 |
| See larger image here. |
Atheists are the most hated minority in America. One has to wonder why that is?
Could you imagine states adopting similar bans against Jews, or Blacks, or Mormons?
Thursday, May 31, 2012
"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Oh really?
Atheists are the most hated minority in America. One has to wonder why that is?
Could you imagine states adopting similar bans against Jews, or Blacks, or Mormons?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Are you kidding? How do they cehck this out? Do people running for office have to fill out some form? Has no one ever told these morons that this is against our very foundation? Pennsylvania? Really?
ReplyDeleteI wonder when the bans against Muslims are coming?
Ending discrimination against atheists is the next human rights issue.
ReplyDeleteMore frightening to the "religious" Christianists than gay marriage because atheism uncomfortably challenges their wishful thinking and need to have a Big Daddy in the Sky to take care of them & "tell" them what to think and do, which keeps them infantilized.
I'm not a political scholar by any stretch of the imagination but I believe article 37 in the Maryland Constitution was contested and nullified (not sure if I am using the correct terms) in the 1961 Supreme Court decision of Torcaso v. Watkins. If one looks above article 37 in the Maryland Constitution it basically states that nothing in the Declaration of Rights can constitute an establishment of religion. I believe (but don't quote me!) that the originally wording of article 37 was left intact and is basically symbolic. However I do agree that it should be changed to reflect the MD Constitution as it now stands.
ReplyDeleteHey Gryphen, saw you had posted a number of Canada based posts lately, thought you'd enjoy this.
ReplyDeleteIf Obama were running for re-election here, he'd be a shoe in.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/who-do-canadians-want-to-vote-for-barack-obama/article2448210/
insane...
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to imagine that this would stand up to a challenge in the Supreme Court. Has it been challenged by anyone?
ReplyDeleteI'll take an atheist over these freaks that say they've been pressed into service because of their 'servant's heart' and it was a calling by God and whatnot.
ReplyDeleteOh, Gryphen... You and your obsession with the Constitution... I swear to God... What's up with that?
ReplyDeleteIf you'd do even a tiny bit of research - the tinier, the better - you would learn that freedom of religion is in the so-called "Suggestions" section of the Constitution, along with freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom from undue search and seizure, among others. The bible clearly tells us that when Jeebus wrote the Constitution He just tossed out some ideas that might work for some people at some times under some conditions. You just take those suggestions WAY too seriously.
Constitutional scholars at Jerry Failwell's Libertary University aka The College Jeebus Built, have shown that the only parts of the Constitution that God intended to stand for eternity in Amercia is The Right To Bare Arms (The so-called Tanning Act) and the law that postage stamps be rectangular in shape. That's it! Everything else: in the Suggestions section.
Anyway, why are you so cranked up about these laws against atheists holding office in those states? Look at them! In most of those states, believe me, you don't even want to use a public restroom let alone run for public office! Anyway, an avowed atheist wouldnt have a snowball's chance in - a place an atheist doesnt believe exists - of actually winning an election, so it's academic.
Of course, being 'academic' isnt a condition they tend to worry about too much in most of those states either... So it all kinda evens out in the end.
Loved your comment! Still has me giggling, minutes after reading it. Thanks, Beldar!
DeleteHysterical!!!!!
DeleteNow, if only it actually WAS the right to BARE arms. I still say that amendment is a total mis-reading of the intent. After all, it was the "militia" that the founders were referring to, to keep away those nasty redcoats, and not individuals per se.
BTW, if any of you are thinking of moving northward should a Romneygeddon occur in November, please abandon your weapons at the border. Then we'll welcome you with open (but probably not bare) arms. After all, it will be almost winter here!
YOU ESS EH! YOU ESS EH! (With thanks to Colbert, I think!)
Ahh, love my "Beldar" fix! Thanks for all you do, it ain't easy being cheesey, but you raise it to an art form!
DeleteThese so called religious are the dangerous ones !!They push constitution, and don't know what is in the consitution.All this birtherism. just a few yrs ago these same idoits wanted to change the consitution so Arnold the treminator could be president! His father was a natzie.Did Mitt's father want to run for President I know he was governor He was born in Mexico of a father who had many wives.I can't stand these fake christians who lie, cheat and steal every minute of the day. You think they would burn up when they walk into a church, but that's where they learn this from. It's okay to lie, as long as it suits the purpose.When did God pick america to be his land? or the government? never saw it in the bible.
