Hilary's finest moments

No it doesn't - not one mentions the Christian god.

The exact quote for Mississippi is:

"SECTION 265.
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state." - with a Supreme Being being any god of the monotheistic religions, even Wiccans!

Again, examples of other states:

Pennsylvania Article 1 Section 4
"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth." - note - "a" god

Tennessee Article 9 Section 2
"No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state." - not "the being of God" not Christian god

Texas Article 1 Section 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." - same as above

Hence, implied meanings cannot and would not hold up.

 

It is true that our Constitution has been ammended a few times. From God (1817), to "a" god (1832), to a supreme being (1868 to present). However, there is still no room for ambiguity here as the preamble to the present Constitution states: "We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and involving his blessing on our work, do ordain and establish this Constitution." That is "Almighty" God and it is "his" blessing. Now, surely tou will not contest the fact that the reference made to Almighty God is none other than Jehovah - the name given by God to Moses, or would you?

 

Confusius also say, "He who find himself in doghouse too long soon end up in cathouse."

 

The word Almighty is an adjective and would be applicable to a god in any monotheistic religion - be it Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism etc etc.

In fact to say Almighty God is a tautology anyway - the concept and definition of God, as believed-in in the above religions, includes the concept of almightiness by being omnipotent and omnipresent

So, no I don't believe that it only refers to the Christian god - Jehovah may play a part in the Jeudo-Christian and Islamic belief systems but certainly doesn't in eastern religions such as Sikhism.

A Sikh could quite happily take that oath without reference to Christianity.

 

Sounds like a good outcome.

 

Amrit, the Supreme Court reversed the original judgement against The Church of the Holy Trinity simply "because" -they- -were- -then- -dealing- -with- -a- -Christian- -establishment. And, if you read my post carefully you will notice how I worded the following concerning Congress and religion: "congress" would/could not "deny that this IS a religious (Christian) nation as made apparent by the Supreme Court decision - The Church Of The Holy Trinity v. United States." I did not say that it established that this is a religious nation. Furthermore, nearly every preamble of each state Constitution gives credence to "Almighty God" and, although not specifically noted, noone in his/her right mind, especially in "this" country regardless of their own belief, would deny the FACT that when those words were included it was in the person of the God of the Holy Bible who was being implied.
Za Rodinu, Yes I have a problem. And I would be willing to bet my right AND left ass cheek that it is the same problem on the mind of every mainstream American who cares how quickly his country is rolling downhill like a snowball headed for hell.

 

So, setting aside the discrimination against atheists, you are actively advocating the discrimination of non-Christians who may wish, and be very capable,of taking a post in local government unless they reject their own religion and become Christians?

Because by your interpretation of these constitutions, any non-Christian who was to take that oath would be commiting perjury by not accepting that the Supreme God is the biblical one.

Would this then apply to all walks of American life where a non-Christian American citizen has to take an oath - what about in the military. Because if so, then maybe non-Christians should take not part in activities like this:

http://www.nriinternet.com/Section3Who/WhoUSA/Defense/Ranbir_Kaur/index.htm

 

While none of these views are law, I believe that, to hold any civil office in this country, a man/woman should first aknowledge the existence of Jehovah. Yes. That is to voluntarily serve in a capacity for the welfare of citizens of which the main populace is Christian. Members of the military, on the other hand, should not be required to aknowledge belief in anything apart from their unwavering commitment to obey orders because they have, although voluntarily, given their freedom under a democracy to become the physical property of an organization that is not and could not be managed effectively as a democracy. Furthermore, it is my own personal opinion that women, although useful in many roles in our military, should not be employed in a combat related field (as the case of the Indian girl "slinging an M16 over her shoulder" to "patrol the streets of Kabul") because they simply do not have the emotional/physical capacity or dexterity as men do that is necessary to succeed in combat.

 

So in other words, you would actively deny a non-Christian the right to serve a community purely on the basis of their religion. So, if two applicants went for a local government job, you would choose one who may be less qualified and not as capable, but who was a Christian, over one who was better qualified, more capable, and more willing to exert their energies for the benefit of the whole community but who happened to be a Sikh or Muslim.

In that case it would be your lose.

Within the scope of your arguement that principle is irrelevant because you have already denied the right of democracy by vetting those that could stand in it. By excluding the right of non-Christians to hold public office, the principle of equal suffrage (which includes holding power as well as influencing it) is negated.

I think the Israeli army would disagree with your point - their female soldiers seem more than a match for their male counterparts. And the Soviet Union employed females in frontline units without any problems - including elite fighter squadrons.

And the examples of guerilla warfare shows that women have shown themselves to be just as emotionally and physically capable as men - in fact, during WW2, female agents and resistence fighters were found to be better able to resist torture than men.

 

Ya darn tootin!

 

A government job with a required acknowledgement such as this would be one in which the government employee is a servant to the people such as President, Senator, state representative, local councilman, etc., (where laws are born, passed, enforced for instance) not merely a civil servant like a W.G., W.S. type worker. That's more in the way to what I was referring.

 

So you do not acknowledge or accept the 13 Jewish Senators; or Keith Ellison (a Representative for Minnesota) who is a Muslim? Or Hank Johnson (a Representative for Georgia) who is a Buddhist)?

And Pete Stark (a Representative for California) has openly stated that he is a nontheist - a "Unitarian who does not believe in a supreme being".

They must of obviously taken an oath of office - and their oath was accepted, even though they have openly acknowledged their religious prefereance. And their constituents must have known this, and still accepted that Non-Christians can play a part in public life.

 

Whether or not I acknowledge or accept these people is irrelevant. I am simply advocating a return to the beliefs and practices that were common during the early years of my nation. It was with these very ideals that the U.S.A. was allowed to grow and prosper thereby becoming the greatest and most sought to live in nation in the history of man. Since God Almighty has been shunned we have been spiraling out of control - crime, immorality, homosexuality and all manner of perversion are becoming more and more accepted/normalized. People, due strongly in part to the greed and power that politicians seek instead of the will of the almighty, have been made reprobate, and, having embraced corruption, contrary to CHRISTIAN beliefs, have done irreversible damage to the future of America. Although the Jewish religion is more passive than the other two, Buddhists practice self-immolation and Islam orders conversion or death. These religions are not in line with what is best for America. What you may call an evolution from infant ideals, I call a marked decadence that is sounding the death knell.

 

Heh heh heh! ;-D

 

....

 

Now to pull the thread back on track...