$27 million anti-evolution museum to open soon

[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

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

Oh! Edwardo, you're so forceful when you're angry!

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 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".

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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.

I wish you would get that sand out of your vagina.

[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.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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.

Wtf bruce? Does that apply to everyone, for every video?
Are you speaking as a moderator here, or are you just being an asshole to rage?

You are a grumpy fuck lately...

[xoxoxoBruce]

Tell you what Jinx, you're welcome to the fucking job. Just use LJ's moderator account and have at it.

[jinx]

Have at what? I don't see anything that needs to be done here.