RESOLVED: Atheist Airman Allowed To Modify Oath

[Tekania]

A terrible Kevin Sorbo movie and an inherently un-Christian statement are not clapworthy arguments.

#Alsothisisnttwitter #Thatisnotdeadwhichcaneternallie #Yahwehisnotgoodenoughformetoworship #Pagansandathiestsfollowchriststeachingsbetterthanyouanactualchristiandoes

And how is that "un-Christian"?

I'm not sure if that particularly is or not... however I can unequivocally state that mandating one swear an oath to God is without any doubt or question un-Christian...... as that is mandating something which is specifically in opposition to Christ's teachings. Really no way around it. Your attempt of support for forced invocation is proof of your lack of faith. A Christian would not command someone to violate the teachings of Christ as you would do.

[New Rendanska]

I disagree, considering there's like seven US states where atheists/agnostics are not allowed to run for a government position.

What are these states? That sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Unless you're saying that the religious voters won't elect them.

Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1:
No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.

Maryland, Article 37:
That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.

Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8
The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.

Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2:
No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

Texas, Article 1, Section 4:
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.
There you go.
Source:
http://americanhumanist.org/HNN/details ... it-godless

[Laerod]

Considering this is resolved, I daresay we do have separation of church and state.

I disagree, considering there's like seven US states where atheists/agnostics are not allowed to run for a government position.

Those laws haven't been enforced since the ones in South Carolina got struck down for being unconstitutional.

[Corrian]

Looks like another example of us not really being "Separation of Church and State" like we repeatedly say we are when we're clearly not on a regular basis. Good to see this resolved.

Considering this is resolved, I daresay we do have separation of church and state.

Maybe to some extent, anyway. I think it really depends the case.

[New Rendanska]

Considering this is resolved, I daresay we do have separation of church and state.

Maybe to some extent, anyway. I think it really depends the case.

It should not depend at all. This is why people argue about the Separation of Church and state not being a thing.

[Nord Amour]

Looks like another example of us not really being "Separation of Church and State" like we repeatedly say we are when we're clearly not on a regular basis. Good to see this resolved.

I agree. At least this whole situation was resolved peacefully. No need for Bush to remind everyone that "atheists should not be considered citizens, nor as patriots."

What disturbs me is that this stirred the controversy that it did. A grown man wants to serve his country, but doesn't want to mention an overused cultural archetype in some silly oath? What's the problem?

[New Rendanska]

Looks like another example of us not really being "Separation of Church and State" like we repeatedly say we are when we're clearly not on a regular basis. Good to see this resolved.

I agree. At least this whole situation was resolved peacefully. No need for Bush to remind everyone that "atheists should not be considered citizens, nor as patriots."

What disturbs me is that this stirred the controversy that it did. A grown man wants to serve his country, but doesn't want to mention an overused cultural archetype in some silly oath? What's the problem?

He actually already served, and he was trying to re-enlist.

[Tekania]

What are these states? That sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Unless you're saying that the religious voters won't elect them.

Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1:
No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.

Maryland, Article 37:
That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.

Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8
The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.

Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2:
No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

Texas, Article 1, Section 4:
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.
There you go.
Source:
http://americanhumanist.org/HNN/details ... it-godless

Yes, some states do have unenforceable and illegal provisions in their Constitution and laws. It happens. While all those do exist still in text, they were overturned in Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) when SCOTUS invoked Constitutional supremacy over them. Constitutional restriction is against ANY religious test... not most... not a lot... ANY..... provisions to limit it to merely beleif in God was garbage... while it exists in text still at state levels.... it's not enforceable and cannot be invoked.

[New Rendanska]

Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1:
No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.

Maryland, Article 37:
That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.

Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8
The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.

Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2:
No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

Texas, Article 1, Section 4:
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.
There you go.
Source:
http://americanhumanist.org/HNN/details ... it-godless

Yes, some states do have unenforceable and illegal provisions in their Constitution and laws. It happens.

Then they should remove said laws.

[Neo Rome Republic]

WHOO!!!! I can only imagine the butthurt Fundies are feeling right now.

[Norstal]

What are these states? That sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Unless you're saying that the religious voters won't elect them.

Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1:
No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.

Maryland, Article 37:
That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.

Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8
The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.

Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2:
No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

Texas, Article 1, Section 4:
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.
There you go.
Source:
http://americanhumanist.org/HNN/details ... it-godless

Do you know if they are enforced? Cecil Bothwell for example became a councilman regardless of the law. Some states have laws that prohibits sodomy, but state authorities will violate federal laws if they try to enforce it. This is like the opposite of how states like Washington allows marijuana, but the federal authorities cannot act against it even if it is illegal under federal law.

Obviously we should remove these laws. Let me rephrase then, I daresay the federal government have the separation of church and state.

[CTALNH]

I think this guy is a dick for attempting to challenge the US over something so pointless. He's trying to get the Supreme Court to recognize the obvious violation, and have them take the word "God" out of it. It's a remnant of our ultra-patriotic past, get over it. It's not like they're attempting to convert you.

They are!

[Dewhurst-Narculis]

So you'd be fine if the government decided Rastafarianism was in and changed it to "So help me, flying spaghetti monster"?

no here is why,since this guy is an atheist,he believes that no matter what he does he won't have reprocutions when he dies,so it does not matter to him,but if you tell a christian "sware your undying loyality to buddha" he will believe his god will punish him

We aren't concerned about that we are more concerned about the integrity of our belief and our application to our lives in a world that is shared by atheists and theists.

