[grhazelton]

I missed the most recent "debate" mongst the sorry crew of candidates. I wasn't sure I had enough gin to sustain myself through the entire exercise in inanity, and so I missed the gardening exchange between Mittens and Mr. Hair, er, rather, Romney and Perry. Gail Collins skewered them expertly in this NY Times column: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/opinion/mitt-and-begonia-gate.html?_r=1&nl...Cx/dGLOUhNrFFg

What REALLY caught my eye in Ms Collins' fine essay was this tidbit:

"The whole First Amendment thing might be a little complicated for a governor whose State Constitution prohibits anyone who doesn’t believe in God from holding public office. This is not a joke."

Golly, Batman! I thought the US Constitution forbad any religious test for office, and the last time I looked the US Constitution trumped local laws.

Or have things changed? Lest you think that Texas is alone in this seemingly illegal stricture, check out this web site:

State Constitutions that Discriminate Against Atheists

We find that in addition to Texas, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, South Carolina, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts all would deny office to non-theists and presumably to agnostics.

I guess Muslims can hold office, but not Buddhists or Taoists.

I imagine Mr. Jefferson is spinning at high speed. And Mr. Madison also. Somehow I don't think this is what the Founders intended.

What's next? A revival of established churches? Somewhere I read that Justice Thomas sees no impediment to states having established churches.

[Nesster]

...well "Supreme Being" can be interpreted as referring to Ronald Reagan

But PA and TN have a further twist: you have to believe in heaven and hell too.

Somehow, there's gotta be more to this story...

A unanimous 1961 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Torcaso v. Watkins held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution override these state requirements,[30] so they are not enforced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_United_States

But as the language has not been amended, with a different Supreme Court things can change

[larryinlc]

I didn't watch it cause I had some paint that I wanted to watch dry.

Larry

[Nesster]

I hope you first saw the paint's papers...

[Parallax]

I imagine Mr. Jefferson is spinning at high speed. And Mr. Madison also. Somehow I don't think this is what the Founders intended.

You're right. The intent was freedom OF religion. It wasn't freedom from religion, as seems to be the most prevalent interpretation today; nor was it the other extreme point on the pendulum swing, freedom from the non religious.

I didn't watch it cause I had some paint that I wanted to watch dry.

Larry

I don't watch either, but I can't help watching the highlights on the news. I think it's the same psychology that prevents people from looking away from a train wreck.

[boriscleto]

You're right. The intent was freedom OF religion. It wasn't freedom from religion, as seems to be the most prevalent interpretation today; nor was it the other extreme point on the pendulum swing, freedom from the non religious.

Freedom From Religion vs. Freedom of Religion Myth: You Have Freedom Of, not Freedom From Religion?

Interestingly, the misunderstandings here can be found in many other myths, misconceptions and misunderstandings as well. Many people don’t realize — or don’t care — that real religious liberty must exist for everyone, not just for themselves. It’s no coincidence that people who object to the principle of “freedom from religion” are adherents of religious groups whose doctrines or standards would be the ones enforced by the state.

Now that same sex marriage is legal in New York we have several Town Clerks refusing to do part of their job. They claim that their freedom of religion is being infringed upon.

[Parallax]

Freedom From Religion vs. Freedom of Religion Myth: You Have Freedom Of, not Freedom From Religion?

From the article:

You do not truly have the freedom to practice your religious beliefs if you are also required to adhere to any of the religious beliefs or rules of other religions.

I agree with that. What I was referring to was things like schools prohibiting a student from saying grace in the cafeteria because it may offend an atheist who might be sitting in the same room, or prohibiting Christmas decorations in an office because they may be visible to non-Christians.

[boriscleto]

From the article: I agree with that. What I was referring to was things like schools prohibiting a student from saying grace in the cafeteria because it may offend an atheist who might be sitting in the same room, or prohibiting Christmas decorations in an office because they may be visible to non-Christians.

Is it really that hard to say "Happy Holidays"? Or to find secular "Christmas" decorations? It's hardly a religious holiday anymore anyway. The Holiday display here in Syracuse consists of a pagan tree, a manger scene, and a Menorah. I don't think you will find anybody who objects to it.

I don't know of any atheist who would object to someone saying grace on their own. If saying grace became a requirement, then it would be objectionable.

[Parallax]

Is it really that hard to say "Happy Holidays"? Or to find secular "Christmas" decorations?

Yes, it is. That is exactly my point. Being able to say "Merry Christmas", or putting up a Christmas tree *is* freedom of religion (and speech). People have that constitutionally protected right. There is no constitutional guarantee that you never have to hear the phrase spoken by anyone. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that people who don't like secular holiday decorations shall never have to endure one within their field of vision.
I will agree though, that Christmas, for most (myself included to a large degree) has lost most of the religious component.

I don't know of any atheist who would object to someone saying grace on their own.

Here's one example. I found several, and nearly all of them involved the ACLU. (I always chuckle when I see the name ACLU. Purpose and actions are the complete antithesis of the name)

[redrockcoulee]

I question why anyone should even know the religion of those running for office? I do not know the religion of either my MLA or my MP or the leader of several of the national party, our new or last premier and only know the religion of our last prime minister due to remarks on why he supported same sex religion even though through his being RC he originally opposed it on religious grounds but then say it as a human rights issue.

I am still upset with the NDP for having a pagan step down in running when her/his do not remember, beliefs questioned.

[Parallax]

I question why anyone should even know the religion of those running for office?

There is no reason why it should matter, but it will always be brought up by the opponent, if not the candidate.

[boriscleto]

Yes, it is. That is exactly my point. Being able to say "Merry Christmas", or putting up a Christmas tree *is* freedom of religion (and speech). People have that constitutionally protected right. There is no constitutional guarantee that you never have to hear the phrase spoken by anyone. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that people who don't like secular holiday decorations shall never have to endure one within their field of vision.
I will agree though, that Christmas, for most (myself included to a large degree) has lost most of the religious component.
Here's one example. I found several, and nearly all of them involved the ACLU. (I always chuckle when I see the name ACLU. Purpose and actions are the complete antithesis of the name)

Your linked article is not about private prayer. It's about in your face proselytizing.

[GeneV]

I will agree though, that Christmas, for most (myself included to a large degree) has lost most of the religious component.

Assuming you mean Christian religious status, that would return it to its original reason for being: Solstice, Saturnalia, Mithra's birth, ....

[jeffkrol]

Assuming you mean Christian religious status, that would return it to its original reason for being: Solstice, Saturnalia, Mithra's birth, ....

Right, the plastering of religious holidays on or near the natives "pagan" rituals in order to confuse and indoctrinate the "masses'.. See Christianity is Republicanism...

[Parallax]

Assuming you mean Christian religious status, that would return it to its original reason for being: Solstice, Saturnalia, Mithra's birth, ....

Yes, the [modern] traditional sense.
It is highly unlikely, given the historical as well as anecdotal accounts of the events surrounding Christ's birth, that it occurred in December.