Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You claim to be objective and have no agenda with regards to defending the South but this response clearly contradicts that. You are dodging the point raised by justcause. You are arguing a different point to avoid acknowledging the obvious. The point isn't that a strange law exists for this particular state. The point is that you have individuals who are exploiting this law to their gain. Yes, New England might have ridiculous laws but how many cities in New England are trying to enforce those strange laws? Please provide a recent example of New England of exploiting an archaic law in the last year? I think you are intelligent enough to recognize that New England isn't doing this. You are just engaging in your usual agenda of serving as Johnny Cochran for your defendant "The South"
It's not that I think that Justcause doesn't have a point, or isn't valid in his opinions. But I also think that challenging these underlying assumptions is valid.
Let me explain. This law is outrageous. But we have numerous outdated laws on the books in EVERY state, that clearly need to be challenged and removed from the lawbooks. Justcause's comments suggest that it is only Southern states that have such laws. Not because he said so explicitly, but because his comment, "I like the South, BUT...." implies that the problem is uniquely Southern. It isn't.
I understand that your point, and Justcause's, is that this law is being used today, not 30 or 40 years ago, but today, to challenge a councilman's position. The people opposed to this councilman are using this law as a weapon. But that doesn't mean that they actually subscribe to the beliefs that are the foundation to the law. When you are opposed to someone in office, you use every weapon at your disposal. I think of all the attacks made on Obama during the past months. I don't believe that Rush Limbaugh believes all his rhetoric, or Glenn Beck does either. They're using whatever tools are at their disposal to mount an attack.
If an elected official in Wisconsin or Michigan was involved in a divorce where it was revealed that they had committed adultery, their political enemies could use that law to challenge them. I realize that you and Justcause think that because no one has that this is evidence of a more progressive and liberal environment. Which is probably part of the reason. But another valid perspective is to think that it is also evidence of a less partisan environment, where political challenges are not quite as ruthless. Politics in the South can be quite personal, quite vindictive. If you can see that this is valid, then you can see as well that the challenge to this councilman is interesting in a way that goes beyond a religious response to his atheism. It's a power play.
And what makes it even more interesting is that it's an end-game card. You play this card, and you will quite likely do irreparable harm to your political opponent, but legally, such a challenge to the councilman's position is Unconstitutional. The results of the challenge are two-fold. You demolish your political opponent, because you make his faith (or lack thereof) an issue that people in his locale will not be able to forget and thus make it difficult if not impossible for him to be effective in this elected position. But you exhaust that particular challenge because the law will be overturned.
To me, this demonstrates that politics is a nasty, dirty profession where you can most certainly be expected to be smacked with mud in the face at any time, anywhere. Whether or not you engage in similar attacks. There will be mud.
It's not that anyone don't want them to serve, it's they don't want to lay their hand on the BIBLE to be sworn in to the office, the Constituent of the United States has been set in order that this is a requirment in order to serve in a public office of Goverment. Are they scared of the God they say they don't belive in, well are they an American, if you want to live in America, you must live by the American law, set in order by our elected offcials. Don't change the American law to fit them if they want to serve in a goverment office, then the requirment's are set in order. Are they afraid of a God they say they don't belive in.
It's not that anyone don't want them to serve, it's they don't want to lay their hand on the BIBLE to be sworn in to the office, the Constituent of the United States has been set in order that this is a requirment in order to serve in a public office of Goverment. Are they scared of the God they say they don't belive in, well are they an American, if you want to live in America, you must live by the American law, set in order by our elected offcials. Don't change the American law to fit them if they want to serve in a goverment office, then the requirment's are set in order. Are they afraid of a God they say they don't belive in.
The Constitution of the United States doesn't require people to place their hands on the BIBLE to take the oath. You are mistaken.
Asheville City Councilman Cecil Bothwell believes in ending the death penalty, conserving water and reforming government — but he doesn't believe in God. His political opponents say that's a sin that makes him unworthy of serving in office, and they've got the North Carolina Constitution on their side.
One foe, H.K. Edgerton, is threatening to file a lawsuit in state court against the city to challenge Bothwell's appointment."My father was a Baptist minister. I'm a Christian man. I have problems with people who don't believe in God," said Edgerton, a former local NAACP president and founder of Southern Heritage 411, an organization that promotes the interests of black southerners.
My question to Mr. Edgerton would be, what exactly is his 'problem' with Mr. Bothwell's (or anyone's) lack of belief in God? Does it somehow diminish or reduce his own belief or his faith?
Should atheists be banned from holding public office?
Absolutely!
Only those individuals convinced of the reality of a middle east myth concocted thousands of years ago by semiliterate bronze age nomads should be eligible to hold elected office.
I cannot wait to see the first person from the religious right vote "Yes" to this and proclaim they are being persecuted.
It will come soon enough, I am sure!
Before you start going off on right wingers, maybe you should look at who the article says is filing the lawsuit:
"My father was a Baptist minister. I'm a Christian man. I have problems with people who don't believe in God," said Edgerton, a former local NAACP president and founder of Southern Heritage 411, an organization that promotes the interests of black southerners"
"Land of the Free".... Pffft .... for at least 4 C-D voters possibly 5...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Should atheists be banned from holding public office?
