• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Atheists need not apply

Jamma

New Blood
J
Joined
Apr 23, 2004
Messages
1
The Commentaries of May 28 and April 16 both refer to laws in states requiring belief in gods to hold office. But in the April 9 Commentary a reader cites the Torasco v. Watkins ruling, saying, "...that the state of Maryland could not require a 'test oath' (one that affirms a belief in God) in order to hold public office. By extension, that invalidated all such provisions in all State constitutions."
Check it out! http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=367&invol=488
So why does the Commentary keep bringing this up? Cut it out. Move on to new ground.
 
I suspect that problem Randi (and others) have with it, is that it's still on the books.

I've run through bits of the Massachusetts General Laws, and when something's been repealed a note of it is made where it was.

So while the lack of a "test oath" may "invalidate" the laws in question, if they're not valid they should just be taken off.

Though, I do wonder if they're there so as to appease the wacko-Christians...
 
LostAngeles said:
I suspect that problem Randi (and others) have with it, is that it's still on the books.
Click to expand...

So they want to waste time and your tax dollars to take it off? It's still law that you have to practice archerly every sunday over here. This hasn't caused any probelms yet.
 
geni said:


So they want to waste time and your tax dollars to take it off? It's still law that you have to practice archerly every sunday over here. This hasn't caused any probelms yet.
Click to expand...

But it's a real bugger if you have to do something else at the same time. Damn good idea of TESCO to start giving Club card points for each training session!
 
The very existence of such a law is offensive, whether it's overruled by a contradictory law or not. As such, the offending, discriminatory law must be removed immediately.
Did Jam join up just so he could rant on this issue? So far, it's the only post he's made!
 
Okay, color me legally retarded (I mean retarded in regards to legal matters, not the other kind), but I don't see how removing a law will use up ANY of our tax dollars. It's not like they have to build a million dollar robot to obliterate the law from space with an ion cannon made out of diamonds and hundred dollar bills. They just throw the paper away or rewrite it or whatever. In fact, it probably won't take any time at all. Be done before the "Simpsons" comes on.
 
To be consistent, however, such an effort must include any laws struck down by the courts. I imagine it would imagine a committe submitting bills of repeal as they find them.

Personally I think this would be a great idea. Some idiot latches on to the law to try to enforce it, and other people have to keep wasting time digging up the court case that invalidated it. Doing this would be much more productive than passing some of the more pointless legislation local governments get involved in.
 
Well, yeah, I guess that is true...but then again, this type of "invalid law" thing is documented all over the place. There's all sorts of quirky lists and books about stupid laws. You could just pick up those and there ya go. Research done for ya.

Hm...maybe I shouldn't be talking. My knowledge of the internal workings of law extends as far as "I shouldn't throw spam at people from a moving car". Anything else is just a grey fairy-land of which I'm completely ignorant.

Anyone remember that trial a while ago, though, about the guy that swore too loudly and was fined because of some arcane law?
 
HAS anyone fined Howard Stern for swearing?

I should get more specific. It was some guy (HAHA! SPECIFIC!) who was boating or something, and he fell into the water and screamed some obscenity. Some family heard it, and just happened to know that there was a law on the book in the state against swearing so that anyone in X number of feet could hear it, and they fined him. God, it was way back when I was in high school, probably before 2000...maybe '97, '98?
Well, doesn't matter. Point is, just because a law goes on for a while not being enforced, doesn't mean someone can't suddenly resurrect it again and dump all holy hell on someone.
 
geni said:


So they want to waste time and your tax dollars to take it off?
Click to expand...


In the American legal system, if a law has not been explicitly repealed, it can be enforced at any time. Then, if there is a contrary law, it is the responsibility of the person who alleges wrong on the part of the law to bring a law suit forcing the repeal of one law or the other.
 
DrMatt said:
In the American legal system, if a law has not been explicitly repealed, it can be enforced at any time. Then, if there is a contrary law, it is the responsibility of the person who alleges wrong on the part of the law to bring a law suit forcing the repeal of one law or the other.
Click to expand...
So, in other words, atheists running for office can be barred at any time in the hustings, or after they've been elected?
Great! :rolleyes:
 
In Australia, three of our last five Prime Ministers (yes, we still holding mother Englands apron strings) have been atheists. It has not been an issue.

BJ
 
BillyJoe said:
In Australia, three of our last five Prime Ministers (yes, we still holding mother Englands apron strings) have been atheists. It has not been an issue.

BJ
Click to expand...

But the Australian Head-of-State is also the (titular) head of a Church, as is ours. (Not surprising since they're the same person)

However, it would be nice to have a PM over here that could keep his faith to himself.
 
Doc Dish said:
But the Australian Head-of-State is also the (titular) head of a Church, as is ours. (Not surprising since they're the same person)
However, it would be nice to have a PM over here that could keep his faith to himself.
Click to expand...
Yes; Britain has the smarmy vicar, and the US has Dubya... At least Chirac adheres to the principle of separation of church and state.
 
Doc Dish said:


But the Australian Head-of-State is also the (titular) head of a Church, as is ours. (Not surprising since they're the same person)

However, it would be nice to have a PM over here that could keep his faith to himself.
Click to expand...
But oddly, her representative in Australia, the Governer General, can be an atheist. Bill Hayden (exGG) posed a dilemma for the Australian Boy Scout movement as the GG is automatically their "head". Dilemma was, that part of the Scouting oath was to swear allegiance to God and the Queen. Bill refused to take such an oath.
 
http://slate.msn.com/id/2103017/

I thought this article would fit in here. To summarize, the writer Stephen Waldman is saying that the biggest problem with John Kerry's campaign is that he has chosen to present himself as a secular candidate. Waldman accuses him of HIDING behind the ol' separation of church and state routine, and then says flat out "If Kerry's really secular, he's abnormal." Because America is overwhelming Christian, then the President ought to be too. And not the kind that chooses to believe in private either, no he should be the kind that waves it out and about and uses it to get votes. Sigh.
 
How easily those with freedoms forget what those freedoms mean.

They think it absurd that, given their logic, one day a bunch of Muslems will pass laws that force them to swear to Allah.

Welcome to the Newbies

Two drink minimum. . . .

--J.D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom