Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on September 23, 2014, 09:53:57 AM
-
Interesting trend.
More Americans see religion’s influence waning, want bigger role in politics: Pew poll
By Mary Wisniewski
SEPTEMBER 23, 2014
Nearly three-quarters of the public think religion is losing influence in American life and a growing number want religion to play more of a role in politics, according to a poll released on Monday.
The share of Americans who say churches and other houses of worship should express their views on social and political issues has gone up 6 percentage points since the 2010 midterm elections, to 49 percent from 43 percent, the Pew Research Center survey found.
Also, a growing minority of Americans, up to 32 percent from 22 percent in 2002, think churches should endorse candidates for political office, the poll found.
Overall, it showed 72 percent of Americans say religion is losing influence in the country, up 5 points from 2010.
“Some of this might be in reaction, perhaps, to the perception that religion is losing influence,” said Jessica Hamar Martinez, a research associate for Pew.
The poll also found that a declining share of Americans see the Obama administration as friendly toward religion, to 30 percent from 37 percent in 2009.
The belief that the administration is unfriendly to religion rose by 19 percentage points since 2009 among both white evangelical Christians and white Catholics, the poll found. Leaders from both these groups have been vocal opponents of the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate, which they say restricts religious liberty.
The poll also found that nearly half, or 47 percent, of U.S. adults, think that businesses, such as caterers and florists, should be allowed to reject same-sex couples as customers if the businesses have religious objections to serving them.
The survey questioned 2,002 U.S. adults between Sept. 2 and Sept. 9, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.
http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2014/09/23/more-americans-see-religions-influence-waning-want-bigger-role-in-politics-pew-poll/
-
Separation of church and state. Exists for a good reason.
-
Why dont you move to Russia BB?
They hate gays, love religion and are dishonest as fuck.
You obviously hate america and the principles it was built upon so why not leave?
-
Why dont you move to Russia BB?
They hate gays, love religion and are dishonest as fuck.
You obviously hate america and the principles it was built upon so why not leave?
I'm never leaving the greatest country on planet earth. It is so great that you pretend to be an American. Or you're an American pretending to be a foreigner. I forget which one. Can you clarify again?
-
I'm never leaving the greatest country on planet earth. It is so great that you pretend to be an American. Or you're an American pretending to be a foreigner. I forget which one. Can you clarify again?
If its the greatest country on earth why do you hate it so much?
-
If its the greatest country on earth why do you hate it so much?
Because the religious nutbags like himself is waning and their influence is diminishing. Of course.
-
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights was originally proposed as a measure to assuage Anti-Federalist opposition to Constitutional ratification. Initially, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by the Congress, and many of its provisions were interpreted more narrowly than they are today. Beginning with Gitlow v. New York (1925), the Supreme Court applied the First Amendment to states—a process known as incorporation—through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Court drew on Founding Father Thomas Jefferson's correspondence to call for "a wall of separation between church and State", though the precise boundary of this separation remains in dispute.
Why dont you leave the US you hate so much?
You are even pissing on the constitution.
-
He doesn't mind religion influencing politics or being in schools as long as it is the religion he follows.
-
Nearly three-quarters of the public think religion is losing influence in American life and a growing number want religion to play more of a role in politics, according to a poll released on Monday.
Our Founding Fathers didn't create a democracy but a Constitutional Republic. And it's a good thing too, what with three quarters of the public apparently being idiots.
-
He doesn't mind religion influencing politics or being in schools as long as it is the religion he follows.
He hates the foundation his country was built on why doesnt he just leave?
Maybe if he moved to Russia or the middle east he wouldnt be so sad.
-
If its the greatest country on earth why do you hate it so much?
I don't hate anything. Except vegetables. The Dallas Cowboys. The Boston Celtics. David Stern. And traffic. That about covers it.
-
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights was originally proposed as a measure to assuage Anti-Federalist opposition to Constitutional ratification. Initially, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by the Congress, and many of its provisions were interpreted more narrowly than they are today. Beginning with Gitlow v. New York (1925), the Supreme Court applied the First Amendment to states—a process known as incorporation—through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Court drew on Founding Father Thomas Jefferson's correspondence to call for "a wall of separation between church and State", though the precise boundary of this separation remains in dispute.
Why dont you leave the US you hate so much?
You are even pissing on the constitution.
Wait. Who is asking? The fake American or the fake foreigner?
How exactly do you think this violates the First Amendment?
-
I don't hate anything. Except vegetables. The Dallas Cowboys. The Boston Celtics. David Stern. And traffic. That about covers it.
I have to agree here.
-
Wait. Who is asking? The fake American or the fake foreigner?
How exactly do you think this violates the First Amendment?
My bad you cant read.
Have your mother read it loud for you then respond.
-
Our Founding Fathers didn't create a democracy but a Constitutional Republic. And it's a good thing too, what with three quarters of the public apparently being idiots.
Semantics. You can call it a constitutional republic. I call it a democracy. At the end of the day, everything is subject to a vote. Some votes are much harder than others, but laws and constitutions can always be changed. Easier said than done, but it's still a vote (whether by individuals or representatives) that can have the last word. I know that courts often have the final say, but whatever document or law they interpret can be changed.
And I have no problem with people voting to advance or oppose religious-based views. That's what democracy is all about.
-
Great. Still beyond me why people still believe this shit. Your irrational beliefs should have no influence on others. Keep your worshipping at home where it belongs.
-
My bad you cant read.
Have your mother read it loud for you then respond.
I see. Very easy to cut and paste something you probably didn't read and/or understand. A little more difficult to actually explain your viewpoint.
-
I see. Very easy to cut and paste something you probably didn't read and/or understand. A little more difficult to actually explain your viewpoint.
Its very difficult to explain to you yes.
It would be easier to explain to my dog no doubt.
How did you get to be a Moderator for a political forum when you cant even read your countries constitution?
Are you related to Ron?
-
I don't hate anything. Except vegetables. The Dallas Cowboys. The Boston Celtics. David Stern. And traffic. That about covers it.
so you don't hate Satan ?
-
Its very difficult to explain to you yes.
It would be easier to explain to my dog no doubt.
How did you get to be a Moderator for a political forum when you cant even read your countries constitution?
Are you related to Ron?
Good question. There was stiff competition, but after some intense lobbying, a written exam, and a background check, I made the cut. I take it you don't like my performance? I am crushed. :'(
Maybe Ron should cut my pay?
And this is your way of avoiding having to explain how you think this violates the First Amendment. I see what you did there.
-
Semantics.
Semantics, you should know, are very important.
You can call it a constitutional republic. I call it a democracy.
A Constitutional Republic is Democracy in the same way that your dog, affectionately named "kitty" no doubt, is a feline.
Democracy is, essentially, ochlocracy: there are no rules and anything goes, as long as you have enough people behind you - that is, as ong as you have a majority. In a Republic on the other hand, the majority is constrained by a charter which defines what the majority can and cannot do.
Well big deal. Can't a majority edit the charter anyways under a Constitional Republic? Well, yes... somewhat. Charters typically do offer a mechanism to allow modifications - our Constitution, for example, describes how it can be amended in Article V but at the same time, it places limits on what modifications are, actually, allowed. For example, an Amendment could not be incorporated that, say, mandated that West Virginia gets only one seat in the Senate if West Virginia did not wish to only have one Senator.
And I have no problem with people voting to advance or oppose religious-based views. That's what democracy is all about.
You are making a very broad statement here - and it's not one I necessarily disagree with, depending on how one goes about interpreting it.
The fact is that people can already apply any "reasoning" they want in deciding how they vote on a particular issue and rational thought is not required. For example, people can choose their vote by flipping a coin or by praying to get mystical insight - as I'm sure many do. There's no way to control how people decide to vote and there shouldn't be.
But - and there's always a but - those very same people are limited in what they can vote about. For example, the people (whether directly or indirectly through their Representatives) can't vote to compel every American to attend a house of worship once a week.
To get back to the original article: it suggests that many Americans want churches to have a voice on political subjects, but as it stands, churches whch involve themselves in politics risk losing their tax-exempt status, so most avoid overt participation with the political process and endorsment of particular candidates.
I absolutely think that churches should be able to express opinions on politics in general and specific issues in particular, just like I think that they should also be able to endorse candidates. I think that Churches, like other legal entities, should be able to speak on issues that concern them. Of course, since I also think that churches shouldn't be exempt from tax...
-
Semantics, you should know, are very important.
A Constitutional Republic is Democracy in the same way that your dog, affectionately named "kitty" no doubt, is a feline.
Democracy is, essentially, ochlocracy: there are no rules and anything goes, as long as you have enough people behind you - that is, as ong as you have a majority. In a Republic on the other hand, the majority is constrained by a charter which defines what the majority can and cannot do.
Well big deal. Can't a majority edit the charter anyways under a Constitional Republic? Well, yes... somewhat. Charters typically do offer a mechanism to allow modifications - our Constitution, for example, describes how it can be amended in Article V but at the same time, it places limits on what modifications are, actually, allowed. For example, an Amendment could not be incorporated that, say, mandated that West Virginia gets only one seat in the Senate if West Virginia did not wish to only have one Senator.
You are making a very broad statement here - and it's not one I necessarily disagree with, depending on how one goes about interpreting it.
The fact is that people can already apply any "reasoning" they want in deciding how they vote on a particular issue and rational thought is not required. For example, people can choose their vote by flipping a coin or by praying to get mystical insight - as I'm sure many do. There's no way to control how people decide to vote and there shouldn't be.
But - and there's always a but - those very same people are limited in what they can vote about. For example, the people (whether directly or indirectly through their Representatives) can't vote to compel every American to attend a house of worship once a week.
To get back to the original article: it suggests that many Americans want churches to have a voice on political subjects, but as it stands, churches whch involve themselves in politics risk losing their tax-exempt status, so most avoid overt participation with the political process and endorsment of particular candidates.
I absolutely think that churches should be able to express opinions on politics in general and specific issues in particular, just like I think that they should also be able to endorse candidates. I think that Churches, like other legal entities, should be able to speak on issues that concern them. Of course, since I also think that churches shouldn't be exempt from tax...
I don't think it's talking about "churches" being involved in politics. It's religious viewpoints or religious-based policy. And if you think about it, religious-based/influenced policy has been around for years. Some good, some bad.
Also, churches can be involved in politics to a degree. They just cannot be involved in partisan politics and maintain their tax exempt status.
Overall, I like our system (at least on paper). In our democracy, the people should decide public policy. If you or I don't agree with whatever is on the books, or is being advocated by one side or another, we need to lobby and vote.
-
Good question. There was stiff competition, but after some intense lobbying, a written exam, and a background check, I made the cut. I take it you don't like my performance? I am crushed. :'(
Maybe Ron should cut my pay?
And this is your way of avoiding having to explain how you think this violates the First Amendment. I see what you did there.
You get paid for fucking up the site?
Now im really shocked.
-
You get paid for fucking up the site?
Now im really shocked.
Very well paid to help supervise this daycare center.
I see you are still unable to explain how this violates the First Amendment. Not shocked.
-
Very well paid to help supervise this daycare center.
I see you are still unable to explain how this violates the First Amendment. Not shocked.
More Americans see religion’s influence waning, want bigger role in politics
vs
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion
Thomas Jefferson wrote with respect to the First Amendment and its restriction on the legislative branch of the federal government in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists (a religious minority concerned about the dominant position of the Congregationalist church in Connecticut):
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.[9]
Get an education its not to late.
-
Yeah while I'd like to see a more pleasant society where I didn't feel the need to choke every lib I meet...I think if the we got the evangelicals in they'd limit violent video games and internet porn...two things that I can't live without.
-
More Americans see religion’s influence waning, want bigger role in politics
vs
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion
Thomas Jefferson wrote with respect to the First Amendment and its restriction on the legislative branch of the federal government in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists (a religious minority concerned about the dominant position of the Congregationalist church in Connecticut):
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.[9]
Get an education its not to late.
Are you having trouble thinking for yourself? How does this violate the First Amendment?
-
Are you having trouble thinking for yourself? How does this violate the First Amendment?
More Americans see religion’s influence waning, want bigger role in politics
vs
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion
Politics = laws.
-
More Americans see religion’s influence waning, want bigger role in politics
vs
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion
Politics = laws.
Ok. Progress. Good job.
People wanting to see religion influence policy does not mean they want the government to establish a church. Nothing in the First Amendment requires people to only advocate for secular-based policy. Nothing prevents legislators from voting for religious-based policy. Just depends on exactly what they are advocating. For example, tightening laws related to stealing or perjury (both of which are Biblically based) is fine. Trying to pass a law forcing people to attend church is not.
-
You dont think:
Nothing prevents legislators from voting for religious-based policy
conflicts with
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion
and
Thomas Jefferson wrote with respect to the First Amendment and its restriction on the legislative branch of the federal government in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists (a religious minority concerned about the dominant position of the Congregationalist church in Connecticut):
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.[9]
-
No, it does not. I just explained why it does not.
-
No, it does not. I just explained why it does not.
If you vote for religious-based policy the wall between church and State will become blurred to say the least.
Of course it depends what we call religious-based policy.
-
If you vote for religious-based policy the wall between church and State will become blurred to say the least.
Of course it depends what we call religious-based policy.
That's exactly what I said. It depends on the policy. Another example is voters or elected officials deciding they want to have a dry county, because they might think drinking alcohol is a sin (not something I believe). That wouldn't violate the First Amendment.
-
That's exactly what I said. It depends on the policy. Another example is voters or elected officials deciding they want to have a dry county, because they might think drinking alcohol is a sin (not something I believe). That wouldn't violate the First Amendment.
So give an example of an religious based policy that would not conflict with the first amendment.
-
So give an example of an religious based policy that would not conflict with the first amendment.
I just did.
-
How about not allowing anyone who is an atheist to run for or hold office?
-
How about not allowing anyone who is an atheist to run for or hold office?
"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
-
I just did.
If you ban alcohol because its a sin it conflicts with "The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion"
You will hit the people who doesnt share your religion and therefore doesnt see it as a sin.
Didnt Jesus turn water in to wine?
He sounds pro-alcohol to me.
-
If you ban alcohol because its a sin it conflicts with "The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion"
You will hit the people who doesnt share your religion and therefore doesnt see it as a sin.
Didnt Jesus turn water in to wine?
He sounds pro-alcohol to me.
Not everyone needs to agree with why certain policies are being voted on or put in place. We have dry counties all over the country and I am certain that the genesis for some if not most of them are religious based.
-
Not everyone needs to agree with why certain policies are being voted on or put in place. We have dry counties all over the country and I am certain that the genesis for some if not most of them are religious based.
Really? I had no idea (no sarcasm i swear).
Is alcohol forbidden in these counties?
-
Really? I had no idea (no sarcasm i swear).
Is alcohol forbidden in these counties?
it doesnt suprise me your unaware, you seem unaware of alot...
fuking idiots thinking that a person voting on issues based of their religious views is somehow a violation of the first ammendment ::)
-
"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/959292/7_states_that_ban_atheists_from_holding_public_office/
-
it doesnt suprise me your unaware, you seem unaware of alot...
fuking idiots thinking that a person voting on issues based of their religious views is somehow a violation of the first ammendment ::)
Adult are debating here, run along child..
-
Adult are debating here, run along child..
LMFAO tell us all again how people cannot vote based of their religious views...you clearly have a strong understanding of our constitution.
-
Really? I had no idea (no sarcasm i swear).
Is alcohol forbidden in these counties?
Forbidden to be sold.
-
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/959292/7_states_that_ban_atheists_from_holding_public_office/
This is the entire "article" in your link:
"7 States That Ban Atheists From Holding Public Office
States with laws on the books barring atheists from holding public office: Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.
Surprised or no?"
What do those specific laws say?
-
Read more yourself
https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Ale6Gg2k7YnNFXli4a7LmsKbvZx4?fr=yfp-t-415-s&toggle=1&fp=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&p=states%20ban%20atheists%20from%20office
-
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/959292/7_states_that_ban_atheists_from_holding_public_office/
This is the entire "article" in your link:
"7 States That Ban Atheists From Holding Public Office
States with laws on the books barring atheists from holding public office: Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.
Surprised or no?"
What do those specific laws say?
there are plenty of laws on the books that arent enforced these days.
Houston has an openly gay mayor, I dont think the religious laws are as big a boogey man as some progressive libtards like to think...
-
Read more yourself
https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Ale6Gg2k7YnNFXli4a7LmsKbvZx4?fr=yfp-t-415-s&toggle=1&fp=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&p=states%20ban%20atheists%20from%20office
give us a recent instance where these laws prevented someone from running for office.
-
LMFAO tell us all again how people cannot vote based of their religious views...you clearly have a strong understanding of our constitution.
Learn to read moron.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/16/states-atheists-banned-public-office/
JUST AS I THOUGHT!!!!!!!
It’s strange but true. Provisions barring atheists from holding public office are written into the constitutions of those states, even though they can't be enforced.
That's because the Supreme Court ruled in 1961 that a Maryland man who was appointed as a notary public did not have to declare his belief in God be eligible for the office, which was required under the state’s constitution. The justices ruled unanimously that forcing the man to do so would violate his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
-
give us a recent instance where these laws prevented someone from running for office.
Enforcement has nothing to do with the fact that it is legal.
-
Read more yourself
https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Ale6Gg2k7YnNFXli4a7LmsKbvZx4?fr=yfp-t-415-s&toggle=1&fp=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&p=states%20ban%20atheists%20from%20office
I just read the first article from the link you posted. Says they are unenforceable. So what was your point in posting this?
Unenforceable ban on atheists holding public office still on the books in 8 states
By Stephanie McNeal
Published July 16, 2014
FoxNews.com
The U.S. Constitution says religious tests cannot be required to hold public office. But if you read through the constitutions of eight states, they seem to require just that.
It’s strange but true. Provisions barring atheists from holding public office are written into the constitutions of those states, even though they can't be enforced.
That's because the Supreme Court ruled in 1961 that a Maryland man who was appointed as a notary public did not have to declare his belief in God be eligible for the office, which was required under the state’s constitution. The justices ruled unanimously that forcing the man to do so would violate his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
The case, Torcaso v. Watkins, made enforcement of the provisions illegal, but merely allowing them to remain on the books does not violate the U.S. Constitution. So they remain in Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.
Mississippi’s Constitution states, “No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.” Arkansas' Constitution goes even further; it bars atheists from testifying in court.
Tennessee's bars atheists from office, but, curiously, the state also forbids ministers. Its provision states that any minister of the gospel or priest of any denomination is barred from public office because they “ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their functions.”
Dave Muscato, a spokesman for American Atheists, said it is “fair and right” that the Supreme Court declared the provisions illegal, calling them “blatantly discriminatory, immoral, and un-American.”
He said having the provisions on the books is a “stark reminder” of the discrimination atheists have faced in America.
“While the social stigma still exists and black-and-white laws on the books do lend informal credibility to the stigma, insofar as it's our place to as (nonprofit) to speak on the issue, we encourage our lawmakers to spend as much time as possible making sure that religion and government stay separate in their work now, and that atheists are not discriminated against in the present,” he told FoxNews.com in an email.
The provisions still cause controversy. North Carolina’s caused a stir in 2009 when Cecil Bothwell, an atheist, was elected to the city council in the city of Asheville.
Bothwell’s critics said he should be barred from office because of the state Constitution's guidelines, but ultimately he was sworn in. One of those critics, Southern heritage activist H.K. Edgerton, told FoxNews.com the provision barring atheists should be enforced because it “is in the North Carolina State Constitution, and is law.”
“The Asheville, North Carolina City Council has placed itself above the law for two terms with Cecil Bothwell sitting there passing rules and regulations and dictating law unlawfully,” he said.
