Just curious about every ones thoughts on this....
We have a provision in our constitution which stated that there can not be any religious tests for public office... Yet fox news and others typically and commonly ask all presidential candidates about their religion.
Is this not a violation of our constitution? You know if someone says they don't believe in fairy tales that their political career is dead.
Just curious about your opinion...
Quote from: GreatLife on November 15, 2015, 04:57:26 PM
Is this not a violation of our constitution? You know if someone says they don't believe in fairy tales that their political career is dead.
I think at that point, it would be dead not because of their atheism but because they're making fun of other people's religions, and no one likes a dick.
Answering questions to the media isn't a required test, and any answer a candidate gives isn't going to deprive them of their rights. Also, when Kennedy ran in 1960, lots of people thought no one would vote for a Catholic.
And though Christianity still reigns supreme and a depressing amount of the populace wants us to be a "Christian nation," it hasn't stopped voters from electing 28 Jews, 2 Buddhists, 2 Muslims, and a Hindu to the current Congress. Also interesting to note, the current Congress has 10 members who are unaffiliated with a religion, agnostic, or refused to answer questions relating to their religion. I'm willing to bet at least
ONE of those people is an atheist and was able to get elected.
Well for broad opinion sake ... I would want at least some agnostics and atheists in Congress. They can't do worse than the theists ;-(
The US Constitution limits what the government can do. It doesn't limit what political parties, reporters or individual citizens can do. If I ran for office, and was asked the question, I would tell them it was none of their business. In fact, in polite society, you aren't supposed to get folks riled up by talking about religion, sex or politics in mixed company. As a candidate who wouldn't talk politics in public, I would be a breath of fresh air as opposed to all the halitosis out there ;-)
Quote from: TomFoolery on November 15, 2015, 05:13:17 PM
I think at that point, it would be dead not because of their atheism but because they're making fun of other people's religions, and no one likes a dick.
So change my comment to a politically correct one by your definition. I don't think the form of the negative reply matters on this question.
Quote
Answering questions to the media isn't a required test, and any answer a candidate gives isn't going to deprive them of their rights. Also, when Kennedy ran in 1960, lots of people thought no one would vote for a Catholic.
I don't honestly know the accepted definition of required test is.
And I believe that it would be a civil suit, not criminal. That distinction lowers the legal bar for evidentiary purposes... Let's change the game slightly and say that I sued Fix News for violation or my constitutional rights. Do I have a case then?
Quote
And though Christianity still reigns supreme and a depressing amount of the populace wants us to be a "Christian nation," it hasn't stopped voters from electing 28 Jews, 2 Buddhists, 2 Muslims, and a Hindu to the current Congress. Also interesting to note, the current Congress has 10 members who are unaffiliated with a religion, agnostic, or refused to answer questions relating to their religion. I'm willing to bet at least ONE of those people is an atheist and was able to get elected.
Awe.... So you agree that even for relatively minor offices, no one is willing to admit the truth. Sounds like a problem to me.
Quote from: GreatLife on November 15, 2015, 04:57:26 PM
Just curious about every ones thoughts on this....
We have a provision in our constitution which stated that there can not be any religious tests for public office... Yet fox news and others typically and commonly ask all presidential candidates about their religion.
Is this not a violation of our constitution? You know if someone says they don't believe in fairy tales that their political career is dead.
Just curious about your opinion...
Fox news asking a question of a candidate is not a test for public office. Saying something to the media which causes fewer people to vote for you is not at all the same thing as passing a law which prevents you from holding office based on your religion.
That being said, there are still places where you cannot legally hold office if you are atheist. So if you really want to sue over it, you don't need Fox news to do it.
http://www.alternet.org/belief/7-states-where-atheists-cant-legally-run-office (http://www.alternet.org/belief/7-states-where-atheists-cant-legally-run-office)
Quote from: Baruch on November 15, 2015, 06:21:38 PM
Well for broad opinion sake ... I would want at least some agnostics and atheists in Congress. They can't do worse than the theists ;-(
I am in total agreement on these points. A more secular government would help.
Quote
The US Constitution limits what the government can do. It doesn't limit what political parties, reporters or individual citizens can do.
That would be a novel interpretation of the US Constitution...
Quote from: Johan on November 15, 2015, 07:50:39 PM
That being said, there are still places where you cannot legally hold office if you are atheist. So if you really want to sue over it, you don't need Fox news to do it.
http://www.alternet.org/belief/7-states-where-atheists-cant-legally-run-office (http://www.alternet.org/belief/7-states-where-atheists-cant-legally-run-office)
Wow, thanks for that link. I am surprised. Both that it is still true... And that Maryland would be on the list.
Quote from: Johan on November 15, 2015, 07:50:39 PM
Fox news asking a question of a candidate is not a test for public office. Saying something to the media which causes fewer people to vote for you is not at all the same thing as passing a law which prevents you from holding office based on your religion.
That being said, there are still places where you cannot legally hold office if you are atheist. So if you really want to sue over it, you don't need Fox news to do it.
http://www.alternet.org/belief/7-states-where-atheists-cant-legally-run-office (http://www.alternet.org/belief/7-states-where-atheists-cant-legally-run-office)
Not quite , the laws are still on the books, buy they have no legal standing.
Quote from: GreatLife on November 15, 2015, 07:46:17 PM
So change my comment to a politically correct one by your definition. I don't think the form of the negative reply matters on this question.
I don't honestly know the accepted definition of required test is.
And I believe that it would be a civil suit, not criminal. That distinction lowers the legal bar for evidentiary purposes... Let's change the game slightly and say that I sued Fix News for violation or my constitutional rights. Do I have a case then?
What about FOX New's first amendment right to freedom of the press?
You have the right to practice freedom of religion under the same amendment, and you have the right to be free from government intrusion in your life and basic protection for having those beliefs. But the court of public opinion is different than legal rights. I have the right to be an atheist, and someone else has the right to think I'm a bad person and not vote for me because of it.
GreatLife ... "That would be a novel interpretation of the US Constitution..." ... the original interpretation. It has been much abused since then, allowing all sorts of novel judicial legislation by both political parties. For example, as pointed out in the recent Lincoln movie ... the Emancipation Proclamation only had legal standing during war time, and only in territory occupied by Union armies ... it had no other impact. It was the subsequent amendments to the Constitution that brought about peacetime freedom and citizenship for former slaves. But it was still fought judicially by Southern states, after Reconstruction (Union army occupation ended in 1875) .. by the institution of Jim Crow laws that were only valid within states and smaller jurisdictions. The constitutional amendments were de jure in theory, but not de facto in many locations.
Not saying I have ever supported Jim Crow laws ... but the question of suppression of state and local law by Federal law, is was an open question, at least in practice. That is why Federalized National Guard units were required to implement the Civil Rights revolution. Had the National Guard units refused ... the Civil War would have resumed. Under the law at that time, National Guard units in peacetime, reported to state governors, not to the President.
The US Constitution has been massively ignored, whenever it has suited factions, long before the Korean War ... which was "undeclared by Congress", and long after. Often this is done on the sly by casuist judicial reasoning.
Quote from: GreatLife on November 15, 2015, 07:46:17 PM
Let's change the game slightly and say that I sued Fix News for violation or my constitutional rights. Do I have a case then?
Not a case you could win. It's a highly important question to many people, even if it's important for stupid reasons. But asking the question is not against a law, and there is no legal requirement that you must answer it.
Lots of good points posted. Let me think for a while and I will respond again.
Thanks.
Sorry but on this one I have to say no. There is no constitution violation in the question of one's religious beliefs or non beliefs. That is freedom of speech. The violation of constitutional rights is when atheists are denied the ability to run for office. That's what one should be suing for. But I doubt you'd win. Even if an atheist ran for office no religious person would vote for them so very little point in advertising that little fact.
Quote from: Termin on November 15, 2015, 09:00:25 PM
Not quite , the laws are still on the books, buy they have no legal standing.
Just curious what you mean by this?
Quote from: TomFoolery on November 15, 2015, 09:18:53 PM
What about FOX New's first amendment right to freedom of the press?
You have the right to practice freedom of religion under the same amendment, and you have the right to be free from government intrusion in your life and basic protection for having those beliefs. But the court of public opinion is different than legal rights. I have the right to be an atheist, and someone else has the right to think I'm a bad person and not vote for me because of it.
All good points. I agree on every one of them.
Basically, only the government, at any level, can violate my constitutional right in this instance. And they can only do that by denying me an opportunity to hold office.
Or some such...
Quote from: doorknob on November 16, 2015, 09:21:30 AM
Sorry but on this one I have to say no. There is no constitution violation in the question of one's religious beliefs or non beliefs. That is freedom of speech. The violation of constitutional rights is when atheists are denied the ability to run for office. That's what one should be suing for. But I doubt you'd win. Even if an atheist ran for office no religious person would vote for them so very little point in advertising that little fact.
Thanks for the input.
I guess I am just part of a frustrated super-minority.
Quote from: GreatLife on November 17, 2015, 02:20:43 AM
Thanks for the input.
I guess I am just part of a frustrated super-minority.
The minority of secular/agnostic/atheist folks in the US? It is always frustrating to be a minority anything. You run around in the streets warning people, only to realize that the Pods have won (I do this with monetary policy).
People in general, and Americans in particular ... are rather prejudiced and when push comes to shove, are not fair minded. People in general also usually think that their group in general and themselves in particular, are fair minded and un-prejudiced. Catch 22.
Quote from: Baruch on November 17, 2015, 07:04:57 AM
People in general, and Americans in particular ... are rather prejudiced and when push comes to shove, are not fair minded. People in general also usually think that their group in general and themselves in particular, are fair minded and un-prejudiced. Catch 22.
I was 18 in the early 60s, and took a summer job with the US Forest Service. One day, I was doing something in front office of the ranger station, which was manned by a couple of secretaries outfitted with FS uniforms. Someone had called the office reporting that 5 hippies were camping in the woods up near Big Creek. One of the secretaries was quite upset by this, and was asking the Assistant Ranger what they planned to do about it.
He told them there were no rules that forbid camping on Forest Service land. He explained that the only restriction was that no camp could be permanent, and people could only use a site for 10 days. But he added that legally, anyone could move their camp 100 feet down the road after 10 days, and still be in compliance.
The secretary started to get frustrated and said, "Yeah, but people in town are starting to get angry." Keep in mind that the hippies were camping 40 miles out of town, where less than 1% of the population would even know they were there.
The Assistant Ranger replied, "As long as they aren't breaking any laws, we can't do anything about it, to which the secretary countered with the biggest gun left in her verbal arsenal, "Yeah, but they're hippies!" The Assistant kind of shrugged his shoulders and walked back into his office while shaking his head and chuckling to himself.
I was young, and had a limited perspective of adults, so this 40 year old woman from a rural area, who of all things, was representing the US Government, was an eye opening surprise. Nor had I had much introduction to reasoning or logic. But I remember thinking this woman seemed to be driven by a prejudice she did not even realize about herself. It was apparently so ingrained in her psyche that it prevented her from understanding the application of law, or evaluating what she herself was thinking.
Now of course, I realize that this sort of prejudice is anything but unusual. It's inherent in almost any majority.
Quote from: SGOS on November 19, 2015, 07:57:52 AM
Now of course, I realize that this sort of prejudice is anything but unusual. It's inherent in almost any majority.
Quote from: Baruch on November 17, 2015, 07:04:57 AM
It is always frustrating to be a minority anything.
I think it has made me more compassionate. It becomes frustrating (and scary) when the majority stands around and debates about the rights of the corresponding minority. After all, was it not Ben Franklin who said something to the effect that democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner?
Quote from: TomFoolery on November 19, 2015, 08:41:23 AM
democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner?
Good one.
Quote from: GreatLife on November 17, 2015, 02:05:31 AM
Just curious what you mean by this?
Supreme court found them unconstitutional years ago, making those laws which restricted the office unenforceable , however while the supreme court can rule a state law illegal, it cannot repeal a state law. So those laws still exist on the books until the states in question repeal them.
Laws found unconstitutional are not always repealed, either the state doesn't want too, or just doesn't bother too.
Quote from: Termin on November 19, 2015, 10:22:46 PM
Supreme court found them unconstitutional years ago, making those laws which restricted the office unenforceable , however while the supreme court can rule a state law illegal, it cannot repeal a state law. So those laws still exist on the books until the states in question repeal them.
Laws found unconstitutional are not always repealed, either the state doesn't want too, or just doesn't bother too.
Thanks!
Quote from: TomFoolery on November 19, 2015, 08:41:23 AM
I think it has made me more compassionate. It becomes frustrating (and scary) when the majority stands around and debates about the rights of the corresponding minority. After all, was it not Ben Franklin who said something to the effect that democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner?
