The Dudeism Forum

Formally prohibit atheists from office...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzVBF8B4ius&feature=related

I'm not a licensed/practicing attorney, so if you have any questions, consult an attorney with a bar license.

True, they can add it to their laws & regulations, but the case Torcaso v. Watkins 367 U.S. 488 (1961), originally in Maryland, states that no matter what it says, that writing is useless.

The Supreme Court found that such requirements violate the First Amendment. As Justice Hugo Black said:

QuoteWe repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.

Actually if you follow the reasoning in the video it gives the United States Constitution article six precedent. This stands above any case law.

You will also note that it is in contradiction of the Human Rights Act as well.

Of course it won't stand up.
But it is on the books and there was at least a passing attempt to use it to push the guy out of office.
And lets face it even if he fights it and wins I seriously doubt that he will ever get much traction.

It's just sad and pathetic.

One of the problems here is that the 10th Amendment MIGHT uphold Maryland's right to exclude an Atheist from public office. Basically, the 10th Amendment states that the Federal Government CANNOT do ANYTHING unless directly ordered to do so by the Constitution such as mint the coin of the realm and regulate the value thereof, build roads, maintain Federal courts, provide for the common defense, maintain a mail system, etc.; BUT, the States (and/or the people) CAN do what they want unless it is prohibited them in the Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text

It might be argued that there is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting North Carolina from excluding an Atheist from public office, and they may also argue that by doing so, they are not hindering a person from freely practicing their religion (or lack thereof) and rights as guaranteed in the 1st Amendment.

Though my argument would be that atheism is a religious belief, and a religious point of view, and that by prohibiting an Atheist from public office you are violating a person's right to their religions beliefs (atheism) and practicing them while in office. Also, by prohibiting an Atheist from office, you are disenfranchising such a person from the public service as an American. Also, it is a blatant act of discrimination based on a person's religious beliefs or lack thereof. And might even violate federal law in regards to civil rights and voting rights.

So the question is, in my mind; does the US Constitution, IN FACT, prohibit North Carolina from excluding Atheists from public office?

I guess that as atheists don't have a moral code they aren't really fit for public office  -  kinda makes sense.

Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 24, 2012, 01:21:32 AM
I guess that as atheists don't have a moral code they aren't really fit for public office  -  kinda makes sense.

Who says an atheist can't have a moral code? Sometimes referred to as "natural law," or, as the Declaration of Independence states; "self evident," a standard that is stated as "self evidence." One such moral standard could be "live and let live;" is that not a moral code and does it have to come from a deity? Clearly moral thinking can be secular.

Secular moral codes are subjective and mutable. They lack the solidity of an 'unmoved mover' backing them up. That is why the great leaders such as Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King always go for a 'higher power' moral code.

Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 24, 2012, 03:12:44 AM
Secular moral codes are subjective and mutable. They lack the solidity of an 'unmoved mover' backing them up. That is why the great leaders such as Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King always go for a 'higher power' moral code.

I disagree; when grappling with this very subject (the absoluteness and solidity of moral law), the founding fathers of the United States recognized solid moral law outside of religion and a deity when they expressed that such laws (example; the right to defend yourself, right to liberty, right to justice) to be "self evident" un-needing of a deity to derive such moral law from; these were referred to as "natural law," as natural as gravity.

That, however, does not mean that moral law and moral principles cannot be derived from a belief in a deity, surely they can; it simply states that such moral law can and does flow from logic also.

Are you saying that one MUST be religious in order to understand that it is wrong to kill innocent people, that this immoral act can only be understood and excepted via religious thinking? Surely not.

Problem is, the founding fathers also thought it was 'self-evident' that moral rules didn't apply equally to blacks or women.

Puts the 'self-evident' theory in a bit of a shit-hole.

Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 24, 2012, 05:19:55 AM
Problem is, the founding fathers also thought it was 'self-evident' that moral rules didn't apply equally to blacks or women.

Puts the 'self-evident' theory in a bit of a shit-hole.

No, not really true; they did believe that moral rules applied equally to blacks or women, they didn't believe, however, that they could create a nation where moral rules applied equally to blacks or women, and at that time build a new nation with so many diverse views. They had to, in order to form the new nation, compromise, whether they wanted to or not. It was to be a "more perfect nation," NOT a perfect nation. It was just the beginning. They probably knew that issues such as equal rights would have to be fought over later, and it was...the US civil war, and beyond. Looks like they were right.

The whole point about Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela is that they weren't 'morally compromised' like the slave-owning founding father ass-wipes.

Morality without fundamentalism is like shit without stink - a nice idea until you really step into it.

Slavery is never a good thing, but in this country, as all over the world (with the possible exception of parts of islam), is gone.

Unfortunately sexual slavery is rampant and exists in America. It is real bad in Northern India and is not especially connected to Islam.

I have been trying to set up a charity (the little sisters of redemption) to try and give sex-slave chicks a route out. The idea was to take the dimensions from the original dude-gown (which I believe Olly owns) and get some second hand sewing machines to these young chicks so they can make copies. His Dudliness has offered free patches to officialise the merchandise. Then we would sell the robes on-line, all profits going to 'chick-aid' or whatever we call it.

Unfortunately my contact in India hasn't got back to me for months.

Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 24, 2012, 06:29:17 AM
Unfortunately sexual slavery is rampant and exists in America.

Sources of your information on that?