Illegal for atheist to hold office

[Noir]

How on earth this got into the state constitution and hasn't been removed is baffling,

This was from a few months ago, hopefully its been removed by now, along with the other states who had similar state constitutions.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FefynZwWM0I&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FefynZwWM0I&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

[Kathianne]

The state constitution hasn't been revised. To force him to swear to God, would violate the US Constitution. He was sworn in, Maddow was just stirring as were those that made an issue of it in the first place.

[Noir]

The state constitution hasn't been revised. To force him to swear to God, would violate the US Constitution. He was sworn in, Maddow was just stirring as were those that made an issue of it in the first place.

But the state constitution does need to be revised.

[Kathianne]

But the state constitution does need to be revised.

It didn't go to court. Unless compelling reason that someone wants to spend the money on challenge, wouldn't happen. That's why we have so many blue laws on books.

[Noir]

It didn't go to court. Unless compelling reason that someone wants to spend the money on challenge, wouldn't happen. That's why we have so many blue laws on books.

I'm guess a 'blue law' is a useless law?
But surly it could be removed in a moment, it is clearly against the US constitution, and to that there can be no opposition, give to to a judge and couple of words later its gone. Simples.

[Kathianne]

I'm guess a 'blue law' is a useless law?
But surly it could be removed in a moment, it is clearly against the US constitution, and to that there can be no opposition, give to to a judge and couple of words later its gone. Simples.

There is nothing in our system that can be done in a 'moment', not from local to federal. It's built into the system.

[HogTrash]

Damn Noir, you got it in for God as bad as I got it in for political correctness.

But I'd rather have a bunch of nobody liberals and minorities pissed at me than The Big Guy...LOL!

[PostmodernProphet]

But the state constitution does need to be revised.

why.....what if they don't want atheists in office......

[Noir]

why.....what if they don't want atheists in office......

It doesn't matter what the want or don't, it violates the US constitution.

[Kathianne]

why.....what if they don't want atheists in office......

State laws must be aligned with US Constitution. Now changing the state constitution would happen if some party took it to SCOTUS, but unlikely in this case. Some folks didn't want an atheist sworn in, they made a stink. Didn't effect anything other than Maddow making a brouhaha over it. If they did withold the office, the case would have gone to court and the person would have prevailed. Now one could argue that the US Constitution should be changed, the 1st amendment. Chances of that?

[glockmail]

I like the NC law banning atheists.

[Noir]

I like the NC law banning atheists.

So you like unconstitutional laws, infact, not just any old constitutional laws, but ones that are their to protect freedom of speech/thought and the separation of Church and State. Nice.

[darin]

it's a logical fallacy to take what he wrote and jump to the conclusion you did.

C'mon Astley - try harder. :)

[Noir]

it's a logical fallacy to take what he wrote and jump to the conclusion you did.

C'mon Astley - try harder. :)

Hey, we're no strangers to debate, you know the rules, and so do i, a full...erm, enough of that xD

He says he likes a law that discriminates against someone because of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) Laws which are unconstitutional.

[glockmail]

So you like unconstitutional laws, infact, not just any old constitutional laws, but ones that are their to protect freedom of speech/thought and the separation of Church and State. Nice. How, exactly, does the NC Constitution defy the US Constitution?

[Noir]

How, exactly, does the NC Constitution defy the US Constitution?

Article 6 of the US Constitution

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.

If NC has a law banning Atheists as you have said then that law is unconstitutional.

[glockmail]

Article 6 of the US Constitution


If NC has a law banning Atheists as you have said then that law is unconstitutional. How does the NC Constitution require a religious test?

[Noir]

How does the NC Constitution require a religious test?

...to be honest i have no idea what the NC Constitution is, however given the topic is "Illegal for atheist to hold office" and you said "I like the NC law banning atheists." I assumed that it had a simalar constitutional clause to the states in the OP

If not, can you explain what exactly you meant by "I like the NC law banning atheists"

[glockmail]

...to be honest i have no idea what the NC Constitution is, however given the topic is "Illegal for atheist to hold office" and you said "I like the NC law banning atheists." I assumed that it had a simalar constitutional clause to the states in the OP

If not, can you explain what exactly you meant by "I like the NC law banning atheists"

You don't have google in the UK? Here, I'll help: http://statelibrary.ncdcr.gov/nc/STGOVT/PRECONST.HTM

[Noir]

You don't have google in the UK? Here, I'll help: http://statelibrary.ncdcr.gov/nc/STGOVT/PRECONST.HTM

I do, and if you don't mind i'd rather not read through all of that, so, what exactly is is that is banned to atheists in the NC Constitution?

