Tennessee bans atheists from office

[JoeyKnothead]

[Miles]

.



FYI , Tennessee in particular is mentioned at the 3:09 mark



...................................................



.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1]

My question is, do they really care if you are an atheist or simply not a Christian?

Tennessee: Do you believe in God?
Elected official: Yes. May her glorious pixies keep us safe and may She reign from Blargon 12 forever!
Tennessee: You're fired!!
Elected official: Why, I'm not an atheist.
Tennessee: Umm...

[Miles]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1]

My question is, do they really care if you are an atheist or simply not a Christian?

They care if you reject the existence of god. And that's it.

Not very bright of them, but then you don't necessarily need to be bright to get elected to public office. Just give the people what they want. To wit: Donald J. Trump elected to the US Presidency.


.

[JoeyKnothead]

I think what's kinda disturbingly telling here, is no Christian has felt the need to comment about this clearly discriminatory law.

I reckon long as they control the levers of power, they'll keep hushed when discrimination works in their favor.

[Purple Knight]

They only banned the honest atheists from office. Think about it. For half a second.

They're welcome to do it and I don't think it's wrong, but it's still extremely stupid... unless of course they're trying to ban honest people from office. Wouldn't surprise me.

Should theists have exclusive rights to hold public office?

They should have the right to ban atheists if that's what you're asking. And another state can ban religious people. While the latter would probably violate some very serious laws, I don't think it would be wrong either.

Now if you're asking whether they should ban atheists from public office, obviously they should not. As I mentioned, firstly, they're only banning the honest atheists, and secondly, if you start the game of discriminatory hardball, you've started the process by which a multicultural society will cease to be functional. That's not to say I think everyone can tolerate multiculture. I don't. Some people clearly can't take it unless everyone around them follows all the same rules as they do, and frankly that's fine and there ought to be places for them to retreat to. If those places can't keep up with the performance of multicultural places, their standard of living will dwindle accordingly and if the people there think that's a fair price to pay for isolation, then it is. And on the off-chance that monoculture outperforms multiculture, we'll still have learnt something.

[JoeyKnothead]

They only banned the honest atheists from office. Think about it. For half a second.

They're welcome to do it and I don't think it's wrong, but it's still extremely stupid... unless of course they're trying to ban honest people from office. Wouldn't surprise me.

I'm well aware you'd cave to the powers that be.

Should theists have exclusive rights to hold public office?

They should have the right to ban atheists if that's what you're asking. And another state can ban religious people. While the latter would probably violate some very serious laws, I don't think it would be wrong either.

The Constitution bans religious tests for public office, while requiring government officers to defend the Constitution...

No religious test clause.

Now if you're asking whether they should ban atheists from public office, obviously they should not. As I mentioned, firstly, they're only banning the honest atheists...

I wouldn't want a known liar to sit in government.

... and secondly, if you start the game of discriminatory hardball, you've started the process by which a multicultural society will cease to be functional.

Which is what's happening when Christians / theists declare atheists unfit for office.

That's not to say I think everyone can tolerate multiculture. I don't.

As here, where Christians / theists are rejecting multicultural notions.

Some people clearly can't take it unless everyone around them follows all the same rules as they do, and frankly that's fine and there ought to be places for them to retreat to.

Let these haters retreat to their untaxed houses of worship.

If those places can't keep up with the performance of multicultural places, their standard of living will dwindle accordingly and if the people there think that's a fair price to pay for isolation, then it is.

Kinda hard to keep up when you're banned from participating.

And on the off-chance that monoculture outperforms multiculture, we'll still have learnt something.

Yeah, that by keeping atheists out of office Christians / theists are free to discriminate as they see fit, up to and including disregarding their oaths to defend the Constitution.

[Purple Knight]

The Constitution bans religious tests for public office, while requiring government officers to defend the Constitution...

What this proves is that ultimately, people will discriminate if they want to. If you ban religious discrimination, they'll just discriminate against atheists. Ultimately you can ban infinite instances of discrimination and there will still be infinite instances for discriminatory people to choose from, in order to still discriminate. That's why I don't have a problem if Tennessee wants to be officially Christian. Hopefully some other state will want to be officially tolerant, not discriminate against anyone, and only the people who actually want to do that will go there.

When you protect one group, another group that doesn't have the protection always seems to take it double, because whoever wanted to discriminate is still discriminating - they just take it out on someone else. Since we can't ban every form of discrimination, it might be logical to simply let the babies have their bottles and let discriminators live where the laws suit them, and let them keep making horrible laws, and just let them sleep in their own beds.

The whole point of states' rights was to let policies be tested. Let Tennessee do what it likes. See what that brings it. Massachusetts long had incredibly high taxes and it drove people out, and the state had to lower them. The ease of movement from state to state (since the US is still one country) coupled with strong states' rights, creates an ideal environment for testing different policies.

As here, where Christians / theists are rejecting multicultural notions.

Kinda hard to keep up when you're banned from participating.

It is, which is why I think that if Tennessee can ban atheists from office, then Carolina (or wherever) should be able to ban theists. This is where I think the law is wrong. It's letting some people discriminate and not others. But of course, it has to, because the blistering idiots doing this (not speaking of all religious people, just the Tennessee religiosos who pushed this policy through) are terrified that they will be outperformed morally by people they think are the epitome of evil. Let us have an atheist state and let's test that.

If we're going to play teams, everybody should be allowed to play for their own.

[JoeyKnothead]

The Constitution bans religious tests for public office, while requiring government officers to defend the Constitution...

What this proves is that ultimately, people will discriminate if they want to. If you ban religious discrimination, they'll just discriminate against atheists. Ultimately you can ban infinite instances of discrimination and there will still be infinite instances for discriminatory people to choose from, in order to still discriminate. That's why I don't have a problem if Tennessee wants to be officially Christian. Hopefully some other state will want to be officially tolerant, not discriminate against anyone, and only the people who actually want to do that will go there.

Your argument woulda been met with open arms in the early 1860s. Or the Jim Crow south. Or 1930s Germany.

When you protect one group, another group that doesn't have the protection always seems to take it double, because whoever wanted to discriminate is still discriminating - they just take it out on someone else. Since we can't ban every form of discrimination, it might be logical to simply let the babies have their bottles and let discriminators live where the laws suit them, and let them keep making horrible laws, and just let them sleep in their own beds.

Then ya punish double, or even fourple, those who'd restrict the rights and freedoms of others.

The whole point of states' rights was to let policies be tested. Let Tennessee do what it likes. See what that brings it. Massachusetts long had incredibly high taxes and it drove people out, and the state had to lower them. The ease of movement from state to state (since the US is still one country) coupled with strong states' rights, creates an ideal environment for testing different policies.

I'm not for testing any policy that'd restrict the rights and freedoms of others.

As here, where Christians / theists are rejecting multicultural notions.

Kinda hard to keep up when you're banned from participating.

It is, which is why I think that if Tennessee can ban atheists from office, then Carolina (or wherever) should be able to ban theists. This is where I think the law is wrong. It's letting some people discriminate and not others. But of course, it has to, because the blistering idiots doing this (not speaking of all religious people, just the Tennessee religiosos who pushed this policy through) are terrified that they will be outperformed morally by people they think are the epitome of evil. Let us have an atheist state and let's test that.

I don't think playing tit for tat with folks' freedom is something we need to do. Either we seek justice for all, or we all risk us losing some justice of our own.

If we're going to play teams, everybody should be allowed to play for their own.

The problem here is pitting professional teams against junior varsity teams and expecting some equality of competition.

[Purple Knight]

Then ya punish double, or even fourple, those who'd restrict the rights and freedoms of others.

How do you punish them when they're not doing anything illegal? If you stop them from discriminating against atheists, if you make a new law to stop that form of discrimination, they'll just take it out on fat people, or furries, or redheads. Now they oppress those people, while still not doing anything illegal, and then you make another new law to protect redheads, and the discriminators just take it out on yet someone else. You're not reducing oppression, you're just transferring it.

Now you can transfer it to where it's not as big of a deal, and I agree with protecting minorities. But you do have to stop somewhere. And I don't want to be protected if it means someone else just takes it in my stead.