[Re: An atheist being denied the government seat he was ELECTED to, because he's an atheist]
The “activist judges” are the ones who will no doubt throw the lawsuit out. The judiciary has, for a leas 45 years, stood against the nation’s solid Biblical foundation. It’s as if Biblical law (the foundation of common law) does not even exist.
North Carolina has a perfect right to defend its Christian heritage. I hope the activist courts stay out of this. But I expect the fascists in black robes to once again strike out against Christianity and moral decency.
The courts in this nation have become a satanic force.
46 comments
U.S. Constitution, Article VI, section 3, "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Any judge that overturns the decision to deny an atheist his elected position is simply upholding the Constitution.
EDIT: Dammit, I forgot to type my name, Arctic Knight
Article 6 of the united states constitution in all it's glory:
"All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. "
I bolded the bits you should read, rube.
I suggest you read the 1961 ruling of Torcaso v. Watkins (367 U.S. 488).
Specifically, the Court held that under the I and XIV Amendments, it is unconstitutional for both the States and the Federal Government to require any sort of religious litmus test to hold any sort of public office or trust.
...which means that anyone who is duly elected or appointed cannot be denied his right to serve on the basis of religious belief (or, in this case the lack thereof).
Methinks you need to retake civics...
Why is it that whenever a court renders a decision that conservatards agree with, it is a fair & just ruling, but when it's one they disagree with, it's always "activist judges" (aka "liberal activist judges") trying to destroy the moral fiber of the country?
"It’s as if Biblical law (the foundation of common law) does not even exist."
It doesn't exist legally in the United States. And it's always you Christians who are screaming about Muslims trying to institute Sharia Law here.
The Constitution was not based on the Bible. If it was, there would be laws against homosexuality in it. And there is slavery in it, but what is in it was based on compromise.
And there is a clause in it stating that elected officials do not need to pass any religious "test." I only wish this guy watched the news or read a good newspaper article on it so he would know that.
The reason there will be a lawsuit is because religious tests are unconstitutional, and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land that is superior to any state constitution.
USALiberty, why do you hate America? :(
"I hope the activist courts stay out of this."
I do too, but since North Carolina is in Dumbfuckistan, little hope there.
stood against the nation’s solid Biblical foundation
Care to elaborate on this? 'Cause the 1st Ammendment and the 6th Article pretty much says the US government is a secular entity.
Biblical law (the foundation of common law)
And yet, our US Constitution allows us to break every one of the Ten Commandments.
Yea, well the Constitution of the United States bans any sort of religious test for office in government, then in 1961 in Torcaso v. Watkins the Supreme Court held unanimously (as in all nine judges agreed, how often does that happen?) that the statue of requiring a religious test by the state or the federal (or the town/city in this case) was unconstitutional.
North Carolina - the one state I know reasonably well, where there is a church on every corner, and the pastors preach hellfire on Sundays, but still go to get their porn DVDs, and bottles from the special shops. It's also a place where people with education and free thought keep their heads way below the parapet, and plan to get out of it asap. It is anything but the land of the free. It flies Garrison size flags, but I could find only one decent restaurant, run by a Chinese lady. The rest were burger joints. No restaurant in central Raleigh either. I was lucky to find the single diner there, but that was really nice. But there was nowhere else to eat. A little way out there were pizza joints. I suppose all of these were using the same kind of flour and water mix that goes into making Jeeebugs's body. It would be a real surprise if they didn't. Oh, and I musn't forget the Confederate flags everywhere and the civil war that is still being fought underground and, no doubt, the sheets with eye-holes hanging in the back of the wardrobes. A real nice state.
"Re: An atheist being denied the government seat he was ELECTED to, because he's an atheist]"
Wouldn't this be a slam dunk for any lawyer? Constitutional violation.
Supremacy clause. If a state law (or constitution) conflicts with the US Constitution, the US Constitution wins. This has been used in the past, when states tried to pass their own laws keeping blacks from voting, in violation of a constitutional amendment which banned racial barriers to voting. Arguments for states rights were null and void because of the supremacy clause, as they are once again. Precedence!
@Antichrist
"I believe that Texas has a law on the books now stating that elected officials must be Christian, and nobody has challenged it."
Not christian. One must simply believe in a "supreme being".
That does bring up an interesting question. Can only monotheists hold office, or are pagans with multiple supreme beings allowed in?
Biblical law (the foundation of common law)
Never studied either, have you?
Also, I thought you people wanted to protect the will of the voters from being overturned in court. It's funny how you suddenly forget that principle whenever the majority of voters does something you don't like.
"It’s as if Biblical law (the foundation of common law) does not even exist."
It doesn't. I'm suspicious this may be a poe, that sentence and the name seem a little too obvious.
Nonetheless:
image
Biblical law?
Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)
The american law AFAIK also doesn´t have any of the biblical laws concerning slavery in it (slavery being generally allowed [especially slavery of foreigners], parents being allowed to sell their daughter into sex-slavery and the like)
So well, seems like the american law system is less based on biblical law as you think ;)
I live in North Carolina and I will tell you this much: We are easy going, and the majority of us are moderates and democrats. This freeper response DOES NOT reflect well on the population of North Carolina, because we are one of the most easy going of the southern states.
OBVIOUSLY..guys..we voted in an open atheist. The last major election had the republicans accusing the democrats of being atheists and accpeting money from atheists..we elected ALL of the democrats that were accused of such..so what does THAT tell you?
Over here at North "Kakalaky" (as we call it) we prefer to have a cold beer, some bar-b-que, and laugh things off...then settle the matter over who can bring the funniest target practice target to shoot at. The one who gets the most laughs wins the day! Blacks and whites party together and teach each other the most offensive and funniest racist jokes and EVERYBODY laughs at them. I can toast a cold beer in a frosty mug to the Sherif out in the open as SHE rides by and honks her horn at us. Sometimes the cops will come to join us when we are shooting our guns for fun. We CHERISH freedom here. REAL freedom. The schools know my kids are atheists and they have NOT been harassed by the faculty at all. An occasional kid may try to punk them for it, but kids are kids you know? They should grow out of it living around here.
I recall a restaurant in Raleigh in 1984 that even sold mixed drinks. I've never been back.
"One must simply believe in a "supreme being". "
Many Texans see themselves that way.
Yes that pesky US constitution would seem to make the freeper's position factually untenable.
But oh, didn't you know? The Constitution doesn't actually apply to atheists because the Founding fathers weren't atheists and/or atheists didn't exist back then. (which leads to all sorts of other historical problems)
It's amazing how "strict constructionists" keep finding these hidden unwritten messages from the founding fathers no one else sees.
But I expect the fascists in black robes to once again strike out against Christianity and moral decency.
Projecting much, you fascist fuck?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