[glockmail]

You're obviously too lazy to find that out yourself, but still eager to attack our form of State government.

[Noir]

You're obviously too lazy to find that out yourself, but still eager to attack our form of State government.

No worries, i read through article 6, and found this


Sec. 8. Disqualifications for office.

The following persons shall be disqualified for office:

First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

Let me remind you of the constitution again


but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States

Thus Section 8 of Article 6 of the NC constitution is against the constitution of the United States. No?

[glockmail]

How is that a "religious Test"?

[Noir]

How is that a "religious Test"?

...are you being serious? :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[glockmail]

Yes

[crin63]

So you like unconstitutional laws, infact, not just any old constitutional laws, but ones that are their to protect freedom of speech/thought and the separation of Church and State. Nice.

There is no violation of the separation church and state because separation of church and state was a provision to prevent a church state, not keeping religion out of politics.

[Noir]

Yes

Okay...
The NC constitution says you can be disqualified from office if deny the being of Almighty God

Therefore you must believe in almighty god to be in office. That is a test.

I really don't know how else to put it, its that simple, because you are judged to not be qualified if you do not believe in God, and as the god old constitution says


but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States

If you really can't see this i can only assume it is by intention

[Noir]

There is no violation of the separation church and state because separation of church and state was a provision to prevent a church state, not keeping religion out of politics.

No, its meant to go both ways

Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent from each other.[1] The term most often refers to the combination of two principles: secularity of government and freedom of religious exercise.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#United_States

You can not (or atleast should not) Keep someone out of politics for religious reasons. That violates the separation of church and state.

[Missileman]

There is no violation of the separation church and state because separation of church and state was a provision to prevent a church state, not keeping religion out of politics.

Separation of church and state is a door that swings both ways, not just in the direction that you favor.

[glockmail]

Okay...
The NC constitution says you can be disqualified from office if deny the being of Almighty God

Therefore you must believe in almighty god to be in office. That is a test.

I really don't know how else to put it, its that simple, because you are judged to not be qualified if you do not believe in God, and as the god old constitution says



If you really can't see this i can only assume it is by intention

The Constitution disqualifies "any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God." NC is not administering a test. All the atheist office holder has to do is keep his mouth shut about his beliefs. Isn't that what you want Christian office holders to do?

[Noir]

The Constitution disqualifies "any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God." NC is not administering a test. All the atheist office holder has to do is keep his mouth shut about his beliefs. Isn't that what you want Christian office holders to do?

Sir, you are a fool. Its almost embarrassing to read.

The US constitution makes clear there can NOT to be ANY religious qualification to hold public office,

And your only answer is 'they should restrict their freedom to express themselves, then they will not be disqualified on religious grounds.' Missing the point that the US constitution, says you can not be disqualified by your religious stance.

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. So its clear to me, if you have a Christian Religion, your fine.
2. If you are an atheist you have no religion, you're a reject.
3. Rejects need not run, is what they are saying.
4. They don't care if your a Catholic, Baptist, Methodist,...and so on,...as long as you are in a Christian group/belief system.
5. I hope they won't take a muzzy eithers.
6. Glock a fool?!!!!hahahahaha,.......


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[glockmail]

Sir, you are a fool. Its almost embarrassing to read.

The US constitution makes clear there can NOT to be ANY religious qualification to hold public office,

And your only answer is 'they should restrict their freedom to express themselves, then they will not be disqualified on religious grounds.' Missing the point that the US constitution, says you can not be disqualified by your religious stance. You can't have it both ways my friend. On one hand you ACLU libtards don't want legislators to mention the name of Jesus, yet when atheists are told to keep their mouth's shut, suddenly you have a problem. It must be terribly embarrassing to have this hypocritical position.

[Noir]

You can't have it both ways my friend. On one hand you ACLU libtards don't want legislators to mention the name of Jesus, yet when atheists are told to keep their mouth's shut, suddenly you have a problem. It must be terribly embarrassing to have this hypocritical position.

You have ignored the point i made in my post, about how the constitution of NC is in violation of the US constitution, and decided instead to go on more of a personal attack, by stereotyping me ect. Would you not rather discuss the constitution?

