well as far as my knowledge of English goes, it says that you cannot be disqualified [...] on account of your religious sentiments, as long as you are a person who "acknowledges the being of a god".
I don't acknowledge the being of a god, so it says I can, on account of my religious sentiments, be disqualified [...].

The only matter is how you can be religious, while still not acknowledging the being of a god. Well, trust me, you can. I'm a religious Pagan, but I don't actually believe in the old Germanic Gods.

Sorry, but I messed up that post. Actually it should have been a quote box from A to Z, which I forgot to add after the pasting and copying. I see the link to the website also got crippled, only the last digits got copied. Happens when one types/posts too fast - my fault.

What it means is that that text is completely taken from a US website, not from me. None of the words is by me, so it hardly is a translation thing, nor am I the only one understanding things the way it is expressed there. And the author, for obvious reasons, was/is perfectly capable in English language. It's his native language, I strongly assume.

It does say that you can not be disqualified because you believe in a god(s).

It does NOT say you can be disqualified because you do not believe in a god(s).

but it also does NOT say you can NOT be disqualified because you do not believe in a god.

This in itself is discrimination already IMO.

Fair enough. However, that being said, a history of things don't necessarily equate to the current state of things. And my point is about the latter.

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.