Should atheists or progressives be allowed to hold office?

[whitehall]

Is it a trick Alinsky post? Of course you don't prohibit progressives and atheists from holding office. It's up to the people to make an informed judgement in the voting booth. If the media becomes a propaganda arm of atheists and progressives and Americans get a skewed view of the candidates it becomes the duty of the public to be better informed and elect the candidates who best represent their views.Maybe that's why the media hates the Tea Party.

 

[Kosh]

Elected officials have to take an oath to uphold the Constitution.

Atheists and progressives reject the Founders and believe that humans have no inherant rights beyond what the state decides on a whim; since they don't believe in the Constitution why should they be allowed to run for office?

The far left should never be in charge of anything..

See how they will watch the world burn than admit they are wrong!

They are far more dangerous than ISIS!

 

[Dana7360]

Elected officials have to take an oath to uphold the Constitution.

Atheists and progressives reject the Founders and believe that humans have no inherant rights beyond what the state decides on a whim; since they don't believe in the Constitution why should be allowed to run for office?

You sure like to show all intelligent people that you've never actually read that document entirely.

If you had you would know that the constitution clearly says there is to be NO RELIGIOUS TEST TO BE IN PUBLIC OFFICE.

It's called the no religious test clause. It's a simple sentence here it is:

but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

No Religious Test Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which means that religion is not supposed to be considered when electing a public official.

So, if you actually want to follow the constitution you would leave religion out of it.

By the way, nothing in your post above is true and it shows that you seriously need to read the constitution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Is it a trick Alinsky post? Of course you don't prohibit progressives and atheists from holding office. It's up to the people to make an informed judgement in the voting booth. If the media becomes a propaganda arm of atheists and progressives and Americans get a skewed view of the candidates it becomes the duty of the public to be better informed and elect the candidates who best represent their views.Maybe that's why the media hates the Tea Party.

‘The media’ don’t ‘hate’ the TPM, that’s nonsense.

Reporting the ignorance and stupidity common to the TPM is not to ‘hate’ them; the TPM has only itself to blame for any animosity earned.

And no, the thread was started by one of your fellow rightwing nitwits.

 

[Syriusly]

[Q
Thomas Jefferson, like every other Protestant of his time would not have agreed to an atheist holding a high public office no more than they would have agreed to the fitness of a lunatic or a pedophile.

Like it or not that is the Truth.

Thomas Jefferson makes it clear that he thought people like you were dangerous. You reject not only the words of the U.S. Constitution- you reject the spirit of the Constitution and you malign Jefferson.

Of course- unlike you- Jefferson could tell the difference between a pedophile and an atheist.

The proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right.
-- Thomas Jefferson, "Statute for Religious Freedom," 1779. Papers, 2:546

 

[Syriusly]

'So help me Santa' makes more sense. Santa actually delivers.

That you think Santa is more believable than the Creator, just proves what an imbecile you are.

The advance made with the acceptance of Monotheism has been one of the greatest advances in human culture and Western civilization ever made, and our concept of the laws of science are derived from the concept that the Creator is intelligent and His handiwork reflects the rationality and order of an intelligent mind. The success that has been made with that working set of assumption/axioms that we live in an orderly universe whose behavior can be expressed in cognitive terms is what makes modern science possible and the advancement of atheism undermines that framework and pushes us toward the brink of an anarchistic world view where everything is subjective, there are no laws, no Truths and thus everyone can have their opinion on everything because no Truth is superior to anyone else version of the Truth on the same topic.

If believing all that supernatural bullshit, without any proof, makes your life better - good for you. What is your prayer success rate?

There is plenty of proof and my prayer rate is 100% as I pray for God's Will to be done, dude.

What proof? No one has EVER been able to offer any credible proof. By proof - I mean that TRUTH you were talking about. It's all based on "faith"...

No one has been able to offer proof of God?

Lol, as if Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas never were born, roflmao.

No, your IGNORANCE of the proof of Gods existence proves nothing more than what an imbecile you are.

That you believe that your faith consitutes 'proof' is just as ignorant as your reading and contempt for the United States Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

Believing that requires that you reject what they wrote and stood for.

Religious requirements are specifically prohibited and here you are claiming that they meant the exact opposite (and ignoring every valid point brought up against this).

With such representations, I could make a far better argument that religious believers such as yourself should be barred from office long before atheists should.

The religious tests that were banned were intra-denominational tests. They simply assumed that anyone under consideration would be Judeo-Christian and believed in God.

No.

That is your assumption.

Why do you despise the actual words of the Constitution? Or is it you fear them?

Hahah, nice but silly try.

Todays interpretation of what the First Amendment means to protect the right to burn the flag or allow communists, atheists and such filth to hold high office would not be recognised by them as anything other than insanity and mass delusion, which it is.

From the dissensions among Sects themselves arise necessarily a right of choosing and necessity of deliberating to which we will conform. But if we choose for ourselves, we must allow others to choose also, and so reciprocally, this establishes religious liberty.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers, 1:545

What Jim believes- not what Jefferson believed.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.


[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1779), quoted from Merrill D Peterson, ed, Thomas Jefferson: Writings (1984), p. 347

And here- Jefferson explicitly notes that freedom of religion includes non-belief in religion- and notes that what Jim calls for undermines all of our civil rights.

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808) ME 16:320.

While T Jefferson held man y unorthodox Christian beliefs, he was nonetheless a Christian.

The religion of Thomas Jefferson, third U.S. President
In a practical sense, classifying Jefferson as a "Deist" with regards to religious affiliation is misleading and meaningless. Jefferson was never affiliated with any organized Deist movement. This is a word that describes a theological position more than an actual religious affiliation, and as such it is of limited use from a sociologicalperspective. If one defines the term "Deist" broadly enough, then the writing of nearly every U.S. president or prominent historical figure could be used to classify them as a "Deist," so classifying people as such without at least some evidence of nominal self-identification is not very useful.

Although Jefferson's specific denominational and congregational ties were limited in his adulthood and his ever-evolving theological beliefs were distinctively his own, he was without a doubt a Protestant.

Jefferson's Religious Beliefs | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello
I have little doubt that the whole of our country will soon be rallied to the Unity of the Creator, and, I hope, to the pure doctrines of Jesus also."14

1823 April 11. (Jefferson to John Adams). "The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors."

Thomas Jefferson, like every other Protestant of his time would not have agreed to an atheist holding a high public office no more than they would have agreed to the fitness of a lunatic or a pedophile.

Like it or not that is the Truth.

More Thomas Jefferson
Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers, 2:545

 

[Syriusly]

The more I read of Jefferson, the more clear that Jefferson was addressing religious zealots like Bowie

If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God.

 

[Syriusly]

I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshiped by many who think themselves Christians.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price from Paris, January 8, 1789.

 

[Syriusly]

[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1779),

 

[Syriusly]

Jefferson- specifically noting that 'non-belief' is a part of freedom of religion- the very thing that the OP and Bowie wish to deny Americans who don't believe in their fairy tales.


Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual.

 

[Jantje_Smit]

Progressives yes, atheists no.

An atheist cannot seriously take the oath of office as it is meaningless to them as anything more than a mere pledge.

Right, you need real christians like Bu$h or Trump who take their oaths very seriously......

 

[Tehon]

Progressivism and atheism seem to logically tie into one another though; the forefathers of modern progressivism such as John Stuart Mill were atheists, and viewing the world as purely material was a central theme to their utopian socialist ideology.

I'm not sure how someone can believe in God or inalienable rights and be a progressive without being logically inconsistent, I don't anyway.

John Stuart Mills philosophy of Utilitarianism gave us the blessings of Communism and fascism. IF that doesnt convince you of the dangers of atheism, well not sure what else to provide as an example other than ot observe that Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot and most of the communist dictators of the 20th century were all atheists and are responsible for the greatest slaughter of humanity in human history. Even the Black Plague has not killed so many people as atheistic socialism in its various forms.

John Stuart Mills philosophy of Utilitarianism gave us the blessings of Communism and fascism. IF that doesnt convince you of the dangers of atheism, well not sure what else to provide......

You can always tell when someone is in over their head........they start making shit up.

Utilitarianism (book) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
John Stuart Mill's book Utilitarianism is a classic exposition and defence of utilitarianism in ethics.

Utilitarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics holding that the best moral action is the one that maximizes utility. Utility is defined in various ways, but is usually related to the well-being of sentient entities. Originally, Jeremy Bentham, the founder of Utilitarianism, defined utility as the aggregate pleasure after deducting suffering of all involved in any action. John Stuart Mill expanded this concept of utility to include not only the quantity, but quality of pleasure, while focusing on rules, instead of individual moral actions....
Marx's accusation is twofold. In the first place, he says that the theory of utility is true by definition and thus does not really add anything meaningful.


Mills utilitarianism separated morality from an individual perspective and looked at the over all benefit of society if some actions were taken. Marx simply takes this as an assumption and goes further applying a dynamic analysis to utility.

Hence Stalins justification of his purges and mass slaughter by saying that to make an omlette one must break a few eggs.

You are in over your head, dude. Not me.

Mill didn't separate morality from an individual perspective and that is not what your link is saying. Mill said that happiness should be the determining factor as to whether an individual action is viewed as moral or not and that using this guiding principle (rule) would maximize the amount of happiness for everyone. Where happiness defined " is an existence as free as possible from pain and as rich as possible in enjoyments."

You are conflating a moral philosophy of ethical actions with a political/economic theory. A moral philosophy that the political/economic theorist brushed aside as meaningless.

You think a moral philosophy that concerns itself with the criteria for what is right and what is wrong equates to socialism because it is thought that it would maximize happiness for all.

 

[billyerock1991]

Elected officials have to take an oath to uphold the Constitution.

Atheists and progressives reject the Founders and believe that humans have no inherant rights beyond what the state decides on a whim; since they don't believe in the Constitution why should they be allowed to run for office?

where do you get this crap ...??? just curious from the religious right???

 

[billyerock1991]

Elected officials have to take an oath to uphold the Constitution.

Atheists and progressives reject the Founders and believe that humans have no inherant rights beyond what the state decides on a whim; since they don't believe in the Constitution why should they be allowed to run for office?

I just googled about atheists and progressives ... now I can see why some many of you whack job religious nuts say this shit ... evert page for the first three pages were right wing religious sites tell us what atheists and progressives believe ... not any of them asked us they just wrote how we hate the constitution cause we won't allow religion into the government ... why because the constitution says they can't ... so now we're the bad guys just because we enforces the constitution on these religious nuts ... who claim we don't like the constitution just because we atheist i force the laws on them ... funny how that is we hate the constitution but we are't afraid to use it ... wonder why that is

 

[hangover]

Should atheists or progressives be allowed to hold office?

I saw the Ku Klux Klan carrying signs that said that.....

 

[Nosmo King]

A religious standard for office holders. Who here claims to be constitutional literalists?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Progressivism and atheism seem to logically tie into one another though; the forefathers of modern progressivism such as John Stuart Mill were atheists, and viewing the world as purely material was a central theme to their utopian socialist ideology.

I'm not sure how someone can believe in God or inalienable rights and be a progressive without being logically inconsistent, I don't anyway.

John Stuart Mills philosophy of Utilitarianism gave us the blessings of Communism and fascism. IF that doesnt convince you of the dangers of atheism, well not sure what else to provide as an example other than ot observe that Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot and most of the communist dictators of the 20th century were all atheists and are responsible for the greatest slaughter of humanity in human history. Even the Black Plague has not killed so many people as atheistic socialism in its various forms.

John Stuart Mills philosophy of Utilitarianism gave us the blessings of Communism and fascism. IF that doesnt convince you of the dangers of atheism, well not sure what else to provide......

You can always tell when someone is in over their head........they start making shit up.

Utilitarianism (book) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
John Stuart Mill's book Utilitarianism is a classic exposition and defence of utilitarianism in ethics.

Utilitarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics holding that the best moral action is the one that maximizes utility. Utility is defined in various ways, but is usually related to the well-being of sentient entities. Originally, Jeremy Bentham, the founder of Utilitarianism, defined utility as the aggregate pleasure after deducting suffering of all involved in any action. John Stuart Mill expanded this concept of utility to include not only the quantity, but quality of pleasure, while focusing on rules, instead of individual moral actions....
Marx's accusation is twofold. In the first place, he says that the theory of utility is true by definition and thus does not really add anything meaningful.


Mills utilitarianism separated morality from an individual perspective and looked at the over all benefit of society if some actions were taken. Marx simply takes this as an assumption and goes further applying a dynamic analysis to utility.

Hence Stalins justification of his purges and mass slaughter by saying that to make an omlette one must break a few eggs.

You are in over your head, dude. Not me.

Mill didn't separate morality from an individual perspective and that is not what your link is saying. Mill said that happiness should be the determining factor as to whether an individual action is viewed as moral or not and that using this guiding principle (rule) would maximize the amount of happiness for everyone. Where happiness defined " is an existence as free as possible from pain and as rich as possible in enjoyments."

You are conflating a moral philosophy of ethical actions with a political/economic theory. A moral philosophy that the political/economic theorist brushed aside as meaningless.

You think a moral philosophy that concerns itself with the criteria for what is right and what is wrong equates to socialism because it is thought that it would maximize happiness for all.

No, I am not conflating anything. A moral philosophy that justifies any behavior by the maximum happiness created is essentially moral chaos, and from that chaos Marx took his ques to push the betterment of society even if it costs a minority in society their property and happiness. Then deriving from that came Lenin, Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

IT isnt rocket science, dude.

Mill and other Enlightenment philosophers opened up a proverbial Pandora's Box of evil, amorality and unfettered hatred.

 

[JimBowie1958]

A religious standard for office holders. Who here claims to be constitutional literalists?

No one is claiming that, genius.

We are talking a moral standard that atheists by definition cannot meet because they have no basis whatsoever for an objective moral standard, as not allowing pedophiles to hold office would not be a religious standard.

lol, you libtards are just too fucking stupid.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Should atheists or progressives be allowed to hold office?

I saw the Ku Klux Klan carrying signs that said that.....

You fucking liar.

So if the KKK also uses mathematics and toilet paper we have to stop using modern engineering and wipe our asses with our hands?

roflmao