Muscato said it is unlikely lawmakers will ever seek to get the provisions taken out of the state constitutions, as there is rarely a push to remove unenforceable laws from the books.
“However, having them on the books, even though they aren't enforceable, is a stark reminder that our country once considered an atheist so unfit for office that it was proper to bar a person from serving the people just because the candidate wasn't indoctrinated into believing,” he said.
Atheist lawmakers are rare in the U.S. A Pew Research poll found only one current member of Congress, Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., said she was "unaffiliated" with a religion. Ten other lawmakers refused to answer the question or said they did not know.
Former Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., was the only open athiest in Congress from 1973 to 2013. He was defeated in the Democratic primary by current Rep. Eric Swalwell when he ran for re-election after redistricting in 2012.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/16/states-atheists-banned-public-office/
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/16/states-atheists-banned-public-office/
JUST AS I THOUGHT!!!!!!!
It’s strange but true. Provisions barring atheists from holding public office are written into the constitutions of those states, even though they can't be enforced.
That's because the Supreme Court ruled in 1961 that a Maryland man who was appointed as a notary public did not have to declare his belief in God be eligible for the office, which was required under the state’s constitution. The justices ruled unanimously that forcing the man to do so would violate his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Hey I just said that. :D
-
Learn to read moron.
You dont think:
Nothing prevents legislators from voting for religious-based policy
conflicts with
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion
so youre now saying its ok to vote on issues based on your religious views?
good to see your stupidity has subsided.
-
Enforcement has nothing to do with the fact that it is legal.
plenty of old laws on the books their lurker only a dumbass thinks its relevant in a discussion on this subject.
-
Enforcement has nothing to do with the fact that it is legal.
and actually it is illegal, you know since the supreme court said it was....;)
-
My point is not about the fact that it is illegal to enforce it, it is about the fact that it even exists on the states constitution in the first place.
-
My point is not about the fact that it is illegal to enforce it, it is about the fact that it even exists on the states constitution in the first place.
There are unconstitutional provisions in a handful state constitutions. So what? What does that have to do with this discussion?
-
My point is not about the fact that it is illegal to enforce it, it is about the fact that it even exists on the states constitution in the first place.
so your point is that the process set forth by the constitution works?
The fact of the matter is there are a lot of laws passed that have both religious leanings and non religious leanings. Those that dont stand up to the test of the constitution are done away with as in the case with this irrelevant example.
There are unconstitutional provisions in a handful state constitutions. So what? What does that have to do with this discussion?
EXACTLY!!!
-
If there have been no attempts by religion to influence politics, why does it even exist in the first place? This is evidence of an attempt of pure religious influence on the state constitution, it makes no difference whether it is enforced today or not. The fact it is on the books shows that there was an intention of having it enforced.
-
If there have been no attempts by religion to influence politics, why does it even exist in the first place? This is evidence of an attempt of pure religious influence on the state constitution, it makes no difference whether it is enforced today or not. The fact it is on the books shows that there was an intention of having it enforced.
Who said there have no attempts by religion to influence politics? The article that started this thread and the discussion is the exact opposite of that.
States put unconstitutional provisions in their state constitutions probably upwards of 100 years ago or so. That is relevant to nothing, at least as far this discussion goes.
-
Who said there have no attempts by religion to influence politics? The article that started this thread and the discussion is the exact opposite of that.
States put unconstitutional provisions in their state constitutions probably upwards of 100 years ago or so. That is relevant to nothing, at least as far this discussion goes.
I said there HAVE been.
-
If there have been no attempts by religion to influence politics, why does it even exist in the first place? This is evidence of an attempt of pure religious influence on the state constitution, it makes no difference whether it is enforced today or not. The fact it is on the books shows that there was an intention of having it enforced.
LMFAO are you drunk????
-
LMFAO are you drunk????
No. I was posting in between Crucible matches on Destiny.
But that is no excuse for you not understanding something so simple. If the fact the laws exist in the first place do not signify a religious attempt in politics, then what kind of attempt is it? Racial? Gender based? ?????