Of course the sensationalistic media are trying to sell this as if Congress have made new rules calling pizza a vegetable, but This is an old rule upheld since the Reagan administration pushed to call ketchup a vegetable.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/us/po ... hes.htmlIn a victory for the makers of frozen pizzas, tomato paste and French fries, Congress on Monday blocked rules proposed by the Agriculture Department that would have overhauled the nation’s school lunch program.
...
The industry backs the current rules which say that about a quarter-cup of tomato paste on a slice of pizza can count as a vegetable serving. The Agriculture Department proposal would have required that schools serve more tomato paste per piece of pizza to get a vegetable credit, an idea the industry thought would make pizza unappetizing.
This goes beyond the phenomenally stupid act of declaring that a sauce containing a FRUIT as its main ingredient is now a serving of vegetables.
This serves as a glowing example that
Politicians should not be allowed to make decisions of nutrition.
Politicians of BOTH parties are more concerned with preserving and protecting campaign revenue from their shared corporate sponsors than the Constitution,their principles, or the American children.
Washington should be kicked out of and forever banned from meddling in public education.
Status Quo Dems Uphold Reagan Republican Decision
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Status Quo Dems Uphold Reagan Republican Decision
There is only one status quo
Status Quo - 01. Whatever You Want - YouTube
Status Quo - 01. Whatever You Want - YouTube
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Status Quo Dems Uphold Reagan Republican Decision
The song title is quite apropos. :wah:
-
the grumps
- Posts: 245
- Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 5:34 am
Status Quo Dems Uphold Reagan Republican Decision
no im afraid they,re dinosaurs these days
Status Quo Dems Uphold Reagan Republican Decision
Accountable;1376241 wrote: Of course the sensationalistic media are trying to sell this as if Congress have made new rules calling pizza a vegetable, but This is an old rule upheld since the Reagan administration pushed to call ketchup a vegetable.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/us/po ... nches.html
This goes beyond the phenomenally stupid act of declaring that a sauce containing a FRUIT as its main ingredient is now a serving of vegetables.
This serves as a glowing example that
Politicians should not be allowed to make decisions of nutrition.
Politicians of BOTH parties are more concerned with preserving and protecting campaign revenue from their shared corporate sponsors than the Constitution,their principles, or the American children.
Washington should be kicked out of and forever banned from meddling in public education.
Depending who gets elected, we might not even have a Department of Education anymore.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/us/po ... nches.html
This goes beyond the phenomenally stupid act of declaring that a sauce containing a FRUIT as its main ingredient is now a serving of vegetables.
This serves as a glowing example that
Politicians should not be allowed to make decisions of nutrition.
Politicians of BOTH parties are more concerned with preserving and protecting campaign revenue from their shared corporate sponsors than the Constitution,their principles, or the American children.
Washington should be kicked out of and forever banned from meddling in public education.
Depending who gets elected, we might not even have a Department of Education anymore.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Status Quo Dems Uphold Reagan Republican Decision
SnoozeAgain;1376305 wrote: Depending who gets elected, we might not even have a Department of Education anymore.
Status Quo Dems Uphold Reagan Republican Decision
Accountable;1376307 wrote:
Wonderful - it says it all so beautifully
Wonderful - it says it all so beautifully
Status Quo Dems Uphold Reagan Republican Decision
posted by accountable
Washington should be kicked out of and forever banned from meddling in public education.
Surely you would keep corporations out of it as well? That being the case who else should it be but the states as elected by the people. Without Washington you would still have segregated schools in the south, I'm not american but I don't see how anyone can argue that segregation was a good thing for the country as a whole. Who else but the state and it's power as represented by the courts would be powerful enough to curb the excesses of individuals and corporations? I would also keep religious organisation away from education as well separate catholic schools perpetuate sectarianism both here and in northern Ireland, the only ones that disagree with that are religious leaders that don't their ability to keep control diluted.
Washington should be kicked out of and forever banned from meddling in public education.
Surely you would keep corporations out of it as well? That being the case who else should it be but the states as elected by the people. Without Washington you would still have segregated schools in the south, I'm not american but I don't see how anyone can argue that segregation was a good thing for the country as a whole. Who else but the state and it's power as represented by the courts would be powerful enough to curb the excesses of individuals and corporations? I would also keep religious organisation away from education as well separate catholic schools perpetuate sectarianism both here and in northern Ireland, the only ones that disagree with that are religious leaders that don't their ability to keep control diluted.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Status Quo Dems Uphold Reagan Republican Decision
gmc;1376375 wrote: Surely you would keep corporations out of it as well?Full stop? Not necessarily. There have been several instances of corporations helping local schools educate the local populace to build the skills needed to work for the company. It's not as sinister as some would make it out to be.
gmc;1376375 wrote: That being the case who else should it be but the states as elected by the people.That's exactly who it should be. It worked for over a century.gmc;1376375 wrote: Without Washington you would still have segregated schools in the south, I'm not american but I don't see how anyone can argue that segregation was a good thing for the country as a whole.The federal gov't enforcing state and local gov't obligations to serve all of its citizens equally is not education; education is one service state and local governments provide. It is a stretch to equate that with dictating curriculum and diet.
gmc;1376375 wrote: Who else but the state and it's power as represented by the courts would be powerful enough to curb the excesses of individuals and corporations?Here again we run into the primary difference between your gov't organization and ours. We have 50 states and one federal gov't, not one state. If you refer to Washington, you do it in error. If you mean that Texas and Texas' power as represented by the courts would be powerful enough to curb the excesses of individuals and corporations (meaning the same for Maine and Maine's power, California and California's power, etc), then we agree.
gmc;1376375 wrote: I would also keep religious organisation away from education as well separate catholic schools perpetuate sectarianism both here and in northern Ireland, the only ones that disagree with that are religious leaders that don't their ability to keep control diluted.That would be an issue for each states' citizens to decide. For me, less gov't intervention is more.
gmc;1376375 wrote: That being the case who else should it be but the states as elected by the people.That's exactly who it should be. It worked for over a century.gmc;1376375 wrote: Without Washington you would still have segregated schools in the south, I'm not american but I don't see how anyone can argue that segregation was a good thing for the country as a whole.The federal gov't enforcing state and local gov't obligations to serve all of its citizens equally is not education; education is one service state and local governments provide. It is a stretch to equate that with dictating curriculum and diet.
gmc;1376375 wrote: Who else but the state and it's power as represented by the courts would be powerful enough to curb the excesses of individuals and corporations?Here again we run into the primary difference between your gov't organization and ours. We have 50 states and one federal gov't, not one state. If you refer to Washington, you do it in error. If you mean that Texas and Texas' power as represented by the courts would be powerful enough to curb the excesses of individuals and corporations (meaning the same for Maine and Maine's power, California and California's power, etc), then we agree.
gmc;1376375 wrote: I would also keep religious organisation away from education as well separate catholic schools perpetuate sectarianism both here and in northern Ireland, the only ones that disagree with that are religious leaders that don't their ability to keep control diluted.That would be an issue for each states' citizens to decide. For me, less gov't intervention is more.
Status Quo Dems Uphold Reagan Republican Decision
posted by accountable
Here again we run into the primary difference between your gov't organization and ours. We have 50 states and one federal gov't, not one state. If you refer to Washington, you do it in error. If you mean that Texas and Texas' power as represented by the courts would be powerful enough to curb the excesses of individuals and corporations (meaning the same for Maine and Maine's power, California and California's power, etc), then we agree.
I can relate to that, one of the reasons for the rise of the Scottish nationalist govts Westminster imposing policies on us we don't like. On the other hand if you want to take on our government we have the European courts to go to, you also need something to curb the power of the states (with a little s) to abuse it's citizens correct me if I'm wrong but is that not why you have supreme courts? Access to education is a right not a privilege.
That would be an issue for each states' citizens to decide. For me, less gov't intervention is more.
