PDA

View Full Version : APP - “One Nation Under God”



DamnYankee
12-03-2009, 04:19 PM
http://rumorsontheinternets.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/full-painting.jpg?w=550&h=371

http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=353

:good4u:

Canceled1
12-03-2009, 04:43 PM
http://rumorsontheinternets.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/full-painting.jpg?w=550&h=371

http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=353

:good4u:

You're going to get it for this one you religious Right Wingnut

/MSG/
12-03-2009, 05:25 PM
The link is actually pretty cool.

FUCK THE POLICE
12-03-2009, 06:16 PM
What an idiot.

Damocles
12-03-2009, 11:02 PM
The link is actually pretty cool.
True. Hover over the painting for an explanation of the significance of each figure in the painting...

FUCK THE POLICE
12-03-2009, 11:42 PM
True. Hover over the painting for an explanation of the significance of each figure in the painting...

Liberal Socialist Atheists are bad! Conservative Christian Patriots are good! Liberal Socialist Atheists are bad! Conservative Christian Patriots are good!

Socrtease
12-03-2009, 11:44 PM
The guy in the middle had nothing to do with founding the document he is holding. He isn't a founder, not a signer on the DoI or the Constitution, and isn't mentioned in either document.

Socrtease
12-03-2009, 11:50 PM
McNaughton...hmm interesting name for the artist. I can see how someone named McNaughton might paint something like this.

The first famous legal test for insanity came in 1843, in the McNaughton case

FUCK THE POLICE
12-04-2009, 12:30 AM
Hopefully the little boy will be taken out of the homes of people who abuse their children with religion.

I like how he throws all the black people way in the back though. Had to include 'black union soldier', apparently MLK was too much of a commie to warrant inclusion in the Conservative Christian Republic of America (that's the name, right?)

Minister of Truth
12-04-2009, 03:29 AM
The guy in the middle had nothing to do with founding the document he is holding. He isn't a founder, not a signer on the DoI or the Constitution, and isn't mentioned in either document.

Article VII

Topspin
12-04-2009, 06:13 AM
that looks like a carpenter posing as Jesus not god

DamnYankee
12-04-2009, 07:57 AM
True. Hover over the painting for an explanation of the significance of each figure in the painting...

Also the papers on the ground (bad decisions by SCOTUS), and the meanings of Christs vestments.

DamnYankee
12-04-2009, 07:59 AM
Liberal Socialist Atheists are bad! Conservative Christian Patriots are good! Liberal Socialist Atheists are bad! Conservative Christian Patriots are good! Thomas Payne is in there- obviously you flew off the handle with your post instead of reviewing the artwork with any level of detail. :)

DamnYankee
12-04-2009, 08:01 AM
The guy in the middle had nothing to do with founding the document he is holding. He isn't a founder, not a signer on the DoI or the Constitution, and isn't mentioned in either document.
Read the Preamble. Where do you thing these "Blessings of Liberty" come from?

Socrtease
12-04-2009, 08:07 AM
Read the Preamble. Where do you thing these "Blessings of Liberty" come from?YOu know you fucking conservatards are all for strict construction of documents UNTIL it comes to the shit you can't prove. As a conservative always asks about Privacy and where it is in the Constitution, WHERE is Jesus mentioned by name? You would think that if this document was REALLY a Christian document they would have left no doubt. He is NO WHERE in our Constitution but you and this half ass starving artist painter want to impose him on our government and the ONLY document that spells it out. JEsus is DEAD. They put nails in him and hung him on a tree. If you want to deify him, great, it's a free country. But keep him out of my laws and out of my life because I don't believe he was anything but a zealot who spoke out one too many times and got himself killed.

DamnYankee
12-04-2009, 08:13 AM
YOu know you fucking conservatards are all for strict construction of documents UNTIL it comes to the shit you can't prove. As a conservative always asks about Privacy and where it is in the Constitution, WHERE is Jesus mentioned by name? You would think that if this document was REALLY a Christian document they would have left no doubt. He is NO WHERE in our Constitution but you and this half ass starving artist painter want to impose him on our government and the ONLY document that spells it out. JEsus is DEAD. They put nails in him and hung him on a tree. If you want to deify him, great, it's a free country. But keep him out of my laws and out of my life because I don't believe he was anything but a zealot who spoke out one too many times and got himself killed.
Nice deflection and rant, but you failed to answer the question. :)

Socrtease
12-04-2009, 08:21 AM
Nice deflection and rant, but you failed to answer the question. :)The "blessings of liberty" come from a regulated government that follows the rules laid out in the document that follows the Preamble which is nothing more than pretty language. I ask you again. WHERE IS JESUS in the Constitution? What part of the constitution calls him by name? You are the one that always claims that we are a Christian nation founded on Christian principles. Why did some of the smartest men of their time not use his name if that is what they intended?

Lowaicue
12-04-2009, 08:27 AM
The "blessings of liberty" come from a regulated government that follows the rules laid out in the document that follows the Preamble which is nothing more than pretty language. I ask you again. WHERE IS JESUS in the Constitution? What part of the constitution calls him by name? You are the one that always claims that we are a Christian nation founded on Christian principles. Why did some of the smartest men of their time not use his name if that is what they intended?

Have you checked under his real name?

Socrtease
12-04-2009, 08:28 AM
Have you checked under his real name?No Yeshua bin Joseph either

Lowaicue
12-04-2009, 08:30 AM
No Yeshua bin Joseph either

Moshe Flingelhorn.... but who's gonna follow a Moshe Flingelhorn..... except all of us Flingelhornians of course.
Moshe wept, do you know nothing?

DamnYankee
12-04-2009, 09:03 AM
The "blessings of liberty" come from a regulated government that follows the rules laid out in the document that follows the Preamble which is nothing more than pretty language. I ask you again. WHERE IS JESUS in the Constitution? What part of the constitution calls him by name? You are the one that always claims that we are a Christian nation founded on Christian principles. Why did some of the smartest men of their time not use his name if that is what they intended?
Wrong-o. The Blessings of Liberty (note the caps, which are stated that way in the document) were granted to General Washington by God to enable him to defeat the British. God is mentioned specifically in the Declaration of Independence from the King of England, Washington prayed daily to God and hired Christian chaplains for his army.

Jesus is never mentioned in the founding documents because the Founders weren't claiming divinity like the King was and knew first-hand that doing so was a bastardization and a lie.

What you fail to understand is that God gives the People free will regardless of their Faith, or lack thereof. The Founders understood this completely which is why they insisted on a secular government.

Canceled1
12-04-2009, 09:44 AM
The guy in the middle had nothing to do with founding the document he is holding. He isn't a founder, not a signer on the DoI or the Constitution, and isn't mentioned in either document.

Leave it to a Liberal to find fault with even Jesus. As long as he "looks" on the right, you guys are going to reem him.

Damocles
12-04-2009, 11:25 AM
Liberal Socialist Atheists are bad! Conservative Christian Patriots are good! Liberal Socialist Atheists are bad! Conservative Christian Patriots are good!
That doesn't change that the idea is cool and well done.

Canceled1
12-04-2009, 11:44 AM
That doesn't change that the idea is cool and well done.


It was totally cool. Too bad they can't drop the friggin' rock for one goddamn minute!

DamnYankee
12-04-2009, 02:04 PM
That doesn't change that the idea is cool and well done.Again that's not what it says. Thomas Payne is shown of the side of good.

Damocles
12-04-2009, 02:05 PM
Again that's not what it says. Thomas Payne is shown of the side of good.
What does that have to do with the fact that the idea of hovering over the components of the picture to get the artist's explanation is pretty cool?

DamnYankee
12-04-2009, 02:15 PM
What does that have to do with the fact that the idea of hovering over the components of the picture to get the artist's explanation is pretty cool? Nothing, but it doesn't make Watermark's statement correct, which you seem to indicate.

Damocles
12-04-2009, 02:18 PM
Nothing, but it doesn't make Watermark's statement correct, which you seem to indicate.
I indicate nothing of the sort, I simply repeat that it has nothing to do with whether or not the website itself is a cool idea that is well done.

DamnYankee
12-04-2009, 02:25 PM
Whatever.

WinterBorn
12-04-2009, 02:34 PM
I indicate nothing of the sort, I simply repeat that it has nothing to do with whether or not the website itself is a cool idea that is well done.

I agree, its a cool web site and piece of work.

I don't agree with the author on much of what he wrote, but he did a cool bit here.

NOVA
12-04-2009, 02:36 PM
The guy in the middle had nothing to do with founding the document he is holding. He isn't a founder, not a signer on the DoI or the Constitution, and isn't mentioned in either document.

ANNUIT COEPTIS

Minister of Truth
12-04-2009, 10:15 PM
Again, check out Article VII.

Socrtease
12-04-2009, 11:31 PM
Give me a fucking break Damo. The artist, SM and others here think you have no more right to the "blessings" than I, as an athiest do. You are a believer in a false god in their mind and they have no more use for me than they do for you. And Article 7 deals with ratification of the Constitution. Jesus isn't mentioned there at all.

DamnYankee
12-05-2009, 12:15 PM
Give me a fucking break Damo. The artist, SM and others here think you have no more right to the "blessings" than I, as an athiest do. You are a believer in a false god in their mind and they have no more use for me than they do for you. And Article 7 deals with ratification of the Constitution. Jesus isn't mentioned there at all.You have no idea what I think of your rights.

TuTu Monroe
12-05-2009, 12:28 PM
You have no idea what I think of your rights.

What really makes me laugh, is that they think they are so much smarter.

DamnYankee
12-05-2009, 12:48 PM
What really makes me laugh, is that they think they are so much smarter. That's the standard liberal thinking: "if liberal, then smart; if conservative, then stupid". Of course the opposite is usually true.

But Socrtease here is mired in the other Liberal template, that Liberals are unassuming and open-minded, yet he is demonstrating the exact opposite traits.

Cancel 2018. 3
12-05-2009, 01:12 PM
Again, check out Article VII.

?

WinterBorn
12-05-2009, 01:41 PM
That's the standard liberal thinking: "if liberal, then smart; if conservative, then stupid". Of course the opposite is usually true.

But Socrtease here is mired in the other Liberal template, that Liberals are unassuming and open-minded, yet he is demonstrating the exact opposite traits.

I think they believe that unless something is specifically enumerated in the US Constitution......

Nah, nevermind. You make that claim in one thread and ignore it in another.

