Thread: North Carolina Intollerant and Unconstitutional Action

Originally Posted by 59caddy

without trying to get in a heated debate, the facts are that all the founding documents of this country and most laws are based on judeo/christian values, the founding fathers were in most part christians. if you will read the federalist papers, you will find that it was said that without christian values we would not have a republic or a country for that matter. therefore the elimination of an atheist is in line with their thought IMO.
furthermore according to the bill of rights and other documents it is the rights of states to set up their own constitution. this is also what the civil war was fought on, not as some have you to believe "just slavery"
(doc, i hope i am being civil enough)

While this discussion could go on and on...suffice it to say that the US Supreme Court has addressed this issue, and there is no way this type of disqualification provision would be enforced today. It's an unfortunate relic of a (thankfully) bygone era. It is unquestionably unconstitutional. Be that as it may, are you seriously arguing that you'd prefer to see this enforced as written? You have no problem with actually disqualifying someone from holding elected or appointed office based on their religious beliefs? I find it breathtaking that anyone in this day and age would be in favor of the enforcement of a "religous test" as a predicate to holding public office.

As for your point regarding the composition/beliefs of the original founders, please be reminded these men, as lofty as they were, likewise held it to be true that african americans were "property" and had no rights under the constitution --the same constitution they were no doubt were inspired by God to author. These men were of the further opinion women were not unworthy of having the right to vote.

And I am not aware of any reference in the Constitution or any similar federalist document where the founders called for the elimination of atheism. Had they done so, they would have eliminated the participation of some of this nation's co-founders...

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

While this discussion could go on and on...suffice it to say that the US Supreme Court has addressed this issue, and there is no way this type of disqualification provision would be enforced today. It's an unfortunate relic of a (thankfully) bygone era. It is unquestionably unconstitutional. Be that as it may, are you seriously arguing that you'd prefer to see this enforced as written? You have no problem with actually disqualifying someone from holding elected or appointed office based on their religious beliefs? I find it breathtaking that anyone in this day and age would be in favor of the enforcement of a "religous test" as a predicate to holding public office.

As for your point regarding the composition/beliefs of the original founders, please be reminded these men, as lofty as they were, likewise held it to be true that african americans were "property" and had no rights under the constitution --the same constitution they were no doubt were inspired by God to author. These men were of the further opinion women were not unworthy of having the right to vote.

And I am not aware of any reference in the Constitution or any similar federalist document where the founders called for the elimination of atheism. Had they done so, they would have eliminated the participation of some of this nation's co-founders...

it is not even worthy to respond to if you can't face the facts..i already told you that without christian values the republic will not stand and that is very plainly stated and if you look, the farther we get away from these principles intended by the founding fathers as a whole, the more we become divided and derisive of any christian/judeo values. thomas jefferson was basically an agnostic person, but he knew we needed the christian values to hold the very fabric of this country together.
the pilgrims came here to get away from the church of england , which was basically gov't run. they were still christians, but wanted to worship on their own terms, not the gov't...by the way i do not attend church as you may think, but i do have some sense of moral direction given to me by my creator as also stated in the constitution and founding documents

Originally Posted by 59caddy

it is not even worthy to respond to if you can't face the facts..i already told you that without christian values the republic will not stand and that is very plainly stated and if you look, the farther we get away from these principles intended by the founding fathers as a whole, the more we become divided and derisive of any christian/judeo values. thomas jefferson was basically an agnostic person, but he knew we needed the christian values to hold the very fabric of this country together.
the pilgrims came here to get away from the church of england , which was basically gov't run. they were still christians, but wanted to worship on their own terms, not the gov't...by the way i do not attend church as you may think, but i do have some sense of moral direction given to me by my creator as also stated in the constitution and founding documents

you don't think it's a little short sighted to believe that this country will not stand if it is not based on Christian morals? how do the other countries that are not based on Christian morals manage to do it?

Originally Posted by TheBaron

you don't think it's a little short sighted to believe that this country will not stand if it is not based on Christian morals? how do the other countries that are not based on Christian morals manage to do it?

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...

Originally Posted by 59caddy

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

eg?

200 years is not very long.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

ours is the only nation with the same constitution for over 200 years..we have never failed...

Good - so then you agree that Article VI of the same constitution is not a failure, and that the NC state constitution is the failure

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.

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.

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?

Excellent point from the gentleman in OK.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Good - so then you agree that Article VI of the same constitution is not a failure, and that the NC state constitution is the failure