• 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
WCH said:
That's fine but, I follow the Lord.
Click to expand...

so do i, so?

i know athiest that have plenty of my same morals especially the ones that would be needed to be a government official.

so thats what im asking, if they line up with your political views and they have morals (the important things are already covered in law) then why not

i guess this is my question now, what would they do due to their atheism that you are worried about?

like when i said somebody over religious might just ignore the constitution and rights or others, so what do you fear in the opposite direction?
 
AGENT J said:
so do i, so?

i know athiest that have plenty of my same morals especially the ones that would be needed to be a government official.

so thats what im asking, if they line up with your political views and they have morals (the important things are already covered in law) then why not

i guess this is my question now, what would they do due to their atheism that you are worried about?

like when i said somebody over religious might just ignore the constitution and rights or others, so what do you fear in the opposite direction?
Click to expand...

The same actually. Especially if you see what politicians do as a whole these days. Some even go as far as to attack the religious rights of others using government entities.
 
WCH said:
The same actually. Especially if you see what politicians do as a whole these days. Some even go as far as to attack the religious rights of others using government entities.
Click to expand...

give me examples of these religious rights you are speaking of?

again if a person has the same political views as you and cares about the constitution and rights of Americans this doesnt happen.
 
AGENT J said:
yeah i know it always amazes me how much discrimination we still have in the US, we should be the LEADER of not discriminating.

Now as far as i know nobody tries to use these laws or has in recent times but i couldnt believe the existed.
Click to expand...

Then you would be very surprised to learn that a large number of deeds for real propoperty owned across the United States expressily forbids ownership of the property by Asians, Blacks, and other minorities. Much like the atheist laws that still appear on the books, subsequent laws have made such decrimination illegal, and unenforceable.

Racial Restrictive Covenants
 
ocean515 said:
Then you would be very surprised to learn that a large number of deeds for real propoperty owned across the United States expressily forbids ownership of the property by Asians, Blacks, and other minorities. Much like the atheist laws that still appear on the books, subsequent laws have made such decrimination illegal, and unenforceable.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is true, in fact, there are tons and tons and tons of laws on the books that are absurd and outdated and never, ever, ever enforced, but cannot be removed until they are challenged in court and nobody pays any attention to them whatsoever, thus they never get into the courts in the first place.
 
ocean515 said:
Then you would be very surprised to learn that a large number of deeds for real propoperty owned across the United States expressily forbids ownership of the property by Asians, Blacks, and other minorities. Much like the atheist laws that still appear on the books, subsequent laws have made such decrimination illegal, and unenforceable.

Racial Restrictive Covenants
Click to expand...

no im not surprised by that actually, i knew about those things and hell there was just a banking scandal recently where minorities were treated different.

Thanks for the link though im sure it will open some eyes.

with that siad what you posted is by no means any more or less despicable and disgusting to even go on here or be on the books whether it is actually practiced or not.
 
Cephus said:
Yes, that is true, in fact, there are tons and tons and tons of laws on the books that are absurd and outdated and never, ever, ever enforced, but cannot be removed until they are challenged in court and nobody pays any attention to them whatsoever, thus they never get into the courts in the first place.
Click to expand...

not sure if it still exists but in PA there was a law on the books stating that all business had to have a place to tie up horses and of course none of them too any more lol
also illegal to sing in the shower
 
Well, I'm against it in the modern day. But unlike the blubbering few believe, this isn't about republicans or conservatives. You know at the time everyone thought Philly would be the capitol of our fledgling nation. But any slave entering Philly was freed so the legislators just couldn't have that (and Washington owned some useless swamp land he was eager to unload - DC). Why was that you ask - PA was the Quaker State.
 
AGENT J said:
not sure if it still exists but in PA there was a law on the books stating that all business had to have a place to tie up horses and of course none of them too any more lol
also illegal to sing in the shower
Click to expand...

They're called Blue Laws and every state has their own variety.
 