FUCK THE POLICE
12-05-2009, 04:08 PM
Again, check out Article VII.


The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

?

Socrtease
12-05-2009, 11:23 PM
That's the standard liberal thinking: "if liberal, then smart; if conservative, then stupid". Of course the opposite is usually true.

But Socrtease here is mired in the other Liberal template, that Liberals are unassuming and open-minded, yet he is demonstrating the exact opposite traits.There are several very intelligent conservatives on this board. But they are the ones that don't think that organized prayers in classrooms are appropriate. They know that children can pray all they want in school but don't need a teacher or a school to tell them how. They are the ones that know that personal liberties are not up for a vote. We don't extend religious liberties just to the majority any more than we protect only speech we aren't offended by. This country is no more a christian nation than it is a Jewish nation. This is a secular nation that allows people to practice their faith however they see fit or to not practice any religion at all. You fundamentalist social conservatives think everytime a court says that organized prayer in school is unconsititutional that god has somehow been murdered by the courts. Kids pray everyday in school. Listen before any math test.

Cancel 2018. 3
12-05-2009, 11:47 PM
There are several very intelligent conservatives on this board. But they are the ones that don't think that organized prayers in classrooms are appropriate. They know that children can pray all they want in school but don't need a teacher or a school to tell them how. They are the ones that know that personal liberties are not up for a vote. We don't extend religious liberties just to the majority any more than we protect only speech we aren't offended by. This country is no more a christian nation than it is a Jewish nation. This is a secular nation that allows people to practice their faith however they see fit or to not practice any religion at all. You fundamentalist social conservatives think everytime a court says that organized prayer in school is unconsititutional that god has somehow been murdered by the courts. Kids pray everyday in school. Listen before any math test.

yep

Minister of Truth
12-06-2009, 02:44 AM
?

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America...

Cancel 2018. 3
12-06-2009, 01:15 PM
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America...

:palm:

DamnYankee
12-06-2009, 04:49 PM
There are several very intelligent conservatives on this board. But they are the ones that don't think that organized prayers in classrooms are appropriate. They know that children can pray all they want in school but don't need a teacher or a school to tell them how. They are the ones that know that personal liberties are not up for a vote. We don't extend religious liberties just to the majority any more than we protect only speech we aren't offended by. This country is no more a christian nation than it is a Jewish nation. This is a secular nation that allows people to practice their faith however they see fit or to not practice any religion at all. You fundamentalist social conservatives think everytime a court says that organized prayer in school is unconsititutional that god has somehow been murdered by the courts. Kids pray everyday in school. Listen before any math test.

When have I advocated school prayer?

Socrtease
12-06-2009, 09:29 PM
When have I advocated school prayer?You and your ilk always point to that as one of the milestones of the dying throws of america. That being said, you are right, YOU never have. But someone that thinks it's ok his state has a religious test to hold office can't be far from that mark. Religion is a matter between god and believers. Keep in your home, your church your private lives. Not your job, nor the job of the government to save anyones soul.

TuTu Monroe
12-07-2009, 06:36 AM
When have I advocated school prayer?

You haven't. It's just another damn liberal lie.:)

DamnYankee
12-07-2009, 07:51 AM
You and your ilk always point to that as one of the milestones of the dying throws of america. That being said, you are right, YOU never have. But someone that thinks it's ok his state has a religious test to hold office can't be far from that mark. Religion is a matter between god and believers. Keep in your home, your church your private lives. Not your job, nor the job of the government to save anyones soul. States were meant to have sovereign powers. At the time of the Founding many had religion and government closely intertwined. Your state can pray to Satan for all I care. My state requires its elected officials to be Christian and you should have the same level of respect for our sovereignty that that I have for yours. :pke:

Socrtease
12-07-2009, 08:13 AM
States were meant to have sovereign powers. At the time of the Founding many had religion and government closely intertwined. Your state can pray to Satan for all I care. My state requires its elected officials to be Christian and you should have the same level of respect for our sovereignty that that I have for yours. :pke:Your state discriminates on people based on their religious viewpoint. But that is not new for NC. They have a long history of discrimination against people. For reasons of race or whatever else. And just for your edification a state cannot violate the US Constitution. Soveriegn powers end where the base rights established by the US Constitution begin.

DamnYankee
12-07-2009, 08:20 AM
Your state discriminates on people based on their religious viewpoint. But that is not new for NC. They have a long history of discrimination against people. For reasons of race or whatever else. And just for your edification a state cannot violate the US Constitution. Soveriegn powers end where the base rights established by the US Constitution begin. Perhaps you can explain how a religious test is against the COTUS as it was envisioned by the Founders, many themselves who were officials of states that had such tests. :)

Socrtease
12-07-2009, 08:28 AM
Perhaps you can explain how a religious test is against the COTUS as it was envisioned by the Founders, many themselves who were officials of states that had such tests. :)So you are saying that no where in the US Constitution does it forbid religious tests?

Socrtease
12-07-2009, 08:33 AM
Perhaps you can explain how a religious test is against the COTUS as it was envisioned by the Founders, many themselves who were officials of states that had such tests. :)Actually I won't wait for your response. You are once again THE Constitutitard King. Article IV of the US Constitution says:

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

So it would appear our founders were against Religious Tests. So much so that they WROTE IT DOWN! YOU FAIL AGAIN!

DamnYankee
12-07-2009, 08:47 AM
So you are saying that no where in the US Constitution does it forbid religious tests? Not for states. :)

Socrtease
12-07-2009, 08:47 AM
Wow, ain't that just like SM. He asks a question, and then gets his answer and poof, he disappears.

Socrtease
12-07-2009, 08:51 AM
Not for states. :)That is NOT what you asked Constitutitard. You asked how "a religious test is against the COTUS as it was envisioned by the Founders, many themselves who were officials of states that had such tests". I answered that question with the actual writing. But I know, you states righters believe that a state could completely violate constitutional protections inside its own borders. Well you lost that argument decades ago, just like you lost the civil war. YOu all should be used to losing by now.

DamnYankee
12-07-2009, 08:54 AM
Wow, ain't that just like SM. He asks a question, and then gets his answer and poof, he disappears. Or I work for a living. ;)

DamnYankee
12-07-2009, 08:55 AM
That is NOT what you asked Constitutitard. You asked how "a religious test is against the COTUS as it was envisioned by the Founders, many themselves who were officials of states that had such tests". I answered that question with the actual writing. But I know, you states righters believe that a state could completely violate constitutional protections inside its own borders. Well you lost that argument decades ago, just like you lost the civil war. YOu all should be used to losing by now. Wrong again, Libertard. My position has always been that States have sovereign powers. :)

Socrtease
12-07-2009, 09:05 AM
Wrong again, Libertard. My position has always been that States have sovereign powers. :)go back to your question! You asked how a religious test is violative of the constitution and I gave you chapter and verse.

Damocles
12-07-2009, 09:09 AM
Wrong again, Libertard. My position has always been that States have sovereign powers. :)
Not this again....

:rolleyes:

In 1947, the SCOTUS ruled as follows:

(Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947))


The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at
least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one
religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or
to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief
or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or
professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or nonattendance.
No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support
any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or
whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state
nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the
affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words
of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was
intended to erect “a wall of separation between church and State,” ...
[and] that wall must be kept high and impregnable.


In 1961 they ruled thusly:

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)


In Torcaso, the Court struck down a provision of the Maryland constitution
requiring all office holders to declare a belief in the existence of God. The Court’s decision
was grounded neither in the Free Speech Clause nor in the U.S. Constitution’s Article VI
prohibition of religious test oaths in the assignment of public offices. Instead, the Court
found that Maryland’s “religious test for public office unconstitutionally invades the
appellant’s freedom of belief and religion and therefore cannot be enforced against him.”

The Court stated:
We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal
Government can constitutionally force a person to profess a belief or
disbelief in any religion. Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose
requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither
can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against
those religions founded on different beliefs.


Whether or not you like the 14th Amendment that made it so these rights became universal and binding on the States, it exists, it is part of the constitution and it is very real. It has made it so any religious test placed on any office by the states (local governments too, btw) are null.

DamnYankee
12-07-2009, 09:32 AM
Not this again....

:rolleyes:

In 1947, the SCOTUS ruled as follows:

(Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947))


In 1961 they ruled thusly:

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)


Whether or not you like the 14th Amendment that made it so these rights became universal and binding on the States, it exists, it is part of the constitution and it is very real. It has made it so any religious test placed on any office by the states (local governments too, btw) are null.

Again, I don't care about judicial precedence. What matters is original intent. When the Constitution was signed several States had religious tests and there was no federal action to stop that then.

DamnYankee
12-07-2009, 09:33 AM
go back to your question! You asked how a religious test is violative of the constitution and I gave you chapter and verse. It violates for federal office, not for a state office. Are you being obtuse on purpose?

Socrtease
12-07-2009, 09:37 AM
It violates for federal office, not for a state office. Are you being obtuse on purpose?I will type slow so you understand. YOU ASKED HOW A RELIGIOUS TEST VIOLATED THE COTUS. I TOLD YOU.

DamnYankee
12-07-2009, 09:39 AM
I will type slow so you understand. YOU ASKED HOW A RELIGIOUS TEST VIOLATED THE COTUS. I TOLD YOU. We are discussing North Carolina's religious test, so my question was obviously in that context. Please try to keep up. :)

Socrtease
12-07-2009, 09:46 AM
But as Damo has pointed out, subsequent case law makes it unconstitutional on a state level. REGARDLESS of what you think of court precident. But I know, you don't think that the fourth amendment should apply to the states either. Or that the Federal Government had any right to desegregate schools. Generally you believe that the States can violate all the rights of the people because they are sovereign. In your world the US Constitution is a document with no force.

Damocles
12-07-2009, 11:02 AM
Again, I don't care about judicial precedence. What matters is original intent. When the Constitution was signed several States had religious tests and there was no federal action to stop that then.
You don't care about the constitution either. Amendment 14 is a very real part of our constitution whether you want it to be or not.

SmarterthanYou
12-07-2009, 11:27 AM
You have no idea what I think of your rights.

yes, we do. you think your rights can be set aside in cases that involve suspected terrorism. in such cases, you have no rights. you, therefore, are a totalitarian.

SmarterthanYou
12-07-2009, 11:29 AM
Not for states. :)

that 14th Amendment could really suck for you now, eh?

DamnYankee
12-07-2009, 11:37 AM
But as Damo has pointed out, subsequent case law makes it unconstitutional on a state level. REGARDLESS of what you think of court precident. But I know, you don't think that the fourth amendment should apply to the states either. Or that the Federal Government had any right to desegregate schools. Generally you believe that the States can violate all the rights of the people because they are sovereign. In your world the US Constitution is a document with no force.
I enjoy listening to your baseless accusations. :)

DamnYankee
12-07-2009, 11:38 AM
You don't care about the constitution either. Amendment 14 is a very real part of our constitution whether you want it to be or not.


that 14th Amendment could really suck for you now, eh? Not at all. I see no conflict with that and NC's religious test for office holders.

Damocles
12-07-2009, 11:42 AM
Not at all. I see no conflict with that and NC's religious test for office holders.
Then you simply ignore reality to fit into your fantasy land. Fine, but this argument is worthless. I've shown you direct related case law from the SCOTUS who has repeatedly ruled exactly as I have stated they have.

At this point you're Al Gore talking about the same old tired "hockey stick"...

SmarterthanYou
12-07-2009, 11:48 AM
Not at all. I see no conflict with that and NC's religious test for office holders.

and theres no conflict with calling the national guard a 'well regulated militia'.

:cool:

DamnYankee
12-07-2009, 01:06 PM
Then you simply ignore reality to fit into your fantasy land. Fine, but this argument is worthless. I've shown you direct related case law from the SCOTUS who has repeatedly ruled exactly as I have stated they have.

At this point you're Al Gore talking about the same old tired "hockey stick"...
Again, SCOTUS has erred before, and I prefer original intent over judicial precedent.

Damocles
12-07-2009, 01:09 PM
Again, SCOTUS has erred before, and I prefer original intent over judicial precedent.
It's more than precedent here, this has repeatedly been ruled. It is far more than just precedent, it is consistent with the actual constitution with Amendment 14. What is inconsistent with that Amendment is the "incorporation" rule with Amendment 2, they just decided to make crap up to fit whatever they wanted with that ruling.

DamnYankee
12-07-2009, 01:15 PM
It's more than precedent here, this has repeatedly been ruled. It is far more than just precedent, it is consistent with the actual constitution with Amendment 14. What is inconsistent with that Amendment is the "incorporation" rule with Amendment 2, they just decided to make crap up to fit whatever they wanted with that ruling.A plain language interpretation of Amendment XIV in the context of 1868 as well as the Founding is clear that they are not trying to restrict States from making reasonable requirements of its office holders.

SmarterthanYou
12-07-2009, 01:17 PM
A plain language interpretation of Amendment XIV in the context of 1868 as well as the Founding is clear that they are not trying to restrict States from making reasonable requirements of its office holders.

you ever read the history behind the 14th?

DamnYankee
12-07-2009, 01:18 PM
With regards to the earlier SCOTUS decisions, I have said in the past that the party with the more expensive legal team is typically the winner. NC has significant resources to fight a legal challenge which is why the ACLU won't challenge us. They know they won't win and thus their previous gains against Christianity will be erased. :)

DamnYankee
12-07-2009, 01:19 PM
you ever read the history behind the 14th? Yes.

Damocles
12-07-2009, 01:20 PM
A plain language interpretation of Amendment XIV in the context of 1868 as well as the Founding is clear that they are not trying to restrict States from making reasonable requirements of its office holders.
Again, every time any state has tried to go against the 1st (and any local government too) they have simply lost. Period. Ruling after ruling, dozens of times, consistently and without reservation the states and local governments lose when they try to restrict atheism or support any religion (even generically if it isn't neutral towards belief and non-belief).

Your interpretation is based in fantasy, not on the reality of what the constitution actually says. Your government cannot cross that line any more than the Feds can because we have Amendment 14.

No matter how much you dislike that restriction (probably as much as the left hates the restrictions on gun control), it is simply reality and it shouldn't be ignored.

DamnYankee
12-07-2009, 01:21 PM
Again, every time a State has tried to go against the 1st (and any local government too) they have simply lost. Period.

Your interpretation is based in fantasy. And here I am thinking we are talking about the 14th.

SmarterthanYou
12-07-2009, 01:21 PM
Yes.

doesn't show.

DamnYankee
12-07-2009, 01:24 PM
doesn't show. That's your opinion. Perhaps you've been reading "A Peoples History..." instead of real history.

Damocles
12-07-2009, 01:25 PM
And here I am thinking we are talking about the 14th.
No, I am thinking about the 1st which was incorporated to the states through the 14th. Keep up.

Again, every time any state has tried to go against the 1st (and any local government too) they have simply lost. Period. Ruling after ruling, dozens of times, consistently and without reservation the states and local governments lose when they try to restrict atheism or support any religion (even generically if it isn't neutral towards belief and non-belief).

Your interpretation is based in fantasy, not on the reality of what the constitution actually says. Your government cannot cross that line any more than the Feds can because we have Amendment 14.

No matter how much you dislike that restriction (probably as much as the left hates the restrictions on gun control), it is simply reality and it shouldn't be ignored.

DamnYankee
12-07-2009, 01:30 PM
No, I am thinking about the 1st which was incorporated to the states through the 14th. Keep up.

Again, every time any state has tried to go against the 1st (and any local government too) they have simply lost. Period. Ruling after ruling, dozens of times, consistently and without reservation the states and local governments lose when they try to restrict atheism or support any religion (even generically if it isn't neutral towards belief and non-belief).

Your interpretation is based in fantasy, not on the reality of what the constitution actually says. Your government cannot cross that line any more than the Feds can because we have Amendment 14.

No matter how much you dislike that restriction (probably as much as the left hates the restrictions on gun control), it is simply reality and it shouldn't be ignored.

Again, the 1st doesn't apply in this situation. First, because it restricts Congress, not States, therefore there is no "incorporation" as you assert. Second, because the Christianity requirement isn't "respecting an establishment".

Damocles
12-07-2009, 01:32 PM
Again, the 1st doesn't apply in this situation. First, because it restricts Congress, not States, therefore there is no "incorporation" as you assert. Second, because the Christianity requirement isn't "respecting an establishment".
You are simply and irrevocably incorrect, delusional, and lost in fantasy as shown by the actual case law, decisions, and understanding of incorporation through the 14th Amendment. You will do or say anything without regard to the evidence or reality in front of you to support your fantasy view.

You are again the same as Al Gore (and Watermark), insisting that although the data was unverifiable and falsified it must be true.

I am embarrassed for you.

FUCK THE POLICE
12-07-2009, 01:49 PM
It violates for federal office, not for a state office. Are you being obtuse on purpose?


The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.




*sigh*

Mott the Hoople
12-07-2009, 01:49 PM
that looks like a carpenter posing as Jesus not god
That's supposed to be Jesus? Good God. Jesus wasn't blonde or caucasion. The artist must be completely ignorant.

Last I heard this was the "United States of America" not "The United States of Jesusland".

FUCK THE POLICE
12-07-2009, 01:51 PM
You are simply and irrevocably incorrect, delusional, and lost in fantasy as shown by the actual case law, decisions, and understanding of incorporation through the 14th Amendment. You will do or say anything without regard to the evidence or reality in front of you to support your fantasy view.

This was not even incorporated by the 14th amendment. This is in the original constitution.

Any state that has vile provisions preventing good people from serving and only allowing trashy immoral vipers has had those provisions rendered impotent. They can put them in there, but they can't enforce them.


You are again the same as Al Gore (and Watermark), insisting that although the data was unverifiable and falsified it must be true.

I am embarrassed for you.

The data for global warming is both verified and unfalsified.

Mott the Hoople
12-07-2009, 01:55 PM
http://rumorsontheinternets.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/full-painting.jpg?w=550&h=371

http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=353

:good4u:After reading this I can only say that this artist is a mental midget. He's utterly clueless about our nations history and traditions. He's condescending and self righteous and hypocritical to an extreme and purposefully insulting to those who are more intelligent and able then him. If I were to meet Mr McIdiot I'd tell him to go fuck himself. This nation needs people like him like we need a hole in our head.

I wonder what dream cloud this clueless moron lives on? He sure as hell isn't an American.

DamnYankee
12-07-2009, 01:57 PM
You are simply and irrevocably incorrect, delusional, and lost in fantasy as shown by the actual case law, decisions, and understanding of incorporation through the 14th Amendment. You will do or say anything without regard to the evidence or reality in front of you to support your fantasy view.

You are again the same as Al Gore (and Watermark), insisting that although the data was unverifiable and falsified it must be true.

I am embarrassed for you.
Its the ACLU you should be embarrassed for. Why have they not come after the State of North Carolina. This law has been on the books for centuries, and has survived several re-writes of the State Constitution.

Instead they go after small local governments over Christmas tree displays.

The answer, of course, is that they know that they will lose, erasing the prior rulings. :)

DamnYankee
12-07-2009, 01:58 PM
After reading this I can only say that this artist is a mental midget. He's utterly clueless about our nations history and traditions. He's condescending and self righteous and hypocritical to an extreme and purposefully insulting to those who are more intelligent and able then him. If I were to meet Mr McIdiot I'd tell him to go fuck himself. This nation needs people like him like we need a hole in our head.

I wonder what dream cloud this clueless moron lives on? He sure as hell isn't an American.

My, so closed minded and intolerant. :)

DamnYankee
12-07-2009, 01:59 PM
That's supposed to be Jesus? Good God. Jesus wasn't blonde or caucasion. The artist must be completely ignorant.
.... It doesn't depict Him as blond. :pke:

Mott the Hoople
12-07-2009, 02:01 PM
True. Hover over the painting for an explanation of the significance of each figure in the painting...
Except for many of the character he fails to explain the correlation to his religeios point. Which is understandable as most of the founding fathers were secularist. This guy is just another hate monger who wants to marginalize those who don't walk in lock step with his beliefs. Well I have one thing to say to Mr. McIdiot. "E. Pluribus Unum".

Damocles
12-07-2009, 02:07 PM
This was not even incorporated by the 14th amendment. This is in the original constitution.

Any state that has vile provisions preventing good people from serving and only allowing trashy immoral vipers has had those provisions rendered impotent. They can put them in there, but they can't enforce them.



The data for global warming is both verified and unfalsified.
No it isn't. It was in the 14th this incorporated. Previous to that Amendment it was within a state's "rights" to establish a state religion, and some did.

And the data in "support" of global warming is unverifiable as it was purposefully destroyed. This is why the false "peer-reviewed" tag is so Faith-based on your side of the argument at this time.

Mott the Hoople
12-07-2009, 02:09 PM
My, so closed minded and intolerant. :)LOL, No if any of you wish to see a text book example of projection, this would be one. Some moron paints a tabloid that's flat out offending to those who do not share his view and tacitly implies that his views are the only real American views and those of us with more than half a brain are closed minded and intolerant?" LOL

If this nation was as Mr. McIdiot projects it, we'd all still be living in caves and wearing animal skins for clothes. He's a simple minded moron thats just insecure and threatened by those whom are different then he is and who are capable of critical thought.

DamnYankee
12-07-2009, 02:57 PM
LOL, No if any of you wish to see a text book example of projection, this would be one. Some moron paints a tabloid that's flat out offending to those who do not share his view and tacitly implies that his views are the only real American views and those of us with more than half a brain are closed minded and intolerant?" LOL

If this nation was as Mr. McIdiot projects it, we'd all still be living in caves and wearing animal skins for clothes. He's a simple minded moron thats just insecure and threatened by those whom are different then he is and who are capable of critical thought.
In other words, free speech is only OK when its liberal free speech. :pke:

Canceled1
12-07-2009, 04:26 PM
In other words, free speech is only OK when its liberal free speech. :pke:


And as long as they can dictate what YOUR free speech is.

Socrtease
12-07-2009, 05:11 PM
And as long as they can dictate what YOUR free speech is.My mind works in such a logical fashion I could not begin to reach the place of idiocy that would allow me to dictate SM's free speech.

Socrtease
12-07-2009, 05:18 PM
http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=3597

(This Article is from one of SM's own state citizens. One far more educated than he.)

By Dr. Troy Kickler (http://www.carolinajournal.com/cjcolumnists/display_author.html?id=220)

From biographies to sweeping narratives, from readable pop history to dry-as-dust academic publications, books exploring the lives of the Founding Fathers increasingly are being published.

One misunderstood aspect of the Founding Era is the role that religion played. Conversing recently with a rigid secularist who has utmost faith in human reason, (a throwback to the French Enlightenment), I heard that “Not one Founding Father was a Christian!” A few months earlier I talked with a churchgoing fundamentalist (a throwback outside of Middle America) who supposed the Founding Fathers believed similarly to his KJV-only pastor.

But the reality is more complicated. David L. Holmes, in The Faiths of the Founding Fathers, argues that America’s first patriots were non-Christian deists, Christian deists, or orthodox Christians. Although many Deists considered essential tenets of Christianity, such as the trinity, the incarnation, and the resurrection as myths, irreconcilable with human reason, most maintained denominational affiliations; and in spite of their anti-clericalism, some even regularly attended church services. As historian Mark Noll concludes, most were “Deist-like — but not exactly.”

At the Continental Congress were also many orthodox Christians such as John Jay, whom John Adams considered a “church-going animal” and believer in divine revelation and dispensation. What united the three groups, Holmes writes, was their belief in a guiding Providence and eternal life, the importance of virtue and Jesus’ ethical teachings, and love of religious freedom and hatred of tyranny.

Holmes provides a good start in understanding a complex history, but an in-depth discussion of how American thinkers differed from their Radical Enlightenment counterparts is needed.

Unlike Voltaire and Rousseau, the skeptical Enlightenment, including Montesquieu and the Founding Fathers, respected traditions and the religious core of Western Civilization. Without acknowledging how the Old West shaped American thought, writes Russell Kirk, one cannot understand the cardinal ideas of American civilization: justice, order, and freedom.

It is indeed impossible to understand them without knowing that American republicanism placed classical and Renaissance ideas within the context of Augustinian Christianity and wrapped Lockean ideas of liberty around the Christian idea of covenants. Does this mean the Founders were Christians? Not necessarily. It means that their times influenced them, that they respected Christianity, and that the language of Christendom gives meaning and understanding to American political and social values.

The debate usually omits two other essential aspects. One, the Founding Fathers comprised an intellectual elite who represented a religious and many times zealous majority that checked any notions to establish an entirely secular government. The traveling French aristocrat Alexis de Tocqueville noticed the importance of religion to average Americans and recorded that “on the seventh day of every week the trading and working life of the nation seems suspended.”

Two, modern Americans with statist assumptions forget that America was created as a federalism of states, united only for the purposes expressed in the Constitution. Most private matters remained to the states to decide, and within them, people controlled most of their private lives.

The Constitution does not mention God or religion and bans religious tests in Article VI because federalists considered religion a matter best decided by individuals and their states. Many state constitutions preceded the federal one, and those and new ones sometimes retained a mild form of religious establishment and many times explicit religious qualifications for public office.

When public opinion changed within a state, new state constitutions or amendments were drafted, as evidenced by the 1835 modification to the religious qualifications for office holders in North Carolina from “Protestant” to “Christian” and the exclusion of only “atheists” from public office in the 1868 constitution. Not until 1961 did the U.S. Supreme Court decide that such restrictions in the states were unconstitutional.

Long story short: Serious and in-depth inquiry concerning the extent of religious influence during the Founding Era is necessary to understand the times as they were.

Dr. Troy Kickler is director of the North Carolina History Project.

Socrtease
12-07-2009, 05:27 PM
And here is where SM loses outright and the argument is over. This is from the Wikipedia site for the North Carolina Constitution:

At least two provisions, carried over from the 1868 Constitution, are not enforced either because they are known to be void or would almost certainly be struck down in court.

Article 6, section 8 disqualifies from office any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God. This article was carried over verbatim from the 1868 Constitution. However, in 1961, the federal Supreme Court, in Torcaso v. Watkins threw out a similar provision in the Maryland Constitution on the grounds that it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution. The First Amendment bars Congress from passing any law "respecting an establishment of religion," and this provision has long been considered binding on the states under the liberty clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As a result, it has never been enforced. This provision was explicitly challenged and overturned by Vosswinkel v. Hunt, 1979.

This provision, while is is still on the books was overturned by NORTH CAROLINA COURTS in 1979. The reason it is still on the books is that the language has never been amended because there has been no Constitutional Convention sense it was struck down in 1979.

Game, Set and Match Constitutitard! All hail SM King of the Constitutitards!

Socrtease
12-07-2009, 05:31 PM
You would think that if you talked as much shit about this particular article in his constitution and speak on it with such authority he would at least know that his own courts had already ruled on this.

FUCK THE POLICE
12-07-2009, 05:43 PM
No it isn't. It was in the 14th this incorporated. Previous to that Amendment it was within a state's "rights" to establish a state religion, and some did.

And the data in "support" of global warming is unverifiable as it was purposefully destroyed. This is why the false "peer-reviewed" tag is so Faith-based on your side of the argument at this time.

No, it wasn't. CRU is one of several organizations COMPILING climate data, and they get THEIR information from OTHER SOURCES. When they talked about deleting data, they were talking about data that had been deleted in the 80's before they had ever arrived. If you want the data they have, go to the people THEY GOT IT FROM.

Socrtease
12-07-2009, 06:05 PM
No, it wasn't. CRU is one of several organizations COMPILING climate data, and they get THEIR information from OTHER SOURCES. When they talked about deleting data, they were talking about data that had been deleted in the 80's before they had ever arrived. If you want the data they have, go to the people THEY GOT IT FROM.

Get your warmer mythology off this post...although it is about as proven as god.

WinterBorn
12-07-2009, 06:13 PM
And here is where SM loses outright and the argument is over. This is from the Wikipedia site for the North Carolina Constitution:

At least two provisions, carried over from the 1868 Constitution, are not enforced either because they are known to be void or would almost certainly be struck down in court.

Article 6, section 8 disqualifies from office any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God. This article was carried over verbatim from the 1868 Constitution. However, in 1961, the federal Supreme Court, in Torcaso v. Watkins threw out a similar provision in the Maryland Constitution on the grounds that it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution. The First Amendment bars Congress from passing any law "respecting an establishment of religion," and this provision has long been considered binding on the states under the liberty clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As a result, it has never been enforced. This provision was explicitly challenged and overturned by Vosswinkel v. Hunt, 1979.

This provision, while is is still on the books was overturned by NORTH CAROLINA COURTS in 1979. The reason it is still on the books is that the language has never been amended because there has been no Constitutional Convention sense it was struck down in 1979.

Game, Set and Match Constitutitard! All hail SM King of the Constitutitards!

Soc, what are you going to do with SM now that you own him?

lol

:cof1:

FUCK THE POLICE
12-07-2009, 06:24 PM
Get your warmer mythology off this post...although it is about as proven as god.

You can continue to deny the overwhelming evidence for global warming but do not expect to do so without me calling you on your bullshit. If you want to keep AGW out of this thread, do not lie about it in this thread.

You deniers are just like the intelligent design community, making claims without evidence and ignoring overwhelming evidence that completely and totally debunks your pathetic conspiracy theories.

DamnYankee
12-07-2009, 06:36 PM
http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=3597

(This Article is from one of SM's own state citizens. One far more educated than he.)

By Dr. Troy Kickler (http://www.carolinajournal.com/cjcolumnists/display_author.html?id=220)

From biographies to sweeping narratives, from readable pop history to dry-as-dust academic publications, books exploring the lives of the Founding Fathers increasingly are being published.

One misunderstood aspect of the Founding Era is the role that religion played. Conversing recently with a rigid secularist who has utmost faith in human reason, (a throwback to the French Enlightenment), I heard that “Not one Founding Father was a Christian!” A few months earlier I talked with a churchgoing fundamentalist (a throwback outside of Middle America) who supposed the Founding Fathers believed similarly to his KJV-only pastor.

But the reality is more complicated. David L. Holmes, in The Faiths of the Founding Fathers, argues that America’s first patriots were non-Christian deists, Christian deists, or orthodox Christians. Although many Deists considered essential tenets of Christianity, such as the trinity, the incarnation, and the resurrection as myths, irreconcilable with human reason, most maintained denominational affiliations; and in spite of their anti-clericalism, some even regularly attended church services. As historian Mark Noll concludes, most were “Deist-like — but not exactly.”

At the Continental Congress were also many orthodox Christians such as John Jay, whom John Adams considered a “church-going animal” and believer in divine revelation and dispensation. What united the three groups, Holmes writes, was their belief in a guiding Providence and eternal life, the importance of virtue and Jesus’ ethical teachings, and love of religious freedom and hatred of tyranny.

Holmes provides a good start in understanding a complex history, but an in-depth discussion of how American thinkers differed from their Radical Enlightenment counterparts is needed.

Unlike Voltaire and Rousseau, the skeptical Enlightenment, including Montesquieu and the Founding Fathers, respected traditions and the religious core of Western Civilization. Without acknowledging how the Old West shaped American thought, writes Russell Kirk, one cannot understand the cardinal ideas of American civilization: justice, order, and freedom.

It is indeed impossible to understand them without knowing that American republicanism placed classical and Renaissance ideas within the context of Augustinian Christianity and wrapped Lockean ideas of liberty around the Christian idea of covenants. Does this mean the Founders were Christians? Not necessarily. It means that their times influenced them, that they respected Christianity, and that the language of Christendom gives meaning and understanding to American political and social values.

The debate usually omits two other essential aspects. One, the Founding Fathers comprised an intellectual elite who represented a religious and many times zealous majority that checked any notions to establish an entirely secular government. The traveling French aristocrat Alexis de Tocqueville noticed the importance of religion to average Americans and recorded that “on the seventh day of every week the trading and working life of the nation seems suspended.”

Two, modern Americans with statist assumptions forget that America was created as a federalism of states, united only for the purposes expressed in the Constitution. Most private matters remained to the states to decide, and within them, people controlled most of their private lives.

The Constitution does not mention God or religion and bans religious tests in Article VI because federalists considered religion a matter best decided by individuals and their states. Many state constitutions preceded the federal one, and those and new ones sometimes retained a mild form of religious establishment and many times explicit religious qualifications for public office.

When public opinion changed within a state, new state constitutions or amendments were drafted, as evidenced by the 1835 modification to the religious qualifications for office holders in North Carolina from “Protestant” to “Christian” and the exclusion of only “atheists” from public office in the 1868 constitution. Not until 1961 did the U.S. Supreme Court decide that such restrictions in the states were unconstitutional.

Long story short: Serious and in-depth inquiry concerning the extent of religious influence during the Founding Era is necessary to understand the times as they were.

Dr. Troy Kickler is director of the North Carolina History Project.

You could describe most highly intelligent people the same way but the conclusion is purely speculation. I consider myself a devout Catholic but have several disagreements with The Church and have my own ideas of prayer and worship. Someone could easily describe me as a deist based on that, but that's not how I describe myself.

DamnYankee
12-07-2009, 06:41 PM
And here is where SM loses outright and the argument is over. This is from the Wikipedia site for the North Carolina Constitution:

At least two provisions, carried over from the 1868 Constitution, are not enforced either because they are known to be void or would almost certainly be struck down in court.

Article 6, section 8 disqualifies from office any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God. This article was carried over verbatim from the 1868 Constitution. However, in 1961, the federal Supreme Court, in Torcaso v. Watkins threw out a similar provision in the Maryland Constitution on the grounds that it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution. The First Amendment bars Congress from passing any law "respecting an establishment of religion," and this provision has long been considered binding on the states under the liberty clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As a result, it has never been enforced. This provision was explicitly challenged and overturned by Vosswinkel v. Hunt, 1979.

This provision, while is is still on the books was overturned by NORTH CAROLINA COURTS in 1979. The reason it is still on the books is that the language has never been amended because there has been no Constitutional Convention sense it was struck down in 1979.

Game, Set and Match Constitutitard! All hail SM King of the Constitutitards!

Again, I give little if no credence on judicial precedence, and instead look at the Founder's intentions and plain-language interpretation. Court decisions are more often than not decided based on which side has the more expensive legal representation.

DamnYankee
12-07-2009, 06:42 PM
Soc, what are you going to do with SM now that you own him?

lol

:cof1:
You obviously spend a good deal of your life wishing and hoping that you will someday win a debate with me. Your continued disappointment is very amusing to me. :lol:

USFREEDOM911
12-07-2009, 06:42 PM
You can continue to deny the overwhelming evidence for global warming but do not expect to do so without me calling you on your bullshit. If you want to keep AGW out of this thread, do not lie about it in this thread.

You deniers are just like the intelligent design community, making claims without evidence and ignoring overwhelming evidence that completely and totally debunks your pathetic conspiracy theories.


Warmers, like you, should be boiled in oil.

WinterBorn
12-07-2009, 06:51 PM
You obviously spend a good deal of your life wishing and hoping that you will someday win a debate with me. Your continued disappointment is very amusing to me. :lol:

Not so long ago I kicked your ass on this very topic.

DamnYankee
12-07-2009, 06:58 PM
Not so long ago I kicked your ass on this very topic.

:rofl:

In your dreams.

WinterBorn
12-07-2009, 07:02 PM
:rofl:

In your dreams.

Just because you refuse to leave your fantasyland and admit it does not change the truth about this topic.

Socrtease
12-07-2009, 07:15 PM
SM your STATE court, an arm of your oh so precious state sovereign, the one empowered by the people of north carolina struck down the relgious test. A state court said it unconstitutional. YOU LOSE. You argued so forcefully that it would stand the test of time but it was struck down in 1979! Not by some federal court but by your own state and your legislature has abided by it. You were talking out your ass the WHOLE time. Damo and Winterborn BOTH schooled you on this topic and a court of your state agreed with them 30 years ago!

FUCK THE POLICE
12-07-2009, 07:16 PM
IMHO we should ban Christians from elected office.

Socrtease
12-07-2009, 07:21 PM
Again, I give little if no credence on judicial precedence, and instead look at the Founder's intentions and plain-language interpretation. Court decisions are more often than not decided based on which side has the more expensive legal representation.Ok just a few posts ago you said that the State of North Carolina would expend more money than anyone willing to challenge the provision thus overturning all of the past precidence. But...OMG you were wrong because 30 years ago the case was litigated and the STATE lost. All that money I guess didn't matter a bit.

Socrtease
12-07-2009, 07:23 PM
Its the ACLU you should be embarrassed for. Why have they not come after the State of North Carolina. This law has been on the books for centuries, and has survived several re-writes of the State Constitution.

Instead they go after small local governments over Christmas tree displays.

The answer, of course, is that they know that they will lose, erasing the prior rulings. :)This is what is SOOO funny. Mr Authority arguing out of his ASSSSS when the State had already lost this matter 30 years ago.

Cancel 2018. 3
12-07-2009, 07:43 PM
IMHO we should ban Christians from elected office.

no surprise that fartersmart is in support of violating the constitutional ban on not having a religious test for office.....

congrats fartersmart....you rock!

Socrtease
12-07-2009, 08:04 PM
IMHO we should ban Christians from elected office.what part of NO RELIGIOUS TEST don't you get?

DamnYankee
12-07-2009, 08:05 PM
SM your STATE court, an arm of your oh so precious state sovereign, the one empowered by the people of north carolina struck down the relgious test. A state court said it unconstitutional. YOU LOSE. You argued so forcefully that it would stand the test of time but it was struck down in 1979! Not by some federal court but by your own state and your legislature has abided by it. You were talking out your ass the WHOLE time. Damo and Winterborn BOTH schooled you on this topic and a court of your state agreed with them 30 years ago! Again, a simple majority of a court decided against a poorly defended case, and the Legislature (you know, the folks elected by the People) left the language in, basically telling the court to pound sand. :)

DamnYankee
12-07-2009, 08:06 PM
Ok just a few posts ago you said that the State of North Carolina would expend more money than anyone willing to challenge the provision thus overturning all of the past precidence. But...OMG you were wrong because 30 years ago the case was litigated and the STATE lost. All that money I guess didn't matter a bit. The language is still there. :)

Socrtease
12-07-2009, 08:08 PM
Again, a simple majority of a court decided against a poorly defended case, and the Legislature (you know, the folks elected by the People) left the language in, basically telling the court to pound sand. :)Bullshit. You know nothing about your State Constitution or how language is removed. A court ruling cannot remove a provision of your states consitution. It must be removed during a constitutional rewrite, the last of which occurred in your state in 1971, 8 before a NC State court struck it down. Soooo you fail again. You really aren't just a Federal Constitutitard, you are a State Constitutitard as well.

DamnYankee
12-07-2009, 08:12 PM
This is what is SOOO funny. Mr Authority arguing out of his ASSSSS when the State had already lost this matter 30 years ago.:lol: You used Wikipedia as your source and didn't have the balls to link it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_Constitution#Infeasible_Provisions

DamnYankee
12-07-2009, 08:13 PM
Bullshit. You know nothing about your State Constitution or how language is removed. A court ruling cannot remove a provision of your states consitution. It must be removed during a constitutional rewrite, the last of which occurred in your state in 1971, 8 before a NC State court struck it down. Soooo you fail again. You really aren't just a Federal Constitutitard, you are a State Constitutitard as well. The legislature can do a re-write any time they please. Instead they tell the court to pound sand. :)

Socrtease
12-07-2009, 08:15 PM
:lol: You used Wikipedia as your source and didn't have the balls to link it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_Constitution#Infeasible_Provisions and there is no error in it at all. You are trying to get out of being so overwhelmingly wrong that you use appeal to ridicule rather than telling me how I was wrong. I kicked your fucking ass in this debate. YOU didn't even know that your own state court had struck down that provision. You have ZERO knowledge of your own states legal system or your constitution. It was simple research that took less than 10 minutes

midcan5
12-07-2009, 08:16 PM
Interesting, a sorta Sarah Palin view of reality, except Sarah would be lost on what most of these people accomplished. I found it curious he excluded FDR and LBJ, and even Nixon, three presidents who did some tough things that actually helped people. But he included Reagan who is by far the worse president of modern times when it comes to a 'sermon on the mount' theme painting. Schweitzer and Pasteur are missing too but then a great deal of goodness is missing from this soap opera moral hooey.


I would recommend anyone interested in religion in our founding check out:
The Godless Constitution: A Moral Defense of the Secular State by Isaac Kramnick, R. Laurence Moore (see below)

"Our Constitution makes no mention whatever of God. The omission was too obvious to have been anything but deliberate, in spite of Alexander Hamilton's flippant responses when asked about it: According to one account, he said that the new nation was not in need of "foreign aid"; according to another, he simply said "we forgot." But as Hamilton's biographer Ron Chernow points out, Hamilton never forgot anything important.

