirements for elective office.

It seems to me that candidates such as you describe are pretty few and far between.

and that we had one running for president in '12, but he lost the election (unfortunately).
 
Although I personally probably would not vote for an avowed atheist, all Americans have the right to participate in our democracy (representative republic for those on a kick to disassociate the branding of the Democratic Party from how American government is defined.)

2.)- I want my elected officials to be married with children. That would likely mean he cares deeply about how his performance is judged by the people he loves most across gender lines and generations as well as wanting to leave the country in better condition for future generations of his children and grandchildren.

3.)- I want my elected officials not to live in the petty, school-yard bully political culture.

4.) - I want my elected officials to see elected office as employees of their constituents, not their constituents' bosses.

5.) - I want my elected officials to be as least as smart as me, preferably smarter.

6.) - I want my elected officials to believe in the God of the Bible. This would likely mean he shares my values and more important, with the power that comes with elective office, he'll be someone who believes he's accountable to someone other than himself or his political opposition where due to the way things operate in America he probably doesn't have a high opinion of.

7.)I've also noticed that people who are vocal about their atheism tend to be activists about it.

8.) There woud be I think a reasonable concern that a vocal atheist in office would use the power of the office to suppress the rights of people of faith.

9.) All of these are my personal references but I do not think should be legal requirements for elective office.

1.) totally your right and what makes voting great
2.) atheist do this about anybody else
3.) atheist do this about anybody else
4.) atheist do this about anybody else
5.) atheist are as smart as anybody else

6.) even with no god atheist believe this way about as much as anybody else

7.) hmm well this is subjective, i have not noticed, in fact its been the exact opposite for me but this is gonna be different for everybody. In my experience activist are the ones that get more noticed and this is true for everything left, right, religion, non religion etc.

out of all the atheist i know only one is what i would call activist and his activism has nothing to do with atheist, he is a huge equal rights supporter.

8.) this is true of any activist, a religious activist would be more likely to push his morals and views and not other religions or non religions too

9.) i totally understand.

but the bottom line is your fears or things you simply dont want or do want can be found in anybody.

the BEST politicians can separate their personal morals and believes from their political job, not a complete separation of course but a very evident one.
 
Are these actually being enforced?

not that im aware thats why i said id like to see somebody try it because it would get defeated quickly
 
Im sure a lot of politicians are atheists. It wouldnt be politically beneficial to go public with it though .
 
Not really. The Supreme Court ruled in Torcaso v Watkins (1961) that these religious tests were unconstitutional. They haven't been removed from the constitutions because that's a pain in the ads and unnecessary.

I didn't know that or forgot. Its good to know.
 
Im sure a lot of politicians are atheists. It wouldnt be politically beneficial to go public with it though .

Not that lying is uncommon behavior among politicians, but it is a shame that they cannot be honest about it, but instead are for the most part compelled to hide their real views and possibly even pretend to be religious for the sake of their political aspirations.
 
I generally think states should get to choose their laws, but this is ridiculous.
 
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.
 
Discrimination or not I think it is very conceivable that it might be constitutional. There are requirements for people to hold offices, that the US founding fathers put into the US Constitution. I don't think it is right to ban Atheists from holding an office, but that should lie with in the States, or States should have to amend discriminations/ requirements to mirror the Federal Constitution requirements.
 
sorry that doesnt answer the question
can states rights say no women are allowed to hold office? blacks? gays? and you think thats constitutional?

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.
 
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.

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?
 
Back
Top Bottom