AGENT J said:
not sure if it still exists but in PA there was a law on the books stating that all business had to have a place to tie up horses and of course none of them too any more lol
also illegal to sing in the shower
Click to expand...

Exactly, you can find tons of websites and books on stupid laws and these all fit into the same category. They're just defunct laws that nobody has ever bothered to take off the books. Personally, I think that every law in the nation ought to be enforced for 20 years and then it has to be reviewed and either specifically reinstated or it automatically drops off the books.
 
AGENT J said:
no im not surprised by that actually, i knew about those things and hell there was just a banking scandal recently where minorities were treated different.

Thanks for the link though im sure it will open some eyes.

with that siad what you posted is by no means any more or less despicable and disgusting to even go on here or be on the books whether it is actually practiced or not.
Click to expand...


I suppose the learning moment comes from the fact that despite such words in important laws and documents, most are no longer enforcible, which reflects the belief in equality among people that makes up society today.

That's not to say some don't make a living trying to keeps the idea of descirmination alive.
 
clownboy said:
They're called Blue Laws and every state has their own variety.
Click to expand...

yeah studied them many moons ago in highschool there were some real good ones
 
Cephus said:
Exactly, you can find tons of websites and books on stupid laws and these all fit into the same category. They're just defunct laws that nobody has ever bothered to take off the books. Personally, I think that every law in the nation ought to be enforced for 20 years and then it has to be reviewed and either specifically reinstated or it automatically drops off the books.
Click to expand...

seems like a good idea to me id be a little worried about the automatic part though, i think politicians would try to sneak stuff off. Not to make more work and more departments but if this was controlled id be all for it
 
AGENT J said:
seems like a good idea to me id be a little worried about the automatic part though, i think politicians would try to sneak stuff off. Not to make more work and more departments but if this was controlled id be all for it
Click to expand...

I suspect that if we required our legislators to go back and re-evaluate 1/20th of the laws on the books every single year, they'd stop introducing so many pointless, idiotic laws in the first place. The reason the law books are so huge is because nobody ever has to go back and read them once they get out of law school. Nobody is ever forced to do anything about it. If every single law passed in 2013 had to be re-examined in 2033, and all the laws from 1993 were being looked at today, those law books would be a lot thinner and legislators would think twice before throwing out that stupid law meant to buy a couple of votes in the next election.
 
ocean515 said:
I suppose the learning moment comes from the fact that despite such words in important laws and documents, most are no longer enforcible, which reflects the belief in equality among people that makes up society today.

That's not to say some don't make a living trying to keeps the idea of determination alive.
Click to expand...

yep in ways it is a good thing that some of these laws just disappear and at the same time sad that some will try to use them.
 
Well, it is discrimination. But if a private organization chooses to discriminate against the atheist, it's their right I suppose.

Everyone here knows that I am about as far away from being a bible thumper as a person can get. I openly dispute modern and past theologies, illogical beliefs and religions. I do not discriminate one whacko religion from another. Whacko is whacko regardless which myth, superstition or legend one chooses to believe. I sorta just lump them altogether. If it looks like a duck, quacks likes a duck, I don't care if it's a Mallard or a Cinnamon Teal or a Wood Duck. To me, it's a duck. Same goes for the various religions and deities.

Yet, I am no atheist. I have an inherent sense that feels the presence of some kind of a spiritual presence in my life. We can call it God if you like. We can call it the Flying Spaghetti Monster, if you like. Or you can call it a duck.

My lodge, which by the way, DOES discriminate towards atheist's, (none are allowed,) call it "The Great Architect of the Universe." That leaves the door open for anyone to believe what they want to believe without endorsing any particular deity. A "catch-all," phrase, if you will. Men live and work in harmony much better when religious beliefs and preferences are put aside. And harmony and strength are the support of all institutions.

Especially ours. :mrgreen:

But atheist's need not apply.
 
Captain America said:
Well, it is discrimination. But if a private organization chooses to discriminate against the atheist, it's their right I suppose.

