Thread: North Carolina Intollerant and Unconstitutional Action

Originally Posted by gregs656

tis not an answer to any of my points mate. none at all.

i did answer you exactly, if the people of north carolina want to change the constitution so be it. it is their decision. that is the dynamic.

Originally Posted by TheBaron

OK, I believe the reason gay marriage is decided at the state level and not federally is because the constitution has not been amended to recognize gay rights. This gives the states the right to decide how they will recognize the rights of the gay community.

Other rights issues such as Womens Suffrage and Slavery has been amended in the constitution, this would supersede the rights of the states to go against the constitution and take these rights away.

If I am correct in what I just said (and I accept that I could easily be wrong) then the issue of whether or not the federal government can supersede the state constitution of baring a person from office due to religious beliefs can easily be answered by realizing that the constitution has amendments regarding religious freedom. Meaning the comparison to this issue and gay rights is invalid.

atheist is not a religion. the document says freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. amend the documents to specify what you want and i have no problem with it....the comparison to gay rights was just an example of the rights of a state to allow or not allow certain things according to the states wishes.

As far as constitutionality goes, I'd bet that the Supremacy Clause and the no religious test clause (both from article VI) trump the NC constitution.

I think it is deeply lamentable that any professed Christian should abandon their so called 'Christian values' (which are really just Humanistic values which people the world over share) in order to embrace discrimination. I sincerely hope you can accept the error of your position 59caddy. Freedom of religion necessarily includes but is not limited to freedom from religion. We're talking about rights, yes?

Originally Posted by 59caddy

atheist is not a religion. the document says freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. amend the documents to specify what you want and i have no problem with it....the comparison to gay rights was just an example of the rights of a state to allow or not allow certain things according to the states wishes.

I don't think anyone would argue that the state does not have the right to allow or not allow certain things.

What is being argued is the fact that this is one of those things that the state does not have the right to allow or not allow. Furthermore the freedom of religion is freedom to believe any religion or no religion at all (as I understand it).

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

It is slightly disappointing that this is a debate.

Again, I wonder, when we will learn?

Originally Posted by 59caddy

the document says freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

it's cool, a lot of us atheists are also Pastafarians.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

that is exactly what i mean.. ours is the only nation with the same constitution for over 200 years..we have never failed...look at how many other countries have risen and fallen and new founding documents written time and time again, while ours stand fast and steady. with that being said i feel we are on the brink of moral collapse and the fall of the United States as we know it, i know that will make a lot of people happy, to see us fail...

As a historian I find this reasoning a bit strange. First of all 200 years is not necessarily very long for a state or an empire to exist, as gregs mentioned. There was a discussion about the rise and fall of empires after the Soviet Union fell and political scientists were very surprised about this event as they had regarded the US and USSR as constants in the global arena. A leading political scientist said that they now should all become historians (as historians know that empires are not constants, but rather empires rise and decline).
Secondly, "we have never failed"..what exactly do you mean by that, how do you define failure in this context?
The rise and fall of states does not always, in fact rarely (I actually cannot recall any event), stand and fall over a document but rather has its origins in other factors.
IMO the dogmatic view of the constitution or any other document is problematic in the long run, can you really base society on something written hundreds of years ago in another time and age? This is exactly the problems we find in scripture bound religions as Islam and Christianity. Don't get me wrong there are many good and modern values in the American constitution and the amendments but others are obsolete or will be, values are not universal.
Lastly I believe you are correct that America is in decline, but I really do not understand what you mean by that, is it due to something related to the constitution or a general moral collapse? Please explain.

Originally Posted by honedright

As far as constitutionality goes, I'd bet that the Supremacy Clause and the no religious test clause (both from article VI) trump the NC constitution.

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

Originally Posted by xman

Critics of Cecil Bothwell cite N.C. bar to atheists | citizen-times.com | Asheville Citizen-Times

I want to encourage my friends in North Carolina to stand against this kind of bigotry. Please support Councilor Bothwell.

X

Wow, this is a really heated topic.:
First, this is a small election and is not going anywhere. I doub the guy will get elected seeing as an NAACP former chapter president agrees with the NC requirement. Plus North Carolina is going to buckle like Alabama did on the Ten Commandments. I do not think the sate has the Brass of Mississippi that said they would continue prayer in their school despite what the Supreme Court says. I think NC should do what it wants despite the court and if they want to change their requirements, then let them do so. No other state or Federal government has any right to contest that in my mind and the founding fathers certainly would not have intervened. Plus someone said some of the founders were Atheists? Who were they I would like to know?
Second, Lets suppose NC did defy the court, what then? The Supreme Court has no military command, nor do they have the authority to enforce their ruling. Suppose then, the president gets involved, what is he going to do? Impose sanctions? Cut funding? The people of NC might decide not to send their tax money collected to Washington.
Finally, if the federal government looses with threats, what then? Do you think the American people will allow another president to order the slaughter of Americans and burn their homes like Lincoln did? Plus do you think the US military will invade NC or that a US soldier will fire on his own people? I think not.
Let's not kid ourselves, nothing is going to happen other than NC will change their law because the don't have the guts to stand up for it. I am from Georgia and it would be the same way there. The Christians of this country are a dying breed. They won't stick together and are so hypocritical sometimes that they can't stick to their guns. Besides, I would vote for a Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Jew or anyone who I believed qualified so long as I know they have something for which they believe in as a moral guide. A true Aethiest has no beliefs in anything, and are much are like mercenaries were described by Machiavelli, they will not be steadfast in anything. Without morals, there is no law, so no, you can not believe the law will rule and you can't maintain morals without the belief, otherwise your morals will change to what suits you at the time.

Let's eat, drink,and be merry because we are no longer the United States, we are really the United Federal Government of America. It's what is best for all that matters.

Its going to be fine people. Breath, Breath!