What would you do if a state decided the children of atheists could not attend school unless they converted? Some states states have laws preventing non believers from holding office what if a mainly protestant state banned catholics on the grounds they would be following the orders of the pope rather than the electorate? What price states rights then?
Full stop? Not necessarily. There have been several instances of corporations helping local schools educate the local populace to build the skills needed to work for the company. It's not as sinister as some would make it out to be.
They do here as well but we have a centuries old tradition (in scotland that is) of a broad based education for it's own sake, not just turning out people for factories. It would be to our detriment to lose that ethos. Now we have to compete with the european baccalaureate, currently scots qualifications do match it but the tinkerers are tinkering. I have a healthy cynicism when it comes to companies getting involved in education.
Here again we run into the primary difference between your gov't organization and ours. We have 50 states and one federal gov't, not one state. If you refer to Washington, you do it in error. If you mean that Texas and Texas' power as represented by the courts would be powerful enough to curb the excesses of individuals and corporations (meaning the same for Maine and Maine's power, California and California's power, etc), then we agree.
I can relate to that, one of the reasons for the rise of the Scottish nationalist govts Westminster imposing policies on us we don't like. On the other hand if you want to take on our government we have the European courts to go to, you also need something to curb the power of the states (with a little s) to abuse it's citizens correct me if I'm wrong but is that not why you have supreme courts? Access to education is a right not a privilege.
That would be an issue for each states' citizens to decide. For me, less gov't intervention is more.
What would you do if a state decided the children of atheists could not attend school unless they converted? Some states states have laws preventing non believers from holding office what if a mainly protestant state banned catholics on the grounds they would be following the orders of the pope rather than the electorate? What price states rights then?
Full stop? Not necessarily. There have been several instances of corporations helping local schools educate the local populace to build the skills needed to work for the company. It's not as sinister as some would make it out to be.
They do here as well but we have a centuries old tradition (in scotland that is) of a broad based education for it's own sake, not just turning out people for factories. It would be to our detriment to lose that ethos. Now we have to compete with the european baccalaureate, currently scots qualifications do match it but the tinkerers are tinkering. I have a healthy cynicism when it comes to companies getting involved in education.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Status Quo Dems Uphold Reagan Republican Decision
AARRGGHH!! I had spent a lot of time crafting a good response that disappeared into Error Land when I submitted. GOD I HATE THIS QUICK RESPONSE FUNCTION! gmc;1376437 wrote: I can relate to that, one of the reasons for the rise of the Scottish nationalist govts Westminster imposing policies on us we don't like. On the other hand if you want to take on our government we have the European courts to go to, you also need something to curb the power of the states (with a little s) to abuse it's citizens correct me if I'm wrong but is that not why you have supreme courts? Access to education is a right not a privilege.
What would you do if a state decided the children of atheists could not attend school unless they converted? Some states states have laws preventing non believers from holding office what if a mainly protestant state banned catholics on the grounds they would be following the orders of the pope rather than the electorate? What price states rights then?
They do here as well but we have a centuries old tradition (in scotland that is) of a broad based education for it's own sake, not just turning out people for factories. It would be to our detriment to lose that ethos. Now we have to compete with the european baccalaureate, currently scots qualifications do match it but the tinkerers are tinkering. I have a healthy cynicism when it comes to companies getting involved in education.I'll have to cool down & gather my thoughts again to respond. But one thing we need to be clear on: the issue isn't access to education, but the system we grant kids access to.
What would you do if a state decided the children of atheists could not attend school unless they converted? Some states states have laws preventing non believers from holding office what if a mainly protestant state banned catholics on the grounds they would be following the orders of the pope rather than the electorate? What price states rights then?
They do here as well but we have a centuries old tradition (in scotland that is) of a broad based education for it's own sake, not just turning out people for factories. It would be to our detriment to lose that ethos. Now we have to compete with the european baccalaureate, currently scots qualifications do match it but the tinkerers are tinkering. I have a healthy cynicism when it comes to companies getting involved in education.I'll have to cool down & gather my thoughts again to respond. But one thing we need to be clear on: the issue isn't access to education, but the system we grant kids access to.
