N.C. Constitution bars Atheists from office

Pamela - posted on 05/19/2011

"This is just another example to me of why I don't get the whole Christianity is under attack argument."

Because it's not under attack - Christianity that is. Not. Under. Attack.

Renee - posted on 12/12/2009

Jenny - ditto. Also this country was not built on "in god we trust". Yes and what about separation of church and state! By the way, you CAN teach values and ethcial behavior without religion involved. The man should get the office. No doubt about it.

ME - posted on 12/12/2009

As I drive back and forth between CO and IL have seen signs that say things like "homosexuality is a sin", "outlaw sodomy", and show pictures of a healthy fetus next to an aborted one...People like myself would not be able to live in such areas of this country. One cannot be constantly surrounded by groups who want to outlaw their life choices...no one wants to outlaw religious beliefs in this country; I'm not sure why religious people believe that they can outlaw the political perspectives, opinions, and beliefs, and (non-hurtful) behaviors of non-believers!

?? - posted on 12/11/2009

There is a huge, and I mean HUGE, pro-life billboard on the hill behind the pre-school that leads up to the highschool and hospital here... I think it's disgusting, myself. Teenagers have enough peer-pressure to deal with in their own minds, in highschool from friends and family if they get pregnant in highschool and scared to tell someone for fear of rejection or disapproval without this GINORMOUS 'you're killing your baby' sign that they would have to pass multiple times a day going to school.



I think both sides need to practice zero tolerance in their bullying tactics. It's one thing to educate and another thing to pressure.

Krista - posted on 12/11/2009

Quoting Sara:

I agree, his religion shouldn't be an issue.

An interesting side note on this whole "Atheist" topic. I live in a town where there is a large University, so we have a pretty diverse population. A few months ago, an Atheist group bought some advertising space on the side of the city buses and intended to put up a sign that said "You can be good without God". There was a HUGE stink made about it and finally, the ACLU had to get involved and the group was granted the ability to put up their sign. So, a Christian group bought advertising space on the buses as well and put up a sign that said "You can be good without God, but you can't be saved without Jesus". No one had a problem with this. In fact, there are billboards around town (before this whole bus thing) that have specific religious messages on them about Abortion, Jesus, etc., and to my knowledge, no one ever raised an eyebrow. But, an atheist group puts up a sign on a bus and people are outraged. I have to say, I don't understand why? Is it offensive? Is it inappropriate? The town I live in is pretty liberal, so I was kind of shocked, but it just seemed so silly to me. If someone believes in God, then that's their right, if someone doesn't, it's their right too.

They tried doing that in Halifax, N.S. as well, and it was deemed "too controversial". But yeah, in some communities you see all sorts of religious billboards, "Choose Life" billboards, billboards with Bible verse on them. 

Then again, atheists are the least trusted minority in the United States. 'Tis true. Not believing in invisible sky people is VERY suspect, doncha know. 

JL - posted on 12/11/2009

I just want to add that many of those things used to uphold the idea that this is nation was built on some monolothic Christian ideal...such as the moto "In God We Trust" or the part of the pledge that states " One nation under God" were things that were not adopted or added until well after we became a nation and as a historian I get so frustrated by the incorrect historical references...and I am in no way referring to anyone on here because it is others who have for centuries spread the lies that have become indoctrinated in the average Americans understanding of US history. I just find it personally sad that so many Americans have such an askewed and incorrect understanding of American history



For the record the motto was first seen during the Civil War on the 2 cent piece added by the Lincoln Administration to raise spirits. It was not added to paper currency or many of our coins or became our official motto until the postwar era. The section of the pledge that references to god was not added until the Eisenhower administration. The addage of these thing were fearful reactions to the Red Scare, the atomic bomb, racial violence, the Cold War Era, and a rise in teen rebellion.



The use of the term god in our Constitution and our Declaration of Indepedence was mirrored after the legal terminology used in the Magna Carta. It was common verbal usage but when asking each founding father or even new US citizen what the verbage meant to them you would have not gotten the same answer or meaning described. We our a nation built on the principles of freedom and justice and the idea that we all have natural rights...we are not a nation built on some monolothic understanding of Christianity or even religious idealism as so many Americans like to assert.

Jenny - posted on 12/11/2009

It's complete horseshit is what it is. There is a seperation of church and state. That is the fundamental reason right there why one's religious leanings (or lack of leanings) has NO bearing whatsoever on there ability to be a positive political figure. The qualities required for a politician to be successful are found in people in all faiths, denominations, non beleivers and those who just haven't come to a conclusion yet.

Do you really think all the politicians out there now are staunch beleivers? Of course not, they're playing the game to get elected, which makes them liars. But that is how the current system is forced to work. Why? I haven't a clue but it's very disturbing.

The role of a politician is to carry out the will of the constituents, not their personal agenda, so the population they are repesenting is very diverse to begin with. Not Christian, not athiest, not Muslim but a mix of it all.

Colleen, many of those Christian traditions you listed are modern additions. Joy could fill you in on the details better than I but I know "In God We Trust" was added somewhere around WW2 time.

One has the right to practice whatever religion they see fit but not to preach it or force it's will on the people.

There is a shift happening right now in religion. It has always been sacred and something that could not be discussed and especially not debated, sometimes by fear of death. As our populations become more educated and our world more accessible through technology we will see the shift away from Christianty being considering the "default" position a thing of the past. It's gonna get ugly in the next few years but I beleive we will come into a more tolerant and accepting world on the other side. It's not about who's "right" and who's "wrong" as far as religion but how we can bring all of us together to make it work. Allowing only politicians who believe in the bible is not the way to go about it.

Sara - posted on 12/11/2009

Well, I certainly appreicate your input here...it's nice to see how other people think! :)

Colleen - posted on 12/11/2009

Sara, you're right, I should have said "religious beliefs" instead of "Christianity".



There are examples all over: "In God we trust" on our money, people swearing in on the Bible when they are sworn into office, people swearing on the Bible when they're on the stand in courtrooms, the Ten Commandments on the walls of many courtrooms, etc. God and religion are threaded into every part of our government. Some people think they shouldn't be, some people think they should, but that's not the point. The point is, God and religion are part of our history and tradition. And many Christians don't like the public shift away from that standard. Which is why they get riled up when people try to either a) remove those elements, or b) publicly speak or stand against them.



Again, this is just the perspective of many Christians.

Sara - posted on 12/11/2009

With all respect Colleen, I don't agree that "Historically and traditionally, the US has always been a 'Christian' nation". The men responsible for building the foundation of the United States had little use for Christianity, and many were strongly opposed to it. They were men of The Enlightenment, not men of Christianity. They were Deists who did not believe the bible was true. When the Founders wrote the nation's Constitution, they specified that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States". This provision was radical in its day-- giving equal citizenship to believers and non-believers alike. They wanted to ensure that no single religion could make the claim of being the official, national religion, such as England had. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention religion, except in exclusionary terms. The Declaration of Independence gives us important insight into the opinions of the Founding Fathers too. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the power of the government is derived from the governed. Up until that time, it was claimed that kings ruled nations by the authority of God. The Declaration was a radical departure from the idea of divine authority. The 1796 treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was "in no sense founded on the Christian religion". This treaty was written under the presidency of George Washington and signed under the presidency of John Adams. To me it seems clear that the founding fathers wanted to create a place where people were free to practice, or not practice, whichever religion they chose.



While I absolutely respect that your religion is close to your heart, I just don't agree with how conservatives believe that Christianity is the heart of our country and it's laws, as well as the basis of what it is founded upon and thus the reason why society is falling apart today, because people have gotten away from traditional values. That thought process seems to flow over into all hot-button issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc, to be used as reasons for our society is in a downward spiral. I just dont' agree.

Colleen - posted on 12/11/2009

Sara, believe it or not, but I do agree with you that it is hypocritical for one group to express outrage when an opposing group does something that they themselves have been doing for years.

I think one reason that many Christians get so upset when a situation like the atheists renting space on the bus happens, is that it shows a public shift away from the "values" that our country was founded upon. Historically and traditionally, the US has always been a "Christian" nation. God is woven through every part of our government. So when Christians see people so publicly denying something that our country has such a foundation on, it makes them (us) a little nervous. I'm not saying it's okay, I'm not saying it's right, I'm not even necessarily agreeing with them, I'm just trying to give an explanation as to why it seems Christians can freak out over stuff like that.

Same with the Christmas thing. "Keep Christ in Christmas." When that's the main reason you celebrate Christmas, you notice when the acknowledgement of 'Christ in Christmas' starts deteriorating. Christmas used to be far more acknowledged by name than it is now. Now it's "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" or whatever. Which is fine if you truly are trying to acknowledge other seasonal holidays. But when your kid's calendar comes home from school and it says "Happy Hanukkah!" on the first day of Hanukkah and "Season's Greetings!" on Christmas, people get upset about the inconsistency that seems to be slanted 'against' Christianity.

I hope this helps explain why some Christians act the way they do about stuff like this. Like I said earlier, I'm not saying that it's okay or right or anything, but I'm just hoping to shed a little light on the thought process. Nobody's perfect--Christians included!--and we all need to grow in certain areas.

Wanda - posted on 12/11/2009

The people decided who they wanted to represent them, his religion should be left out of it.

I'm Christain and I don't understand why such a big deal is made out of religion all the time. Live and let live.

Sara - posted on 12/11/2009

I agree, his religion shouldn't be an issue.



An interesting side note on this whole "Atheist" topic. I live in a town where there is a large University, so we have a pretty diverse population. A few months ago, an Atheist group bought some advertising space on the side of the city buses and intended to put up a sign that said "You can be good without God". There was a HUGE stink made about it and finally, the ACLU had to get involved and the group was granted the ability to put up their sign. So, a Christian group bought advertising space on the buses as well and put up a sign that said "You can be good without God, but you can't be saved without Jesus". No one had a problem with this. In fact, there are billboards around town (before this whole bus thing) that have specific religious messages on them about Abortion, Jesus, etc., and to my knowledge, no one ever raised an eyebrow. But, an atheist group puts up a sign on a bus and people are outraged. I have to say, I don't understand why? Is it offensive? Is it inappropriate? The town I live in is pretty liberal, so I was kind of shocked, but it just seemed so silly to me. If someone believes in God, then that's their right, if someone doesn't, it's their right too.

Colleen - posted on 12/10/2009

As a Christian, I think I have a different perspective from some of you! :-)



I think both sides of the religious debate (belief in God vs. belief in no God) can be incredibly rude in how they present their beliefs and I think both sides are equally disrespectful of the other. Jo, I agree with you that there are Christians who say that anybody who doesn't believe in God (or any god) are unintelligent. But I've also heard Christians being labeled as weak for having to trust in a higher power in order to get through life.



That being said, I think that in this specific situation, that law is antiquated. Like Joy said, the US Constitution trumps state constitutions. If the people elected this person to represent them, he should be allowed to do so.

?? - posted on 12/10/2009

I have been thinking about this quite a bit recently with all of the religious debates going on... why is one acceptable to dismiss, but the other isn't?



I have seen some people say that the person who doesn't believe in God is obviously unintelligent and couldn't possibly comprehend what life is about. I've seen people be told that their lives are meaningless, pointless, dull and barren because they do not have Jesus in their life. They are doomed and they are condemning themselves to hell for their insistance that God does not exist. They are deviant, sinful, stupid and blind to the 'truth' because of their belief that God does not exist. And all of these statements are accepted, they're not considered an attack of any sort, they're not considered out of line or unnecessary. It's considered an "opinion".



If someone says the bible [or any of it's counterparts depending on the religion] is a fairy tale and that anyone that believes it is naive, gullible, unable to grasp reality, it is considered an attack, it's considered out of line and unnecessary. It's not an opinion, it's an attack on the very right and foundation of someone's human rights and freedoms. It's a personal attack at the deepest level.



So I am wondering what is the difference between the two? Why is one an opinion (that can be stated as rudely as anyone wishes without so much as a blink from people who agree with them) and the other is an attack (that must be stated as politely as possible otherwise it's an even more personal attack)?



I've seen the people who completely dismiss other people's faith, in whatever it is they believe in, demand the uptmost respect and authority on any sort of religious topic. Only to turn around and completely blast anyone who says God does not exist, all the while insisting God does exist ---- or vice versa.



Why are either of these stances acceptable? Why is one more accepted than the other? Aren't both beliefs equally valid and worth the uptmost respect and consideration when we are choosing our words?



I am genuinely interested in knowing why it's acceptable for religious people to say as they please because it is their faith that tells them that it is the truth but it is not acceptable for an atheist or agnostic to say as they please even though it's their beliefs that tells them that it is the truth...? Why is one an opinion and the other an attack?



I'm sorry that it's not completely on topic - but I think it goes with the flow. If someone were to say (and the people who have said) that religion doesn't belong in government they are blasted, they are shot down, dismissed and called Christian bashers, 'faithists', they're told that they are asking the impossible by asking a Christian to remove their faith from their opinion... (which is another topic)... they are basically called stupid and are literally bullied for suggesting such a thing.................. but religious people can trash talk Atheists, they can say whatever they want and say it in any context they like (that being condescending, belittling, outright rude and hateful contexts) and it's acceptable -- and if anyone challenges their atheist hate speech, then that person is again told they are a Christian basher.





I feel it's necessary that I note I am not talking about anyone in particular - just in general.