Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,593
|
Post by Ombud on Oct 11, 2015 13:11:07 GMT -5
There are seven states where atheists can't hold public office. Kind of like that? Those restrictions have not been in use for 50 years. By Hunter Schwarz July 8, 2014 Eight state constitutions include restrictions on people who don’t believe in a supreme being. In Arkansas, denying the existence of God means you can’t hold civil office or testify in court, while in Tennessee there are also guidelines about belief in the hereafter. States with restrictions on atheists holding office However, the Supreme Court ruled in a 1961 case that a Maryland man appointed as a notary public didn’t have to declare his belief in a supreme being to hold office, arguing it violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Since then, these restrictions haven’t been enforced, said Dave Muscato, a spokesman for American Atheists. www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/07/08/there-are-states-where-you-technically-cant-hold-public-office-if-youre-an-atheist/As SCOTUS takes precedence, we fixed that IMHO
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Oct 11, 2015 13:20:54 GMT -5
There are seven states where atheists can't hold public office. Kind of like that? Those restrictions have not been in use for 50 years.
By Hunter Schwarz July 8, 2014
Eight state constitutions include restrictions on people who don’t believe in a supreme being. In Arkansas, denying the existence of God means you can’t hold civil office or testify in court, while in Tennessee there are also guidelines about belief in the hereafter.
States with restrictions on atheists holding office
However, the Supreme Court ruled in a 1961 case that a Maryland man appointed as a notary public didn’t have to declare his belief in a supreme being to hold office, arguing it violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Since then, these restrictions haven’t been enforced, said Dave Muscato, a spokesman for American Atheists. www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/07/08/there-are-states-where-you-technically-cant-hold-public-office-if-youre-an-atheist/
I belong on a very hard-right board where I was told that atheists are not only banned from public office, but run out of town on a rail, if at all possible. These folks are in the deep south. This is Kim Davis country.
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,593
|
Post by Ombud on Oct 11, 2015 13:34:55 GMT -5
Perhaps my point is getting lost in all of the noise.
I do not believe for a single moment that Saudi Arabia has advanced beyond the Middle Ages. However I also believe that I have no right to tell them how to live their lives. IMO certain aspects of their society is barbaric based on personal observation and that their barbarianism is based on Shira Law. Saudi Arabia has not advanced beyond the Middle Ages. However I also believe that I have no right to tell them how to live their lives.
Although I do not have the right to tell other countries how to govern their citizens, I do have the right to be alarmed by it.
I have the moral duty to tell my own area how to govern and I do. Which is why children can no longer be asked what religion they are in school, be forced to celebrate Christmas, or made to feel like an outsider should they choose not to celebrate it. Neither can they be forced to celebrate my holidays which are Hanukkah, the High Holidays, and Passover or should my children / grandchildren be given special treatment for missing school those days. There is a very good reason for complete separation of church & state.
I hope those of you still living under it strive for equality
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 14:57:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2015 13:46:58 GMT -5
Those restrictions have not been in use for 50 years.
By Hunter Schwarz July 8, 2014
Eight state constitutions include restrictions on people who don’t believe in a supreme being. In Arkansas, denying the existence of God means you can’t hold civil office or testify in court, while in Tennessee there are also guidelines about belief in the hereafter.
States with restrictions on atheists holding office
However, the Supreme Court ruled in a 1961 case that a Maryland man appointed as a notary public didn’t have to declare his belief in a supreme being to hold office, arguing it violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Since then, these restrictions haven’t been enforced, said Dave Muscato, a spokesman for American Atheists. www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/07/08/there-are-states-where-you-technically-cant-hold-public-office-if-youre-an-atheist/
I belong on a very hard-right board where I was told that atheists are not only banned from public office, but run out of town on a rail, if at all possible. These folks are in the deep south. This is Kim Davis country.
I can't account for what people tell you. I just know they are not banned from public office. We have been over that on this board before .
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,593
|
Post by Ombud on Oct 11, 2015 16:07:43 GMT -5
@xmascookie, weltschmerz is Canadian so perhaps it's true in Canada? We ALL know Kim Davis went to jail in 'Kim Davis country' for ignoring the SCOTUS ruling
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,144
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 11, 2015 16:29:40 GMT -5
@xmascookie, weltschmerz is Canadian so perhaps it's true in Canada? We ALL know Kim Davis went to jail in 'Kim Davis country' for ignoring the SCOTUS ruling no. NOBODY knows that, because it is not true. Kim Davis went to jail because she defied a LOCAL court order. the court order did not require her to comply with the SCOTUS ruling, only to not interfere in the work of others. it was actually a very nice compromise- a good judicial straddle. Kim Davis in all of her piety refused it.