And as an aside - If you have a post of me trying to say that a legislator should not be able to talk about their god then please post it, but i will save you some searching time and assure you i have never made such a statement.

[glockmail]

You have ignored the point i made in my post, about how the constitution of NC is in violation of the US constitution, and decided instead to go on more of a personal attack, by stereotyping me ect. Would you not rather discuss the constitution?

And as an aside - If you have a post of me trying to say that a legislator should not be able to talk about their god then please post it, but i will save you some searching time and assure you i have never made such a statement.
You never made that point as I destroyed your argument.

The ACLU is constantly attacking Christianity as you have, so I assumed that you were a card-carrying member.

[PostmodernProphet]

It doesn't matter what the want or don't, it violates the US constitution.

I am aware of provisions in the constitution that require equal treatment for people of all religions.....but atheists say their beliefs aren't a religion.......is there a provision in the constitution for equal protections of beliefs that aren't a religion?......do you for example have a constitutional right to believe the Cubs will never win a World Series?.......may someone choose not to hire you based upon your belief that apples taste bad?.......

[Noir]

I am aware of provisions in the constitution that require equal treatment for people of all religions.....but atheists say their beliefs aren't a religion.......is there a provision in the constitution for equal protections of beliefs that aren't a religion?......do you for example have a constitutional right to believe the Cubs will never win a World Series?.......may someone choose not to hire you based upon your belief that apples taste bad?.......

The constitution states that there can be no religious testing. Thus it does not matter if you believe in many gods, a few gods, one god or no god, because what you believe is not a qualification for any state office.

Once you start to get into the private workplace i'm sure it becomes allot trickier, and so i can't really comment on that, but you do have a right to believe whatever you want, your freedom of speech is an extension of freedom of thought.

[glockmail]

The constitution states that there can be no religious testing. Thus it does not matter if you believe in many gods, a few gods, one god or no god, because what you believe is not a qualification for any state office.

Once you start to get into the private workplace i'm sure it becomes allot trickier, and so i can't really comment on that, but you do have a right to believe whatever you want, your freedom of speech is an extension of freedom of thought.

I'd never hire an atheist, since the understanding that you will be judged is the basis of trust. I did have a Muslim from Sudan at one time and he was a good employee.

[Noir]

You never made that point as I destroyed your argument.

The ACLU is constantly attacking Christianity as you have, so I assumed that you were a card-carrying member.

No you did not sir. The only thing you had was the definition of the word 'test' and the idea that in order for someone to be protected under the 6th they just had to curtal their freedom of speech and expression. Lol. I am not surprised you dropped that like a hot brick.

I have no real knowledge of this ACLU, i can only assume they are a pressure group, and am certainly not a "card carrying member" If you are want to think things of me then ask and i shall answer, do not just assume that i must be part of some group and then make more assumptions based on that. Otherwise you end up making arguments to rebut things that you think i think when i don't, which is just silly.

[Noir]

I'd never hire an atheist, since the understanding that you will be judged is the basis of trust. I did have a Muslim from Sudan at one time and he was a good employee.

I would expect no less, you prejudice is more than evident.

[glockmail]

No you did not sir.

Of course I destroyed your argument. Where is the test?

[Kathianne]

I'd never hire an atheist, since the understanding that you will be judged is the basis of trust. I did have a Muslim from Sudan at one time and he was a good employee.

You ask about people's religion when you hire them?

[glockmail]

I would expect no less, you prejudice is more than evident. Its not prejudice to not trust someone who makes poor choices. From m-w.com:


an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge
an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

I have sufficient knowledge to make that judgment, and its not an irrational attitude.

[glockmail]

You ask about people's religion when you hire them? In a round-a-bout way, yes. When I hired the guy from Sudan I talked with him about his religion specifically and at length.

[PostmodernProphet]

The constitution states that there can be no religious testing.

so long as atheists deny their beliefs are a religion it can't be "religious" testing.....religious testing would be "are you a Christian", "are you a Muslim".......

instead we have "are you rational" or "are you an atheist"......I think it's something we ought to know.......

[Kathianne]

In a round-a-bout way, yes. When I hired the guy from Sudan I talked with him about his religion specifically and at length.

What about 'Christians' who do not share your take?

[Kathianne]

so long as atheists deny their beliefs are a religion it can't be "religious" testing.....religious testing would be "are you a Christian", "are you a Muslim".......

instead we have "are you rational" or "are you an atheist"......I think it's something we ought to know.......
Why? If the person can do the job? Same with sexual orientation, why ask? Now if someone wishes to push their beliefs or orientation, that is a different kettle of fish.

Questions like the above I would like answered if I was dating someone or they were dating one of my kids. Other than that? Don't see the point, unless of course your business is faith based-like a church or something.

[Noir]

Of course I destroyed your argument. Where is the test?

The test is the text in section 8 of article six of the NC, and in its simple terms it says 'Believe in God - You can hold office' or 'Do not believe in God - You can not hold office'
Now your 'solution' to an atheist who is in office, is to keep his mouth shut if he wants to stay there, and thus limit his right to free speech.
HOWEVER
If he did reveal he was an atheist and the state tried to disqualify him for failing their test in the state constitution, they would soon find themselves being overruled by the US constitution, which says you do not need any religious qualifications to hold office.

I'm sure you already know all of this, yet still press further, by which i can only assume you do not want to admit that you were wrong. Or you are simply blind to very clear text, i can only hope its the former.

[glockmail]

What about 'Christians' who do not share your take? My take on what?

[glockmail]

The test is the text in section 8 of article six of the NC, and in its simple terms it says 'Believe in God - You can hold office' or 'Do not believe in God - You can not hold office' ..... You can try and rephrase what it says or come up with your own definitions off words but that won't help your argument. It will only make you look that much more pitiful.

[Noir]

Its not prejudice to not trust someone who makes poor choices. From m-w.com:

I have sufficient knowledge to make that judgment, and its not an irrational attitude.

Well you may be thankful you don't live in the UK, or you'd have trouble finding anyone you trust.

Thats kinda sad really, i mean i've worked with people with a whole spectrum of faiths and lack of, to think that my boss would of stopped me meeting any of them because they decided that the employees made "poor choices" would be a most horrid thought.

[Noir]

You can try and rephrase what it says or come up with your own definitions off words but that won't help your argument. It will only make you look that much more pitiful.

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

I hope everyone else is getting a good laugh out of this, cus i sure am.

What exactly did you think the founding fathers meant?...'oh its okay to kick someone out of public office if they say they are not religious, however, you can not sit them down to an exam paper with the question 'Do you believe in almighty god' for that is a test, and you can't boot them out because of a test, so find other ways to do it' :laugh2:

[glockmail]

Well you may be thankful you don't live in the UK, or you'd have trouble finding anyone you trust.

Thats kinda sad really, i mean i've worked with people with a whole spectrum of faiths and lack of, to think that my boss would of stopped me meeting any of them because they decided that the employees made "poor choices" would be a most horrid thought.

There's lots of reasons that I choose to live in The South. And its not a question of meeting some folks and having light conversation. This is about hiring people to do a job and make money for you.

[glockmail]

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

I hope everyone else is getting a good laugh out of this, cus i sure am.

What exactly did you think the founding fathers meant?...'oh its okay to kick someone out of public office if they say they are not religious, however, you can not sit them down to an exam paper with the question 'Do you believe in almighty god' for that is a test, and you can't boot them out because of a test, so find other ways to do it' :laugh2:

The Founders meant just what they said and so did the writers of the NC Constitution.

[Kathianne]

My take on what?

Religion. We're not all of the same beliefs. I think Cp- is Christian, no? Yet, his and mine seem alien.

[Noir]

There's lots of reasons that I choose to live in The South. And its not a question of meeting some folks and having light conversation. This is about hiring people to do a job and make money for you.

Too right, thats why European countries are still 3rd world economically, its the same with northern states of America as you pointed out, New York, Washington, San Fransisco, Indianapolis, all baron waste land, because you can't have capitalism without theism, no one works and no one makes money /sark

[glockmail]

Religion. We're not all of the same beliefs. I think Cp- is Christian, no? Yet, his and mine seem alien.You mean, as a Catholic, would I hire a Protestant? Of course. In fact I have a lot of respect for most of the denominations. I particularly like Baptists, as they aren't afraid to say exactly what they think.