[Laerod]

Do you know if they are enforced?

Not since the South Carolina one got it's knuckles rapped.

[New Rendanska]

Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1:
No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.

Maryland, Article 37:
That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.

Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8
The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.

Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2:
No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

Texas, Article 1, Section 4:
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.
There you go.
Source:
http://americanhumanist.org/HNN/details ... it-godless

Do you know if they are enforced? Cecil Bothwell for example became a councilman regardless of the law. Some states have laws that prohibits sodomy, but state authorities will violate federal laws if they try to enforce it. This is like the opposite of how states like Washington allows marijuana, but the federal authorities cannot act against it even if it is illegal under federal law.

Obviously we should remove these laws. Let me rephrase then, I daresay the federal government have the separation of church and state.

Honestly, I don't know, I don't even live in the US so I couldn't try even if I was old enough/wanted to, but I doubt a non Christian could hold office in those states because they wouldn't get votes.

[Dyakovo]

Looks like another example of us not really being "Separation of Church and State" like we repeatedly say we are when we're clearly not on a regular basis. Good to see this resolved.

I agree. At least this whole situation was resolved peacefully. No need for Bush to remind everyone that "atheists should not be considered citizens, nor as patriots."

What disturbs me is that this stirred the controversy that it did. A grown man wants to serve his country, but doesn't want to mention an overused cultural archetype in some silly oath? What's the problem?

Well, obviously, if they can't force everyone to acknowledge their "God" it means that Christians are persecuted.
*nods*

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1:
No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.

Maryland, Article 37:
That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.

Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8
The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.

Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2:
No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

Texas, Article 1, Section 4:
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.
There you go.
Source:
http://americanhumanist.org/HNN/details ... it-godless

Do you know if they are enforced? Cecil Bothwell for example became a councilman regardless of the law. Some states have laws that prohibits sodomy, but state authorities will violate federal laws if they try to enforce it. This is like the opposite of how states like Washington allows marijuana, but the federal authorities cannot act against it even if it is illegal under federal law.

Obviously we should remove these laws. Let me rephrase then, I daresay the federal government have the separation of church and state.

Well for Texas I can speak and this is not enforced in any way.

Then again the Texas constitution has not been revised and murked through since its conception and is long as shit because of it.

I think that nowadays it'd take an entire room full of paper if you tried to print the Texas Constitution. So nobody really bothers with certain amendments to it, because they're outdated.

[Tekania]

Yes, some states do have unenforceable and illegal provisions in their Constitution and laws. It happens.

Then they should remove said laws.

By legal effect they already have been, by the SCOTUS ruling in Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), which established the precedent we already knew that a Federal Constitutional restriction is supreme over any state law or state constitution, and that the constitutional restriction at both state and federal level in Article VI is against ANY religious test.... not most.... not a lot..... but any.... which would include by implication as well, a belief in a diety is thus supreme over the state attempts to allow even one.

[New Rendanska]

Do you know if they are enforced? Cecil Bothwell for example became a councilman regardless of the law. Some states have laws that prohibits sodomy, but state authorities will violate federal laws if they try to enforce it. This is like the opposite of how states like Washington allows marijuana, but the federal authorities cannot act against it even if it is illegal under federal law.

Obviously we should remove these laws. Let me rephrase then, I daresay the federal government have the separation of church and state.

Well for Texas I can speak and this is not enforced in any way.

Then again the Texas constitution has not been revised and murked through since its conception and is long as shit because of it.

I think that nowadays it'd take an entire room full of paper if you tried to print the Texas Constitution. So nobody really bothers with certain amendments to it, because they're outdated.

Fair enough then.

[Norstal]

Honestly, I don't know, I don't even live in the US so I couldn't try even if I was old enough/wanted to, but I doubt a non Christian could hold office in those states because they wouldn't get votes.

Cecil Bothwell was able to hold the office of councilman though, even when his critics used the law listed against him.

[New Rendanska]

At the end of the day, I feel like this story was blown way out of proportion by the media, they need to stop that, considering the real problems in the USA.

[The Alma Mater]

Do you know if they are enforced? Cecil Bothwell for example became a councilman regardless of the law. Some states have laws that prohibits sodomy, but state authorities will violate federal laws if they try to enforce it. This is like the opposite of how states like Washington allows marijuana, but the federal authorities cannot act against it even if it is illegal under federal law.

Obviously we should remove these laws. Let me rephrase then, I daresay the federal government have the separation of church and state.

Honestly, I don't know, I don't even live in the US so I couldn't try even if I was old enough/wanted to, but I doubt a non Christian could hold office in those states because they wouldn't get votes.

True that. Although this topic was filled to the brim with christians saying "the man should just say things he did not mean - no big deal" or "just suck it up for the money" - the atheists are still the untrustworthy dishonest ones

[Laerod]

At the end of the day, I feel like this story was blown way out of proportion by the media, they need to stop that, considering the real problems in the USA.

What.

[New Rendanska]

At the end of the day, I feel like this story was blown way out of proportion by the media, they need to stop that, considering the real problems in the USA.

What.

Can you elaborate a bit on that point please?

[Dewhurst-Narculis]

Honestly, I don't know, I don't even live in the US so I couldn't try even if I was old enough/wanted to, but I doubt a non Christian could hold office in those states because they wouldn't get votes.

True that. Although this topic was filled to the brim with christians saying "the man should just say things he did not mean - no big deal" or "just suck it up for the money" - the atheists are still the untrustworthy dishonest ones

Umm what?