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,593
|
Post by Ombud on Oct 11, 2015 16:33:28 GMT -5
@xmascookie, weltschmerz is Canadian so perhaps it's true in Canada? We ALL know Kim Davis went to jail in 'Kim Davis country' for ignoring the SCOTUS ruling no. NOBODY knows that, because it is not true. Kim Davis went to jail because she defied a LOCAL court order. the court order did not require her to comply with the SCOTUS ruling, only to not interfere in the work of others. it was actually a very nice compromise- a good judicial straddle. Kim Davis in all of her piety refused it. And why did that happen? Did the judge have an independent epiphany?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,144
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 11, 2015 16:35:57 GMT -5
no. NOBODY knows that, because it is not true. Kim Davis went to jail because she defied a LOCAL court order. the court order did not require her to comply with the SCOTUS ruling, only to not interfere in the work of others. it was actually a very nice compromise- a good judicial straddle. Kim Davis in all of her piety refused it. And why did that happen? Did the judge have an independent epiphany? it doesn't matter. you said that she "went to jail for defying a SCOTUS order", and that is FALSE. (according to the court) she was not required to marry icky gays in her job. she can marry nice hetero folks. but that just wasn't good enough for Kim-Of-Arc. edit: if you want to say that "she went to jail for her anti-gay-marriage crusade" i would not have said a thing. that is TRUE. but the SCOTUS ruling didn't come into play in the verdict that landed her in jail. it was the fact that she PROMISED to interfere with the work of the county.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Oct 11, 2015 16:43:01 GMT -5
@xmascookie, weltschmerz is Canadian so perhaps it's true in Canada? We ALL know Kim Davis went to jail in 'Kim Davis country' for ignoring the SCOTUS ruling Canada? No, we're very secular. Religion is never mentioned in any way, shape or form by politicians during an election. Or ever. It is mentioned when we want even less of it, like Quebec's Values Charter. No religious symbols at all.
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,593
|
Post by Ombud on Oct 11, 2015 16:56:13 GMT -5
And why did that happen? Did the judge have an independent epiphany? it doesn't matter. you said that she "went to jail for defying a SCOTUS order", and that is FALSE. (according to the court) she was not required to marry icky gays in her job. she can marry nice hetero folks. but that just wasn't good enough for Kim-Of-Arc. edit: if you want to say that "she went to jail for her anti-gay-marriage crusade" i would not have said a thing. that is TRUE. but the SCOTUS ruling didn't come into play in the verdict that landed her in jail. it was the fact that she PROMISED to interfere with the work of the county. Why doesn't it matter? Bc it's my opinion that she wouldn't be presented with a situation where gays could ask to be married without the SCOTUS ruling and not your opinion? That without that ruling she would have been within her right to deny the requests? See how great this country is? I, a woman, don't have to agree with you, a man, and you cannot do anything about it even if we were in the same room
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,144
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 11, 2015 18:08:16 GMT -5
it doesn't matter. you said that she "went to jail for defying a SCOTUS order", and that is FALSE. (according to the court) she was not required to marry icky gays in her job. she can marry nice hetero folks. but that just wasn't good enough for Kim-Of-Arc. edit: if you want to say that "she went to jail for her anti-gay-marriage crusade" i would not have said a thing. that is TRUE. but the SCOTUS ruling didn't come into play in the verdict that landed her in jail. it was the fact that she PROMISED to interfere with the work of the county. Why doesn't it matter? Bc it's my opinion that she wouldn't be presented with a situation where gays could ask to be married without the SCOTUS ruling and not your opinion? that's my opinion, too. she is in jail because of her "anti-gay-marriage crusade". i said that. but i want everyone to understand that the court did NOT ask her to marry gays (even though, by rights granted due to the SCOTUS ruling, they could have done so). they simply asked her to not interfere in the job others were doing. she refused.That without that ruling she would have been within her right to deny the requests? she was not within her rights, either way. and of course, that is WHY she put up a fight. believe me, i get it. i just object to the sentence "she went to jail BECAUSE of the SCOTUS ruling". that is not correct. she was welcome to go back to her job, and NOT marry gays. which i thought was a really humane, just, and thoughtful compromise. one that she refused.
See how great this country is? I, a woman, don't have to agree with you, a man, and you cannot do anything about it even if we were in the same room oh, don't i know it!
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,483
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 11, 2015 18:59:56 GMT -5
it doesn't matter. you said that she "went to jail for defying a SCOTUS order", and that is FALSE. (according to the court) she was not required to marry icky gays in her job. she can marry nice hetero folks. but that just wasn't good enough for Kim-Of-Arc. edit: if you want to say that "she went to jail for her anti-gay-marriage crusade" i would not have said a thing. that is TRUE. but the SCOTUS ruling didn't come into play in the verdict that landed her in jail. it was the fact that she PROMISED to interfere with the work of the county. Why doesn't it matter? Bc it's my opinion that she wouldn't be presented with a situation where gays could ask to be married without the SCOTUS ruling and not your opinion? That without that ruling she would have been within her right to deny the requests? See how great this country is? I, a woman, don't have to agree with you, a man, and you cannot do anything about it even if we were in the same room I think it is because he typed false and true in all capital letters.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,144
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 11, 2015 19:28:04 GMT -5
Why doesn't it matter? Bc it's my opinion that she wouldn't be presented with a situation where gays could ask to be married without the SCOTUS ruling and not your opinion? That without that ruling she would have been within her right to deny the requests? See how great this country is? I, a woman, don't have to agree with you, a man, and you cannot do anything about it even if we were in the same room I think it is because he typed false and true in all capital letters. no, it is because she was not arrested for failure to comply with the SCOTUS ruling. the court didn't ask her to comply with that ruling. it really is just that simple.
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,593
|
Post by Ombud on Oct 11, 2015 20:43:28 GMT -5
I think it is because he typed false and true in all capital letters. no, it is because she was not arrested for failure to comply with the SCOTUS ruling. the court didn't ask her to comply with that ruling. it really is just that simple. the caps were bc I dared to disagree -- all caps = shouting
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,144
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 11, 2015 20:50:01 GMT -5
no, it is because she was not arrested for failure to comply with the SCOTUS ruling. the court didn't ask her to comply with that ruling. it really is just that simple. the caps were bc I dared to disagree -- all caps = shouting i am pretty sure he was talking about me. but sure. take the blame. edit: for the record, caps are NOT shouting for me. just emphasis.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 14:57:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2015 21:30:39 GMT -5
the caps were bc I dared to disagree -- all caps = shouting i am pretty sure he was talking about me. but sure. take the blame. edit: for the record, caps are NOT shouting for me. just emphasis. It depends on how the caps are used for me... THIS IS SHOUTING! WHEN YOU USE ALL CAPS FOR THE ENTIRE SENTENCE! This is not shouting, when you use caps on just ONE word... for emphasis.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,144
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 11, 2015 21:33:47 GMT -5
i am pretty sure he was talking about me. but sure. take the blame. edit: for the record, caps are NOT shouting for me. just emphasis. It depends on how the caps are used for me... THIS IS SHOUTING! WHEN YOU USE ALL CAPS FOR THE ENTIRE SENTENCE! This is not shouting, when you use caps on just ONE word... for emphasis. precisely. thank you, Richard.
|
|
busymom
Distinguished Associate
Why is the rum always gone? Oh...that's why.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 28,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IPauJ5.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0D317F
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0D317F
|
Post by busymom on Oct 11, 2015 21:42:44 GMT -5
If it is o.k. to lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam, how can you negotiate with a government leader who is part of that religion?
I much prefer to negotiate, rather than fight. But, if your belief system says it's just fine to lie like a rug to promote & expand your religious beliefs, then we appear to be wasting efforts for peaceful negotiation.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,515
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 11, 2015 21:44:39 GMT -5
WOULD YOU ALL GET BACK ON THE THREAD SUBJECT TRACK. PLEASE!
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,593
|
Post by Ombud on Oct 12, 2015 18:59:07 GMT -5
Mid EVIL ... in case you're wondering, I'm shouting
|
|
fishy999
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 9, 2015 20:40:43 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by fishy999 on Oct 12, 2015 21:09:24 GMT -5
Back to topic:
USA- Fringe conservatives still trying to go back to living in the middle ages- not to mention strong law and order types with the Constitution in their pocket while they openly defy it.
Well- sort of topic- I think it is odd though that people come down on Saudi Arabia for their intermingling of religion and law yet want that put in place here. I do not understand the complete disconnect and failure to understand the irony of what they are doing.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 12, 2015 21:14:56 GMT -5
Mid EVIL ... in case you're wondering, I'm shouting Ummm, it's medieval. There's no evil involved in medieval. Medieval is just a time period. In a lot of ways, the more primitive areas of Saudi predate medieval times in their thinking.
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,593
|
Post by Ombud on Oct 12, 2015 21:21:08 GMT -5
Mid EVIL ... in case you're wondering, I'm shouting Ummm, it's medieval. There's no evil involved in medieval. Medieval is just a time period. In a lot of ways, the more primitive areas of Saudi predate medieval times in their thinking. If you're saying you feel they're stuck in the dark ages, I'll concur
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 13, 2015 1:15:13 GMT -5
Ummm, it's medieval. There's no evil involved in medieval. Medieval is just a time period. In a lot of ways, the more primitive areas of Saudi predate medieval times in their thinking. If you're saying you feel they're stuck in the dark ages, I'll concur Of course the more primitive areas of Saudi are stuck in the dark ages. I don't think there's ever been any argument about that.
|
|