But a dictator is a lion who doesn't consult the hyena or the impala what is for dinner. So you choose ... lion or wolves. I choose to not choose, I choose to not be a sheep.
i want to be judged by the laws that is civil and modern rather than islamic or christic...
i believe that everyone is equal in front of the laws. not one ateistic lawsuit should be particular for atheist. atheism is not a difference between people. it's just natural right that comes by born.
then why muslims in amerika don't want Ä°slamic lawsuit if atheists have...
Quote from: GreatLife on November 15, 2015, 07:52:24 PM
I am in total agreement on these points. A more secular government would help.
How so?
Which countries have benefited from becoming more secular, and in what ways?
Quote from: Baruch on November 15, 2015, 06:21:38 PM
Well for broad opinion sake ... I would want at least some agnostics and atheists in Congress. They can't do worse than the theists ;-(
The US Constitution limits what the government can do. It doesn't limit what political parties, reporters or individual citizens can do. If I ran for office, and was asked the question, I would tell them it was none of their business. In fact, in polite society, you aren't supposed to get folks riled up by talking about religion, sex or politics in mixed company. As a candidate who wouldn't talk politics in public, I would be a breath of fresh air as opposed to all the halitosis out there ;-)
So what's the point of having a constitution?
Quote from: TopCat on November 27, 2015, 03:06:12 AM
So what's the point of having a constitution?
You want a law that limits the government ... or a law that limits your neighbor? You will get both. Or are you saying, I want the government to be unlimited? Right now the US Constitution is pointless, because it is being ignored ... though this isn't new. The political parties have corrupted it ... aka for them, it says exactly what they want it to say.
In the US constitution ... it origin was a coup de etat by Washington et al, against the Articles of Confederation. Patrick Henry opposed the whole deal, the constitution was developed in secret, while Washington had his soldiers surround the place for security and secrecy. The public face was the arguments/propaganda of the Federalist Papers ... which originally were newspaper articles. The blow back was that in spite of net ratification ... many states never accepted it ... except when it worked to their advantage. The New England states were the first who wanted to secede ... in the 1810s and 1850s. The Southern states wanted to secede in the 1830s and in the 1860s. Calmer heads prevailed the first three times.
Today most Americans are opposed to one or more of the Bill of Rights amendments, though we don't agree on which ones. And probably every other amendment has its detractors. The balance of power system in it, isn't working. The judiciary is political instead of neutral, and the legislature is obfuscatory. A system only works, if the ones participating make it work.
So Canada and England have more flexibility, in that they are only bound by tradition (as is the US). The US needs/wants to act like a Parliamentary democracy ... and so tries to ignore the Constitution. Not that I would trade the American system for the Canadian system ... or the British system. I am anti-monarchist. But the Kennedy family, Bush family, Clinton family and eventually the Obama family ... are closet monarchists.
Quote from: Randy Carson on November 25, 2015, 08:24:00 AM
How so?
Which countries have benefited from becoming more secular, and in what ways?
Why did secularism happen in the US? Each colony had its own "established" church, and there was no way to pick just one, not even the Anglican church. So the civil religion of politics, was made up as a substitute. Though American football might be the most popular secular religion. We would like to see our politicians tackled by some big guy and flattened into pancakes ;-) So it wasn't a deliberate choice, but political necessity. Ironically, President Jefferson thought that the US would rapidly evolve into a secular country ... but freedom of religion actually allowed religion to flourish. With massive immigration, the US has become multicultural ... so we are even less likely to get enthusiastic over one religion over another. Its a cafeteria culture.
Why did secularism happen in England? They fought bloody wars over religion. Religion was always political and established. Freedom of religion came about as part of the political emancipation of Catholics. The emancipated Catholics hated the Anglican church or sought total freedom (Ireland). So English and Irish Catholics remain more conservative, as part of their opposition to the Anglican Church and to London. For the non-Catholic English, religious fervor gradually declined, because of the wars of religion, and because particularly after WW II, England became multicultural as former colonials returned to the homeland. A strong Anglican Church requires a strong monarchy, but QE II wasn't interested in religion ... and they would have had to keep the non-English cultures out.
So blame colonialism, immigration, multiculturalism for the homogenizing of culture to a secular standard. So have people gained by being those three things? Or is the old system, of tribalism (geographic self-limiting) and mono-culturalism better? Whichever way you would answer, you will indirectly support or oppose ISIS.