Thread: North Carolina Intollerant and Unconstitutional Action

Originally Posted by 59caddy

ok, accepted, but also remember the taliban and al queda(spelling?) chopping off heads, "more documented" than priest molesting children, also the mideast religion of circumcision of women at a very young age "more documented" than priests

All backed by religion and accepted by their religious order to be the moral thing to do. I don't know anyone personally - nor have I heard of the magnitude committed by others - that equals the atrocities committed in the name of morality and religion.

Well maybe we will see a day when a Taleban member or fallen Catholic preast serve as a City Council members there in North Carolina. At least they can't be disqualified for being an atheist

Originally Posted by 59caddy

why does everyone always zero in on catholic priests? there are idiots in every religion and every part of any and all societies. i am NOT defending these priests by any means..it just seems that people always use them as an example of how terrible organized religion is..any and all perverts and such should be dealt with harshly as well as anybody else creating havoc

And made truly atrocious by the fact that the church itself was complicit for so many years by covering up these monsters and protecting them repeatedly. That puts it in a category beyond just the actions of some corrupt individuals. How pathetically evil to call, 'look elsewhere' when this is brought up. Considering that Catholic policy surrounding condoms is largely responsible for so much suffering and death in HIV ridden Africa, truly moral people should be demanding a change to the policy or abandoning that church in droves.

I think we should all agree by now that noone has a monopoly on ethics and that all people can display right moral action regardless of religion or lack thereof. I must repeat my call to oppose discrimination based on religious criteria.

Originally Posted by xman

I think we should all agree by now that noone has a monopoly on ethics and that all people can display right moral action regardless of religion or lack thereof. I must repeat my call to oppose discrimination based on religious criteria.

Indeed...

Originally Posted by xman

I think we should all agree by now that noone has a monopoly on ethics and that all people can display right moral action regardless of religion or lack thereof. I must repeat my call to oppose discrimination based on religious criteria.

+1 I second the motion.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

article VI also states that you swear to uphold the constitution of the U.S.
and in most opinions of all the founding documents including the declaration of independence which speaks of our creator

here is the quote from article 6 of the Constitution in question:

"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."

it makes no reference to upholding opinions of the founding documents, it just says "to support this Constitution".

Also, could someone please quote a founding document that says atheists should not be able to hold elected office?

I'd like to respond to the opinion that NC should just ignore the U.S. Supreme Court if it rules against them. Just when did NC become a Nation? I never recalled reading in the papers that NC seceded from the Union? The states have some rights, but when they joined the Union, they gave some up. One of the rights they gave up was the right to ignore U.S. Supreme court rulings. If the U.S. Constitution has no power over state Constitutions, what is the point of having a U.S. Constitution? We might as well burn the thing can become 50 different Countries.

Originally Posted by treydampier

A true Aethiest has no beliefs in anything, and are much are like mercenaries were described by Machiavelli

I find this very offensive. I also find it very un-American. I think it is hate speech.

Originally Posted by Ryan82

well then, if we're getting back on track.....

Why don't they let democracy take it's course, as long as voters are voting for policies and NOT for religious beliefs. Let the best candidate win.

I find it strange that the U.S., the "worlds leading representative republic" still gets hung up on tripe like this. It seems more like tactics than a real issue.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

AHH, my friend, here we have a quandary. the U.S. is not a "democracy" as so many would have us to believe.. we are a "representative republic" and there is a big difference...read the comments of the founding fathers on the fallacy of being a "democracy"

Point taken and correction made. Semantics aside, my main statement still stands. xman is correct in his call to end discrimination.

Why is this crap still happening in the 21st century? This seems to be the perfect example of why federalist intervention is not necessarily an evil concept.

In this particular case the fact that none of you live here allows you to miss a big part of the picture. This representative is a developer who is also pro development a lot of people here don't want to see this town turn into another Atlanta or Charlotte so his opponents are grasping at what ever straw present themselves to keep him out of office. It really has nothing to do with discrimination. This is just a smoke screen for the real issues.

Grasping a straws is indeed what this would be. The problem is that that particular straw has the potential to bring a lot ot unintended consequences with it, such as leading to a lengthy discussion on shaving forums.

Originally Posted by Doc

In this particular case the fact that none of you live here allows you to miss a big part of the picture. This representative is a developer who is also pro development a lot of people here don't want to see this town turn into another Atlanta or Charlotte so his opponents are grasping at what ever straw present themselves to keep him out of office. It really has nothing to do with discrimination. This is just a smoke screen for the real issues.

that doesn't make much sense to me. If they don't like what guy stands for or what they think he'll do once in office, why'd they elect him?