You are not logged in.
<b><font size="+1">Groups Try to Strip Atheist Provision From Arkansas Constitution </font></b> <BR> <BR>From Adventist Review Online: <BR> <BR>A religious liberty watchdog group has joined a campaign to strip the Arkansas Constitution of a provision that prohibits atheists from holding office and testifying in court. <BR> <BR>The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty sent a letter on February 17 to the Arkansas legislature in support of a bill to amend Article 19, Section 1, of the Arkansas Constitution, which states: "No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court." <BR> <BR>"The free expression of religious belief, together with what James Madison called 'the full and equal rights of conscience,' should apply to people of all religious traditions -- including atheists. Government should no more penalize a person for professing atheism than for professing a belief in Christianity, Buddhism, or Islam," the Becket Fund letter said. <BR> <BR>Although the letter acknowledged the atheist provision isn't likely to be enforced, it compared it to laws currently in nations such as Saudi Arabia and Iran that discount court testimonies of non-Muslims, denying them of full civil and political rights. <BR> <BR>Eric Rassbach, national litigation director at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, believes that removing this portion of the <BR>constitution is more than mere symbolism. <BR> <BR>"It signals to U.S. citizens and to the rest of the world, that the freedom and sanctity of conscience -- including the right to believe there is no God at all--is a fundamental right for all people," Rassbach said. <BR> <BR>The U.S. Supreme Court declared a similar Maryland law discriminating against atheists unconstitutional in 1961, according to the Becket Fund. South Carolina's constitution was amended in 1997. Texas and Tennessee still have similar provisions in their state constitutions.
Offline
Todays' guest moderator is Rebecca Goldstein, a MacArthur Fellow, philosophy professor and novelist. <BR> <BR>In his inaugural address, President Obama described America as, "a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers." By including the last group was he lending legitimacy to moral relativism? <BR> <BR>Fyodor Dostoevsky seems to have thought so. The Russian novelist had his character Ivan Karamazov declare that that if there is no God, then all is permitted. From a literary perspective it’s a good line, but I think it’s also deeply and dangerously mistaken. The reasoning behind it goes like this: There are many different moral systems and they tend to be at odds with one another. What counts as a rape in one society constitutes a marriage ceremony in another. A morally condoned honor killing among some is considered first-degree murder among others. And if there is no higher authority to adjudicate between these competing notions, then there is no saying who is right and who is wrong. So nonbelievers must believe there is no right or wrong. And even if they do, the argument continues, what could possibly motivate them to do the right thing? With no one watching from above, they’ll do what they can get away with, right? <BR> <BR>What's seriously wrong with this sort of reasoning that equates religion with morality is that it underestimates our ability to tell right from wrong. People recognize fundamental distinctions between right and wrong when it comes to how they themselves are treated. We see it in our kids from earliest childhood, in their puckered up little faces when they wail “it’s not fair!” That’s the starting point, and reason compels us to acknowledge that if we’re deserving of being treated fairly and decently so must everyone else be, too. In other words, the Golden Rule tells us how to adjudicate between competing moral claims: treat others as you would like to be treated yourself Every religion has its version, but there’s nothing essentially religious about it. It’s just correct reasoning. Reward and punishment might provide extra boosts for some, but it’s empathy and compassion that do most of the heavy lifting, in religious and non-religious do-gooders alike. <BR> <BR>What do you think? Are nonbelievers on shakier moral ground than believers
Offline
You want it both ways, Elaine, Ben Carson raised in a publicly funded foster home would probably turned out different that raise by his mother, who had to be abscent to mend herself, but she left strict instructions with who she left looking after her boys. Change that formula, and you take a chance on the result. <BR> <BR>But you don't like honor killings, you want to change that, why, because it offends your sensibilities. I happen to agree with that position, but how many other things can we mention that don't matter that we could disagree on.
Offline
Elaine, if a non believer can be allowed to sneak in my back door and abduct my daughter and do unimaginable things to her then..... <BR>Well, then no unbelievers need bounds, as do people who do this sort of stuff in the name of religion. It could be argued that he was just pursuing happiness guarunteed by the constitution, BUT it invades my right to safety, and my pursuit of happiness, and that is where the law and government have to protect and defend. Some religions are more dangerous than others, some unbelievers are more dangerous than others. Some unbelievers, can be helped by religion, some can be made worse by religion. Govenrment run amuk can make things worse or if they have good principles, can protect and defend better. Vote carefully!!!
Offline
<font color="0000ff">... my right to safety....</font> <BR> <BR>Could you please explain where I might find this "right to safety"? <BR> <BR>I think some state constitutions have a clause about the right to <i>pursue</i> safety but in my studies I don't recall this being a right of citizens or residents in this country. <BR> <BR><font color="0000ff">Vote carefully!!!</font> <BR> <BR>Do you vote carefully by absentee ballot in the Canadian elections? As a citizen, I do vote carefully. Please refrain from telling us how to vote.
Offline
Neal, cool your jets. I'll say what I feel. If you don't like it, don't read or respond. I'm a taxpayer, that's enough.
Offline
Avoiding your claim that we have a constitutional right to safety? <BR> <BR><font color="0000ff">I'll say what I feel. If you don't like it, don't read or respond.</font> <BR> <BR>Practice what you preach. Hardly a day goes by when you are not kicking and screaming and calling on Ryan for help. <BR> <BR>Pathetic.
Offline
Have that nice day, Neal.
Offline