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

[Wisconsin9]

That would be establishing religion.

Yes. Theists are given rights in the US Constitution, Atheists not.

Citizens are given rights. Citizenship is determined based on birth or taking the test. Not religion.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

It says in the Constitution of the US that people are free to practice their religion, and does not say or lack thereof.

Where?

1st Amendment.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

Yes. Theists are given rights in the US Constitution, Atheists not.

Citizens are given rights. Citizenship is determined based on birth or taking the test. Not religion.

Yes, but not freedom to not worship.

[Individuality-ness]

That would be establishing religion.

Yes. Theists are given rights in the US Constitution, Atheists not.

What? When was the First Amendment and the Fourteen Amendment repealed?

[United States of Raptors]

GOP getting crazier and crazier and scarier.

A group of Arizona politicians — all Republicans, of course — have proposed a law (House Bill 2467) requiring public high school students to recite the following oath in order to graduate:

Kevin Bondelli adds:

In other words, if this bill were to become a law, atheists would either not be allowed to graduate… or they would be forced to lie so they could graduate. Neither option is acceptable.
Mike Sunnucks of the Phoenix Business Journal points out another problem:
The Arizona bill could also face legal challenges if it is approved.

This bill is the work of Representatives Bob Thorpe, Sonny Borrelli, Carl Seel, T.J. Shope, Jeff Dial, David Livingston, Chester Crandell, and Steve Smith.
Smith and Shope have also introduced legislation demanding that all students in grades 1-12 recite the Pledge of Allegiance (with “Under God”) every day. At least in that bill, students can get out of saying it with their parents’ permission.
No such exemption exists in the Loyalty Oath.
Keep in mind that in both cases, the bills do not help children get a better education. That’s the saddest thing about all this. The people who are in charge of fixing the education crisis are proposing solutions that would only waste more classroom time and exclude many students from graduating despite fulfilling their current requirements.

Dear god these people are losing it (not that they haven't already).

I, _______, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge these duties; So help me God.

^ Isn't that what those who decided to join the military take and those who are sworn into a public office? Mighty! I'm more awe stricken than anything else, I thought the GOP crazy train had left ages ago, what is this the GOP crazy express!?

This is the party that claims to be all for "small" government yet what we're seeing right here is more government restriction into ones personal life. No wonder why they keep losing support and they don't understand. I can see it now already next up GOP controlled states will pass laws restricting non-Christians from being able to vote.

Now I see why Democrats want gun control, just to piss off the GOP who wants to equally piss off the Democrats. Anyone else seeing a pattern here?

[Mavorpen]

Where?

1st Amendment.

Again, where?

[Wisconsin9]

Where?

1st Amendment.

Again, by your logic, the fact that the First Amendment gives me the right to speak freely but doesn't give me the right not to speak freely means that I must always be talking.

[Wisconsin9]

Citizens are given rights. Citizenship is determined based on birth or taking the test. Not religion.

Yes, but not freedom to not worship.

Freedom to worship as they see fit. Which includes, believe it or not, the freedom to not worship.

[Individuality-ness]

Citizens are given rights. Citizenship is determined based on birth or taking the test. Not religion.

Yes, but not freedom to not worship.

Free exercise of religion - this includes NOT exercising a religion at all. Stop lawyering.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

1st Amendment.

Again, where?

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.

Do you see anything protecting Atheists in there?

Yes, but not freedom to not worship.

Free exercise of religion - this includes NOT exercising a religion at all. Stop lawyering.

Freedom to excercise. Not to not exercise.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

Yes, but not freedom to not worship.

Freedom to worship as they see fit. Which includes, believe it or not, the freedom to not worship.

No it does not. Freedom to worship, not to not worship.

[Mavorpen]

Again, where?

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.

Do you see anything protecting Atheists in there?

Yes, the part in red.

[The UK in Exile]

Yes, but not freedom to not worship.

Free exercise of religion - this includes NOT exercising a religion at all. Stop lawyering.

or start.

[Wisconsin9]

Again, where?

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.

Do you see anything protecting Atheists in there?

Of religion in general.

[Cannot think of a name]

Again, where?

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.

Do you see anything protecting Atheists in there?

"no law respecting an establishment of religion", which you would have to do in order to compel someone to worship.

Seriously. Just download Tetris on your phone like a normal person.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

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.

Do you see anything protecting Atheists in there?

Yes, the part in red.

Religion is not the same as no religion.

[Individuality-ness]

Free exercise of religion - this includes NOT exercising a religion at all. Stop lawyering.

Freedom to excercise. Not to not exercise.

So because it's not implicitly stated, it's not valid? Then what do you make of the Ninth Amendment?

[Wisconsin9]

Yes, the part in red.

Religion is not the same as no religion.

Except it's preventing the establishment of religion. All religion, not just a religion.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

Freedom to excercise. Not to not exercise.

So because it's not implicitly stated, it's not valid? Then what do you make of the Ninth Amendment?

Yes. Protects groups that are not awarded rights in the Constitution.

[Mavorpen]

Yes, the part in red.

Religion is not the same as no religion.

So Congress can pass a law making it illegal to believe in God?

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

Religion is not the same as no religion.

So Congress can pass a law making it illegal to believe in God?

No. It can however make it illegal to not believe in God according to the Constitution.

[Individuality-ness]

So because it's not implicitly stated, it's not valid? Then what do you make of the Ninth Amendment?

Yes. Protects groups that are not awarded rights in the Constitution.

Which according to you would include atheists, since you claim that we as a group were not directly given rights, forget the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment means that we're all US citizens and are granted the right to due process.

[Mavorpen]

So Congress can pass a law making it illegal to believe in God?

No. It can however make it illegal to not believe in God according to the Constitution.

Wrong. The text states that you cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion, not that you cannot prohibit belief in God.


I can play this game too. Show me where it states that you have the right to believe in a God.

[Individuality-ness]

So Congress can pass a law making it illegal to believe in God?

No. It can however make it illegal to not believe in God according to the Constitution.

Then that's establishing a religion. That's illegal.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

Yes. Protects groups that are not awarded rights in the Constitution.

Which according to you would include atheists, since you claim that we as a group were not directly given rights, forget the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment means that we're all US citizens and are granted the right to due process.

Does not mean Atheists have rights in the Constitution.

No. It can however make it illegal to not believe in God according to the Constitution.

Wrong. The text states that you cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion, not that you cannot prohibit belief in God.


I can play this game too. Show me where it states that you have the right to believe in a God.

Religion not lack thereof.

Free excersise of religion.