[glockmail]

Too right, thats why European countries are still 3rd world economically, its the same with northern states of America as you pointed out, New York, Washington, San Fransisco, Indianapolis, all baron waste land, because you can't have capitalism without theism, no one works and no one makes money /sark New York State, where I lived for 11 years, hasn't grown in population in a century. After the 2000 census North Carolina gained representation and New York lost it. Lot of Rust Belt cities are in decline, in fact Detroit is considering bulldozing 40% of its land because its been abandoned by private enterprise. Californica is on the verge of bankruptcy. The largest economy in Europe is a mere fraction of the US economy, and their native populations are mostly in decline...

[Kathianne]

You mean, as a Catholic, would I hire a Protestant? Of course. In fact I have a lot of respect for most of the denominations. I particularly like Baptists, as they aren't afraid to say exactly what they think.

I don't want to be preached to by those whose beliefs I disagree with. Certainly not at work. As I believe you said, workers are there to work. If I want to argue religion, politics, sexual orientation I know a few places to go, including out with friends. At work? No.

[glockmail]

I don't want to be preached to by those whose beliefs I disagree with. Certainly not at work. As I believe you said, workers are there to work. If I want to argue religion, politics, sexual orientation I know a few places to go, including out with friends. At work? No. That's another reason not to hire atheists. You don't do much arguing with folks you agree with. I had one guy who was a native Southerner, lily white, born again and another who was a black Muslim from Sudan. They got along great and frequently went out to lunch together.

[AllieBaba]

There is no violation of the separation church and state because separation of church and state was a provision to prevent a church state, not keeping religion out of politics.

More specifically it was a provision (and not a constitutional one) meant to protect the rights of people who want to publicly adhere to a specific religion. It was meant to protect people from being discriminated against because of their faith.

[AllieBaba]

I don't want to be preached to by those whose beliefs I disagree with. Certainly not at work. As I believe you said, workers are there to work. If I want to argue religion, politics, sexual orientation I know a few places to go, including out with friends. At work? No.

So don't argue.

[Kathianne]

So don't argue.

Shut up! ;)

[PostmodernProphet]

Why? If the person can do the job? Same with sexual orientation, why ask? Now if someone wishes to push their beliefs or orientation, that is a different kettle of fish.

because I think atheists, by definition, aren't quite up to average intelligence.....they think they are acting rationally when they make irrational claims.....not the sort I want running the government....

[Noir]

because I think atheists, by definition, aren't quite up to average intelligence.....they think they are acting rationally when they make irrational claims.....not the sort I want running the government....

What a load of tosh, if you equate intelligence to religious belief then you've got a problem explaining away many of the greatest scientists of our generation, i do not think they are in any way more intelligent because of their atheism, however, for you to say they are less so is plain daft.

[glockmail]

Its the lack of logical thinking of atheists that clues me into their lack of intelligence.

[DragonStryk72]

How on earth this got into the state constitution and hasn't been removed is baffling,

This was from a few months ago, hopefully its been removed by now, along with the other states who had similar state constitutions.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FefynZwWM0I&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FefynZwWM0I&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Actually, Noir, it's blatantly unconstitutional as she points out in the video. This was likely a hold over from the old days when people got all nuts over witches and non-christians. It will likely be quickly struck down, and the guys who made an issue out of this deserve a stooge slap.

It doesn't matter if they want an atheist or not, he was legally voted in to office, and no one, until now, made an issue of his religion, or lack of one. It is immaterial, and under Article 6 of the US Constitution, it cannot be used to impeach him./

[SassyLady]

Atheists want government eradicated from any form of government. Well, guess what folks, when government invades every aspect of life and is growing exponentially there will be no room left for the practice of religion. I do not belong to any religion but I am totally disgusted with the persecution of religion from the atheists of the world.

[Missileman]

Atheists want government eradicated from any form of government. Well, guess what folks, when government invades every aspect of life and is growing exponentially there will be no room left for the practice of religion. I do not belong to any religion but I am totally disgusted with the persecution of religion from the atheists of the world.

Strange isn't it though that this is a story about an atheist being persecuted by the religious.

[Mr. P]

It's embarrassing and ironic to see a young Brit rub some of yer noses in our own Constitution.

[SassyLady]

Strange isn't it though that this is a story about an atheist being persecuted by the religious.

Not strange - human nature. All of us want to be surrounded by things/people that make us comfortable. Obviously, those who believe and those who don't want their position to be the majority........so both sides take every opportunity to get the upper hand.