Everyone here knows that I am about as far away from being a bible thumper as a person can get. I openly dispute modern and past theologies, illogical beliefs and religions. I do not discriminate one whacko religion from another. Whacko is whacko regardless which myth, superstition or legend one chooses to believe. I sorta just lump them altogether. If it looks like a duck, quacks likes a duck, I don't care if it's a Mallard or a Cinnamon Teal or a Wood Duck. To me, it's a duck. Same goes for the various religions and deities.

Yet, I am no atheist. I have an inherent sense that feels the presence of some kind of a spiritual presence in my life. We can call it God if you like. We can call it the Flying Spaghetti Monster, if you like. Or you can call it a duck.

My lodge, which by the way, DOES discriminate towards atheist's, (none are allowed,) call it "The Great Architect of the Universe." That leaves the door open for anyone to believe what they want to believe without endorsing any particular deity. A "catch-all," phrase, if you will. Men live and work in harmony much better when religious beliefs and preferences are put aside. And harmony and strength are the support of all institutions.

Especially ours. :mrgreen:

But atheist's need not apply.
Click to expand...

Yeah, private organizations can discriminate on basis of religion. Silly, mostly stupid, but ain't no law against stupid. Of course it goes both ways. If for some reason someone wanted an atheist social club, theists could be kicked out. Though that too seems equally stupid.
 
Ikari said:
You mean getting rid of laws that restrict atheist representation and participation in government would take away your rights? Your right to what? Keep me out of office because I don't believe in the same god you do? Sounds very Middle East to me.
Click to expand...

It would take away the rights of people in bible belt states to have politicians run that state that share their values. It would be like forcing people in SF to have Rush Limbaugh as mayor.:lol: But you know that brings up a good point, Rush would never get elected in SF and an atheist would never get elected in a bible belt state so the point is moot and the thread is pointless.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
It would take away the rights of people in bible belt states to have politicians run that state that share their values. It would be like forcing people in SF to have Rush Limbaugh as mayor.:lol: But you know that brings up a good point, Rush would never get elected in SF and an atheist would never get elected in a bible belt state so the point is moot and the thread is pointless.
Click to expand...

Why? There would be no requirement that you elect atheists. Just that they could run. Are you afraid that an atheist may resonate better with more people and thus be more likely to be elected over a theist? That's the only thing I can think of that would lead one to pretend that they wouldn't have the "representation" they wanted.

But what I find funny is the direct hypocrisy here. You don't want to allow atheists to run for office because you feel you won't be able to get the representation you want. But you are MORE THAN HAPPY to do the reverse. You'll bar atheists from running so that atheists cannot get the representation they may want.

You may want to bury the hypocrisy a few levels down so it's not quite so obvious.
 
Ikari said:
I know that argument, it's a State's rights issue as I had said. But you should equally be opposed to the Federal government having the ability to tell the States that slavery in and of itself was illegal to be consistent with your claims.
Click to expand...

The feds had the right to make laws against slavery and the south had the right to secede if they didn't like the law.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
The difference is freedom of religion is part of our constitution whereas freedom to be a racist is not.
Click to expand...

sorry that doesnt answer the question in the slightest bit
now will you explain how in the world "giving atheist rights takes away religious peoples rights"

if you dont have an answer and want to admit you made it up that works too
 
Ikari said:
Why? There would be no requirement that you elect atheists. Just that they could run. Are you afraid that an atheist may resonate better with more people and thus be more likely to be elected over a theist? That's the only thing I can think of that would lead one to pretend that they wouldn't have the "representation" they wanted.

But what I find funny is the direct hypocrisy here. You don't want to allow atheists to run for office because you feel you won't be able to get the representation you want. But you are MORE THAN HAPPY to do the reverse. You'll bar atheists from running so that atheists cannot get the representation they may want.

You may want to bury the hypocrisy a few levels down so it's not quite so obvious.
Click to expand...

Seems like we agree, I said the point is moot because no atheist could get elected in a bible thump state anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom