The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 15    Average: 2.5/5]
18 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 4561
Rating: 2.5
Category:
Date: 08/01/13 03:54 PM

18 Responses to Ordinance Bans Christians From Government

  1. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10731 posts
    August 1, 2013 at 3:55 pm
    Link: Ordinance Bans Christians From Government - Which makes it Reason.tv`s Nanny of the Month
  2. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36651 posts
    August 1, 2013 at 4:05 pm

    The only way to protect children from the web is for parents to pay attention to the little bastardos.

    As for the anti-Christian thing, that does sound a bit too far reaching.
  3. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    August 1, 2013 at 4:24 pm
    "Some claim the proposed the ordinance would..."

    Okay, see, that`s a pretty big difference. It`s a proposed ordinance and some say it *could* be interpreted to be banning Christians because it seeks to protect gays, among other groups. How anyone got "ban Christians" from that is beyond me, but, I`m not surprised I don`t guess.
  4. Profile photo of patchouly
    patchouly Male 40-49
    4746 posts
    August 1, 2013 at 4:54 pm
    How does "Protect gays" = "ban Christians"? If the Christians want to be bigoted ass hats, they shouldn`t have the right to be in politics anyway.

    This anti-gay rights thing is disgusting. Not allowing another human being the same rights you have is despicable. It`s time that society stands up and does what`s right. If the Sky Wizard followers don`t like it, though crap. Human rights should ALWAYS come first.
  5. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    August 1, 2013 at 7:00 pm
    "If the Christians want to be bigoted ass hats, they shouldn`t have the right to be in politics anyway."

    Does that include people like Barrack Obama that said he would protect DOMA? Or Al Sharpton for his "Himie" remark years ago.

    That ordinance would be struck down by the court anyways. We protect free speech here, even if it`s disgusting.
  6. Profile photo of FeelTheRide
    FeelTheRide Female 18-29
    515 posts
    August 1, 2013 at 7:34 pm
    how is this any different than the city ordinances that ban atheists from holding office?
  7. Profile photo of FeelTheRide
    FeelTheRide Female 18-29
    515 posts
    August 1, 2013 at 7:36 pm
    The constitutions of these seven US states ban atheists from holding public office:
    Arkansas:
    "No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court."
    Maryland:
    "That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.”
    Mississippi:
    "No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state."
    North Carolina:
    "The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."
    South Carolina:
    "No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office und
  8. Profile photo of FeelTheRide
    FeelTheRide Female 18-29
    515 posts
    August 1, 2013 at 7:36 pm

    South Carolina:
    "No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."
    Tennessee:
    "No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."
    Texas:
    "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."
  9. Profile photo of FeelTheRide
    FeelTheRide Female 18-29
    515 posts
    August 1, 2013 at 7:39 pm
    it`s ok to discriminate against someone for their lack of belief, but to discriminate against someone`s religion is a great travesty. Bullpoo hypocrisy.
  10. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4896 posts
    August 1, 2013 at 7:56 pm

    A person who cannot separate their religion from their official duty, should not be allowed in office.
    It would be wrong to ban a individual, from a specific religion, from being voted into office...based solely on their religion. They need to separate their religion from their duties.

    I don`t give a flying F if 99.9999999% of Americans are from the same religion. Our Constitution says politics has to remain separate.
    The values and morals may overlap, but religion cannot dictate law.

    (I realize that in reality Christianity is a big part of American politics, but ideally, it should have zero influence.)
  11. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    August 1, 2013 at 8:59 pm
    turdburglar: Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other - John Adams
  12. Profile photo of handimanner
    handimanner Male 60-69
    2095 posts
    August 1, 2013 at 9:48 pm
    The first amendment (1791) states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
    The 14th amendment, passed in 1868, applies federal law to the states.
    Namely, no laws protect or exclude religion and it`s practices regardless of what state you are in.
  13. Profile photo of papajon0s1
    papajon0s1 Male 40-49
    578 posts
    August 2, 2013 at 7:09 am
    Sorry turdburglar, but asking anyone to separate their beliefs with their occupation, especially government, is idiotic at best. I want people in office with at least a decent grasp of normally accepted senses of right and wrong and not people who seem to lack that, regardless of party affiliation. Don`t we have enough Anthony Weiner types floating abouts?

    In fact, I`d much rather see the exact opposite be true where elected officials would have to prove they have sort of decent moral upbringing, understand right and wrong, understand basic normally accepted human rights; all this regardless of their chosen faith or no faith. How wonderful it would be to have people of good character running the USA instead of all the "Mayor Quimbys" from the Simpsons all over the place.
  14. Profile photo of lauriloo
    lauriloo Female 40-49
    1803 posts
    August 2, 2013 at 7:22 am
    "would have to prove they have sort of decent moral upbringing"

    Exactly how would one PROVE that? It`s obvious that SAYING you`re religious has absolutely no correlation to how moral one is. I would argue that, although I`m an atheist, I`m much more moral than the average person who claims to be religious. Morality has very little to do with religion. What YOU have to do is pay attention to the person running and their history, not just vote for them because they support your preferred party or pet cause.
  15. Profile photo of jtrebowski
    jtrebowski Male 40-49
    3359 posts
    August 2, 2013 at 7:24 am
    Once again, conservatives are using lies and scare tactics all because they fear others being treated equally. cum-buc
  16. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    August 2, 2013 at 10:17 am
    CrakrJack, I think you`re great, man, but please stop misquoting/misinterpreting our Founding Fathers. It`s a huge disservice to our history and heritage. Notice that Adams says moral *and* religious. He was a very intelligent man. He could have just said "religious" (which, even still, would have included Muslims, Jews and Christians), but he also used the word "and" to separate the ideas. Our Founders were almost all Deists. And, even those who weren`t understood the important of separation of church and state. It`s the whole reason the Pilgrims left England, after all.
  17. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    August 2, 2013 at 1:21 pm
    SmagBoy1: There is no misinterpretation in his quote. He knew even then that an immoral or nonreligious group of people would try and tear apart the constitution. Which is exactly what is being attempted these days.

    Before 1900, the church and the school house were usually the same building. Schools were not ran by the government, so there was no "separation of church and state" argument about schools. The more the government digs it`s grubby hands into society the more separation there will be.

    That is why Obamacare is a power grab and if it`s not stopped there will cease to be any religious affiliated hospitals.
  18. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10731 posts
    August 3, 2013 at 7:28 am
    He knew even then that an immoral or nonreligious group of people would try and tear apart the constitution.
    He also knew very religious people would also try to do the same thing. Considering they`ve been the ones who`ve consistently held a majority since its inception they`ve done just that. They mandated licenses for marriage, put restrictions on alcohol and drugs. Even pushed for welfare programs that crowd out private charitable investments (yes even progressives were religious).

Leave a Reply