Talk about a problem with the "separation of church and state!!!"

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Mallow

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Mallow

Originally posted by: JackBurton
Just noticed this about the Texas Constitution:

he Texas Constitution; Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS; Section 4 - RELIGIOUS TESTS:
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

"Provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being?" Is that not a religious test? Who is the crack head that wrote this thing?! That is like saying, "you can believe in ANY God you want....as long as that God is Jesus." So no, apparently an Athiest can not hold office. What a pile of crap!

Where do you get Jesus out of that statement? Is the only entity that can be considered a supreme being Jesus? Think again.

Hey genius, I suggest you do the thinking. I'm not saying Supreme Being = Jesus, I'm saying there is a glaring contradiction in this section of the Texas Constitution! It's saying, there will be no religious tests, but then says you have to believe in a God. Isn't, "do you believe in a Supreme Being" a religious test question?

Wow, ATOT members amaze me more every day. I never disputed the fact that this is a glaring contradiction to separation of religion and state. However, I only asked you why you presumed in your original post that someone had to believe in jesus in order to satisfy the clause... clear to you yet? I now realize the effort to investigate you original thought pattern was truely futile. thx

I apologize. Obviously my Jesus analogy was a little too tough for you to grab. I assumed all AT members had at least an average IQ level, but obviously not in your case. Maybe next time I'll make my analogies a little simpler for you.

Dude, your analogy sucked. Don't try and blame him for you having a crappy analogy.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Jzero
Relevant Repost Nazi Link Not really a proper repost since this is about a specific instance....

Regardless, it does not declare that the so-called supreme being has to be a god of any sort. It's only a religious test if you are looking for a flame war, which is par for this particular course.

You could simply declare that you believe that man is the supreme being over the earth.

You can play this game all you want, but Supreme Being does equal a God. What else would a Supreme Being be? It IS a religious test, and if you don't think it is, you are in extreme denial.

You can interpret it however you please to grind your axe here on ATOT. The wording is quite clear. There is no verbiage declaring "Supreme Being" must be some sort of commonly recognized deity.

 

[KarenMarie]

Supreme Being doesn't need to mean GOD, or anything like it.

It is only an acknowlegement that MAN is not the highest power there is. Which is good, cause if that were the case, we would all be screwed.

Call is God, call it Buddha, call it Nature ... call it whatever one chooses. But it is only asking for the acknowledgement of something higher than man.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
Supreme Being doesn't need to mean GOD, or anything like it.

It is only an acknowlegement that MAN is not the highest power there is. Which is good, cause if that were the case, we would all be screwed.

Call is God, call it Buddha, call it Nature ... call it whatever one chooses. But it is only asking for the acknowledgement of something higher than man.

The South Carolina high court agreed that forcing public officers to acknowledge the existence of a "supreme being" -- required by the state's constitution -- violated the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment that provides for religious liberty and separation of church and state.

 

[tnitsuj]

All of those provisions in the state constitutions are probably against the US constitution which makes them null and void in practice.

 

[StageLeft]

It's retarded, just as "one nation under God" is also retarded.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Actually a majority of the states have similar requirements either in their constitutions or other code/regulation documents. That's why recently whe Newdow stood before the supreme court he received a round of applause from the audience when he said to the justices "That's only because no atheists can be elected to office." It's a long standing point of contention.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Jzero
Relevant Repost Nazi Link Not really a proper repost since this is about a specific instance....

Regardless, it does not declare that the so-called supreme being has to be a god of any sort. It's only a religious test if you are looking for a flame war, which is par for this particular course.

You could simply declare that you believe that man is the supreme being over the earth.

actually, it is a repost.

someone else posted the exact same thing about 2 hours before.

 

[KarenMarie]

Well, the Constitution says that the government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

It does not say that all references to God are illegal. The framer's intent was the the USA did not have a situation like the UK where the King decided what the countrys religion was. We were to be free to worship whatever God we wanted and the government could not force a cetain religion upon the people or have an 'official' religion. They certainly didnt intend, nor does the 1st amendment state that religon is illegal within the government.

 

[Mallow]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Mallow

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Mallow

Originally posted by: JackBurton
Just noticed this about the Texas Constitution:

he Texas Constitution; Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS; Section 4 - RELIGIOUS TESTS:
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

"Provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being?" Is that not a religious test? Who is the crack head that wrote this thing?! That is like saying, "you can believe in ANY God you want....as long as that God is Jesus." So no, apparently an Athiest can not hold office. What a pile of crap!

Where do you get Jesus out of that statement? Is the only entity that can be considered a supreme being Jesus? Think again.

Hey genius, I suggest you do the thinking. I'm not saying Supreme Being = Jesus, I'm saying there is a glaring contradiction in this section of the Texas Constitution! It's saying, there will be no religious tests, but then says you have to believe in a God. Isn't, "do you believe in a Supreme Being" a religious test question?

Wow, ATOT members amaze me more every day. I never disputed the fact that this is a glaring contradiction to separation of religion and state. However, I only asked you why you presumed in your original post that someone had to believe in jesus in order to satisfy the clause... clear to you yet? I now realize the effort to investigate you original thought pattern was truely futile. thx

I apologize. Obviously my Jesus analogy was a little too tough for you to grab. I assumed all AT members had at least an average IQ level, but obviously not in your case. Maybe next time I'll make my analogies a little simpler for you.

Dude, your analogy sucked. Don't try and blame him for you having a crappy analogy.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It's retarded, just as "one nation under God" is also retarded.

I agree.

"acknowledging the existence of a Supreme Being" is a process that makes a number of assumptions:

That such a "Supreme Being" actually exists.
That this "Supreme Being" is actually a "being" (entity?)
That said "Supreme Being" is actually "supreme".
That "supreme" has some valid meaning in this context.
That there is only one "Supreme Being", and not two or more equal "Supreme Beings".

You can apply your own religious belief structure to the above to supply your own context, but in doing so you make the implied assumption that everyone's on the same page as far as religous beliefs go.

 

[przero]

Actually, only states CAN make laws concerning religion according to the U.S. Constitution.

Oh, and JackBurton ,you need some manners!

 

[tcsenter]

Actually a majority of the states have similar requirements either in their constitutions or other code/regulation documents. That's why recently whe Newdow stood before the supreme court he received a round of applause from the audience when he said to the justices "That's only because no atheists can be elected to office." It's a long standing point of contention.

lol! He received applause from Atheists who were there in support of him. If Newdow can provide a single case where an Atheist was prevented from holding an elected office since...oh...1820 or so, I'd love to see it.

In whose mind has this been a 'long standing point of contention', Madalyn Murray O'Hair's? This is an entirely new and unchartered legal theory that is at odds with 200+ years of consistent constitutional interpretation, legal precedent, and societal standards.

 

[xSauronx]

Originally posted by: daveymark
So I can acknowledge myself as existing? I can apply for governer now

im supreme-er .....