Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheists can't hold office in the USA?
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 16 of 777 (747295)
01-13-2015 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Theodoric
01-13-2015 6:33 PM


Re: It's hard to modify Constitutions
Tangle has a history of making condescending statements of this type. While I don't share petro's level of irritation, I understand where it comes from.
Strip away the anger, and what's left is a bunch of questions one might well ask a foreigner who repeatedly pretends that the US is so backwards that he cannot even understand how they got that way.

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Theodoric, posted 01-13-2015 6:33 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Theodoric, posted 01-13-2015 8:39 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied
 Message 20 by Tangle, posted 01-14-2015 3:31 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 17 of 777 (747300)
01-13-2015 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by NoNukes
01-13-2015 6:55 PM


Re: It's hard to modify Constitutions
Still beyond the pale and extremely inappropriate for this forum.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by NoNukes, posted 01-13-2015 6:55 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 18 of 777 (747302)
01-14-2015 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tangle
01-13-2015 12:55 PM


Why do these laws still exist in the US?
Well, in a sense they don't. When a law or part of a law is found to be unconstitutional, you don't have to recall all the statute books and tear out the offending pages; the law ceases to exist, qua law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tangle, posted 01-13-2015 12:55 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Tangle, posted 01-14-2015 3:43 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1283 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


(1)
Message 19 of 777 (747303)
01-14-2015 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by petrophysics1
01-13-2015 5:51 PM


Re: It's hard to modify Constitutions
Why do your tax dollars support the church of England?
Because in the UK there is no claimed separation of church and stste.
Why can the monarch of your country not be Catholic?
The Act of Settlement is an Act of the Parliament of England that was passed in 1701[2] to settle the succession to the English and Irish crowns and thrones on the Electress Sophia of Hanover (a granddaughter of James VI of Scotland and I of England) and her non-Roman Catholic heirs.
Act of Settlement 1701 - Wikipedia
Why do you even have a fucking monarch?
Recent polls show that around 70—80% of the British public support the continuation of the monarchy
Monarchy of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia
Why with less than 3% of the UK being black are they 15% of your prison population?
that's an entire thread, or even discussion board all of its own
Why all the anti-Catholic bigotry? You and many of your countrymen sound just like Faith
apart from the institutional bars on catholic monarchs (which is arcaic and hardly representative of the population), I'm not aware of any anti catholic bigotry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by petrophysics1, posted 01-13-2015 5:51 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 20 of 777 (747304)
01-14-2015 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by NoNukes
01-13-2015 6:55 PM


Re: It's hard to modify Constitutions
NoNukes writes:
Tangle has a history of making condescending statements of this type. While I don't share petro's level of irritation, I understand where it comes from.
I don't believe that there is a single word in my question that could be honestly described as condescending. I was genuinely surprised to see that 7 states in the USA appeared to ban atheists from public office.
As for my history, I'm also genuinely puzzled why a modern Western democracy, for which I have otherwise great respect, has such a high proportion of it's population holding primitive religious views (and such a destructive gun culture). It's a canundrum which, when pointed out by an outsider, gets these kind of reactions.
Are Americans able to question these things themselves without being accused of being 'condescending' - or whatever - or is it just something that non-Amercans are not allowed to ask? Why so sensitive?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by NoNukes, posted 01-13-2015 6:55 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by dwise1, posted 01-14-2015 4:55 AM Tangle has not replied
 Message 30 by NoNukes, posted 01-14-2015 12:49 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 21 of 777 (747305)
01-14-2015 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Dr Adequate
01-14-2015 12:57 AM


Dr. A writes:
Well, in a sense they don't. When a law or part of a law is found to be unconstitutional, you don't have to recall all the statute books and tear out the offending pages; the law ceases to exist, qua law.
The guy writing the article makes this point about it.
I think that the legislatures of these states have a duty to eventually get around to removing these provisions and any other elements of their state constitutions that institutionalize discrimination. Now might not be the time due to the large number of pressing issues that plague this nation, but the change ought to eventually be made. Atheists, or any other religious minority for that matter, shouldn’t have to go to court after winning an election just so that federal law is upheld and discrimination is rejected.
Which seems fair.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-14-2015 12:57 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 22 of 777 (747306)
01-14-2015 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Tangle
01-13-2015 2:27 PM


Re: It's hard to modify Constitutions
But why isn't the very existance of those laws unconstitutional? Why aren't atheists campaigning to get them revoked
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, so I'm speaking as a layman.
It's been pointed out that the US has a legal system, not a justice system. There are procedures in place for changing the laws. There is also a simple fact that not all laws are enforced. If a law has been ruled unconstitutional, does that require that the law be revoked? Or merely that it not be enforced? And what does it take to revoke a law? Does the legislature have to vote on it? If popular opinion supports the unconstitutional law, wouldn't voting to revoke that law be a form of political suicide for an elected legislator? Just look at the repeated waste of valuable legislative time voting for outrageous bills that have absolutely no chance of passing or not getting vetoed, but which are popular with one's constituents.
To be honest, I really envy the UK attitude about politicians who display their religion prominently in public. In the UK, that would be the kiss of death, whereas in the US it's a basic requirement.
Here's a recent true story that I haven't seen mentioned on this forum yet. I am a veteran of 35 years of military service, 6 years active and 29 reserve. In every leadership school I have attended in that time, we went through the exercise of starting with the US Constitution and showing how that authorizes the entire chain of laws and regulations which filters down to the authority of NCOs, petty officers, and chief petty officers, as well as the regulations and instructions by which each branch of the military operates.
That includes US Code Title 10 which are the laws governing the military, including enlistment requirements. In the middle of the McCarthyist Red Scare of the 1950's and under a Republican controlled Congress under a Republican President, Congress passed bills (and Eisenhower signed them into law) that in 1954 added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance, in 1955 mandated that all our currency would bear the words "In God We Trust", and in 1956 that we scrap our original National Motto since 1776, "E Pluribus Unum", for the sectarian religious "In God We Trust". To provide some perspective, I was born in 1951, so all those changes occurred within my own lifetime.
Perhaps in that same vein, the current oath of enlisted into the military for enlisted members was established in 1960 as part of US Code Title 10. That oath ends with the words, "so help me God", which were not part of the original oath in the Continental Army (according to the US Army's history site at http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html, though it does not say what it was leading up to 1960). But Title 10 was amended in 1962 to allow allow for the omission of those words if the individual so chooses. Being required to say those words would amount to a religious test, which is prohibited by the US Constitution (Article VI, Paragraph 3) and by US Code Title 10 since 1962.
In October 2013, the US Air Force changed its Air Force Instructions (AFI) to require all active duty members enlisting (and reenlisting -- during reenlistment, you first are discharged honorably, then you enlist again in two separate actions; the officer officiating the enlistment often mentions that the member is now free for less than a minute to say what he really feels) saying those very words without being allowed to omit them or make any kind of substitution. In so doing, the USAF was in violation of US Code Title 10 as well as of the Constitution of the United States of America, the protection and defense of which every single member of the US military swears to provide when he enlists.
What could anybody do about that? There is no system in place to review every decision made for it being legal -- well, not then, but perhaps now. Some USAF member, probably an NCO, proposed a change to the Air Force Instructions (AFIs -- "when I was in the war", i.e. when I served in the Air Force 1976 to 1982, we had the Air Force Regulations (AFR) and Air Force Manual (AFM), so I assume that the AFMs were renamed AFIs, no unlike the NAVINSTs. It went through their procedural channels which undoubtedly did not include a blessing from legal (though it may have), and eventually got signed off on by an officer.
But there may be much more at work under the surface. For the past few decades, there's been a growing scandal of how Christian fundamentalists have been working to take over the chaplaincy of the US Air Force and possibly the other services as well (eg, the US Army now mandates that all members going through marital separation or divorce be enrolled in a Baptist program, DivorceCare, which is only appropriate for conservative Christians and completely inappropriate, even harmful, for non-Christians). Furthermore, severe problems were surfacing at the US Air Force Academy a decade or two ago because of the undue influence of fundamentalist Christian ministries. Even though the Academy currently appears to be trying to rectify the problem, reports of abuse of power by military superiors in the Air Force continue to surface. I would not be surprised to learn that this change to the AFIs had been orchestrated by religious zealots within the ranks.
That change to the AFIs that created a religious test for enlistment was made in October 2013. An atheist Technical Sergeant (TSgt, E-6) came up for reenlistment after that date. The oath of enlistment is printed on the enlistment contract. He crossed off the offending sectarian words and signed his paperwork. Because he had crossed off those offending sectarian words, Admin refused to process his reenlistment papers (sorry, much more Navy time than Air Force, so I don't know the proper USAF terminology). His career would have been doomed if the story hadn't leaked out to a humanist organization that publicized his case. In response, the USAF looked into the matter, which probably involved a JAG officer looking at the new AFI for the first time. Immediately, the US Air Force declared the new AFI invalid and allowed the TSgt's reenlistment paperwork to be properly processed. Any half-sober JAG officer who was half-awake would have immediately realized how many laws that AFI was in flagrant violation of.
Here are some links for more information:
http://www.theguardian.com/...force-atheist-airman-reeinlist
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...e-god-from-enlistment-oaths
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...e-god-from-enlistment-oaths
If you Google about on this, you should find some conservative pieces about humanists having brow-beaten the Air Force. I'm sorry, but as a former airman, I find that characterization very insulting.
For more information on the fundamentalist take-over of the US Air Force Academy, refer to the documentary, Constantine's Sword, on NetFlix at http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/70073043?trkid=13752289. There are criticisms of this documentary which I will not attempt to refute (eg, it's a three-pronged attack on three different fronts), but it does demonstrate something about the problems that did exist (eg, Jewish cadets being harrassed). And it is not my only source to reports of problems at the Academy (and hence within the officer corps itself) because of Christian fundamentalism. And while my subsequent on-line research shows that atheist and non-Christian cadets, as well as the administration itself, are working hard to make known the religious issues there, the chaplaincy is working against them, especially against the cadets.
Tangle, here's the bottom line: if nobody challenges the law, then there can be no change. In the USA, there is no automatic review of any or all laws at any level of government to verify that they are in accordance with the US Constitution. The only way that can happen is for the law to be challenged.
Please let me repeat that: The only way that can happen is for the law to be challenged.
In the 1920's, four states enacted laws forbidding the teaching of evolution on religious grounds. The ACLU talked a PE teacher, John Scopes, to deliberately violate Tennessee's "monkey law" in the hope that his conviction would work its way up to the US Supreme Court. Their effort failed when Scopes' conviction was overturned at the appellate level because of a legal technicality (the judge had levied the fine instead of the bailiff). That decision had to wait another four decades for Susan Epperson to challenge the Arkansas "monkey law" since her school district's requiring her to teach from the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS), whose cornerstone was evolution, brought her in direct violation of the Arkansas "monkey law" what would punish her mere mention of the word "evolution" with life-long banishment from the teaching profession.
Thus, in 1968, the clearly unconstitutional "monkey laws" were abolished. Why? Because finally somebody had a compelling case to strike them down.
Now here's an interesting question: What is the status of those "monkey laws" in those four states? Have they been revoked? Or are they still on the books, but merely not enforced?
I am not a lawyer. I am really curious to know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Tangle, posted 01-13-2015 2:27 PM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Taq, posted 01-14-2015 3:52 PM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 41 by NoNukes, posted 01-14-2015 9:48 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 23 of 777 (747308)
01-14-2015 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Tangle
01-14-2015 3:31 AM


Re: It's hard to modify Constitutions
I was genuinely surprised to see that 7 states in the USA appeared to ban atheists from public office.
From 1977 to 1982, I was on active duty during which time I was isolated in North Dakota. Since my duty hours were in the evening, I had no access to national news except for the local newspaper which only devoted one, maybe two, pages to national or even international news. At that time only National Public Radio (NPR) provided me with any real news. After that, I have remained faithful to NPR for my news.
One commanding officer I had in the Navy Reserve was a conservative Christian. On Sundays during the drill weekends, he decided to have a kind of Christian services. As his chief petty officer and according to my own religious convictions as an atheist of many years (now at half a century), I was very supportive of his efforts. One weekend I overheard him talking to other officers about some time he had spent in Boston where he could tune in to six different NPR stations. I immediately thought, "Cool!", but then it occurred to me that he was actually complaining about that situation.
Now to the point. Last week on NPR ("The World", I think), the host was talking with correspondents in various countries about the Islamic attack on Charlie Hebdo. The correspondent in France distinguished a difference between the attitudes between religion and government that were created in the American and French Revolutions. In France, that distinction was to protect the government from religion, whereas in America the distinction was to protect religion from the government.
As for my history, I'm also genuinely puzzled why a modern Western democracy, for which I have otherwise great respect, has such a high proportion of it's population holding primitive religious views (and such a destructive gun culture).
So what is democracy, except for the rule of the people? There is a political curse that I have heard, that you should be governed by the kind of people who truly represent what you are.
Does the majority believe in "creation science"? Well, then, reality be damned!
Why ban atheists from holding office? I have absolutely not idea why.
Knowing what I know about the convoluted and perverted thought processes of fucking stupid Christians, they do not believe that atheists can be honest. They believe stupid nonsense that absolutely only the God-given threat of total and abject fear of eternal damnation could ever possibly force our utterly corrupt natures to even begin to contemplate even thinking of doing anything ... dare I say it? ... uh ... er ... uhhh ... good.
Oh, what the fuck.
Far too many Americans are fucking idiots. I cannot defend them.
You know, there is a retort that I have frequently contemplated, but never had the opportunity to deliver: "No, I am not lying. I have no reason to lie. I am not a creationist."
One of the few voices of sani

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Tangle, posted 01-14-2015 3:31 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 24 of 777 (747309)
01-14-2015 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by jar
01-13-2015 4:33 PM


Re: It's hard to modify Constitutions
Jar writes:
Not really.
Well I had to look it up but they're all southern bible belt states and mostly adjacent to each other. What they appear to have in common is that they answer the question
"How important is religion in your life?" as very high. Mississippi answering at 82% for example. (wow!)
So I guess that's why the laws haven't been repealed.
It hasn't stopped other southern and only slightly less religious states not having the law anymore. e.g. Louisiana at 73%. So I guess it's possible.
Religion in America: U.S. Religious Data, Demographics and Statistics | Pew Research Center

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 01-13-2015 4:33 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by caffeine, posted 01-14-2015 6:22 AM Tangle has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(1)
Message 25 of 777 (747311)
01-14-2015 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Tangle
01-14-2015 4:57 AM


Re: It's hard to modify Constitutions
It hasn't stopped other southern and only slightly less religious states not having the law anymore. e.g. Louisiana at 73%. So I guess it's possible.
As far as I can see, Louisiana is not a case of not having such a law 'any more' - they never did. Their constitution has been modified many times, so I might be missing it, but I can see no sign that religious belief was ever used to qualify for office. Things which have historically disqualified Louisianans from holding public office:
- Fighting or serving as a second in a duel with deadly weapons
- Serving in the confederate armed forces
- Being black
- Being poor
- Being a clergyman or religiouis teacher
Nothing about atheists, though.
By way of analogy, it's still a matter of statute law in the UK that you can legally shoot Welshmen with a bow and arrow under certain conditions. Obviously, you can’t actually do this, since the laws are unenforceable under the legal doctrine of implied repeal. More recent homicide legislation overrules these regulations, but they have never been formally repealed and so still remain on the books as quaint historical monuments. If Parliament were to sit down and explicitly repeal such legislation, I think you'd be justified in condemning them as wasting time in an already full legislative calendar by repealing laws already unenforceable.
With these US State Consitutions, repealing provisions would presumably be a lot more difficult than a simple legislative measure. If the state’s rules require referenda for constitutional amendments, then it would be not only time-consuming, but expensive. Is it really worth spending a lot of public money on a measure which can only be symbolic, even if it succeeds?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Tangle, posted 01-14-2015 4:57 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Tangle, posted 01-14-2015 6:44 AM caffeine has not replied
 Message 27 by Tangle, posted 01-14-2015 9:10 AM caffeine has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 26 of 777 (747312)
01-14-2015 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by caffeine
01-14-2015 6:22 AM


Re: It's hard to modify Constitutions
Well I had to look up the welshman thing and found these 'laws' also
STRANGE-BUT-TRUE LAWS
It is legal for a male to urinate in public, as long it is on the rear wheel of his motor vehicle and his right hand is on the vehicle
A bed may not be hung out of a window
Taxi drivers are required to ask all passengers if they have smallpox or the plague
Any person found breaking a boiled egg at the sharp end will be sentenced to 24 hours in the village stocks (enacted by Edward VI)
Any boy under the age of 10 may not see a naked mannequin
Throughout the whole of England it is illegal to eat mince pies on the 25th of December
It is illegal to be drunk on licensed premises
But they're just quaint antiquities. No-one in Chester would believe that it's ok to shoot a Welsman inside the city walls with a bow and arrow, whilst it seems that 80+% of Mississippi people perhaps might think that atheists should not be able to hold public office if asked becuase their religious beliefs are very important to them.
It also seems to be the case that these anti-atheist laws are actually attempting to be used - they're not just part of ancient history - as in the example above.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by caffeine, posted 01-14-2015 6:22 AM caffeine has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 27 of 777 (747315)
01-14-2015 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by caffeine
01-14-2015 6:22 AM


Re: It's hard to modify Constitutions
caffeine writes:
As far as I can see, Louisiana is not a case of not having such a law 'any more' - they never did. Their constitution has been modified many times, so I might be missing it, but I can see no sign that religious belief was ever used to qualify for office. Things which have historically disqualified Louisianans from holding public office:
Fair point. It was probably deemed as unnecessary a law preventing blind people driving buses. It sort of begs the question when those atheist laws were added and by whom.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by caffeine, posted 01-14-2015 6:22 AM caffeine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by jar, posted 01-14-2015 9:28 AM Tangle has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 28 of 777 (747316)
01-14-2015 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Tangle
01-14-2015 9:10 AM


Re: It's hard to modify Constitutions
The current Maryland Constitution was adopted in 1867.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Tangle, posted 01-14-2015 9:10 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Tangle, posted 01-14-2015 11:56 AM jar has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 29 of 777 (747328)
01-14-2015 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by jar
01-14-2015 9:28 AM


Re: It's hard to modify Constitutions
jar writes:
The current Maryland Constitution was adopted in 1867.
Only a few years after Darwin published Origin then.......

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by jar, posted 01-14-2015 9:28 AM jar has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 777 (747331)
01-14-2015 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Tangle
01-14-2015 3:31 AM


Re: It's hard to modify Constitutions
I was genuinely surprised to see that 7 states in the USA appeared to ban atheists from public office.
No states ban atheists from public office. States are also not required to return escaped slaves to their owners either. It's really no great puzzle in either case.
Both the federal constitution, the US code, state constitutions and state codes are full of provisions of law which are unrepealed and yet of no effect. There is generally no pressing need to repeal such laws. And certainly keeping Tangle unconfused is not a sufficient reason.
I'm also genuinely puzzled why a modern Western democracy, for which I have otherwise great respect, has such a high proportion of it's population holding primitive religious views
Yet you know that a high proportion do have those views. So what's the mystery about why there were anti-atheist laws?

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Tangle, posted 01-14-2015 3:31 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Tangle, posted 01-14-2015 1:03 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024