In the eighty-five essays that make up The Federalist, God is mentioned only twice (both times by Madison, who uses the word, as Gore Vidal has remarked, in the "only Heaven knows" sense). In the Declaration of Independence, He gets two brief nods: a reference to "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God," and the famous line about men being "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." More blatant official references to a deity date from long after the founding period: "In God We Trust" did not appear on our coinage until the Civil War, and "under God" was introduced into the Pledge of Allegiance during the McCarthy hysteria in 1954 [see Elisabeth Sifton, "The Battle Over the Pledge," April 5, 2004]."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050221/allen

Amazon.com: The Godless Constitution: A Moral Defense of the Secular State (9780393328370): Isaac Kramnick, R. Laurence Moore: Books

Socrtease
12-07-2009, 08:20 PM
There have only been two re-writings of the NC Constitution. the last was in 1971.

Dixie - In Memoriam
12-07-2009, 08:20 PM
What united the three groups, Holmes writes, was their belief in a guiding Providence and eternal life, the importance of virtue and Jesus’ ethical teachings, and love of religious freedom and hatred of tyranny.

In other words, they were all spiritual people and believed in something greater than man. This makes sense, given the original premise on which America declared independence and established a nation. The Constitution does not mention God, it's not supposed to mention God, it is presumed you understand it exists only because God endowed us with certain unalienable rights, one of which, was to pen a Constitution of self-governance. It specifically doesn't mention God because it doesn't need to. The Constitution is the rule of law we live by, and freedom of religion is part of that.

Our nation was founded on the principle of our endowed rights from God. Because these rights are divine province, they can't be taken away or restricted by man. It is on that basis, we are able to justify independence from Britain, and form our nation. If that premise is removed, we can not justify departing from the British government, or provide the cornerstone for religious freedom in America, or any other freedoms we consider endowed by our Creator. This truth has to be "self-evident" or the entire principle of what America stand for, fails.

DamnYankee
12-07-2009, 08:29 PM
and there is no error in it at all. You are trying to get out of being so overwhelmingly wrong that you use appeal to ridicule rather than telling me how I was wrong. I kicked your fucking ass in this debate. YOU didn't even know that your own state court had struck down that provision. You have ZERO knowledge of your own states legal system or your constitution. It was simple research that took less than 10 minutes Wiki can be written by anyone and thus is rarely a reliable source. It provides no details of the case, therefore is a failure as a source. The fact that you neglected to provide a link tells me that you knew that, but did it anyway hoping I wouldn't notice.

DamnYankee
12-07-2009, 08:35 PM
There have only been two re-writings of the NC Constitution. the last was in 1971. Once again your wiki source is wrong, omitting the Constitution of 1835. http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/32/entry

Socrtease
12-07-2009, 10:29 PM
Once again your wiki source is wrong, omitting the Constitution of 1835. http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/32/entry

Actually you fucking retard I got this directly from http://statelibrary.ncdcr.gov/nc/stgovt/preconst.htm#1835 which spells out that in 1835 there were only amendments and NOT a rewritting of the constitution. Again you KNOW shit about your own states history. But that is fine, I still owned your ass with this one. I have shown everyone that can actually admit that you know nothing about your states own constitutional history.

From that website, which is the state library:

Constitution of 1971
From 1869 through 1968, there were submitted to the voters of North Carolina a total of 97 propositions for amending the Constitution of the State. All but one of these proposals originated in the General Assembly. Of those 97 amendment proposals, 69 were ratified by the voters and 28 were rejected by them. The changing attitude of the voters toward Constitutional amendments is well illustrated by the fact that from 1869 to 1933, 21 of the 48 amendment propositions were rejected by the voters, a failure rate of three out of seven. Between 1933 and 1968, only seven of 49 proposed amendments were rejected by the voters, a failure rate of one out of seven.
After the amendments of the early 1960's, the pressure for Constitutional change seemed at the time to have abated. Yet while an increasingly frequently used amendment process had relieved many of the pressures that otherwise would have strengthened the case for Constitutional reform, it had not kept the Constitution current in all respects. Constitutional amendments usually were drafted in response to particular problems experienced or anticipated and generally they were limited in scope so as to achieve the essential goal, while arousing minimum unnecessary opposition. Thus amendments sometimes were not as comprehensive as they should have been to avoid inconsistency in result. Obsolete and invalid provisions had been allowed to remain in the Constitution to mislead the unwary reader. Moreover, in the absence of a comprehensive reappraisal, there had been no recent occasion to reconsider Constitutional provisions that might be obsolescent but might not have proved so frustrating or unpopular in their effect as to provoke curative amendments.

The highlighted part shows that the only time obsolete provisions are removed is during a complete rewrite. Again, Constitutitard, you lose. This is too easy.

Damocles
12-07-2009, 10:37 PM
Jeebus, dude. It's really nothing to argue. The SCOTUS and your state courts agree, it simply cannot be applied. Plus a Satanist could easily say they believe in God... It wouldn't even be effective even if somebody tried to apply it today.

Socrtease
12-07-2009, 10:43 PM
Jeebus, dude. It's really nothing to argue. The SCOTUS and your state courts agree, it simply cannot be applied. Plus a Satanist could easily say they believe in God... It wouldn't even be effective even if somebody tried to apply it today.He will never admit he is wrong. His own courts don't count. No court counts. The only thing that counts is original intent. This is someone that does not believe in the sovereignty of his own courts.

Damocles
12-07-2009, 10:49 PM
He will never admit he is wrong. His own courts don't count. No court counts. The only thing that counts is original intent. This is someone that does not believe in the sovereignty of his own courts.
It's a bit ridiculous, the original intent of the constitution allowed for Amendments to change it. One that was properly ratified applied all the rights appertaining to all US citizens to the government at all levels, this simply made it so that all your guaranteed rights, including that of the 1st Amendment, applied at every level of government, not just that of the Federal government (like the religious test clause).

This isn't rocket science, and it is fully within the original intent of the founders who added that portion that allowed for amendments.

Socrtease
12-07-2009, 10:58 PM
It's a bit ridiculous, the original intent of the constitution allowed for Amendments to change it. One that was properly ratified applied all the rights appertaining to all US citizens to the government at all levels, this simply made it so that all your guaranteed rights, including that of the 1st Amendment, applied at every level of government, not just that of the Federal government (like the religious test clause).

This isn't rocket science, and it is fully within the original intent of the founders who added that portion that allowed for amendments.Still what kills me is SM's claim that if this was challenged that it would no doubt survive muster and what he didn't know about his own state is that 30 years ago his own court struck down the law. Also he doesn't now how the text of his constitution gets changed. He is a moron and yet too many people on this board think he is a genius. Floors me. But then again, tons of people from his perspective think that Palin is a political genius. So I guess should be no suprise.

FUCK THE POLICE
12-08-2009, 12:03 AM
what part of NO RELIGIOUS TEST don't you get?

What test? They can hold office. They're just automatically denied the privilege of voting based on insanity.

Hermes Thoth
12-08-2009, 06:41 AM
I don't believe he was anything but a zealot who spoke out one too many times and got himself killed.

your "blame the victim" mentality is obscene.

I bet you think jesus "deserves to be raped" when he wears short skirts.

Screw you.:good4u:

DamnYankee
12-08-2009, 08:48 AM
Actually you fucking retard I got this directly from http://statelibrary.ncdcr.gov/nc/stgovt/preconst.htm#1835 which spells out that in 1835 there were only amendments and NOT a rewritting of the constitution. Again you KNOW shit about your own states history. But that is fine, I still owned your ass with this one. I have shown everyone that can actually admit that you know nothing about your states own constitutional history.

From that website, which is the state library:

Constitution of 1971
From 1869 through 1968, there were submitted to the voters of North Carolina a total of 97 propositions for amending the Constitution of the State. All but one of these proposals originated in the General Assembly. Of those 97 amendment proposals, 69 were ratified by the voters and 28 were rejected by them. The changing attitude of the voters toward Constitutional amendments is well illustrated by the fact that from 1869 to 1933, 21 of the 48 amendment propositions were rejected by the voters, a failure rate of three out of seven. Between 1933 and 1968, only seven of 49 proposed amendments were rejected by the voters, a failure rate of one out of seven.
After the amendments of the early 1960's, the pressure for Constitutional change seemed at the time to have abated. Yet while an increasingly frequently used amendment process had relieved many of the pressures that otherwise would have strengthened the case for Constitutional reform, it had not kept the Constitution current in all respects. Constitutional amendments usually were drafted in response to particular problems experienced or anticipated and generally they were limited in scope so as to achieve the essential goal, while arousing minimum unnecessary opposition. Thus amendments sometimes were not as comprehensive as they should have been to avoid inconsistency in result. Obsolete and invalid provisions had been allowed to remain in the Constitution to mislead the unwary reader. Moreover, in the absence of a comprehensive reappraisal, there had been no recent occasion to reconsider Constitutional provisions that might be obsolescent but might not have proved so frustrating or unpopular in their effect as to provoke curative amendments.

The highlighted part shows that the only time obsolete provisions are removed is during a complete rewrite. Again, Constitutitard, you lose. This is too easy.

The Convention of 1835 changed the Constitution hugely, for example representation by population instead of property values, and reducing the religious requirements to hold office. It's essentially a rewrite with regards to the issue we are discussing and you didn't know that due to your reliance on Wikipedia.

DamnYankee
12-08-2009, 08:49 AM
Jeebus, dude. It's really nothing to argue. The SCOTUS and your state courts agree, it simply cannot be applied. Plus a Satanist could easily say they believe in God... It wouldn't even be effective even if somebody tried to apply it today. Sure they could lie and I suspect that they would. They wouldn't bring out the ACLU for fear of losing.

DamnYankee
12-08-2009, 08:52 AM
He will never admit he is wrong. His own courts don't count. No court counts. The only thing that counts is original intent. This is someone that does not believe in the sovereignty of his own courts.The courts are not sovereign; they are subservient to the legislature and the People. :palm:

Mott the Hoople
12-08-2009, 08:58 AM
In other words, free speech is only OK when its liberal free speech. :pke:
How comes when you cons get crushed on a point your reacction is make something up and put words in peoples mouths they didn't say. McIdiot in an intolerant prick. He's not conservative. He's just a garden variety bigot.

DamnYankee
12-08-2009, 09:01 AM
How comes when you cons get crushed on a point your reacction is make something up and put words in peoples mouths they didn't say. McIdiot in an intolerant prick. He's not conservative. He's just a garden variety bigot.You don't know that; its you who is being intolerant of the man's views.

Socrtease
12-08-2009, 10:34 AM
The Convention of 1835 changed the Constitution hugely, for example representation by population instead of property values, and reducing the religious requirements to hold office. It's essentially a rewrite with regards to the issue we are discussing and you didn't know that due to your reliance on Wikipedia.The 1835 convention was NOT a rewrite. And I got that DIRECTLY from the NC State Library and NOT Wikipedia, which gets most of it's information from your state site. Again, appealing to ridicule based on the source does nothing to bolster your argument. Why don't you e-mail the PhD in the other source and ask him about it. Hell when you get his answer you can post it here. My bet is you don't have half a ball in your sack to do it. You would be terrified to be proven wrong.

Socrtease
12-08-2009, 10:36 AM
The courts are not sovereign; they are subservient to the legislature and the People. :palm:Bullshit, read the constitution, they are an equal branch of the government and are not beholden to the legislature. You ever read about separation of powers? Probably another concept you don't get or believe in.

DamnYankee
12-08-2009, 10:49 AM
Bullshit, read the constitution, they are an equal branch of the government and are not beholden to the legislature. You ever read about separation of powers? Probably another concept you don't get or believe in. Dude, in NC the People elect the judges. :palm:

DamnYankee
12-08-2009, 10:50 AM
The 1835 convention was NOT a rewrite. And I got that DIRECTLY from the NC State Library and NOT Wikipedia, which gets most of it's information from your state site. Again, appealing to ridicule based on the source does nothing to bolster your argument. Why don't you e-mail the PhD in the other source and ask him about it. Hell when you get his answer you can post it here. My bet is you don't have half a ball in your sack to do it. You would be terrified to be proven wrong.Again, regarding the issue being discussed....

Socrtease
12-08-2009, 10:57 AM
Wiki can be written by anyone and thus is rarely a reliable source. It provides no details of the case, therefore is a failure as a source. The fact that you neglected to provide a link tells me that you knew that, but did it anyway hoping I wouldn't notice.So show me where the wikipedia stuff was wrong? I challenge you too. Again you don't have the balls. Show me where it is wrong and provide sources. I already showed you that most of the wiki entry on this came from your state's own sources.

DamnYankee
12-08-2009, 10:59 AM
So show me where the wikipedia stuff was wrong? I challenge you too. Again you don't have the balls. Show me where it is wrong and provide sources. I already showed you that most of the wiki entry on this came from your state's own sources. I see you're in a hissy mood now, dragging up the wiki thing again. :)

Socrtease
12-08-2009, 11:05 AM
Dude, in NC the People elect the judges. :palm:So what? Article IV of the NC Constitution says:

Section 1. Judicial power.

The judicial power of the State shall, except as provided in Section 3 of this Article, be vested in a Court for the Trial of Impeachments and in a General Court of Justice. The General Assembly shall have no power to deprive the judicial department of any power or jurisdiction that rightfully pertains to it as a co-ordinate department of the government, nor shall it establish or authorize any courts other than as permitted by this Article.(http://statelibrary.ncdcr.gov/nc/stgovt/article_iv.htm)

For those who don't understand the legalisms of this, it means that the courts are not subservient to the legislature, as SM wrongly claimed. the fact that people elect judges makes them no less a coequal branch.

Socrtease
12-08-2009, 11:06 AM
I see you're in a hissy mood now, dragging up the wiki thing again. :)That's what I thought. You have no evidence that anything I said was wrong or flawed, just you don't like it so since it is from Wiki it is bad.

DamnYankee
12-08-2009, 11:09 AM
So what? Article IV of the NC Constitution says:

Section 1. Judicial power.

The judicial power of the State shall, except as provided in Section 3 of this Article, be vested in a Court for the Trial of Impeachments and in a General Court of Justice. The General Assembly shall have no power to deprive the judicial department of any power or jurisdiction that rightfully pertains to it as a co-ordinate department of the government, nor shall it establish or authorize any courts other than as permitted by this Article.(http://statelibrary.ncdcr.gov/nc/stgovt/article_iv.htm)

For those who don't understand the legalisms of this, it means that the courts are not subservient to the legislature, as SM wrongly claimed. the fact that people elect judges makes them no less a coequal branch.

In NC, the legislature and people can amend or re-write the Constitution. The Court can't do that. Therefore they are subservient. :)

Socrtease
12-08-2009, 11:11 AM
The legislature can do a re-write any time they please. Instead they tell the court to pound sand. :)
Again, from your state constitution. They cannot re-write anytime without following the rules spelled out in Sec XIII of the NC Constitution which says:

Sec. 4. Revision or amendment by legislative initiation.

A proposal of a new or revised Constitution or an amendment or amendments to this Constitution may be initiated by the General Assembly, but only if three-fifths of all the members of each house shall adopt an act submitting the proposal to the qualified voters of the State for their ratification or rejection. The proposal shall be submitted at the time and in the manner prescribed by the General Assembly. If a majority of the votes cast thereon are in favor of the proposed new or revised Constitution or constitutional amendment or amendments, it or they shall become effective January first next after ratification by the voters unless a different effective date is prescribed in the act submitting the proposal or proposals to the qualified voters.(http://statelibrary.ncdcr.gov/nc/stgovt/article_vii-xiv.HTM#XIII)

DamnYankee
12-08-2009, 11:11 AM
That's what I thought. You have no evidence that anything I said was wrong or flawed, just you don't like it so since it is from Wiki it is bad. Does your earlier wiki (that you failed to link to) have a reference to the case that you cited?

DamnYankee
12-08-2009, 11:12 AM
Again, from your state constitution. They cannot re-write anytime without following the rules spelled out in Sec XIII of the NC Constitution which says:

Sec. 4. Revision or amendment by legislative initiation.

A proposal of a new or revised Constitution or an amendment or amendments to this Constitution may be initiated by the General Assembly, but only if three-fifths of all the members of each house shall adopt an act submitting the proposal to the qualified voters of the State for their ratification or rejection. The proposal shall be submitted at the time and in the manner prescribed by the General Assembly. If a majority of the votes cast thereon are in favor of the proposed new or revised Constitution or constitutional amendment or amendments, it or they shall become effective January first next after ratification by the voters unless a different effective date is prescribed in the act submitting the proposal or proposals to the qualified voters.(http://statelibrary.ncdcr.gov/nc/stgovt/article_vii-xiv.HTM#XIII)

Thanks for making my point. :)

Socrtease
12-08-2009, 11:15 AM
In NC, the legislature and people can amend or re-write the Constitution. The Court can't do that. Therefore they are subservient. :)Bullshit, it is called separation of powers you dimwit. You really really need to take a basic civics class. You're own constitution says they are a co-equal branch. You are really a fucking idiot. I can't imagine what you do for a living with such a limited capacity for reason.

DamnYankee
12-08-2009, 11:17 AM
Bullshit, it is called separation of powers you dimwit. You really really need to take a basic civics class. You're own constitution says they are a co-equal branch. You are really a fucking idiot. I can't imagine what you do for a living with such a limited capacity for reason.Except the court can't make law. :)

Socrtease
12-08-2009, 11:18 AM
Does your earlier wiki (that you failed to link to) have a reference to the case that you cited?No but you can find the case if you do a search of it. And since you are in NC you can look it up in your local law library. BUT my bet is you won't. You are too fucking scared to be wrong.

DamnYankee
12-08-2009, 11:40 AM
No but you can find the case if you do a search of it. And since you are in NC you can look it up in your local law library. BUT my bet is you won't. You are too fucking scared to be wrong. I already googled it and found nothing (except for your wiki link that you tried to hide). It's your citation and your responsibility.

WinterBorn
12-08-2009, 05:40 PM
An atheist has been elected to office in Ashville NC, and there are some people making noise about the line in the NC Constitution.

Now lets see what happens. Anyone willing to bet on the outcome?

DamnYankee
12-08-2009, 06:13 PM
I know a guy in Asheville would take care of that little problem.

What's the target's name?

WinterBorn
12-08-2009, 06:19 PM
I know a guy in Asheville would take care of that little problem.

What's the target's name?

The atheist who was elected to the City Council.

Target? Yep, more evidence of your tolerance. lol

DamnYankee
12-08-2009, 06:30 PM
The atheist who was elected to the City Council.

Target? Yep, more evidence of your tolerance. lol
Another example of you lying. The voters rejected him, and he never got elected.


Cecil Bothwell is running for a seat on the City Council in Asheville, North Carolina.

http://cecilbothwell.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/candidatebizcard.jpg?w=225&h=300

http://www.ashevillenc.gov/government/mayor_city_council/city_council/default.aspx?id=1354&ekmensel=116_submenu_0_link_2

WinterBorn
12-08-2009, 06:50 PM
Another example of you lying. The voters rejected him, and he never got elected.



http://cecilbothwell.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/candidatebizcard.jpg?w=225&h=300

http://www.ashevillenc.gov/government/mayor_city_council/city_council/default.aspx?id=1354&ekmensel=116_submenu_0_link_2

Ok bright boy, did you research show you when the elections were to take place??

Go back and look to see when the elections are scheduled to be held.

Then get back to me about this "Another example of you lying".

DamnYankee
12-08-2009, 06:55 PM
Ok bright boy, did you research show you when the elections were to take place??

....


The atheist who was elected to the City Council.
...

You lied.

WinterBorn
12-08-2009, 07:01 PM
You lied.

Ok, I tried to get you to do the research and not make a bigger fool of yourself.

Yes, the elections have already taken place. And yes he was was elected to the City Council. But you looked at the current Asheville city gov't web page, which lists the current gov't officials.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but people do not take office on the day the results become official.

Soc is right, you need a civics class.



I will accept your apology now. :pke:

DamnYankee
12-08-2009, 07:17 PM
Ok, I tried to get you to do the research and not make a bigger fool of yourself.

Yes, the elections have already taken place. And yes he was was elected to the City Council. But you looked at the current Asheville city gov't web page, which lists the current gov't officials.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but people do not take office on the day the results become official.

Soc is right, you need a civics class.



I will accept your apology now. :pke:

So there's time to take him out then. Good. :)

DamnYankee
12-08-2009, 07:20 PM
Looks like you lied here then. Oops.


Bothwell added: “I don't ‘deny the being of Almighty God;' I simply consider the question of denial or acceptance irrelevant.http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20091208/NEWS01/912080327

WinterBorn
12-08-2009, 07:33 PM
Looks like you lied here then. Oops.

http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20091208/NEWS01/912080327

Its interesting that you selectively quote the article. The same article also says:

"He has told the Citizen-Times in the past he believes in the Golden Rule, not a deity.


Bothwell labels himself an atheist on his MySpace page, though he wrote in an online post last week on fellow incoming councilman Gordon Smith's blog, Scrutiny Hooligans, that he prefers the term “post-theist.”"




Again, I will accept your apology if you are a big enough man to admit you were wrong.

WinterBorn
12-08-2009, 07:34 PM
Looks like you lied here then. Oops.

http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20091208/NEWS01/912080327

Which means I didn't lie where you claimed I did. So you will apologize for calling me a liar in your previous post?

DamnYankee
12-08-2009, 08:07 PM
Its interesting that you selectively quote the article. The same article also says:

"He has told the Citizen-Times in the past he believes in the Golden Rule, not a deity.


Bothwell labels himself an atheist on his MySpace page, though he wrote in an online post last week on fellow incoming councilman Gordon Smith's blog, Scrutiny Hooligans, that he prefers the term “post-theist.”"




Again, I will accept your apology if you are a big enough man to admit you were wrong.

So the guy says different things depending on who he's talking to. Typical of someone with no morals.

DamnYankee
12-08-2009, 08:08 PM
Which means I didn't lie where you claimed I did. So you will apologize for calling me a liar in your previous post? But you lied about this other thing, so sorry, no apology deserved, just because you didn't lie twice.

WinterBorn
12-08-2009, 08:09 PM
So the guy says different things depending on who he's talking to. Typical of someone with no morals.

No, he is trying to remove religion as an issue. And it shouldn't be an issue.

So you are making the claim that he has no morals?

WinterBorn
12-08-2009, 08:11 PM
But you lied about this other thing, so sorry, no apology deserved, just because you didn't lie twice.

This other thing? What other thing?

He has claimed to be an atheist. He was elected to the city council.

Both of those things you denied and called me a liar about.

DamnYankee
12-08-2009, 08:11 PM
No, he is trying to remove religion as an issue. And it shouldn't be an issue.

So you are making the claim that he has no morals?
Read my post again and you tell me if that's what I said.

WinterBorn
12-08-2009, 08:12 PM
Another example of you lying. The voters rejected him, and he never got elected.


Another example of SM lying.

WinterBorn
12-08-2009, 08:14 PM
Referencing my saying he "was elected":


You lied.


Another example of SM lying.


:cof1:




Although these could also be examples of SM being woefully uninformed. That has been shown in this thread already.

As has been his unwillingness to admit when he is wrong.

WinterBorn
12-08-2009, 08:16 PM
Read my post again and you tell me if that's what I said.

It was the insinuation. That is why I am asking you a simple question to clarify.

Obviously answering a simple question, like admitting that you were wrong, is too much for you?

FUCK THE POLICE
12-08-2009, 08:19 PM
So the guy says different things depending on who he's talking to. Typical of someone with no morals.

Are you such a dolt that you're incapable of understanding a non-authoritarian moral system?

DamnYankee
12-08-2009, 08:57 PM
It was the insinuation. That is why I am asking you a simple question to clarify.

Obviously answering a simple question, like admitting that you were wrong, is too much for you?We have established that you lied here and that's enough for now.

DamnYankee
12-08-2009, 09:01 PM
Another example of SM lying. Will you admit that you lied? If so I'll apologize.

WinterBorn
12-09-2009, 06:14 AM
Will you admit that you lied? If so I'll apologize.

The man has labeled himself as an atheist, and he was elected to the city council.

No lies here.

I'll accept your apology anytime.

DamnYankee
12-09-2009, 07:07 AM
Apparently he labels himself lots of things depending on who he's talking to, so he's a liar like you. You also insinuated that this would end up challenging the NC Constitution, which is another lie. Admit these and I will apologize. :)

WinterBorn
12-09-2009, 07:14 AM
Apparently he labels himself lots of things depending on who he's talking to, so he's a liar like you. You also insinuated that this would end up challenging the NC Constitution, which is another lie. Admit these and I will apologize. :)

Did I insinuate that? Or did I simply post a story and make comments about whether or not the religious test would be an issue? No, I did not lie.

He labeled himself an atheist on his own myspace page. Then he said he preferred the term "post-deist", which is an atheist without the politically charged label. No, I did not lie.



But then, you lied about him being rejected by the voters. Care to own up that?

DamnYankee
12-09-2009, 07:25 AM
You insinuated that in the context of our discussion, that the NC Constitution would be overturned. Therefore you lied.

And I didn't lie I was just incorrect.

WinterBorn
12-09-2009, 07:27 AM
You insinuated that in the context of our discussion, that the NC Constitution would be overturned. Therefore you lied.

And I didn't lie I was just incorrect.

No where in our discussion did I insinuate that the NC Constitution would be overturned. Your statement is a lie.

Try again.

DamnYankee
12-09-2009, 07:30 AM
Liar.

WinterBorn
12-09-2009, 07:38 AM
Liar.

As usual, you sling insults but provide no backup or evidence.

I did not say it would overturn the NC Constitution. I have maintained in this and other discussions that the religious test would not stand up in court. But in this thread I simply posted that an atheist had been elected and that people were making noise about the religious test in the NC Constitution.

I wondered whether they would try and stop his being seated on the city council. That was the extent of it.

But feel free to continue insults instead of fact based arguments. And if you get the time, go look at your precious Logical Fallacies link and see which one fits you here.

DamnYankee
12-09-2009, 07:40 AM
I see that you have nothing new to add. :palm:

WinterBorn
12-09-2009, 07:42 AM
I see that you have nothing new to add. :palm:

My ownership here speaks for itself.

You made a claim and have nothing with which to back it up.

So I guess we have nothing left to discuss. :good4u:

DamnYankee
12-09-2009, 08:05 AM
:lol:

WinterBorn
12-09-2009, 02:08 PM
Interesting article here: http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2009/12/atheist_swears_affirms_oath_in_nc.html


"N.C. law rejects atheists; voters don't
By David Waters
There was a bit of suspense in Asheville, N.C., Tuesday morning about whether newly-elected city council member Cecil Bothwell should or would be sworn into office. Bothwell, who was elected last month, is an atheist. The North Carolina constitution still bars atheists from holding elected office.
"I'm not saying that Cecil Bothwell is not a good man, but if he's an atheist, he's not eligible to serve in public office, according to the state constitution," said H.K. Edgerton, a former Asheville NAACP president told the Asheville Citizen-Times.

Article 6, section 8 of the North Carolina constitution states: "The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God." Fortunately for Bothwell, Article VI of the U.S. Constitution trumps that: "No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Also fortunately for Bothwell, state law allows officeholders to "affirm" rather than "swear" the oath of office, which exempted Bothwell from the state law that would have required him to "lay his hand upon the Holy Scriptures" and say, "so help me God."

Constitutional crisis averted. Cecil Bothwell is now a member of the Asheville city council.
In an earlier email to the Asheville newspaper, Bothwell explained that the exact wording of the North Carolina constitution wouldn't apply to him anyway. "I am not 'an avowed atheist.' . . . I don't 'deny the being of Almighty God.' I simply consider the question of denial or acceptance irrelevant."

Bothwell's election -- he finished third in a six-person contest with 17.28 percent of the Nov. 3 vote -- is doubly impressive, considering that he is a fan of neither God nor Asheville-area resident Billy Graham, whom he called "an unabashed nationalist, capitalist, militarist and advocate for American empire" in a book he wrote entitled "The Prince of War: Billy Graham's Crusade for a Wholly Christian Empire."
If there ever was a wholly Christian empire in Billy Graham's North Carolina, it ended Tuesday. Might be a good time to update that state constitution."





So apparently someone who does not believe in God can be elected and affirmed into office in NC.

DamnYankee
12-09-2009, 02:19 PM
Asheville's a liberal enclave.

Damocles
12-09-2009, 02:19 PM
Interesting article here: http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2009/12/atheist_swears_affirms_oath_in_nc.html


"N.C. law rejects atheists; voters don't
By David Waters
There was a bit of suspense in Asheville, N.C., Tuesday morning about whether newly-elected city council member Cecil Bothwell should or would be sworn into office. Bothwell, who was elected last month, is an atheist. The North Carolina constitution still bars atheists from holding elected office.
"I'm not saying that Cecil Bothwell is not a good man, but if he's an atheist, he's not eligible to serve in public office, according to the state constitution," said H.K. Edgerton, a former Asheville NAACP president told the Asheville Citizen-Times.

Article 6, section 8 of the North Carolina constitution states: "The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God." Fortunately for Bothwell, Article VI of the U.S. Constitution trumps that: "No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Also fortunately for Bothwell, state law allows officeholders to "affirm" rather than "swear" the oath of office, which exempted Bothwell from the state law that would have required him to "lay his hand upon the Holy Scriptures" and say, "so help me God."

Constitutional crisis averted. Cecil Bothwell is now a member of the Asheville city council.
In an earlier email to the Asheville newspaper, Bothwell explained that the exact wording of the North Carolina constitution wouldn't apply to him anyway. "I am not 'an avowed atheist.' . . . I don't 'deny the being of Almighty God.' I simply consider the question of denial or acceptance irrelevant."

Bothwell's election -- he finished third in a six-person contest with 17.28 percent of the Nov. 3 vote -- is doubly impressive, considering that he is a fan of neither God nor Asheville-area resident Billy Graham, whom he called "an unabashed nationalist, capitalist, militarist and advocate for American empire" in a book he wrote entitled "The Prince of War: Billy Graham's Crusade for a Wholly Christian Empire."
If there ever was a wholly Christian empire in Billy Graham's North Carolina, it ended Tuesday. Might be a good time to update that state constitution."





So apparently someone who does not believe in God can be elected and affirmed into office in NC.
One who is openly Atheist, for that matter. Of course a little further research would have found that the state's courts ruled in 1970 or so that the provision was unapplicable due to violation of the US Constitution... it was a moot point anyway.

WinterBorn
12-09-2009, 02:23 PM
One who is openly Atheist, for that matter. Of course a little further research would have found that the state's courts ruled in 1970 or so that the provision was unapplicable due to violation of the US Constitution... it was a moot point anyway.

Apparently more than a few of NC's residents hadn't heard.