Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 329998)

Two versions:

"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust under this Commonwealth."

"No person shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust under this Commonwealth."

As long as you acknowledge the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments, you can't be disqualified on religious grounds. If you don't, you can.

And yes, I know this is moot, thanks to the Supreme Court, as I said earlier.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 329859)

You're holding nothing but your dick. I don't see one statute backing your claim, not one.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 330271)

Bah, you're weaseling like a lawyer.

I am a independent cab driver, ok?
I say, "No black person, because they are black, will be barred from my cab.

I have made no statement about anyone else but blacks, and you can weasel away, but I have not implied a damn thing about anyone.

If I were writing a constitution I would do the same. Besides why should they try to be sneaky? They were making the rules, they could do anything they wanted. Their concern, as was the framers of the federal constitution, that people would be discriminated for their religion, not lack of it.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 330271)

Bah, you're weaseling like a lawyer.

I am a independent cab driver, ok?
I say, "No black person, because they are black, will be barred from my cab.

I have made no statement about anyone else but blacks, and you can weasel away, but I have not implied a damn thing about anyone.

If I were writing a constitution I would do the same. Besides why should they try to be sneaky? They were making the rules, they could do anything they wanted. Their concern, as was the framers of the federal constitution, that people would be discriminated for their religion, not lack of it.

Originally Posted by rkzenrage (Post 330371)

...
and the possibility that we could exclude non-believers from office, which we can do right now in many states.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 330271)

Bah, you're weaseling like a lawyer.

I am a independent cab driver, ok?
I say, "No black person, because they are black, will be barred from my cab.

I have made no statement about anyone else but blacks, and you can weasel away, but I have not implied a damn thing about anyone.

If I were writing a constitution I would do the same. Besides why should they try to be sneaky? They were making the rules, they could do anything they wanted. Their concern, as was the framers of the federal constitution, that people would be discriminated for their religion, not lack of it.

Originally Posted by Spexxvet (Post 330448)

Bruce, I have to agree with HM. The analogy would be more "No black US citizen will be barred from my cab". Leaves you open to bar black Norwegians from your cab.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 331478)

I wish you would put the videos where they belong, instead of making it longer for everyone to open these threads.
That's why UT created that area.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 331479)

It doesn't say anything of the sort though does it? It says what it says, no more no less.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 331478)

I wish you would put the videos where they belong, instead of making it longer for everyone to open these threads.
That's why UT created that area.