Arizona Republicans Propose Bill That Would Prevent Atheists From Graduating

[Regnad Kcin]

I don't think he's debating. I think he's pulling your leg, and you're letting him.

Considering that when I responded the person had only a handful of posts to his or her name, I don't know how you can make that determination. This early on I think it's reasonable to simply take things at face value.

 

[Ziggurat]

Considering that when I responded the person had only a handful of posts to his or her name, I don't know how you can make that determination.

By applying common sense. Even gramatically, "WHERE'S YOUR NOT GOD NOW?" is nonsense. The only reasonable interpretation is that it's a further play on what has already become a joke:

This early on I think it's reasonable to simply take things at face value.

Why would you do that, when face value produces nonsense, and interpreting it as a joke is more fun? Hell, that's probably the best course of action even if he's serious, because people who get really wound up about stupid **** don't like being treated like their deeply-held beliefs are just jokes.

 

[Joz]

Then what is the purpose of the oath?

Clearly to discriminate against atheists specifically.

 

[Joz]

No. You do. You're the one who's encouraging people to take oaths they don't mean.

Am I?

Show me.

 

[rwguinn]

Am I?

Show me.

OK

Seriously? They're not saying you have to mean it. Just say it, it's only a word

 

[Joz]

So they=me. Gotcha.

 

[Ladewig]

Clearly to discriminate against atheists specifically.

OK.
You think some in the posters in this thread are overreacting. Baiting them with taunts is neither constructive, useful, nor humorous. So, as one poster to another, I ask you to stop bating in this thread.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Clearly to discriminate against atheists specifically.

Yes, yes it is, despite your belief that it's not.

 

[theprestige]

OK.
You think some in the posters in this thread are overreacting. Baiting them with taunts is neither constructive, useful, nor humorous. So, as one poster to another, I ask you to stop bating in this thread.

Some of us find the absurd level of seriousness on display in this thread amusing and meritorious of ridicule. So, as one poster to another, I ask you to not unilaterally declare which voluntary interactions between members are inappropriate to this thread.

 

[Ziggurat]

Some of us find the absurd level of seriousness on display in this thread amusing and meritorious of ridicule.

Made all the funnier by an inability to recognize that ridicule.

 

[thaiboxerken]

When you ignore small things like they, those doing it will be embolden to do bigger things.

 

[Joz]

Yes, yes it is, despite your belief that it's not.

You seriously think that the people who came up with this had a meeting and were like "hmm how can we discriminate against atheists?" and then came to the conclusion of "I know, we'll put the word God in their oath just like "almost every other oath, song, etc. that has anything to do with this country."

 

[ehcks]

You seriously think that the people who came up with this had a meeting and were like "hmm how can we discriminate against atheists?" and then came to the conclusion of "I know, we'll put the word God in their oath just like "almost every other oath, song, etc. that has anything to do with this country."

If that's not what they were thinking, their plan still wasn't any smarter.

"We're going to force people to take an oath that calls itself free of obligation. The oath will be a requirement to receive a diploma the people already earned and we can't legally keep away from them. Also, it's just a high school diploma. No one really cares."

 

[thaiboxerken]

You seriously think that the people who came up with this had a meeting and were like "hmm how can we discriminate against atheists?" and then came to the conclusion of "I know, we'll put the word God in their oath just like "almost every other oath, song, etc. that has anything to do with this country."

They either did it purposefully, which is bad. Or worse, they see atheists as such a low class of citizen, that they didn't even think about it. Either way, it's discriminatory and indefensible, legally and morally.

 

[Aridas]

Or worse, they see atheists as such a low class of citizen, that they didn't even think about it.

This is probably much closer to the truth than the intentional option. There's a fair chance that that issue crossed at least some of the lawmaker's minds, though, but wasn't taken either seriously or acted upon. But then, why quibble about that when the loyalty oath in the first place isn't all that likely to stand, hence leaving it as an easy self-promotion tool for nearly any Christian constituency? Politics isn't a particularly clean field of employment, after all.

 

[Multivac]

Atheists can't say the word "god"

I am an atheist, and sometimes use the word "god". Usually in sentences like this: "god does not exist".

 

[Multivac]

The Beatles music is just noise.

Blasphemer!!

That's like saying that bacon is just food.

 

[Dcdrac]

Do they still make Children swear allegiance to the flag in the US public schools?

i wander how many of those doing so are sincere or jsut do it becasue they have to.

 

[ehcks]

Do they still make Children swear allegiance to the flag in the US public schools?

i wander how many of those doing so are sincere or jsut do it becasue they have to.

Did they ever "make" them? I don't remember anyone getting in trouble for not doing it, and I was one of the people not doing it.

 

[Meadmaker]

Did they ever "make" them? I don't remember anyone getting in trouble for not doing it, and I was one of the people not doing it.

There was a Supreme Court case from the 1940s dealing specifically with the issue. They ruled that the kids could not be forced to say the Pledge.

(Of course, not every local teacher or principal might be aware of the ruling.)