ReplyDeleteActually, I'm pretty sure it IS ok to lie, according to the bible, as long as it's not to anyone in your own tribe.
DeleteThe maroons don't have any reading comprehension.
ReplyDeleteThey fail to understand the Constitution in a way similar to their failure to understand the bible.
I doubt they've read either document. They certainly failed to understand them.
Theocracy hypocrisy.
ReplyDeleteTwo things about religious fanatics:
ReplyDelete1. They believe what they're taught to believe
2. They continue to believe what they WANT to believe.
As to #1 -- I truly think all religious institutions (both in the U.S. and Canada) should lose their tax-exempt status, because it seems there is no guarantee that these institutions leave politics outside the door.
I agree. Maple is exactly right.
Delete+1
DeleteIf "religions" can be "tax exempt" for doing "Good Deeds", why doesn't the same apply to individual Atheists?
How is this allowed to be considering laws against such discrimination?
ReplyDeleteThink before you believe, or very soon you'll believe you don't have to think.
ReplyDeleteThis is outrageous! I can't believe that the ACLU hasn't challenged these laws yet. This is a civil rights issue. Do we have to make atheists a protected class in order to provide them the rights extended to everyone else under the Constitution?
ReplyDeleteSomeone has to be injured somehow before a law can be challenged. Until someone is denied his rights under one of those laws, there's no legal way to challenge it.
DeleteMore and more I think it's time to revisit the Confederate surrender and that Memorandum of Agreement between the generals.
ReplyDeleteIt's obvious that we've got two different countries. Those original Confederate states genuinely have a different existence than the rest of us. Opposing philosophies, lifestyles, cultures, everything.
I say let 'em go. Time to shuck it loose to exist as they please. Without the United States, independently. And they can do any damn thing they want. I'm tired of the conflict.
Nothing has changed in 160 years.
By the way, they're all non-compliant with the Agreement anyway. Without consequence. What does it take to hold them accountable, I wonder?
On 18 April, 1865, Sherman and General Joseph E. Johnstont agreed to seven surrender terms.
The first two were about standing down and disbanding. They even got to keep their guns, as long as they were used "solely to maintain peace and order within the borders of the States respectively."
Sweet. I think that's pretty fair.
The rest of it? Well, the southern states have pretty much violated all those terms and continue to. I don't think they're going to change anytime soon.
In a nutshell, they got full amnesty and right to go in peace, on condition that they accept the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and the Constitution and resume "peaceful pursuits by the officers and men hitherto composing said armies."
They agreed that the "people and inhabitants of all the States to be guaranteed, so far as the Executive can, their political rights and franchises, as well as their rights of person and property, as defined by the Constitution of the United States and of the States respectively."
It says "the people and inhabitants of ALL THE STATES."
But #6 is really the deal-breaker, as I see it.
It says Confederates won't be disturbed as long as they live peacefully, abstain from acts of hostility and obey existing laws.
Gosh, it's kind of like Kosovo and Bosnia.
Do we need UN Peacekeepers? Or just let 'em go?
~~
Text of April 18, 1865 Agreement between Johnston and Sherman
3. The recognition, by the Executive of the United States, of the several State governments, on their officers and legislatures taking the oaths prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, and, where conflicting State governments have resulted from the war, the legitimacy of all shall be submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States.
4. The re-establishment of all Federal Courts in the several States, with powers as defined by the Constitution of the United States and of the States respectively.
5. The people and inhabitants of all the States to be guaranteed, so far as the Executive can, their political rights and franchises, as well as their rights of person and property, as defined by the Constitution of the United States and of the States respectively.
6. The Executive authority of the Government of the United States not to disturb any of the people by reason of the late war, so long as they live in peace and quiet, abstain from acts of armed hostility, and obey the laws in existence at the place of their residence.
7. In general terms - the war to cease; a general amnesty, so far as the Executive of the United States can command, on condition of the disbandment of the Confederate armies, the distribution of the arms, and the resumption of peaceful pursuits by the officers and men hitherto composing said armies.
I wonder if all Atheists build a structure and call it "The Holy house of Free Thinking Humanists" if it would qualify as a tax exempt structure? But why should they stoop to that level to cheat on taxes?
ReplyDeleteWhere, in the constitution, is this "tax exempt" bullshit laid out?
Yeah, that would be nowhere.
ReplyDelete