$27 million anti-evolution museum to open soon

[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.

[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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

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.

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

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.

But they did not think about/care about blue laws, cabbies refusing to take fares because they had beer in their grocery bags, and the possibility that we could exclude non-believers from office, which we can do right now in many states.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

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

Here, you're wrong (on a legal level). None of these laws are enforceable, as confirmed by the SCOTUS.

Of course, on a societal level, non-believers certainly can be excluded by the electorate.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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.

It's not sneaky. It's deliberate. They were saying that any religion is fine as long as recognizes God and heaven. It's probably based on the idea that morals come from fear of punishment.

Your analogy fails because you used the same word in both places. Someone who "acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments" is not identical to someone with "religious sentiments".

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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.

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

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.

It doesn't say anything of the sort though does it? It says what it says, no more no less.
Well so does the PA law, it says religious people will not be discriminated against for public office, no more no less.
That's the trouble with this fucking country, weasels trying to twist things around to pull some bullshit, to fuck decent people for their own profit.
All the lawyers and politicians should become soap.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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

And what it says is that only a certain type of religious sentiment is constitutionally protected from religious disqualification.