Status Quo Dems Uphold Reagan Republican Decision
Accountable;1376526 wrote: AARRGGHH!! I had spent a lot of time crafting a good response that disappeared into Error Land when I submitted. GOD I HATE THIS QUICK RESPONSE FUNCTION! I'll have to cool down & gather my thoughts again to respond. But one thing we need to be clear on: the issue isn't access to education, but the system we grant kids access to.
I've been having a lot of trouble with this over the past few days and have taken to saving my post before submitting it - and damn'd annoying it is to have to do so too.
We're looking into the why of it but it's not easy to spot.
I've been having a lot of trouble with this over the past few days and have taken to saving my post before submitting it - and damn'd annoying it is to have to do so too.
We're looking into the why of it but it's not easy to spot.
Status Quo Dems Uphold Reagan Republican Decision
Actually I've had that a few times as well I assumed the problem was my ISP rather than the forum - I have occasional problems with the internet caused by them having problems with their systems occasionally for a whole day.
Status Quo Dems Uphold Reagan Republican Decision
gmc;1376616 wrote: Actually I've had that a few times as well I assumed the problem was my ISP rather than the forum - I have occasional problems with the internet caused by them having problems with their systems occasionally for a whole day.
There is some form of "protection" in the system to stop an attack using code embedded in the text (as far as I understand it - who would code a system with a facility to execute untrusted code input as text I cannot imagine) that cuts in and rejects random strings.
A right royal PITA if you ask me but very few people do nowadays
There is some form of "protection" in the system to stop an attack using code embedded in the text (as far as I understand it - who would code a system with a facility to execute untrusted code input as text I cannot imagine) that cuts in and rejects random strings.
A right royal PITA if you ask me but very few people do nowadays
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Status Quo Dems Uphold Reagan Republican Decision
gmc;1376437 wrote: I can relate to that, one of the reasons for the rise of the Scottish nationalist govts Westminster imposing policies on us we don't like. On the other hand if you want to take on our government we have the European courts to go to, you also need something to curb the power of the states (with a little s ) to abuse it's citizens correct me if I'm wrong but is that not why you have supreme courts? Access to education is a right not a privilege.
Yes, we're similar in this area, but remember that access to education is not at issue. Gov't must serve all of its citizens, and ours does ... now. The 10th Amendment of our Constitution prohibits our federal gov't from interfering anywhere that is not explicitly delegated to them. This includes education. But the power-addicted in Washington spend a lot of time and energy trying to find ways around that prohibition.
One of those ways is to tax the citizens more than is strictly needed for operating the federal gov't so that it can redistribute the wealth. This redistribution comes with strings. If a state doesn't comply with directives then it doesn't get the federal funding. This is how Washington bureaucrats micromanage such domestic issues such as what size classes should be, curriculum design and what qualifies as a vegetable in school lunches.
Yes, we're similar in this area, but remember that access to education is not at issue. Gov't must serve all of its citizens, and ours does ... now. The 10th Amendment of our Constitution prohibits our federal gov't from interfering anywhere that is not explicitly delegated to them. This includes education. But the power-addicted in Washington spend a lot of time and energy trying to find ways around that prohibition.
One of those ways is to tax the citizens more than is strictly needed for operating the federal gov't so that it can redistribute the wealth. This redistribution comes with strings. If a state doesn't comply with directives then it doesn't get the federal funding. This is how Washington bureaucrats micromanage such domestic issues such as what size classes should be, curriculum design and what qualifies as a vegetable in school lunches.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Status Quo Dems Uphold Reagan Republican Decision
gmc;1376437 wrote:
They do here as well but we have a centuries old tradition (in scotland that is) of a broad based education for it's own sake, not just turning out people for factories. It would be to our detriment to lose that ethos. Now we have to compete with the european baccalaureate, currently scots qualifications do match it but the tinkerers are tinkering. I have a healthy cynicism when it comes to companies getting involved in education.
