$27 million anti-evolution museum to open soon

[elSicomoro]

We the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness, do establish this constitution for the better government of the state.

That sounds like some role-playing shit, but it's also pretty bitchin'.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

To whom are you referring? The robber barons?

Self-centeredness and selfishness shouldn't be a problem in a capitalist society (as far as the capitalism goes, other aspects of the society will suffer). What breaks capitalism is the concentration of wealth and power in small groups, eliminating the competition that is supposed to keep them honestish.

No, not the Barons, they are doing what they always did, albeit on a much larger scale. Greed without borders, anyone?

I was referring to the consumers, when making their choices of evils consider only themselves in the immediate future, without a thought to the effects on anyone else or even the long range effects to themselves.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I'm pretty sure that such laws have already been declared unconstitutional, and whatever states still have them do so out of laziness and/or pigheadedness.

Worse than that, it's one assholes interpretation of what they mean. Look at PA.

"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."

It specifically says nobody can be denied office for his religious convictions. It absolutely does not say, must hold them to be qualified. that's not misinterpretation, it's an outright lie.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I was referring to the consumers, when making their choices of evils consider only themselves in the immediate future, without a thought to the effects on anyone else or even the long range effects to themselves.

Ah, that's true.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

There is not a state that I know of that does not swear in officials without a Bible.

In many cases, it's BYOB.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Here, I will hold your hand...

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

The Federal Constitution does not say there shall be a separation of Church and State. That's a modern shorthand for the actual wording which you're taking literally.

The language of all those citations is exactly what I'd expect from religious men in that era. And they were you know, they were religious men because the Federal Constitution guaranteed they could be, any religion they wanted and the Feds couldn't tell them they weren't the right religion or deny them office because of it. And most certainly didn't deny them office for lack of it, although if it was elected office, they probably couldn't get the votes.

That said, I had heard Delaware required belief in God to hold State office, but I don't know for sure.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Worse than that, it's one assholes interpretation of what they mean. Look at PA.

"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."

It specifically says nobody can be denied office for his religious convictions. It absolutely does not say, must hold them to be qualified. that's not misinterpretation, it's an outright lie.

Who can't be disqualified on account of religious sentiments? People who acknowledge the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments.

Who can? Everyone else.

It does explicitly leave atheists open to disqualification, though I don't think it actually disqualifies them. I'm not a lawyer, though, so I'm not sure whether the exclusionary style of the sentence has such implications.

And here's a better list than the last one.

[xoxoxoBruce]

No it doesn't, it doesn't even imply that.

"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."
they would have to leave out "on account of his religious sentiments' for that to be true.

These phrases are historical relics, left over from earlier times. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution supersedes any applicable statutory laws and sections of state constitutions. It thus nullifies the effect of the above clauses. This was confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, as described below.

Don't forget the states preceded the "United States" and were formed by religious people who wrote the rules for themselves and their peers. you can't change history.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

There is not a state that I know of that does not swear in officials without a Bible.

Keith Ellison in Minnesota swore in with the Qur’an

I would like to see someone wear in on an economics’ 1001 textbook...

Science encyclopedia?

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

No it doesn't, it doesn't even imply that.

"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."
they would have to leave out "on account of his religious sentiments' for that to be true.

Don't forget the states preceded the "United States" and were formed by religious people who wrote the rules for themselves and their peers. you can't change history.

You sure can't:

Amendment 1 (1st for a reason)
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.

In Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, an agreement signed between the United States and the Muslim region of North Africa in 1797 after negotiations concluded by George Washington (the document, which was approved by the Senate, many of whom were founding fathers, in accordance with Constitutional law, and then signed by John Adams), it states flatly, "The Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." signed by John Adams
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!" John Adams

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; -Benjamin Franklin

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law" -Thomas Jefferson

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble." He died a month later, and historians consider him, like so many great Americans of his time, to be a Deist, not a Christian.
From: Benjamin Franklin, A Biography in his Own Words

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
John Adams April 27,1797

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries"
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." -James Madison fourth president and father of the Constitution

"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." -James Madison

The words "one nation under God" were not added to the Pledge of allegiance until 1953

None of the 85 Federalist Papers written in support of the Constitution reference God, the Bible, religion or Christianity.

The words "in God we trust were not consistently added to all money until the 1950s after the McCarthy Era

James Madison, Jefferson's close friend and political ally, was just as vigorously opposed to religious intrusions into civil affairs as Jefferson was. In 1785, when the Commonwealth of Virginia was considering passage of a bill "establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," Madison wrote his famous "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments" in which he presented fifteen reasons why government should not be come involved in the support of any religion.
The views of Madison and Jefferson prevailed in the Virginia Assembly

Jesus even said it:
Mark 12:17
And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

Matthew 22:21
They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

Luke 20:25
And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.

"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion." -Thomas Paine

The Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution was ratified on December 15, 1791
“Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime . . . .” - Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, dissenting Ginzberg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 (1966)

“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” - Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

“Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.” - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis (1856-1941), Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357 (1927)

Morality is doing what is right no matter what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told no matter what is right.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Keith Ellison in Minnesota swore in with the Qur’an

I would like to see someone wear in on an economics’ 1001 textbook...

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

No it doesn't, it doesn't even imply that.

"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."
they would have to leave out "on account of his religious sentiments' for that to be true.

Don't forget the states preceded the "United States" and were formed by religious people who wrote the rules for themselves and their peers. you can't change history.

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.

It's not like I think a state would use these laws to oust a candidtate... man, I really don't want to go there in my mind.
It is the idea that they still exist and how important things like anti-sodomy laws are to people.
The other issue is that, in 90% of the nation, you cannot obtain office... cannot represent the public in an official capacity (none of these jobs have shit to do with religion) without espousing a belief in something they have never seen one iota of evidence for. (I know this because I have a close relative in a high office who never went to church or mentioned god who now has to openly prays every day of her life and says crap like "co-pilot"... it is disgusting)
Europe is laughing at us... I know... I see them do it all the time on other channels.
We deserve it. We are tribesmen crying to the thunder.

[piercehawkeye45]

God dammit. How long will it take people to realize that religion has nothing to do with morals.

As soon as they decide to think for themselves.