• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Burden of Proof

Should the acknowledgment of a God be required of politicians, in schools, et cetera?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No; in fact, a denial of the existence of God is in order.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other (please specify)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    7
Joined
Jan 1, 2006
Messages
109
Reaction score
0
Location
In front of my computer.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Having read a number of old threads on atheism's alleged status as a religion, the chipping away by the ACLU at America's "Christian heritage," etc., I wanted to take a poll.

Does the burden of proof fall on those who believe in God, or those who do not necessarily? Should it be assumed in all public matters that there is a God, should the question not be addressed, or should it be assumed that there is no God?

Note that when I say God I do not mean Christian God. I am speaking of the sort of God which, IIRC, you apparently have to acknowledge to hold office in Texas. The relevant clause from the state constitution:

"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

Essentially what I am asking is whether this sort of test should be allowed, simply eliminated, or replaced with a clause demanding disavowal of religion.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The government should remain neutral on religious issues. That clause from the Texas Constitution, obviously, should be eliminated. And the burden of proof falls on those believing in the existence of God.
 

Stace

Boobie Jubilee
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
7,255
Reaction score
364
Location
Clarksville, TN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Separation of church and state is my best friend.

Believe in any sort of god you want....just don't expect me to believe in, or acknowledge, the same one.

That Texas constitution thing is crap. Never should have been put there in the first place. You don't have to believe in a "Supreme Being" to do the job.
 

Vandeervecken

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
744
Reaction score
1
Location
Midland MI USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Te government, and its agents when acting in official capacity should take no position on religion pro-or con for any belief system, period.

The clause in the Texas Constitution clearly violates the US Constitution's Article 6 Clause 4 as well as the 14th and 1st amendments.
 
Top Bottom