No, it leaves the second question open. Under the statement you posted, it would be entirely legal to pass a law banning atheists from holding office, for example.

The other clause is not important, it in effect says:

"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."

Someone who does NOT acknowledge god, OTOH is not explicitly protected.

Really odd way to word things.

There is no unbiased history.

No such thing.

On the one hand, the largest murderers in human history, the communists, were not doing so for religion (though they treated the state and "dear leader" as a godlike figure). On the other hand, if you go farther back in human history, the percentage of people that died to human violence was FAR higher than it was even in nazi germany or the soviet union. Far higher.

Studies of primitive tribal peoples show that more than 25% die to homicide. Those people ARE religious (and one religion is just as likely as the next in terms of veracity—if you disagree, I'll happily use whatever algorithm you use to throw out tribal religion on yours ;) ). The decrease in human violence has nothing to do with improvements in religious invention, either. New Testament era people I'm sure died at human hands at a higher rate than the 4:100,000 we might see today.

Truer words have seldom been posted in this forum.

History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon. - Napoleon Bonaparte

If you consider the context of when that text was written, that interpretation makes no sense. The vast majority of people in 1790s Pennsylvania would have believed in god. Why would a man believing in god (and thus adhering to the majority opinion) be discriminated against?

The text makes more sense if you interpret it as saying a person cannot be discriminated against for his beliefs AS LONG AS he believes in god and an afterlife.

It also does NOT say you can NOT be disqualified because you do not believe in Santa Claus.

Law is based on what it says. Not what it does not say.
Your reading things into it that aren't there.

That thought entered my head after posting.
"A day late, and a dollar short."

You are correct, and I stand corrected.

You are correct, but it leaves open the possibility of passing a law that might disqualify someone for being an atheist.

It seems not to pass the establishment muster, either, since it says "a God." Note capital god, BTW. When you speak of the Greeks, you'd write "god" or "gods." Seems to be establishing a state religion that encompasses all 3 "great" (lol) monotheisms.

You're right, I missed that somehow. On the other hand, I find the signing reference to be a bit silly. Yes, they used the term. Did they have any other choice? As you said, it was the language of the day. And the journals kept at the time show that Benjamin Franklin tried to have each day's session open with a prayer, and that the motion was roundly voted down. They went out of their way to keep the document secular, and as I've already pointed out one of the main proponents of the 'Separation' phrase was James Madison himself. In fact Madison strenuously opposed the use of public money to hire chaplains for both Congress and the military. I can't argue that he was likely wrong on the military front, but his idea for Congress was that if they wanted to pray they should pay the chaplains out of their own pockets.

As for your statement of what you want, do you really believe people are asked to check their morals at the door? What of any of the other desires you mention are different than anything anyone else has claimed for the first amendment. In spite of the 'No religious test' clause, try running for president while denying a belief in God and see how far you get.

Separate thought. On the topic of State laws, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Virginia Statute For Religious Freedom specifically to counter existing laws in that state; laws that mandated a 30-day jail sentence for denying the Trinity and death for 'Blaspheming against the Church'. Those laws were long out of use, but Jefferson believed it would only take one good speaker to convince the people to revive them.

Now it's my turn to say "You've got to be kidding."

It means what it says alright, but what you just said has nothing to do with what it actually says.

What it says is a statement of religious tolerance. It's refering to keeping a man out of office, not because he believes in God, but because his theology differs from yours. It does specifically list acknowledging the existence of God and the afterlife as a requirement, intimating that a person who denies those can be denied office.

Your interpretation is either self-deception or intentional prevarication.

Oh, and believe it or not, I don't have a dog in this hunt, and I do speak English.

Steve - the quoted law listed by Skybird does NOT list any "requirement" that a man must acknowledge a deity of any sort. There may be more to the law that does - but NOTHING in what was quoted does so. I can only speak on what it does say.

If it said "No person who does not acknowledge a God may be disqualified from holding office" - then I would agree. But it doesn't - at least not in what has been brought forth.

To say the law "infers" or "intimates" something is not what law does - as SNES says - law doesn't work like that. It does NOT say you are disqualifed if you do not acknowledge a god. If it did, this wouldn't be in question.

