• 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
longview said:
But see this is getting to the heart of John Locke's comment about why atheist should not hold
public office, "they lack a moral compass."
There is no atheist principle against lying, all of our moral authority is derived from religion.
The religions authority represents the control group, without the control group,
there is nothing to measure against, therefore no absolute right or wrong.
I still think it would be wrong to discriminate against the person for their beliefs (or lack of),
but just think that atheism has many of the same attributes of the other religions,
and should be treated accordingly.
Click to expand...

this is factual not true, the vast majority of athiest have morals just like everyone else, one doesnt need religion to have morals and ethics
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Where in the constitution does it say states can not ban atheist from running for office?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




The No Religious Test Clause is found in Article VI, paragraph 3, and states that: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

You can read more about this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause




You really need to read about this and study it hard, you should have learned it in school.

It's an important thing that every one who is a citizen of the USA needs to know.
 
Last edited:
AGENT J said:
this is factual not true, the vast majority of athiest have morals just like everyone else, one doesnt need religion to have morals and ethics
Click to expand...
I am sure this is true, but the question is, which authority are those morals referenced against?
Without a control group, there is no correct answer.
If something is wrong, why is it wrong? most of our laws are traceable back to some level of
religion.
 
longview said:
1.)I am sure this is true, but the question is, which authority are those morals referenced against?
2.) Without a control group, there is no correct answer.
3.) If something is wrong, why is it wrong? most of our laws are traceable back to some level of
religion.
Click to expand...

1.) thats a meaningless question since an authority isnt required.
2.) theres never a "correct" answer it all subjective
3.) religion happening to line up doesnt mean anything than its another system that some people believe in, it again is subjective, tons of religious rules have no laws supporting them and vice versa
 
shrubnose said:
The No Religious Test Clause is found in Article VI, paragraph 3, and states that: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

You can read more about this here: No Religious Test Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




You really need to read about this and study it hard, you should have learned it in school.

It's an important thing that every one who is a citizen of the USA needs to know.
Click to expand...

Don't have time right now, I'm just doing a drive by post between real life projects but the way I understood it this part of the constitution was only applicable to national candidates not state candidates. I'm really pretty sure about this but I will look into it this evening unless someone in the mean time does it for me. ( Hopefully) :lol:
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Don't have time right now, I'm just doing a drive by post between real life projects but the way I understood it this part of the constitution was only applicable to national candidates not state candidates. I'm really pretty sure about this but I will look into it this evening unless someone in the mean time does it for me. ( Hopefully) :lol:
Click to expand...

I'm not sure, but it looks to me as if the fourteenth amendment covers this:]

The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local government officials from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without legislative authorization. This clause has also been used by the federal judiciary to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural requirements that state laws must satisfy.
Click to expand...
 
Dittohead not! said:
I'm not sure, but it looks to me as if the fourteenth amendment covers this:]
Click to expand...

This is when we really get into the weeds. It is like the great ongoing debate on exactly what the 2nd amendment means. There is nothing in the constitution that specifically says there can be no religious test for state candidates. It is however very specific about national candidates so my take on this is they meant to give states more latitude in this area.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
This is when we really get into the weeds. It is like the great ongoing debate on exactly what the 2nd amendment means. There is nothing in the constitution that specifically says there can be no religious test for state candidates. It is however very specific about national candidates so my take on this is they meant to give states more latitude in this area.
Click to expand...

This is true. It may be a task of the SCOTUS to decide one day, when a state decides to have a religious test for state office holders and enforce it.

I don't think it would fly, but then, maybe it would.
 
longview said:
...
There is no atheist principle against lying, all of our moral authority is derived from religion...
Click to expand...

That is utterly ridiculous. That would be like saying that religious people never lie because their religion tells them not to, which we know is obviously not true. Non-religious people espouse the same morality, the same sense of right and wrong, as do the religious, only they do not live good and moral lives out of terror that some vengeful, unseen deity will torture them for eternity if they don't. Non-religious people live good and moral lives because it is the right thing to do, because they care about the rights and well-being of others, and (like most people, religious or otherwise) because they don't want to end up in jail for breaking the law.

I really don't understand the self-righteousness of some people who feel the need to label others as inferior or morally corrupt, not because of how they live their lives, but because they simply do not share their own religious belief. It is arrogance, pride, superiority personified, all of which, if my memory of Bible study is correct, are considered to be acts of a sinful nature, and not an acceptable part of living a religious lifestyle.
 
DiAnna said:
That is utterly ridiculous. That would be like saying that religious people never lie because their religion tells them not to, which we know is obviously not true. Non-religious people espouse the same morality, the same sense of right and wrong, as do the religious, only they do not live good and moral lives out of terror that some vengeful, unseen deity will torture them for eternity if they don't. Non-religious people live good and moral lives because it is the right thing to do, because they care about the rights and well-being of others, and (like most people, religious or otherwise) because they don't want to end up in jail for breaking the law.

I really don't understand the self-righteousness of some people who feel the need to label others as inferior or morally corrupt, not because of how they live their lives, but because they simply do not share their own religious belief. It is arrogance, pride, superiority personified, all of which, if my memory of Bible study is correct, are considered to be acts of a sinful nature, and not an acceptable part of living a religious lifestyle.
Click to expand...
I think many have misunderstood my statements.
This has nothing to do with a person's morality, but the base on which that morality rest.
Any measurement can only be in reference to something.
Our laws, for the most part can be traced back the religious rules.
 
longview said:
I think many have misunderstood my statements.
This has nothing to do with a person's morality, but the base on which that morality rest.
Any measurement can only be in reference to something.
Our laws, for the most part can be traced back the religious rules.
Click to expand...

