Atheists can't hold office in the USA?

and I think all laws should expire after a period of time, like 20 years. If the law is still needed then a new version can be passed, possibly more suited to the current social conditions.It would also give the legislators something to do.Enjoy.

Make it 50 years to go with the other 50s.Which reminds me (and Ed's ma is doing fine), make it so that within a company the top wage earner can make no more than 50 times the lowest wage earner.Forget a minimum wage, how about no worse than a 50th of the top earner?

A good number of these 'no atheists' laws are placed in state constitutions. Are you okay with letting the constitutions expire every 20 years? How about the federal constitution?

We could have been done with the 2nd Amendment?Oooo, I like it!But then, we might also have been done with the First.I'll pass.

Well if the US constitution were rewritten every 20 or 50 years, then all the amendments could have been included and the wording of obsolete sections (ie -- the way votes were counted and who could vote) could have been changed. Rulings by the Supreme Court could be reviewed and action taken to either comply or reverse the rulings.Then you pass or reject that (and dissolve government? Interesting proposition). Then you entertain new amendments (ones still in limbo and new ones ... and vote on them.And if you knew it was going to happen there would be a national discussion. It would truly be a living document.Enjoy

Sure. And fundamental rights would be exposed to popular review every couple of decades. We could redefine who is and who is not a citizen periodically; by popular request.No thanks.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

And what about agnostic?Enjoy

quote:

---

Well, everybody knows that "agnostic" is just a polite word for "atheist."
(Dr. Duane Gish, vice-president of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), on the radio show, The Ray Briem Show, 1984)

---

And we all know that Gish is not a credible source ...

quote:

---

http://io9.com/why-agnosticism-probably-doesnt-mean-what-you-think-it-1583312952

​

Agnostics are often characterized as ambivalent or wishy-washy fence sitters who refuse to make up their minds. But there's much more to agnosticism than these tired misconceptions, including a stricter adherence to scientific principles than those typically invoked by atheists.

​

The current culture war doesn't leave much room for agnostics. Atheists and theists are battling it out for memetic supremacy, each side making cocksure proclamations as to whether or not God truly exists. Theists make the case for God by appealing to faith, scripture, or any number of now-archaic arguments. Atheists take the diametrically opposed stance, arguing that there's no reason to believe that a supreme being exists.

​

But this casual usage of the term betrays its original purpose, an epistemological stance and methodology in which skepticism and empiricism two hallmarks of the scientific method takes center stage.

​

What's remarkable about Huxley's skepticism was his stance against certainty and those who refused to doubt especially those who insisted that their theism or atheism must be true.

​

Moreover, Huxley's agnosticism was more than just stubborn skepticism it was a methodology. ...

​

Indeed, many agnostics are skeptical of those who claim to have all the answers in regards to life, the universe, and everything. They view hardcore atheists and devout believers with equal scorn and they often see the two camps exhibiting the same kind of overzealousness when making their case and propagating their views. To the agnostic, it's just as important to prove the existence of God as it is to disprove God's existence; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

---

Atheism is different than agnosticism.
They are not different things on a spectrum.
Atheism deals with belief.
Agnosticism deals with knowledge.
There are agnostic atheists and theists and gnostic atheists and theists.

Abundantly true. I threw that in in order to show what the anti-atheists think about agnosticism. To them, an agnostic is the same thing as an atheist. I do agree. I am strongly agnostic in that I cannot see how humans could possibly have such extensively detailed and elaborated knowledge about the supernatural, something that we cannot observe or sense in any manner, nor even determine whether it even exists. I believe the agnostic position to be the only honest one from which we have to rely on assumptions in either the theist or atheist directions, but to keep ourselves honest we must constantly remember that we are relying on assumptions. I am also an atheist in that I do not believe in the gods; even though I cannot completely eliminate the possibility of some kind of supernatural entity of great enough power to be considered a god, I cannot assign more than near-zero probability that it would be anything like the elaborate gods that the theists have constructed.But since when has the actual meanings of words or even the truth ever meant anything to the anti-atheistic rabble? Or to any kind of rabble, for that matter?

And therefore both atheists and agnostics disbelieve in God. QED

No an agnostic theist believes in a god, they just understand that they do not know there is a god.
An agnostic atheist does not believe in a god, but they admit they do not know there is a god.

Nope.Atheists lack belief in god/s. The atheist says that the case for god/s has not been made.Agnostics lack certainty whether god/s exist or not. The agnostic says that neither the case that god/s exist, nor that they do not exist, have been made.You can be an agnostic theist, but not an atheist theist.Enjoy.

That would be a concern, but if the rewrite on constitutions were limited to incorporation of already passed amendments and clarifying the language, while further modification required new amendments (with a higher bar to pass) that would provide for improving the document while maintaining the original protections from change by the tyranny of the masses.For amendments to be incorporated they would need to be passed by a super-majority rather than a simple majority vote.Does that work?Enjoy.