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.

I tryed that, but they shifted it right bavk to religion.
Personaly, I thought the original topic to be far more interesting but . . . .

So its alright to let god into our governmental system while we chastise the muslims for running religious states?

hold on while turn of the hypocrisy alarm..its getting kinda loud

From the original topic:
I realize that it is important to talk about the 'corrections' and the questionability of doing this, but religion was definitely within the scope of the discussion, especially the question of a 'Christian America'.

But indeed, let's talk about all those things. There's plenty of room.

And while later documents do step away from references to God - the fact is that the 2 documents that led the way BOTH reference a god in some way. This is an undeniable fact. Check the "Declaration of Arms" in 1775 and the "Declaration of Independance" in 1776. The first was the final attempt to reconcile with the Crown, and states at the beginning(emphasis added):

The Declaration of Independance, which is the document that indeed founded this country, also includes the same type references (emphasis added):

Now - had they tried to claim that the nation was founded under "the Xtian" God, it would be incorrect. However, they didn't say that - they said "under God" - and that - contrary to the athiests and anti-religious - is a true statement. To say otherwise is exactly what the left is accusing the right of trying to do - rewrite history. To keep "God" out of schools, one must intentionally refuse to teach the two documents listed above - which are cornerstones of this nations history and move to independance. This doesn't mean they need a religious class, but the fact is that the writers and signers held a belief in a power above themselves sufficient for them to note it in the documents. Thus - this nation was formed "under God", since they invoke god specifically by putting the action "to the Supreme Judge".

Sorry it "offends" your sensibilities, sorry some of you don't like it - but history is offensive in many ways - get over it. Or are you all about teaching "truth" only when its what you like?

Would that be because the Crown was also the head of the established State religion? Which of course comes back to the thing about establishment.
Since the amendment says there can be no establishment then what does establishment mean, the easiest and most definitive answer would be from when political bodies take away establishments. Like the disestablishment of religions from their role in politics....which is the unquestionable seperation of church and State.