This "faith" may not hold office in 7 states.

[Don Hakman]

Its only a matter of upholding various state constitutions...http://www.nebraskaatheists.org/article1.htm

 

[Vortexx]

The Atheists in Nebraska are in a worse position than the Satanic Church who acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being, so they can hold office and are entitled official protection from molestation..

"Put your hand on the bible and answer this question truthfully; do you believe and accept the Existence of a Supreme Being?"

"By Lucifer, i do !"

 

[Tiassa]

There is only one solution

There is one solution, and only one: an atheist must run for office, win, and see what happens from there.

These laws can be dismantled in a few minutes once carried into court.

Atheism is a protected religion insofar as atheism pertains to one's perspective of God--e.g. that it does not exist. This protection comes from the US Constitution.

What strikes me is that we heard about South Carolina in a discussion here three years ago, or so. And in that time, not one legal challenge has been mounted against these laws.

I think the laws are wrong, and if I'm ever elected to office in one of those states, I'll take that law down. But aside from that, I'm not going to worry about it, as either atheists simply can't win public office or else they're not compelled to seek them in those states. For whatever reasons, the laws seem to stand unchallenged in court, and I don't see any reason to wait for Dr. Newdow, who misrepresented his daughter and deceived the court in order to strike down the Pledge of Allegiance, to stand up and become the atheistic public figurehead.

Get up, stand up ... er, wait, that's Bob's line.

At any rate, the laws should be a cinch to obliterate in court. It's up to ... whomever ... to try?

Injustice cannot be wished away. It must be swept out with a broomstick at least.

 

[otheadp]

* most of the world believe in one form of higher being or another. the elected official should represent the majority to fully understand them

* many people associate belief in God with morality. how can you be moral if you believe there is no God? what higher moral authority are you bound by? (if you believe in God it doesn't have to mean you follow a religion)

* it is one thing to separate church and state, while still believing in God to one degree or another, but it's completely different when you're an atheist. 'atheist' does not equate to 'secular'.
if a politician makes such a big point of him being 'atheist' then it's a big issue with him... he must hate God or something.

 

[Tiassa]

I disagree

if a politician makes such a big point of him being 'atheist' then it's a big issue with him... he must hate God or something

Why should an atheist have to lie and pretend to accept a supreme being in order to appease the people who just elected him?

An honest politician is generally too much to ask for, I admit, but still ....

Would you lie about your religious beliefs in order to accommodate a law that stands in clear violation of your federally-guaranteed rights according to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution?

 

[otheadp]

An honest politician ...

isn't federal law more powerful than the state law?

if this thing ever went to trial then the state laws would have to be changed.

and btw, if somebody asked me about my religious beliefs after elections i'd tell them to go f* themselves since it's none of their damn business.
it's private stuff that has nothing to do with my policies

i don't know how strict it is in the US but here in Canada it's totally unacceptable to ask someone that... whether it's in school, at work, job interview or whatever

 

[spidergoat]

These "laws" would not be upheld in court. There is such a thing as common sense. I heard this from Judge Judy - that there are many laws on the books in many states that are antiquated and unenforceable. Wether someone could bet elected on an atheist platform is another question...

 

[coolsoldier]

Honestly, it's not that simple...

The actual wording of the freedom of religion statement in the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

So, in order to successfully strike down these laws to allow atheists to hold office in these states, you would have to prove that either:

a) Belief in a supreme being corresponds to an establishment of religion. Since a belief in a supreme being does not necessarily make one religious, the correlation here is tenuous at best.

b) Atheism is a religion. This could be argued, and is the best case. I'm not entirely sure of the legal definition, but the websters definition of religion is:

relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity

This leaves room for excluding atheistic belief systems from the umbrella of "religion".

Certainly these laws are outdated, and it would be nice to see them struck down, but given the current state of our society and the above definition, I don't see it happening, even if the people in any of the states listed would elect an atheist to public office.

 

[Repo Man]

It is always nice to know that I'm part of such a hated minority.

Oh well, being elected to any office isn't in the cards for me anyway.

Tiassa, unless he stated somewhere that his daughter was an atheist, I don't see it as misrepresenting his daughter. He is evidently an atheist, the mother (who has custody) is some sort of Christian. He probably spends time with his daughter trying to undo the dogmatic indoctrination that she receives in church. No need for public schools to add to it.

I doubt that any 8 year old has deep religious insights.

I know by 9 I was having doubts abouit the whole Christian thing. Lucky for me, neither of my parents were particularly religious, though my father did, and my mother still does, believe in some sort of creator. They gave me the freedom to come to my own conclusion.

I sincerely hope that Newdow wins, and the pledge is returned to its original state.

 

[Q25]

Originally posted by otheadp
* many people associate belief in God with morality. how can you be moral if you believe there is no God? what higher moral authority are you bound by?

you gotta be kiding,right?
your God who promotes murder,rape,pilaging,bashing children against the rocks,and other such atrocities is your moral guide??
no thnx.
its right there in the bible!
www.thewaronfaith.com
click on bible quotes!
why are atheists moral?see www.atheists.org.

 

[coolsoldier]

Ahh...ya gotta love quotes out of context

 

[Tiassa]

It was in the lawsuit

I'll look for the text of the lawsuit filed by Newdow. If I consider what the child's mother said, and when I consider Newdow's position, he has perjured himself before the court by naming his daughter.

I will ... dig up the text. Essentially, Newdow is upset that his daughter is exposed to any Christian influence. While I look for the actual text of Newdow's petition, we can look to his June 26, 2002 interview with CNN's Arthel Neville:

Neville: At what point did your daughter come home to you and say she was ostracized for not saying the Pledge of Allegiance?

Newdow: My daughter is in the lawsuit because you need that for standing. I brought this case because I am an atheist and this offends me, and I have the right to bring up my daughter without God being imposed into her life by her schoolteachers. So she did not come and say she was ostracized.

Look, I appreciate the result of Newdow's efforts, I just wish it could have been honest.

 

[Tiassa]

Newdow v. US Congress et al.

From "The Rev. Dr. Michael A. Newdow v. United States Congress et al," Original Complaint:

PARTIES

8. Plaintiff Michael A. Newdow is a citizen of the United States, and a resident of the State of California.

9. Plaintiff’s daughter, an unnamed plaintiff whom he represents as “next friend,” is a citizen of the United States, and a resident of the State of California.

• • • • •

CLAIM FOR RELIEF

53. Plaintiff is a minister, having been ordained more than twenty years ago. His ministry espouses the religious philosophy that the true and eternal bonds of righteousness and virtue stem from reason rather than mythology. It recognizes that it is never possible to prove that something does not exist, but finds that fact to be an absurd justification to accept the unproved. The bizarre, the incredible and the miraculous deserve not blind faith, but rigorous challenge. To plaintiff and his religious brethren, belief in a deity represents the repudiation of rational thought processes, and offends all precepts of science and natural law. Our religion incorporates the same values of goodness, hope, advancement of civilization and elevation of the human spirit common to most others. We, however, feel that all these virtues must ultimately be based on truth, and that they are only hindered by reliance upon a falsehood, which we believe any God to be.

54. Pursuant to the beliefs noted in the preceding paragraph 53, Plaintiff and his ministry are grossly offended by the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America. In fact, our religious beliefs are completely to the contrary, and – were Plaintiff and his ministry forced to reference God in the nation’s Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag – they would do so with the phrase, “ … one nation, under no God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” However, firmly believing in the principle of religious freedom which underlies the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses noted in paragraph 25 above, Plaintiff and his ministry would vehemently fight the inclusion of such a reference.


76. Plaintiff is the father of a five year old daughter, who – since August, 1999 – has been enrolled in kindergarten in a public school within the Elk Grove Unified School District. Current plans are for her to complete her primary and secondary school years in either that school district or the Sacramento City Unified School District.

77. Plaintiff is an atheist.

78. Plaintiff, under the Free Exercise Clause, has an unrestricted right to inculcate in his daughter – free from governmental interference – the atheistic beliefs he finds persuasive. The government’s use of the words “under God” in the Nation’s Pledge of Allegiance infringes upon this right. Such an infringement may not occur without a compelling state interest. No such compelling interest exists.

79. Plaintiff’s daughter has been, currently is, and will in the future be subjected to the teacher-led recitation of the now-sectarian Pledge of Allegiance every day she attends the public schools. In other words, every school morning – under the aegis of the State – this child “of tender years” is compelled to watch and listen as her state-employed teacher in her state-run school leads her and her classmates in a ritual proclaiming that there is a God, and that ours is “one Nation under God.” For the State to ever subject Plaintiff’s daughter to such dogma – expressing and inculcating purely religious beliefs that are directly contrary to the religious beliefs of Plaintiff and the religious ideals he wishes to instill in his child – would be of questionable constitutionality. For it to do this every single school day for thirteen years – using Plaintiff’s tax dollars, no less, to accomplish the affront – is an outrageous and manifest abuse of power in direct violation of the Religion Clauses of the constitutions of both the United States and the State of California. (“The State must be certain, given the Religion Clauses, that subsidized teachers do not inculcate religion.” Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 619 (1971).)

80. Plaintiff at times has himself attended – and will in the future attend – class with his daughter. During such times, he has been – and will in the future be – exposed to the teacher-led recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. For Plaintiff, himself, to be subjected to this religious dogma while exercising his right to participate in his child’s education in the public schools also violates the Religion Clauses of the Constitutions of both the United States and the State of California.

81. Plaintiff is making no objection to the recitation of a patriotic Pledge of Allegiance. The government is certainly within its right to foster patriotism, and it may certainly make the determination that recitation of a Pledge of Allegiance serves that purpose. However, government may not employ or include sectarian religious dogma towards this end. (“f a state passed legislation requiring the erection at every other street corner of a pole containing a stop sign with the word ‘STOP’ and a picture of Jesus Christ in the background, there is no doubt that a purpose of the statute would be to regulate the flow of traffic and require vehicles to stop. However, from a constitutional standpoint, the question that would have to be asked is: why the picture of Jesus Christ?” Cammack v. Waihee, 944 F.2d 466, 469 (9th Cir. 1991) (Reinhardt, Circuit Judge, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc).)

82. In 1998, the United States Department of Education issued a Statement on Religious Expression in Public Schools, which included a portion holding that “[t]eachers and school administrators, when acting in those capacities, are representatives of the state and are prohibited by the Establishment Clause_from soliciting or encouraging religious activity, and from participating in such religious activity with students.” According to Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley’s letter accompanying this statement, “schools may not endorse religious activity or doctrine.” When teachers generally – and Plaintiff’s daughter’s teachers specifically in the case at bar – lead their students in a daily recitation that states in part that we are “one Nation under God,” they endorse religious doctrine and inculcate a belief that not only is there a God, but that we are one nation “under” that entity. This is unconstitutional. (“As we have repeatedly recognized, government inculcation of religious beliefs has the impermissible effect of advancing religion.” Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 223 (1997).)

The basis of his case is sound; I approve of the decision. But it was dishonest to pretend that this was in any way about his daughter. This is solely about Newdow's bent against religion. He does not seek a solution, he seeks a superficial victory.

Getting back to the original point about Newdow, it's up to atheists to challenge these electoral laws. If I chose to run for office in one of those jurisdictions and won, I, too, would find myself in court beating down those laws on principle. But as far as atheists are concerned, they need to challenge these silly laws, and they ought not wait around for another embittered savior like the Reverend Dr. Newdow. Unless atheists seek a superficial victory, it would be best for them to begin a broad process designed to challenge the laws while not resorting to misrepresentation to achieve what is clearly the right result.

Does anyone really deserve it if they acquire or win something dishonestly?

 

[Tiassa]

International: South Africa bans "Father Christmas" commercial

The South African Post Office has been banned by the nation's Advertising Standards Authority from running a commercial encouraging children to write to Santa:

. . . . The Post Office had run a television advertisement encouraging children to write to a special address with their wish list of presents.

But the South African Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said the ad exploited the Father Christmas myth and the "natural credulity" of children.

It concluded the ad breached the county's advertising standards code . . . .

. . . . Any child who wrote to the address, but did not receive the presents they wished for, may feel they were being punished for naughtiness, the ASA found.

This could prove "extremely upsetting" for them, it added . . . . (BBC)

With great respect for South Africa on this and some other issues, I do, in fact, find it somehow ironic that the tip of Africa has a better grasp on these issues than several of the fifty states comprising these United States. I mean, check out what the ad's defenders say:

(Ad agency Lobedu Leo Burnett) said that living in a "fantasy world" was a part of the growing up process, although it said small gifts would have been sent to children writing letters whom the Post Office had felt were genuinely in need.

• "South Africa bans Santa letter ad". BBC News Online, December 10, 2003. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3307695.stm

 

[coolsoldier]

Until someone is actually hurt by these laws (meaning that an atheist would have to both be elected to office and kept out of office using these laws), the existence of the laws is irrelevant. Since they have not, at any time in recent history, been used to keep someone out of office, then it doesn't really matter if they exist or not.