Cynicism is good. We have enough active cynics to keep things from going too far in any one direction.
They do here as well but we have a centuries old tradition (in scotland that is) of a broad based education for it's own sake, not just turning out people for factories. It would be to our detriment to lose that ethos. Now we have to compete with the european baccalaureate, currently scots qualifications do match it but the tinkerers are tinkering. I have a healthy cynicism when it comes to companies getting involved in education.
Cynicism is good. We have enough active cynics to keep things from going too far in any one direction.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Status Quo Dems Uphold Reagan Republican Decision
gmc;1376437 wrote:
What would you do if a state decided the children of atheists could not attend school unless they converted? Some states states have laws preventing non believers from holding office what if a mainly protestant state banned catholics on the grounds they would be following the orders of the pope rather than the electorate? What price states rights then?
Non-issue. Protection of religious freedom is guaranteed by the First Amendment of our Constitution.
What would you do if a state decided the children of atheists could not attend school unless they converted? Some states states have laws preventing non believers from holding office what if a mainly protestant state banned catholics on the grounds they would be following the orders of the pope rather than the electorate? What price states rights then?
Non-issue. Protection of religious freedom is guaranteed by the First Amendment of our Constitution.
Status Quo Dems Uphold Reagan Republican Decision
Accountable;1376656 wrote: Non-issue. Protection of religious freedom is guaranteed by the First Amendment of our Constitution.
Really?
Legal As She Is Spoke » Blog Archive » In God We Trust
You don't have freedom of religion if you are frightened to speak out for fear of offending the faithful knuckle daggers who think freedom of religion only means they can practice their version of it. Sadly I could bore you to death with tales of sectarian discrimination and hatred in scotland - but I won't.
Really?
Legal As She Is Spoke » Blog Archive » In God We Trust
You don't have freedom of religion if you are frightened to speak out for fear of offending the faithful knuckle daggers who think freedom of religion only means they can practice their version of it. Sadly I could bore you to death with tales of sectarian discrimination and hatred in scotland - but I won't.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Status Quo Dems Uphold Reagan Republican Decision
gmc;1376658 wrote: Really?
Legal As She Is Spoke » Blog Archive » In God We Trust
You don't have freedom of religion if you are frightened to speak out for fear of offending the faithful knuckle daggers who think freedom of religion only means they can practice their version of it. Sadly I could bore you to death with tales of sectarian discrimination and hatred in scotland - but I won't.
Two things: First, your article didn't mention one syllable about requiring a student to convert to or from a religion in order to attend a public school; it wasn't even about education at all.
Second, if you're going to claim something about a legal document, I recommend you check the document itself.
From the Texas Constitution: "SEC. 4. 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."
There are two statements here. No religious test shall ever be required for any office, AND no one shall be excluded from holding office because of religion. That last clause simply acknowledges that some people are atheist or agnostic. It actually says the opposite of your biased article.
You're seeing demons where none exist.
Legal As She Is Spoke » Blog Archive » In God We Trust
You don't have freedom of religion if you are frightened to speak out for fear of offending the faithful knuckle daggers who think freedom of religion only means they can practice their version of it. Sadly I could bore you to death with tales of sectarian discrimination and hatred in scotland - but I won't.
Two things: First, your article didn't mention one syllable about requiring a student to convert to or from a religion in order to attend a public school; it wasn't even about education at all.
Second, if you're going to claim something about a legal document, I recommend you check the document itself.
From the Texas Constitution: "SEC. 4. 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."
There are two statements here. No religious test shall ever be required for any office, AND no one shall be excluded from holding office because of religion. That last clause simply acknowledges that some people are atheist or agnostic. It actually says the opposite of your biased article.
You're seeing demons where none exist.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Status Quo Dems Uphold Reagan Republican Decision
From the Texas Constitution: "SEC. 4. 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."
Hang on...
Doesn't that say that as long as you acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being...?
