• 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
DiAnna said:
Do you honestly believe that the constitution only protects people who believe in god? Seriously?
Click to expand...

you are correct it certainly does not if we are referring to AA/EEO (affirmative action and equal employment opportunity )
 
DiAnna said:
Do you honestly believe that the constitution only protects people who believe in god? Seriously?
Click to expand...

When it comes to the 1st Amendment, yes. It only mentions religion with atheism not being a religion unless court cases or laws classify it as one.

I do think it should be unconstitutional to deny someone, who is an atheist, from public office due to their beliefs. I think our interpretation of the 1st Amendment needs to be changed or the Amendment altered. However, by the current wording I don't see it as extending to philosophies or non-religious beliefs. The protection just isn't there. Do I want it to be there? Yes. Do I think it's there based on the wording and state precedence? No. If it is there I would love for these laws to be brought to court and struck down. No one should be legally discriminated against based on their beliefs.
 
Last edited:
It is constitutional because the language of the 1st amendment only regulates congress /the fed govt establishing an official religion. It does not regulate the states in any way whatsoever.
 
Calvincoolidge said:
It is constitutional because the language of the 1st amendment only regulates congress /the fed govt establishing an official religion. It does not regulate the states in any way whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Are you not aware that the first amendment has been incorporated against the states?
 
The much abused Establishment Clause was intended to bind a single Entity, that being the United States Congress. Wider interpretations have been based in imaginary language.

At the time of the adoption of the First Amendment, several States had official religions and similar tests for office. It was considered beyond the purview of the Constitution to address such l issues.

Whether these laws are wise or not should be entirely up to the residents of the States in question and their state constitutions.

Besides, Atheists can just lie about it. Are they afraid that to do so would be a sin?
 
Have you even read the first ammendment? Two parts deal with religion....first is the establishment clause, which forbids establishing a religion (and requiring a specific religious belief is establishing a religion) and the second part require free exercise. Required oaths or statements of belief are not free exercise, but required.

By your argument, it would be legal to make church attendance mandatory, as long as people could go to whatever church they want. Do you really believe that?
 
Atheists cant be freemasons either.

But i agree that you shouldnt have to believe in god to hold office.
 

Well exactly. But my problem is that there is no point in wasting time till this becomes an issue. I suppose if some atheists wants to take this to court...they can. But why bother with something that is going to be whited out the day someone runs.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
You mean the civil war? The war that virtually ended states rights?
Click to expand...
But, but, but, the Civil War was about slavery!! Nothing else!! The Anti-Federalist papers were just someone's doodles.

Gotta love revisionist history. I would wager that slavery wasn't even a top 3 concern during that time period. Sure, it probably was to the slaves, which is a no brainer. But to politicians, I'd say it probably wasn't. A good way to think of it is this. Nowadays, politicians don't even care about the poor of America. So if they don't care about actual voting citizens that are struggling financially now, do we really think they cared about a people that weren't even citizens and meant essentially nothing to their re-election efforts? I don't.

This isn't to say that slavery wasn't wrong. It most definitely was. However, as it has been said before, I believe Lincoln used slavery as divisive issue that would put the Union in a positive light and the Confederacy in an "evil" light. Much like our current POTUS has done with Dems and the GOP (The dude thinks he is Lincoln after all). I don't believe Pres Lincoln really gave a crap about blacks much like I don't believe Pres Obama really gives a crap about illegal immigrants. They both just use them as issues that they know the other side is defensive about and will come across as callous and cold about. To be clear, the difference in this is that at least Pres Lincoln was in the right, even if his motives weren't pure. Pres Obama isn't in the right, per se. There are many ways we can tackle immigration that are humane and fair. But that's another thread.
 

Right,Lincolns stated goal at the beginning of the war was "to preserve the union". Nothing at all about slavery.
 
Calvincoolidge said:
It is constitutional because the language of the 1st amendment only regulates congress /the fed govt establishing an official religion. It does not regulate the states in any way whatsoever.
Click to expand...

So, Utah could adopt Mormonism as t he official state religion and give Mormons special privileges.

Really?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Right,Lincolns stated goal at the beginning of the war was "to preserve the union". Nothing at all about slavery.
Click to expand...

And, of course, the Emancipation Proclamation had nothing to do with it. It was just another executive order.
 

Do you have any proof that any of these states have used these laws lately? There are many stupid rules on many states but are they really used? I wonder. P.S. I am an atheist.
 
Dittohead not! said:
And, of course, the Emancipation Proclamation had nothing to do with it. It was just another executive order.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong here and I should Google it before I post this but I will throw caution to the wind. I believe that was well after the war started and the north was going squishy. He did that to prop up support .
 
sawyerloggingon said:
I could be wrong here and I should Google it before I post this but I will throw caution to the wind. I believe that was well after the war started and the north was going squishy. He did that to prop up support .
Click to expand...

Seems you're right:


Emancipation proclamation:


So, slavery was one of several issues. This is interesting, too:




We heard of individuals threatening to leave the country if Obama was elected, but never of whole states leaving the union because they didn't like the president. Seems Lincoln was quite the controversial figure.
 
Dittohead not! said:
And, of course, the Emancipation Proclamation had nothing to do with it. It was just another executive order.
Click to expand...
I believe it was an example of political grandstanding. If you've ever read some of the transcripts of debates back then (Im sure you have knowing you), then you know that politicians were just as capable of grandstanding then as they are now. As I said before, Lincoln was in the right with the position he took. No doubt about it. I'm just saying that I don't believe it meant as much to him or the Union as it's been portrayed.
 

So, maybe politicians haven't changed all that much since Lincoln's time, have they? Maybe they've been the same since Og won the office of leader of the caves.
 
Tucker Case said:
I answered the poll with: I'm against it, it's bigotry, it's discrimination.

It's not necessarily disgusting, because it might be ignorance. Ignorance is only "disgusting" when it's willful.
.
Click to expand...

I included "its disgusting" because even if it is ignorance, I find it disgusting that this ignorance persists, willful or not.

edit: dammit, this is a zombie thread coming back from the dead.
 
Last edited:

1.) im fine with that
2.) well thats what the OP says it says this "I’d love to see someone try to enforce this so it can be defeated and destroyed like it should"
 
Dittohead not! said:
So, maybe politicians haven't changed all that much since Lincoln's time, have they? Maybe they've been the same since Og won the office of leader of the caves.
Click to expand...

Og probably accused Ug of being a racist...
 
Hmm...I chose "I'm against it", "It's bigotry", and "It's discrimination".

I don't know if it's actually unconstitutional, and I'm not sure if it's disgusting or not - depends on the intent behind the passage of said law.


That said, I think those laws should be changed.
 

Are these actually being enforced?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…