No, they can be traced back to what insured our survival as a social animal. Empathy is one of those traits that emerged that protected our social well being, and that is the basis of our core morality.
 
marduc said:
No, they can be traced back to what insured our survival as a social animal. Empathy is one of those traits that emerged that protected our social well being, and that is the basis of our core morality.
Click to expand...
You are correct, the laws of nature, and the ones we choose to limit to participate in society, are somewhat subjective.
Religion was one attempt to try and codify these patterns, and was justified by saying things are right or wrong, "Because GOD says so".
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Interesting how Obama picks and chooses which laws he will enforce and ignore.
Click to expand...

All administrations prioritize their enforcement duties. IMO that is fine as long as they do what they say they will do during the campaign.
 
longview said:
..
Atheism is the currently endorsed religion of the federal Government,....
Click to expand...

That's why we force kids to recite a pledge mentioning god, put a reference to god on our currency, have prayers before legislative sessions etc.; because atheism is the official religion??!
 
Hard Truth said:
That's why we force kids to recite a pledge mentioning god, put a reference to god on our currency, have prayers before legislative sessions etc.; because atheism is the official religion??!
Click to expand...
Oh that it was only so subtle. More like when the Courts interpret Freedom of religion as freedom from religion.
That in the name of disavowing a deity, we rewrite our history to exclude the Faiths of the founders.
When we disallow any mention of the concept of a deity, we are endorsing the concept of the religion of atheism.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Don't have time right now, I'm just doing a drive by post between real life projects but the way I understood it this part of the constitution was only applicable to national candidates not state candidates. I'm really pretty sure about this but I will look into it this evening unless someone in the mean time does it for me. ( Hopefully) :lol:
Click to expand...

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

I think that should settle the issue.
 
longview said:
Oh that it was only so subtle. More like when the Courts interpret Freedom of religion as freedom from religion.
Click to expand...
What, precisely, do you see as the difference? To me freedom to practice or observe religion necessarily means freedom not to.
 
pinqy said:
What, precisely, do you see as the difference? To me freedom to practice or observe religion necessarily means freedom not to.
Click to expand...
Correct, but the current interpretation restricts peoples freedom to practice, if said practice occurs on public property.
 
longview said:
Correct, but the current interpretation restricts peoples freedom to practice, if said practice occurs on public property.
Click to expand...

You can go to the park, city hall, courthouse steps or any other public property when it is open to the public and pray. You can even bring some friends. Kids can pray in school between classes and recess etc. When the teacher leads the prayer then it forces all students to do it or face embarassment or worse and that is unconstitutional government endorsement of a particular religion. The difference is that when particular religions are encouraged or religious observation is tax payer funded it is unconstituional. Its perfectly reasonable and not that complicated if you look at the actual facts of the court cases.
 
Hard Truth said:
You can go to the park, city hall, courthouse steps or any other public property when it is open to the public and pray. You can even bring some friends. Kids can pray in school between classes and recess etc. When the teacher leads the prayer then it forces all students to do it or face embarassment or worse and that is unconstitutional government endorsement of a particular religion. The difference is that when particular religions are encouraged or religious observation is tax payer funded it is unconstituional. Its perfectly reasonable and not that complicated if you look at the actual facts of the court cases.
Click to expand...
If that was as far as it went, I would have no issue with the separation of church and state.
I voted on the poll that it would be discrimination to hold a politician's religion, or lack there of, against them.
I voted that way because atheism is a form of religion, it's more vocal members are just as passionate about their beliefs,
as any other religious person,(maybe more so).
I will use as an example, the vigorous defense of atheist in this very thread.
 
longview said:
If that was as far as it went, I would have no issue with the separation of church and state.
I voted on the poll that it would be discrimination to hold a politician's religion, or lack there of, against them.
I voted that way because atheism is a form of religion, it's more vocal members are just as passionate about their beliefs,
as any other religious person,(maybe more so).
I will use as an example, the vigorous defense of atheist in this very thread.
Click to expand...

Atheism is a form of religion?? That is absolute deluded misinformed propaganda based rubbish.

Just because I do not accept any religion, and the claims they make does not mean that my nonacceptance itself is a religion. It is quite simply disbelief. I disbelieve in alien visitations and ghosts as well, does this mean that in your eyes they are religions too?
 
marduc said:
Atheism is a form of religion?? That is absolute deluded misinformed propaganda based rubbish.

Just because I do not accept any religion, and the claims they make does not mean that my nonacceptance itself is a religion. It is quite simply disbelief. I disbelieve in alien visitations and ghosts as well, does this mean that in your eyes they are religions too?
Click to expand...

Claiming atheism is religion = easiest way to troll atheists ever.
 
marduc said:
Atheism is a form of religion?? That is absolute deluded misinformed propaganda based rubbish.

Just because I do not accept any religion, and the claims they make does not mean that my nonacceptance itself is a religion. It is quite simply disbelief. I disbelieve in alien visitations and ghosts as well, does this mean that in your eyes they are religions too?
Click to expand...
And yet you defend your non acceptance with passion, kind of like a religious person would if their faith was questioned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom