Is the USA coocoo land? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Is the USA coocoo land?


Vic777
06-10-2012, 11:03
http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/533334_10150878917602507_338804885_n.jpg

Kingarthurhk
06-10-2012, 11:05
If the link is accurate, than it is clearly unacceptable under the First Amendment.

Vic777
06-10-2012, 11:13
here are some links ....

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/uakmz/7_states_which_ban_atheists_from_holding_public/

Atheists Banned From Public Office in 7 State Constitutions! - YouTube

Guss
06-10-2012, 11:24
Wherever someone contests it, it fails the constitutional test. The state lawmakers in the remaining states just don't have the gumption to take it off the books and eventually someone will sue.

steveksux
06-10-2012, 11:56
Just sayin, if its in the state constitution, its probably not unconstitutional....

BTW, has nothing to do with the First amendment. Its not establishing or preventing the exercise of any religion. Even if you decide atheism deserves the same protections as a religion, its still not prohibiting anyone from being an atheist, or "practicing" atheism.

Its an equal protection issue.

Randy

void *
06-10-2012, 12:09
Just sayin, if its in the state constitution, its probably not unconstitutional....

A state constitution could contain provisions that are unconstitutional as per the U.S. constitution, and the Supreme Court has actually already ruled that provisions such as these are in fact unconstitutional.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins

They're still on the books, but if anyone tried to enforce them, they'd have a tough row to hoe.

Kingarthurhk
06-10-2012, 12:15
Just sayin, if its in the state constitution, its probably not unconstitutional....

BTW, has nothing to do with the First amendment. Its not establishing or preventing the exercise of any religion. Even if you decide atheism deserves the same protections as a religion, its still not prohibiting anyone from being an atheist, or "practicing" atheism.

Its an equal protection issue.

Randy

So, in essence you are saying it is a 14th Amendment violation, which of course, would provide a nice bridge to a First Amendment violation:

The 14th Amendment"


Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The parts of interest are italicized.

Animal Mother
06-10-2012, 13:06
Just sayin, if its in the state constitution, its probably not unconstitutional....

BTW, has nothing to do with the First amendment. Its not establishing or preventing the exercise of any religion. Even if you decide atheism deserves the same protections as a religion, its still not prohibiting anyone from being an atheist, or "practicing" atheism.

Its an equal protection issue.

RandyActually it would be a violation of Article IV, Paragraph 3 of the US Constitution itself.
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.

There could be some argument whether or not state offices (other than legislatures) qualify as part of the "under the United States" group, but the 14th Amendment protections would seem to resolve that.

Altaris
06-10-2012, 13:17
Every state has a handful of really dumb, or really outdated laws that just have never been removed. Personally, I see them as just really old laws that no one has bothered to remove from the books. If challenged I would see them being overturned pretty quickly.

packsaddle
06-10-2012, 14:37
there are atheists in public office in every state.

some just call themselves "christian" to get elected.

this is why liberals have to lie about their true beliefs to win elections.

atheism, socialism, marxism, communism, etc. have all proven to be losing platforms.

of course, all politicians are essentially liars, just to varying degrees.

Vic777
06-10-2012, 14:44
of course, all politicians are essentially liars, just to varying degrees.The longer they stay in office the greater the liar they become.

Kingarthurhk
06-10-2012, 15:53
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights disagrees with the practice of barring Atheists from office based on their religious beliefs. Just because I don't agree with your religious view point, doesn't mean I don't support your right to have it.

So, if it is an accurate statement that these states bar Atheists from office than it needs to be challeged in the Supreme Court, beause no one should be disinfranchized for their religious beliefs. The State has no business denying a person their individual liberties based on a religious view point.

Vic777
06-10-2012, 17:01
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights disagrees with the practice of barring Atheists from office based on their religious beliefs.Atheists don't have Religious Beliefs.

Mr Spock
06-10-2012, 17:30
there are atheists in public office in every state.

some just call themselves "christian" to get elected.

this is why liberals have to lie about their true beliefs to win elections.

atheism, socialism, marxism, communism, etc. have all proven to be losing platforms.

of course, all politicians are essentially liars, just to varying degrees.

While I agree with you that Atheists often have to gloss over their lack of concern for religion in order to be elected, I disagree with your statement that likens atheism to socialism, Marxism, or communism. Those three are political belief systems that require an affirmative belief in their merits. Atheism is the lack of a belief system with regard to religion. An atheist may be aligned with any political party, and hold affirmative beliefs on a hundred other topics, but simply lack concern for, need for, or belief in a religion or religious construct. Atheism is not a losing platform because it isn't a platform. It is the lack of a platform. I do not affirm a disbelief in religion. I simply don't have a belief to affirm. The same way I don't have to affirm a disbelief in werewolves or Frankenstein's monster or Freddy Krueger. I simply don't possess a belief they are real so I don't think about it.

And btw, EVERYONE has to lie about something to get elected. You can't please everyone all the time (or even most of the people even once) without lies.

Geko45
06-10-2012, 18:46
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights disagrees with the practice of barring Atheists from office based on their religious beliefs. Just because I don't agree with your religious view point, doesn't mean I don't support your right to have it.

You, sir, are a scholar and a gentleman!

:thumbsup:

Lone Wolf8634
06-10-2012, 19:42
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights disagrees with the practice of barring Atheists from office based on their religious beliefs. Just because I don't agree with your religious view point, doesn't mean I don't support your right to have it.

So, if it is an accurate statement that these states bar Atheists from office than it needs to be challeged in the Supreme Court, beause no one should be disinfranchized for their religious beliefs. The State has no business denying a person their individual liberties based on a religious view point.

See? We don't disagree on everything!!!:thumbsup:

Cavalry Doc
06-10-2012, 19:44
Atheists don't have Religious Beliefs.

Not according to the courts. Not according to an unemotional evaluation either.

But that's going to get us way off topic.

Yes, the USA is coocoo.

All you need as evidence is our love of Iced tea.

We make it hot to make the tea, then add sugar to make it sweet. Then we cool it down to make it cold, and add lemon to make it sour.

It's simple to see.

Lone Wolf8634
06-10-2012, 19:58
Not according to the courts. Not according to an unemotional evaluation either.

But that's going to get us way off topic.

Yes, the USA is coocoo.

All you need as evidence is our love of Iced tea.

We make it hot to make the tea, then add sugar to make it sweet. Then we cool it down to make it cold, and add lemon to make it sour.

It's simple to see.

Must be a southern thing.

Up here we make sun tea.

Add sugar to taste.

I hate lemons.:tongueout:

Cavalry Doc
06-10-2012, 20:22
Must be a southern thing.

Up here we make sun tea.

Add sugar to taste.

I hate lemons.:tongueout:

Everyone that knows anything about iced tea, Knows that Yankees don't know how to do it, even the honest yankees will admit it. :supergrin::cool::whistling::wavey:

Lone Wolf8634
06-10-2012, 20:31
Everyone that knows anything about iced tea, Knows that Yankees don't know how to do it, even the honest yankees will admit it. :supergrin::cool::whistling::wavey:

:tongueout:

Kingarthurhk
06-10-2012, 20:38
Everyone that knows anything about iced tea, Knows that Yankees don't know how to do it, even the honest yankees will admit it. :supergrin::cool::whistling::wavey:


Sweet Tea around here is diabetes in a cup.

Cavalry Doc
06-10-2012, 20:41
Sweet Tea around here is diabetes in a cup.

Sugar doesn't cause diabetes. Obesity does, and some autoimmune processes, but mostly it's obesity.

steveksux
06-10-2012, 21:12
A state constitution could contain provisions that are unconstitutional as per the U.S. constitution, and the Supreme Court has actually already ruled that provisions such as these are in fact unconstitutional.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins

They're still on the books, but if anyone tried to enforce them, they'd have a tough row to hoe.Not always true. Only the amendments that are incorporated restrict the states. Some states even had an official religion until the First amendment was incorporated. The Constitution prevented the Federal govt from doing it, but not the states.
Now that the First amendment is incorporated, states can't do it either.

Wasn't it Heller that finally ruled the 2nd amendment was incorporated?
Randy

steveksux
06-10-2012, 21:15
So, in essence you are saying it is a 14th Amendment violation, which of course, would provide a nice bridge to a First Amendment violation:

The 14th Amendment"



The parts of interest are italicized.Except for the bit about section 3 that seems irrelevant.

And there's no First Amendment violation whatsoever. Even if we were talking about prohibiting Catholics from holding office, its not establishing a religion, nor is it restricting the practice of a religion. They're free to practice their religion as they see fit, they just can't work for the State govt.

Randy

steveksux
06-10-2012, 21:22
Actually it would be a violation of Article IV, Paragraph 3 of the US Constitution itself.
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.That wasn't what I was thinking of, but yes, it seems to cover that nicely as well.

There could be some argument whether or not state offices (other than legislatures) qualify as part of the "under the United States" group, The plain reading of that would make it quite a stretch to claim some state offices weren't covered, but of course the plain wording doesn't necessarily correspond with the legal interpretation... but the 14th Amendment protections would seem to resolve that.Nothing says something is restricted to being unconstitutional for just one reason, it could violate more than one part....

Randy

Gunhaver
06-11-2012, 00:22
Atheists don't have Religious Beliefs.

True, but that certainly doesn't mean that they're afforded no protection. If a constitutional amendment stated no discrimination based on number of fingers or toes you wouldn't try to make the case that it didn't apply to people with no hands or feet.

Cavalry Doc
06-11-2012, 05:43
True, but that certainly doesn't mean that they're afforded no protection. If a constitutional amendment stated no discrimination based on number of fingers or toes you wouldn't try to make the case that it didn't apply to people with no hands or feet.

That's not the way the court explained it.

http://www.wnd.com/2005/08/31895/


Looks like it is a very controversial ruling though.

Guss
06-11-2012, 06:46
That's not the way the court explained it.

http://www.wnd.com/2005/08/31895/


Looks like it is a very controversial ruling though.
They don't give the details, but I think it is reasonable to assume that the facility was allowing others to form groups. To disallow a comparable group for atheists would mean that the government was pushing religion over another way of life.

In general, for legal purposes only, you may feel free to consider atheism a religion with respect to the government, and extend the same freedoms to atheists as to theists.

Guss
06-11-2012, 06:48
Incidentally, atheists are working on getting their own chaplains in the military to attend to their needs.

Cavalry Doc
06-11-2012, 07:16
They don't give the details, but I think it is reasonable to assume that the facility was allowing others to form groups. To disallow a comparable group for atheists would mean that the government was pushing religion over another way of life.

In general, for legal purposes only, you may feel free to consider atheism a religion with respect to the government, and extend the same freedoms to atheists as to theists.

Oh, I do believe in personal freedoms and equality.

Gunhaver
06-11-2012, 08:30
That's not the way the court explained it.

http://www.wnd.com/2005/08/31895/


Looks like it is a very controversial ruling though.

The court was simply ruling in favor of an inmate's right to hold a meeting of like minded inmates. Funny though, that the theists call atheism a religion when it suits their needs and then it's not when a ruling goes in the atheists favor. Yet another point they can't agree on. Guess like everything else it's up for "interpretation".

void *
06-11-2012, 10:08
That's not the way the court explained it.

http://www.wnd.com/2005/08/31895/


Looks like it is a very controversial ruling though.

If that prisoner had called himself agnostic, as you define it, and wanted to create a group for agnostics, what do you think the odds are that the court would have treated agnosticism as his religion, for purposes of the Establishment Clause?

Roering
06-11-2012, 10:10
http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/533334_10150878917602507_338804885_n.jpg

It's the south. What would you expect?

Cavalry Doc
06-11-2012, 10:55
If that prisoner had called himself agnostic, as you define it, and wanted to create a group for agnostics, what do you think the odds are that the court would have treated agnosticism as his religion, for purposes of the Establishment Clause?

Sure, why not.

Gunhaver
06-11-2012, 11:08
Sure, why not.

And what if the prisoner had referred to himself as specifically not an atheist or agnostic, because some people considered them to be a religion, and his group was intended for people that were completely free of religion and the meetings were to that end. Wouldn't they have still allowed the meetings based on their legal inability to define valid religion?

juggy4711
06-11-2012, 20:39
You, sir, are a scholar and a gentleman!

:thumbsup:

King can be a gentleman but let's not get carried away. :whistling:

Not according to the courts. Not according to an unemotional evaluation either.

Ugh... :deadhorse: