Thread: North Carolina Intollerant and Unconstitutional Action

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

This is a non-issue and should be treated as such. Previous court cases render the requirement of the state constitution null and void. Any action on anyones part simply plays into the hands of the fringe elements who brought this up in the first place.

i think that this falls under states rights and should not be trampled on by legislative supreme court justices or anyone else for that matter.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

i think that this falls under states rights and should not be trampled on by legislative supreme court justices or anyone else for that matter.

So here we go...
It's ok to disqualify someone from holding political office based on their religious beliefs, or lack thereof? Are you kidding me?? This is a constitutional no-brainer. Would you similarly defend the idea of only allowing say, Catholics, or Methodists to hold office under the same "state's rights" argument? How about "no women" or "no Jews" or "no Negros". That'd be ok by you under a state's rights defense as well?

let me tell you all before this even starts keep it civil or have it closed down. I am in NC and if I am not going to get upset and raise Cain no one is!!!

Originally Posted by Doc

let me tell you all before this even starts keep it civil or have it closed down. I am in NC and if I am not going to get upset and raise Cain no one is!!!

You really think this topic could engender heated debate?
Really??

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

So here we go...
It's ok to disqualify someone from holding political office based on their religious beliefs, or lack thereof? Are you kidding me?? This is a constitutional no-brainer. Would you similarly defend the idea of only allowing say, Catholics, or Methodists to hold office under the same "state's rights" argument? How about "no women" or "no Jews" or "no Negros". That'd be ok by you under a state's rights defense as well?

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)

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)

I understand that most of the original documents are written with a particular religious influence due to the fact that the writers where of a particular religion. However, I beleive the settlers came here to avoid religious persecution, and also beleive the system was set up to prevent religious persecution in the future. Our system is set up to be changed as nessesary for a given time period, if this is not true then we would be able to say slavery is still valid due to the fact that the original documents allowed it.

I also understand that the states have a right to create their own constitution but to an extent. You cannot say women cannot vote in this state as part of our constitution and expect the federal government to do nothing about it.

Then I look at what fccexpert said and relize that I live on the other side of the country. I then have to ask myself; "why am I responding to this"?

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 59caddy

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.

So was just about every one else all that time a go. How many are now? If they all committed suicide by fire, would that be a good idea too?

What is the point of developing a system if that system is not flexible. After all, there was a system before them, and it changed. Society is dynamic and you can basically write off anything but the ideals of your founding fathers. The rules will change, the ideals may not.

Also, I think it is worth remembering that Christian ideals are basically moral issues, at least, those that influenced the law are. You can be an atheist and still retain the moral values.

More over, people should be judged on their merit.