Lets use your logic for a second. In Galveston, Texas, there is a wonderful law on the books that says "Cars may not be driven through playgrounds.". By inference, one could say that no motorized vehicle could be driven through any place where children at play may be. It would then be illegal to have a go cart track in galveston - because it would be a motorized vehicle going where kids play. There is a reason it doesnt say this. Law says what it says - and nothing more.

The problem with the judicial branch is that you have exactly what your describing - judges who "legislate" from the bench by INFERRING that if a law says one thing - it must mean this other thing to. That isn't what the law does.

Your contention was that it meant that a person could not be disqualified for saying there was a God, and no state has ever passed a law anything like that. It says that a man cannot be disqualified regardless of religious beliefs as long as he acknowledges the existence of God, and no analogy you can present changes that.

Just in case I got my first sentence wrong, what exactly do you believe it means?

Very interesting point. Good find.

But it also doesn't say anything about people who do believe in Santa.
And that's where the difference is, religious god acknowledging people are granted a right that atheists are not.

While Santa-believers are not granted more rights than non-Santa-believers.

Since i can't find a better thread to post this link in:

http://www.lacanadaonline.com/articl...vizu051310.txt

Note: I do not classify myself as an athiest, only one who dislikes ramrodding, intolerance and hipocracy of the devout.

On another note, i recall fondly some of the devout taggin the 91 freeway with the numbers for a chrisitan radio station all the freaking time near overpasses. The funny thing was i knew exactly what i was looking at before i changed the radio station to verify my hunch.

They can't just live and let live, it's pathetic. :nope:

Well, as with so-called 'Christians' shooting abortion doctors, I think every group is plagued with some who are willing to anything in the name of their faith, no matter what it is, and that includes anti-theism.

I'm told that there is an old Hindu saying: No god should ever be judged by the sort of people who claim to worship him.

Oh c'mon, stop being such a drama queen Duc. How exactly are they not letting you "live"?

Look, don't get me wrong. Regardless of the message, Graffiti is a crime and the "artist" deserves to be punished for it, but "live and let live" does not mean "be invisible to you".

They're people, and fellow Americans, now if they start burning crosses on your front yard or splashing you with goat blood or simply not leave your property when you tell them to, that'd be one thing but I just don't see how an occasional religious solicitation justifies such a strong emotional response.

When painting a wall, its very hard to not use a wide brush, or sponge roller, when the majority of the paint buckets you've been given are but a single color. Yes there is some trim work on this wall that is a different color and i'll want to use a 2" brush to finish it properly, but the majority of the wall is still the one color.

Now here is where we differ - where do you see the law say "as long as? It doesn't. It says IF a man chooses to acknowledge God - you can't use it to disqualify him. If the law meant that you HAD to acknowledge God, then it would say so. It would state clearly - like the one for NC does - that a man MUST acknowledge it or be disqualified.

Also - note that this law quoted is from the Declaration of Rights - not the declaration or non-rights. Enumerated rights are things/actions PROTECTED by law.

What does it mean? It means that if I were a resident and ran for office - you couldn't legally stop me from taking a civil office should I win - all because I acknowledge God. All the law does is protect the rights of those who would otherwise be targetted because they acknowledge God.

Its also quite ironic that it is claimed to be "discriminatory" since the same Declaration of Rights - Section 3 states the following:
The very preceding act makes it clear that any man can worship as "according to the dictates of their own consciences" - meaning if your inclination is to say the hell with God, church and everything else "religious" or spiritual - you have full right to do it. Boy - how discriminitory that is huh..:doh: The whole "no preference" also makes it clear that you couldnt use tne next PROTECTION as some weird twist to then "prefer" under law religion.....

Ya'll can see in however you want - but there is no way that law could be used to target a non-believe - because it doesn't even mention them!

I also find it quite odd that of all the discussion - no one has anything to say about the actual changes to the texas curriculum that I linked to and posted examples of.

Why would a Christian majority in a Christian state pass a law protecting people from being castigated for saying they believed in god. State laws have always, without exception, only withheld rights from people who either believed the wrong way or not at all. Modern evangelicals like to point out their belief that this has always been a Christian country. So Pennsylvania passed a law protecting good God-fearing men from those evil atheists? Virtually every Freedom-Of-Religion law writted was made to protect the minority from the majority, the majority being the Christians. Or was there some secret Atheist Coalition running the country back then that nobody told us about?

Your interpretation is silly.