Just wondering...

Originally posted by googlefudge
Really, so it would be no problem for a known atheist to run for president, without his/her atheism
being a point against them?

And no politicians deliberately emphasis their religion to gain votes?

You don't have to make belief in something different illegal before you begin to be discriminatory.

Originally posted by googlefudge

" 1) Really, so it would be no problem for a known atheist to run for president, without his/her atheism being a point against them?

2) "And no politicians deliberately emphasis their religion to gain votes?

3) "You don't have to make belief in something different illegal before you begin to be discriminatory."

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

1) Any law abiding individual satisfying age and citizen requirements may run. His/Her beliefs and/or affiliations will obviously register as pluses or minuses in diiferent regions of the country. 2) Of course politicians emphasize their religion or lack of religion (with JFK decades ago along with encumbent Obama, Romney and Perry in the 2012 Campaign as recent examples). Regan probably walked the line of separation in the most exemplary manner of all oval office aspirants/beloved presidents in our lifetime. 3) Agree. Some bluntly express their long held discriminatory attitudes, while others cleverly and subtly conceal them. Applies to politicos in DC, kingpins in city halls as well as to Joe and Jane Six Pack on Main Street, Anywhere USA, Great Britain or any place else.

GF, key point I'd ask you to ponder is the proposition that all groups of people and populations ultimately get what they deserve.

gb

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]Just wondering...


When an atheist goes to court, does he or she have to swear on the Bible?


😉[/b]

No, all they usually do is swear.

Originally posted by whodey
No, all they usually do is swear.

Surely you jest.

"5) "Can atheists get insurance for acts of God?" -anon


😉

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Hi, Suzianne.

Thanks for the facts. Is intentional trolling defined as getting typecast as a socially inept poster wishing to maliciously flout internet social boundaries or is that sort of labeling simply a convenient way to dismiss any individual who rejects groupthink?

gb

Rejecting groupthink is one thing.

Asking in a Spirituality forum whether the Bible is fiction or non-fiction (which is what your post boils down to), is just for sitting back and loling at all the responses you'll get.

Which is what trolling is, basically. Reeling out your lines, just to see what you'll catch.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Surely you jest.

Yes, and don't call me shirley!!

At the bare minimum, at least learn to spell!! 😠

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
How about the requirement stipulated by our Constitution that citizens elected to positions in any of the three branches of government take an oath administered by the Supreme Court, which concludes with "So help me God", publically sworn on a Bible?

gb

When I was hired by the US Postal Service, we were required to take the same oath members of Congress take:

"I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Bible not required. We were told to raise our right hand and repeat after the guy at the front of the room. Not even sure who he was. They said if you had a problem swearing anything, then you could use the word "affirm" in place of the word "swear".

Originally posted by Suzianne
When I was hired by the US Postal Service, we were required to take the same oath members of Congress take:

"I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, wi ...[text shortened]... blem swearing anything, then you could use the word "affirm" in place of the word "swear".

If I ever hear an atheist say "so help me God" while taking an oath I'll know he's lying.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Rejecting groupthink is one thing.

Asking in a Spirituality forum whether the Bible is fiction or non-fiction (which is what your post boils down to), is just for sitting back and loling at all the responses you'll get.

Which is what trolling is, basically. Reeling out your lines, just to see what you'll catch.

As always, Suzianne, I'm respectful your right to hold opinions and, even when at

variance with my own, would be the first to defend your freedom to express them.


gb

Originally posted by Suzianne

When I was hired by the US Postal Service, we were required to take the same oath members of Congress take:

"I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and...[text shortened] so help me God.... blem swearing anything, then you could use the word "affirm" in place of the word "swear".

Rest my case..."So help me God.""



😉

Originally posted by whodey

Yes, and don't call me shirley!!

At the bare minimum, at least learn to spell!! 😠

Okey dokey, WhoDey.


gb

Originally posted by googlefudge
As for your delight that politicians in your country do swear by almighty god, I would remind you that your country was founded as a secular nation, with separation of church and state in the constitution, and that requiring politicians to be, or look to be, religious is just asking to be lied to, and is both discriminatory against other faiths and secularists in your country as well as being in flagrant disregard on your own founding constitution.

Though I'm sure I can speak for all Americans when I say we deeply appreciate you teaching us your version of our country's history, I would like to point out this one little tidbit.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. You'd be better off sticking with things like the failed Euro. Or how wonderful it is to sit on a waiting list for 6 months to get cancer treatment, while ironically no one in your country takes advantage of the convience of no waiting list at the dentists and orthodonists.

Happy next Independence Day. I will celebrate it with even more zeal and raise a glass of Budweiser in a toast to you when it comes around next year.

Originally posted by sumydid
Though I'm sure I can speak for all Americans when I say we deeply appreciate you teaching us your version of our country's history, I would like to point out this one little tidbit.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. You'd be better off sticking with things like the failed Euro. Or how wonderful it is to sit on a waiting list for 6 months ...[text shortened]... more zeal and raise a glass of Budweiser in a toast to you when it comes around next year.

Rofl, ahem, you might want to check with all Americans here because I was repeating the
sentiment of a fair few of them.... Plus anyone claiming all Americans agree on anything is
either lying or highly deluded, if you held a poll on the colour of a clear day sky you
wouldn't all agree.

We are not in the Euro so well done for getting Your facts straight ;-p

And our cancer survival rates equal yours while overall life expectancy is higher for far less
per person cost. So while our healthcare system is certainly not perfect and is in need of
reform... It sucks massively less than yours does...

So, "you don't have a clue what you're talking about" back at you. :-)

Have a nice independence day when it comes, might want to read about it before you get
there though.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Well then I stand corrected, bbar. Guess my erroneously held view was that the early Socratic Method involved a primary premise followed by a secondary conclusion format of surgical questioning which invariably exposed the pontificator's claimed position of truth as falsehood. In this context, notions of bogus blowhards becoming annoyed or threatened se ...[text shortened]... r. Trust you and your family are well and prospering and enjoying many days of autumn sunshine.

It's one thing to expose an absurdity or contradiction in some position, and it's another thing to have that exposition be recognized by the one holding that position. Many of Socrates' targets accused him of sophistry; as just playing games with logic and semantics, and hence as somebody not worth taking seriously. But when you're own kids start after you about virtue, wisdom, politics and religion, then...

Nice to see you, too! I am well, my family is fine (though they're all nuts), and the leaves are gorgeous here. I hope you're doing well, too, GB. It's nice to see your brand of prose down here with the sinners.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Rofl, ahem, you might want to check with all Americans here because I was repeating the
sentiment of a fair few of them.... Plus anyone claiming all Americans agree on anything is
either lying or highly deluded, if you held a poll on the colour of a clear day sky you
wouldn't all agree.

We are not in the Euro so well done for getting Your facts s independence day when it comes, might want to read about it before you get
there though.

LOL!

Ok you caught me blowing hot air about the Euro.

As far as your claim that cancer survival rates are as good in England as they are in the US. You're just wrong. The US survival rate is 119% that of England.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560849/UK-cancer-survival-rate-lowest-in-Europe.html


And my point stands on the seperation of church and state. Having someone swear-in or be inaugurated using the phrase "So help me God" is not a violation of the precept.