Not allow Atheists to graduate from HS? GOP says yes!

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Not all of it is. There's a reason no modern country has direct democracy and has some form of a constitution.

Though techichally that is violating the theory of democracy, which is meant to be government ruled by the people. Electing representatives to do it is not rule by the people.

Do you know what representative democracy is?

Clue: it's:
a) a form of democracy.
b) what you just described.

[Divair]

Not all of it is. There's a reason no modern country has direct democracy and has some form of a constitution.

Though techichally that is violating the theory of democracy, which is meant to be government ruled by the people. Electing representatives to do it is not rule by the people.

There is no theory of democracy. No one owns the concept of democracy. There's a reason no one practices direct democracy on a large scale for every single thing.

But if you wish to go into loonieville and decide everything by a majority vote, go ahead. Just get out of every single first world country.

[Cannot think of a name]

It's a good thing most Christians in America are more tolerant than you, then. And that we have this little thing called the Constitution that gives everybody the freedom to worship who they want, what they want, or nothing at all.

It says freedom of religion, not from.

No it doesn't. It says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

[Wisconsin9]

It also says that I have the right to speak freely but not the right not to speak freely. Does this mean I need to be talking every waking second?

What?

By your logic, the fact that the Constitution doesn't explicitly state I have the right to not speak freely means that I must at all times be doing so.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

Though techichally that is violating the theory of democracy, which is meant to be government ruled by the people. Electing representatives to do it is not rule by the people.

Do you know what representative democracy is?

Yes. A system where people elect representatives to run the government on their supposed behalf.

Though techichally that is violating the theory of democracy, which is meant to be government ruled by the people. Electing representatives to do it is not rule by the people.

There is no theory of democracy. No one owns the concept of democracy. There's a reason no one practices direct democracy on a large scale for every single thing.

But if you wish to go into loonieville and decide everything by a majority vote, go ahead. Just get out of every single first world country.

Athens.

Oh yeah, like direct democracy worked so terribly for the Greeks.

[Divair]

Athens.

Oh yeah, like direct democracy worked so terribly for the Greeks.

Yes, it did. Do you see Athens practicing direct democracy now? No? Guess what? It fucking failed.

[Immoren]

Or for certain public offices, surely? It's basically the same in the US.

I forgot those. Woe me.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

What?

By your logic, the fact that the Constitution doesn't explicitly state I have the right to not speak freely means that I must at all times be doing so.

It is a right, not a duty.

It says freedom of religion, not from.

No it doesn't. It says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

And it does NOT say anything about no religion.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Do you know what representative democracy is?

Yes. A system where people elect representatives to run the government on their supposed behalf.

There is no theory of democracy. No one owns the concept of democracy. There's a reason no one practices direct democracy on a large scale for every single thing.

But if you wish to go into loonieville and decide everything by a majority vote, go ahead. Just get out of every single first world country.

Athens.

Oh yeah, like direct democracy worked so terribly for the Greeks.

Direct democracy is fine when there are few people and few 'types' of people. In a large, diverse society, it is not a good thing.

[Wisconsin9]

By your logic, the fact that the Constitution doesn't explicitly state I have the right to not speak freely means that I must at all times be doing so.

It is a right, not a duty.

Then how is it a duty to worship something?

[Tlaceceyaya]

By your logic, the fact that the Constitution doesn't explicitly state I have the right to not speak freely means that I must at all times be doing so.

It is a right, not a duty.

No it doesn't. It says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

And it does NOT say anything about no religion.

Free exercise includes not exercising at all.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

It is a right, not a duty.

Then how is it a duty to worship something?

Because the Constitution of the US mentions no rights for the lack thereof worship.

It is a right, not a duty.


And it does NOT say anything about no religion.

Free exercise includes not exercising at all.

No it does not.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Then how is it a duty to worship something?

Because the Constitution of the US mentions no rights for the lack thereof worship.

Free exercise includes not exercising at all.

No it does not.

So, because you are allowed to hold any political affiliation you want, people who don't give a fuck about politics don't have the right to do so?

Try reading back what you're typing.

[Wisconsin9]

Then how is it a duty to worship something?

Because the Constitution of the US mentions no rights for the lack thereof worship.

And again, it also mentions no rights to hold your tongue with the exception of during a criminal case. So by the exact same logic, every American needs to be saying something every waking second and if they aren't then they're breaking the law.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

Because the Constitution of the US mentions no rights for the lack thereof worship.


No it does not.

So, because you are allowed to hold any political affiliation you want, people who don't give a fuck about politics don't have the right to do so?

Try reading back what you're typing.

No.

[Cannot think of a name]

By your logic, the fact that the Constitution doesn't explicitly state I have the right to not speak freely means that I must at all times be doing so.

It is a right, not a duty.

No it doesn't. It says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

And it does NOT say anything about no religion.

It says 'shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion', what is called the "establishment clause" which, through numerous SCOTUS interpretations has been taken to mean that the government cannot favor religion.

This, you'll apparently be surprised to know, is a way to protect religion. Among other things, the founding father's felt that religion's involvement in government had a corrupting influence on both institutions and they were better left as separate entities to protect their integrity. Once you ingrain religion into the power of government it is suddenly a political tool...such as trying to invalidate a presidential candidate by questioning the nature of his faith...or a faith adopting a principle for the sake of a political gain...or a particular faith using political weight to marginalize another. After all, it's all fine and good if it's your brand of Christianity, but what if it's the snake handlers? Or the Jehovah's Witnesses?

So, to protect your faith and your free ability to practice it, the government must remain neutral on the subject of religion. Ironically, this somehow feeds the religious persecution complex.

[Tlaceceyaya]

So, because you are allowed to hold any political affiliation you want, people who don't give a fuck about politics don't have the right to do so?

Try reading back what you're typing.

No.

So you're being inconsistent due to your strange hatred for anything not singing praises of religion, and your dislike of democracy.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

It is a right, not a duty.


And it does NOT say anything about no religion.

It says 'shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion', what is called the "establishment clause" which, through numerous SCOTUS interpretations has been taken to mean that the government cannot favor religion.

This, you'll apparently be surprised to know, is a way to protect religion. Among other things, the founding father's felt that religion's involvement in government had a corrupting influence on both institutions and they were better left as separate entities to protect their integrity. Once you ingrain religion into the power of government it is suddenly a political tool...such as trying to invalidate a presidential candidate by questioning the nature of his faith...or a faith adopting a principle for the sake of a political gain...or a particular faith using political weight to marginalize another. After all, it's all fine and good if it's your brand of Christianity, but what if it's the snake handlers? Or the Jehovah's Witnesses?

So, to protect your faith and your free ability to practice it, the government must remain neutral on the subject of religion. Ironically, this somehow feeds the religious persecution complex.

That is true, yes. But, though it gives rights to religions and people following them, it mentions nothing of a lack thereof for religion, so by that you could infer that atheists are not given rights in the constitution.

No.

So you're being inconsistent due to your strange hatred for anything not singing praises of religion, and your dislike of democracy.

I dislike atheists, and hate democracy. Democracy is the worst system ever invented. Monarchy is ever so much better.

[Capsantia]

As an atheist, I'm actually more worried about the idea of forcing people to take the Oath of Enlistment before they can graduate.

Agreed. That is a far bigger issue than the "so help me God" (which in my opinion is rather trivial).

[Cannot think of a name]

It says 'shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion', what is called the "establishment clause" which, through numerous SCOTUS interpretations has been taken to mean that the government cannot favor religion.

This, you'll apparently be surprised to know, is a way to protect religion. Among other things, the founding father's felt that religion's involvement in government had a corrupting influence on both institutions and they were better left as separate entities to protect their integrity. Once you ingrain religion into the power of government it is suddenly a political tool...such as trying to invalidate a presidential candidate by questioning the nature of his faith...or a faith adopting a principle for the sake of a political gain...or a particular faith using political weight to marginalize another. After all, it's all fine and good if it's your brand of Christianity, but what if it's the snake handlers? Or the Jehovah's Witnesses?

So, to protect your faith and your free ability to practice it, the government must remain neutral on the subject of religion. Ironically, this somehow feeds the religious persecution complex.

That is true, yes. But, though it gives rights to religions and people following them, it mentions nothing of a lack thereof for religion, so by that you could infer that atheists are not given rights in the constitution.

You're exhausting yourself, dude.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

That is true, yes. But, though it gives rights to religions and people following them, it mentions nothing of a lack thereof for religion, so by that you could infer that atheists are not given rights in the constitution.

You're exhausting yourself, dude.

Not really.

[Libera Patria]

I'm an atheist, and I don't understand all the fuzz. Really, people get so upset about those few words?

[Kulaloe4]

How does not believing in God stop you from demonstrating the knowledge needed to graduate and live a normal live? I might believe in God, but I would NEVER support such an ass-backward policy. Freedom of religion means freedom from religion too!

[The UK in Exile]

It says 'shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion', what is called the "establishment clause" which, through numerous SCOTUS interpretations has been taken to mean that the government cannot favor religion.

This, you'll apparently be surprised to know, is a way to protect religion. Among other things, the founding father's felt that religion's involvement in government had a corrupting influence on both institutions and they were better left as separate entities to protect their integrity. Once you ingrain religion into the power of government it is suddenly a political tool...such as trying to invalidate a presidential candidate by questioning the nature of his faith...or a faith adopting a principle for the sake of a political gain...or a particular faith using political weight to marginalize another. After all, it's all fine and good if it's your brand of Christianity, but what if it's the snake handlers? Or the Jehovah's Witnesses?

So, to protect your faith and your free ability to practice it, the government must remain neutral on the subject of religion. Ironically, this somehow feeds the religious persecution complex.

That is true, yes. But, though it gives rights to religions and people following them, it mentions nothing of a lack thereof for religion, so by that you could infer that atheists are not given rights in the constitution.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Cannot think of a name]

I'm an atheist, and I don't understand all the fuzz. Really, people get so upset about those few words?

Well, since you brought up a well tread argument, we present you with the well tread response, if it's not such a big deal, why have the oath in the first place?