[Noir]

Actually, Noir, it's blatantly unconstitutional as she points out in the video. This was likely a hold over from the old days when people got all nuts over witches and non-christians. It will likely be quickly struck down, and the guys who made an issue out of this deserve a stooge slap.

It doesn't matter if they want an atheist or not, he was legally voted in to office, and no one, until now, made an issue of his religion, or lack of one. It is immaterial, and under Article 6 of the US Constitution, it cannot be used to impeach him./

I know, and i expected when i posted this thread that everyone would say its just the Atheists trying to make something out of nothing, but then you get people like Glock, and to an extent PMP, who show the attitude that is out there and held against atheists, and who do not think that their constitutional rights should be upheld because of their atheism.

[Kathianne]

I don't get some of the responses. While I currently work in a parochial school, thus religion is part and parcel of what the job is about, I've worked many jobs over the past 1/2 century. I cannot ever remember having religious discussion with the majority of my co-workers.

Some became friends, we went out, religion may have come up, certainly did with those of us that stood up in each others weddings or were asked to become godparents for kids.

I try, with more or less success, to live my faith. I discuss/share with those I develop a relationship with, something that for me couldn't happen in a intro. interview. I'd be as taken back as if a stranger I'd just met asked my family income. Now if I was interviewing someone and they felt a need to hand me literature on their faith or invite me to a service before I knew them more, that would send up red flags to me. I'd have the same issue if an interviewee saw some of my reading materials and went on commenting on what rubbish Lewis, Aquinas, Merton wrote. In both cases I'd figure the person was going to be disruptive.

My reason for hiring would be ability to do job, attitude, and ability to play nice with others.

[PostmodernProphet]

What a load of tosh, if you equate intelligence to religious belief then you've got a problem explaining away many of the greatest scientists of our generation, i do not think they are in any way more intelligent because of their atheism, however, for you to say they are less so is plain daft.

you see, there is an example.....I said nothing about equating intelligence with religious belief, yet the atheist goes off on an irrelevant tangent as a reaction.....an atheist pretends to being a creature of reason, yet they distinguish themselves from others on the basis of an irrational claim......I think it demonstrates an imbalance that would be disruptive in a critical position requiring intelligent action......

[PostmodernProphet]

I know, and i expected when i posted this thread that everyone would say its just the Atheists trying to make something out of nothing, but then you get people like Glock, and to an extent PMP, who show the attitude that is out there and held against atheists, and who do not think that their constitutional rights should be upheld because of their atheism.

is there a constitutional right to get elected to hold political office.....how about we compromise.....atheists can run for office so long as they make it clear they are atheists before the election........

[PostmodernProphet]

I don't get some of the responses. While I currently work in a parochial school, thus religion is part and parcel of what the job is about, I've worked many jobs over the past 1/2 century. I cannot ever remember having religious discussion with the majority of my co-workers.

Some became friends, we went out, religion may have come up, certainly did with those of us that stood up in each others weddings or were asked to become godparents for kids.

I try, with more or less success, to live my faith. I discuss/share with those I develop a relationship with, something that for me couldn't happen in a intro. interview. I'd be as taken back as if a stranger I'd just met asked my family income. Now if I was interviewing someone and they felt a need to hand me literature on their faith or invite me to a service before I knew them more, that would send up red flags to me. I'd have the same issue if an interviewee saw some of my reading materials and went on commenting on what rubbish Lewis, Aquinas, Merton wrote. In both cases I'd figure the person was going to be disruptive.

My reason for hiring would be ability to do job, attitude, and ability to play nice with others.

how many threads have been started here by people trying to convince you their religion is superior to another......how many threads have been started by atheists for the sole purpose of ridiculing religion and promoting the 'rationalism' of atheism?.......who's being disruptive?......

[Noir]

how many threads have been started here by people trying to convince you their religion is superior to another......how many threads have been started by atheists for the sole purpose of ridiculing religion and promoting the 'rationalism' of atheism?.......who's being disruptive?......

LOL

You think i'm being disruptive?
If you think that asking questions is being disruptive you have yet to get the idea of a public forum.

[PostmodernProphet]

did I stick my finger in your eye?.....

[glockmail]

how many threads have been started here by people trying to convince you their religion is superior to another......how many threads have been started by atheists for the sole purpose of ridiculing religion and promoting the 'rationalism' of atheism?.......

This. :clap: