Atheist = Can't Hold Public Office

[D_Bob_Crotchitch]

:wtf:

That is complete BULLSHIT as well as spits in the face of our constitution which guarantees us FREEDOM OF RELIGION which also says we have FREEDOM FROM RELIGION!

/QUOTE]

First of all he won't have to fight it in court. The state legislature won't enforce it.
Secondly, The Constitution of the United States does not guarantee freedom from religion. Where did you get that bull crap?

 

[masked_marauder]

:wtf:

That is complete BULLSHIT as well as spits in the face of our constitution which guarantees us FREEDOM OF RELIGION which also says we have FREEDOM FROM RELIGION!

/QUOTE]

First of all he won't have to fight it in court. The state legislature won't enforce it.
Secondly, The Constitution of the United States does not guarantee freedom from religion. Where did you get that bull crap?

The First Amendment to the United State Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It's the freedom to practice as you please, including not practicing at all. Therefore, you are free to not have another denomination/religion forced upon you.

 

[D_Bob_Crotchitch]

Being free to not have another denomination forced upon you doesn't mean you are free from being exposed their practicing their beliefs where you can see them. It doesn't mean they don't have the right to speak about them in public. Being forced to practice a specific religion was the work of the church of England. It is not the same as people of any religious faith speaking about their beliefs. Freedom from religion has been interpreted to mean that people don't even have the right to speak in public about their beliefs if you don't agree with them. It's all a bunch of hog wash. If people have to listen to all the drivel out there about the new this or that, that is not freedom from religion either.

 

[houtx48]

it's one of those laws that would never hold up in court....... not worth the paper it's written on.

 

[Calboner]

Not in the constitution. Necessary yes, but as I say till my throat is hoarse, the "establishment" of religion as defined when the constitution was written is the requirement that citizens pay taxes to it. Little to nothing more. The colonists simply didn't want to pay taxes to the church of England. Don't forget the Revolution was spawned almost purely on taxation issues.

Separation of Church and State exists because it's a tradition that we honor, with no explicit legal grounding, existing on precedent based on a history of interpreting the Establishment Clause. How very Catholic of us...

The First Amendment to the United State Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It's the freedom to practice as you please, including not practicing at all. Therefore, you are free to not have another denomination/religion forced upon you.

If you guys mean to be talking about the Asheville case, you are all barking up the wrong tree. The establishment clause is not the issue. As Kundalinikat pointed out, the part of the NC state constitution in question is directly contrary to article 6 of the US constitution (emphasis added):

It's not just federal court rulings that have decided there should be no religious test for public office. It's right there unambiguously in the Constitution, Article 6, Section 3.

"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."

It's great because in the same sentence we're told that not only is there no religious test, but also that members of the legislative, executive and judicial offices of the states have to affirm the Constitution. Take that, you, pro-religious-test, people, in state offices...

No religious test clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[masked_marauder]

If you guys mean to be talking about the Asheville case, you are all barking up the wrong tree. The establishment clause is not the issue. As Kundalinikat pointed out, the part of the NC state constitution in question is directly contrary to article 6 of the US constitution (emphasis added):

I think they go hand-in-hand, Cal. Article 6, Section 3 seems to grow out of the the 1st Amendment, clarifying another instance in which the broad meaning of this amendment might be overlooked by strict constructionists.

But you're right: in this case, Article 6, Section 3 would be the precedent to use to strike down said constitutional law in North Carolina.

 

[Calboner]

I think they go hand-in-hand, Cal. Article 6, Section 3 seems to grow out of the the 1st Amendment

Wrong way around. The amendments were added to the Constitution.

 

[masked_marauder]

Wrong way around. The amendments were added to the Constitution.

...and the Constitution wouldn't have been signed without assurances to some southern colonies (especially North Carolina) that the Bill of Rights be added immediately to amend the Constitution and protect individual rights in a more specific manner. The BOR was added only two years after all colonies had ratified the Constitution proper. These two aspects grew up together, so to speak.

 

[Qua]

If you guys mean to be talking about the Asheville case, you are all barking up the wrong tree. The establishment clause is not the issue. As Kundalinikat pointed out, the part of the NC state constitution in question is directly contrary to article 6 of the US constitution (emphasis added):

I'm vehemently opposed to a religious test clause, don't worry. I just like to spout polemic about those who would see the public display of personal religious belief restricted (in the name of establishment) to the point where it impedes on the free exercise thereof.

And that article still only applies to Federal officials. The NC clause in question has to do with state representatives, am I correct? The Supreme Court cited the 1st and 14th Amendments, and never ruled on the applicability of Article VI, finding it unnecessary

 

[Calboner]

And that article still only applies to Federal officials. The NC clause in question has to do with state representatives, am I correct? The Supreme Court cited the 1st and 14th Amendments, and never ruled on the applicability of Article VI, finding it unnecessary

I'm no constitutional scholar, but to me the suggestion that the phrase "any office or public trust under the United States" means only federal offices sounds very implausible. In any case, the fourteenth amendment would certainly extend it to all public offices.

 

[masked_marauder]

I'm vehemently opposed to a religious test clause, don't worry. I just like to spout polemic about those who would see the public display of personal religious belief restricted (in the name of establishment) to the point where it impedes on the free exercise thereof.

And that article still only applies to Federal officials. The NC clause in question has to do with state representatives, am I correct?

Yeah, I agree that those who would impede freedom of practice are just as wrong as those who would impose a religious test on our elected officials.

However, you are incorrect in your assessment of the article. Article 6, Section 3 also refers to those elected as members of state legislatures, going as far as stating that members of these legislatures "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution". Therefore, they must follow the Constitution, including the part that says they cannot support a religious test for elected officials, and thus cannot support an amendment to a state constitution that requires just that. Even though Cecil Bothwell is not a state legislator, his state legislators cannot uphold their oaths to the US Constitution while simultaneously asking all elected officials in North Carolina to pass a religious test.

 

[slurper_la]

...In the Christmas season, for example, there is no reason in hell why a person should have to take down a nativity scene on his own property, yet it has been done

I recall no case where anyone was forced to remove a religious display from private property. Can you cite any examples of this?