I'm an agnostic, so I can at best only hope he exists. And an atheist would not acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being at all. So atheists and agnostics do not appear to be able to hold office in Texas. Satanists, on the other hand, are perfectly eligible since they do acknowledge the power of a Supreme Being, even if they think it is the Devil, not God.
Hence, I have always assumed, Newt Gingrich....
Hang on...
Doesn't that say that as long as you acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being...?
I'm an agnostic, so I can at best only hope he exists. And an atheist would not acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being at all. So atheists and agnostics do not appear to be able to hold office in Texas. Satanists, on the other hand, are perfectly eligible since they do acknowledge the power of a Supreme Being, even if they think it is the Devil, not God.
Hence, I have always assumed, Newt Gingrich....
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Status Quo Dems Uphold Reagan Republican Decision
Clodhopper;1376669 wrote: Hang on...
Doesn't that say that as long as you acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being...?
I'm an agnostic, so I can at best only hope he exists. And an atheist would not acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being at all. So atheists and agnostics do not appear to be able to hold office in Texas. Satanists, on the other hand, are perfectly eligible since they do acknowledge the power of a Supreme Being, even if they think it is the Devil, not God.
Hence, I have always assumed, Newt Gingrich....
You can interpret it as "so long as" I suppose. I interpret it as "provided he even acknowledge ...". For any that think it is a requirement, all challenges have upheld a person's right to his own religion, including no religion at all. That was in gmc's link as well.
Doesn't that say that as long as you acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being...?
I'm an agnostic, so I can at best only hope he exists. And an atheist would not acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being at all. So atheists and agnostics do not appear to be able to hold office in Texas. Satanists, on the other hand, are perfectly eligible since they do acknowledge the power of a Supreme Being, even if they think it is the Devil, not God.
Hence, I have always assumed, Newt Gingrich....
You can interpret it as "so long as" I suppose. I interpret it as "provided he even acknowledge ...". For any that think it is a requirement, all challenges have upheld a person's right to his own religion, including no religion at all. That was in gmc's link as well.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Status Quo Dems Uphold Reagan Republican Decision
provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."
As written, semantically there is no wiggle room there. You either Do acknowledge, or you Don't. And if you don't, you can't hold office.
While that law may not be actually applied, it's still there and official. If it's ignored enough does it get automatically repealed, or could some religious nutter make use of it in the future?
As written, semantically there is no wiggle room there. You either Do acknowledge, or you Don't. And if you don't, you can't hold office.
While that law may not be actually applied, it's still there and official. If it's ignored enough does it get automatically repealed, or could some religious nutter make use of it in the future?
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Status Quo Dems Uphold Reagan Republican Decision
Accountable;1376661 wrote: Two things: First, your article didn't mention one syllable about requiring a student to convert to or from a religion in order to attend a public school; it wasn't even about education at all.
Second, if you're going to claim something about a legal document, I recommend you check the document itself.
From the Texas Constitution: "SEC. 4. 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."
There are two statements here. No religious test shall ever be required for any office, AND no one shall be excluded from holding office because of religion. That last clause simply acknowledges that some people are atheist or agnostic. It actually says the opposite of your biased article.
You're seeing demons where none exist.
I've seen a couple of articles about it that was the first one i dug out in a very brief search.
This might be better to explain where I'm getting the idea from. Things like this Plus a few other articles that have caught my interest. I will hold my hand up and agree my research is not exactly comprehensive.
Atheists Banned From Public Office in 7 State Constitutions - YouTube
I was curious as to what you had to say. about the matter. On the face of it you do seem to have a lot of people that seem to think my way is the right way and will brook no dissent.
Despite nominally having a state religion the UK population is in the main secular in it's attitudes. Religion is like a cancer in the body politic that you just can't get rid of all you can do is keep it under control.
Second, if you're going to claim something about a legal document, I recommend you check the document itself.
From the Texas Constitution: "SEC. 4. 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."
There are two statements here. No religious test shall ever be required for any office, AND no one shall be excluded from holding office because of religion. That last clause simply acknowledges that some people are atheist or agnostic. It actually says the opposite of your biased article.
You're seeing demons where none exist.
I've seen a couple of articles about it that was the first one i dug out in a very brief search.
This might be better to explain where I'm getting the idea from. Things like this Plus a few other articles that have caught my interest. I will hold my hand up and agree my research is not exactly comprehensive.
Atheists Banned From Public Office in 7 State Constitutions - YouTube
I was curious as to what you had to say. about the matter. On the face of it you do seem to have a lot of people that seem to think my way is the right way and will brook no dissent.
Despite nominally having a state religion the UK population is in the main secular in it's attitudes. Religion is like a cancer in the body politic that you just can't get rid of all you can do is keep it under control.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Status Quo Dems Uphold Reagan Republican Decision
Clodhopper;1376677 wrote: As written, semantically there is no wiggle room there. You either Do acknowledge, or you Don't. And if you don't, you can't hold office.While that law may not be actually applied, it's still there and official. If it's ignored enough does it get automatically repealed, or could some religious nutter make use of it in the future?
From gmc's article
Legal As She Is Spoke » Blog Archive » In God We Trust
Jump to the late 1950s. Roy Torcaso, at the time a bookkeeper for a Maryland construction company, decided to become a notary public. There was one small problem: Mr. Torcaso happened to be an avowed atheist, and Article 37 of the Constitution of Maryland’s Declaration of Rights stated 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.”
Mr. Torcaso’s refusal to make such a declaration sparked a legal challenge that ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1961, the justices unanimously ruled in favor of Mr. Torcaso’s argument that the Maryland provision’s religious oath requirement unconstitutionally infringed his first-via-fourteenth amendment rights.
We have provisions to counteract religious nutters.
From gmc's article
Legal As She Is Spoke » Blog Archive » In God We Trust
Jump to the late 1950s. Roy Torcaso, at the time a bookkeeper for a Maryland construction company, decided to become a notary public. There was one small problem: Mr. Torcaso happened to be an avowed atheist, and Article 37 of the Constitution of Maryland’s Declaration of Rights stated 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.”
Mr. Torcaso’s refusal to make such a declaration sparked a legal challenge that ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1961, the justices unanimously ruled in favor of Mr. Torcaso’s argument that the Maryland provision’s religious oath requirement unconstitutionally infringed his first-via-fourteenth amendment rights.
We have provisions to counteract religious nutters.
Status Quo Dems Uphold Reagan Republican Decision
At least it exempts females ("'he' acknowledge the existence of a supreme being").
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Status Quo Dems Uphold Reagan Republican Decision
I fail to see how any of this supports gmc's assertion that it is feasible that a state can decide the children of atheists could not attend school unless they converted.
Status Quo Dems Uphold Reagan Republican Decision
Accountable;1376685 wrote: I fail to see how any of this supports gmc's assertion that it is feasible that a state can decide the children of atheists could not attend school unless they converted.The way your state constitution is worded it implies freedom 'of' religion only and does not include freedom 'from' religion.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Status Quo Dems Uphold Reagan Republican Decision
We have provisions to counteract religious nutters.
Excellent.
(I'm only really here because the English Language pedant in me reacted to the literally incorrect way the law quoted is being interpreted. I've no idea about not educating the kids of atheists.)
Excellent.
(I'm only really here because the English Language pedant in me reacted to the literally incorrect way the law quoted is being interpreted. I've no idea about not educating the kids of atheists.)
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Status Quo Dems Uphold Reagan Republican Decision
Accountable;1376685 wrote: I fail to see how any of this supports gmc's assertion that it is feasible that a state can decide the children of atheists could not attend school unless they converted.
posted by me
What would you do if a state decided the children of atheists could not attend school unless they converted? Some states states have laws preventing non believers from holding office what if a mainly protestant state banned catholics on the grounds they would be following the orders of the pope rather than the electorate? What price states rights then?
I was raising a hypothetical question out of curiosity as to what would happen if a state funded school decided it would only allow pupils of one particular faith to attend and bar non-believers in the form of atheists. It seems to me your bible belt must be a fairly oppressive place for a free thinker to live. I assume your faith schools are in the main private ones. I
I ask because in scotland and northern ireland a non catholic cannot attend a catholic school. Indeed a non-catholic teacher can be prevented from getting job at a catholic school because of their religion whereas a catholic can teach anywhere - these are state funded schools not private. It's actually a big bone of contention with most people thinking it a nonsense and our politicians worried about offending a group of people that increasingly represent a minority position most in the country don't actually share all in the name of not being branded bigots. It's a practice that perpetuates religious bigotry and creates needless tension.
posted by me
What would you do if a state decided the children of atheists could not attend school unless they converted? Some states states have laws preventing non believers from holding office what if a mainly protestant state banned catholics on the grounds they would be following the orders of the pope rather than the electorate? What price states rights then?
I was raising a hypothetical question out of curiosity as to what would happen if a state funded school decided it would only allow pupils of one particular faith to attend and bar non-believers in the form of atheists. It seems to me your bible belt must be a fairly oppressive place for a free thinker to live. I assume your faith schools are in the main private ones. I
I ask because in scotland and northern ireland a non catholic cannot attend a catholic school. Indeed a non-catholic teacher can be prevented from getting job at a catholic school because of their religion whereas a catholic can teach anywhere - these are state funded schools not private. It's actually a big bone of contention with most people thinking it a nonsense and our politicians worried about offending a group of people that increasingly represent a minority position most in the country don't actually share all in the name of not being branded bigots. It's a practice that perpetuates religious bigotry and creates needless tension.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Status Quo Dems Uphold Reagan Republican Decision
gmc;1376702 wrote: posted by me
I was raising a hypothetical question out of curiosity as to what would happen if a state funded school decided it would only allow pupils of one particular faith to attend and bar non-believers in the form of atheists. It seems to me your bible belt must be a fairly oppressive place for a free thinker to live. I assume your faith schools are in the main private ones. I
I ask because in scotland and northern ireland a non catholic cannot attend a catholic school. Indeed a non-catholic teacher can be prevented from getting job at a catholic school because of their religion whereas a catholic can teach anywhere - these are state funded schools not private. It's actually a big bone of contention with most people thinking it a nonsense and our politicians worried about offending a group of people that increasingly represent a minority position most in the country don't actually share all in the name of not being branded bigots. It's a practice that perpetuates religious bigotry and creates needless tension.
Ah. Okay then. Catholic schools are private here. I think you might see Occupy St Michael's if they tried that here.
I was raising a hypothetical question out of curiosity as to what would happen if a state funded school decided it would only allow pupils of one particular faith to attend and bar non-believers in the form of atheists. It seems to me your bible belt must be a fairly oppressive place for a free thinker to live. I assume your faith schools are in the main private ones. I
I ask because in scotland and northern ireland a non catholic cannot attend a catholic school. Indeed a non-catholic teacher can be prevented from getting job at a catholic school because of their religion whereas a catholic can teach anywhere - these are state funded schools not private. It's actually a big bone of contention with most people thinking it a nonsense and our politicians worried about offending a group of people that increasingly represent a minority position most in the country don't actually share all in the name of not being branded bigots. It's a practice that perpetuates religious bigotry and creates needless tension.
Ah. Okay then. Catholic schools are private here. I think you might see Occupy St Michael's if they tried that here.
Status Quo Dems Uphold Reagan Republican Decision
Accountable;1376707 wrote: Ah. Okay then. Catholic schools are private here. I think you might see Occupy St Michael's if they tried that here.
There are good historical reasons for it. We still burn effigies of Catholics on Guy Fawkes night though it's all good clean fun nowadays.
There are good historical reasons for it. We still burn effigies of Catholics on Guy Fawkes night though it's all good clean fun nowadays.