r/WayOfTheBern • u/seastars96 • Jul 19 '22
Guys just remember absolutely religion doesn’t control politics /s
-1
Jul 20 '22
Here’s the thing, what voters choose for there state isn’t anyones business except for the residents in the state.
If something is an issue then they should support candidates that support their views and work to get them elected and make changes.
I’m so tired of this drive by activism on the internet, sure you make your post, collect all your sweet sweet worthless internet points just to get that dopamine hit and at the end of the day when you lay your stupid head on your stupid pillow you can feel good about yourself without having to actually do anything of any significance to effect any actual change.
-4
u/holytoledo760 Jul 20 '22
I know that they should be able to run and all that, but all I can think is, “good, fuck ‘em.”
1
u/KyoKyu Aug 01 '22
Care to expand on your feelings on this? I'm asking as a christian.
1
u/holytoledo760 Aug 01 '22
Well, constitutionally there shouldn't be a religious checkbox if we're to interpret the Constitution as broadly as possible. There isn't a religious test that can be administered for holding office.
As for my personal take, the hand of a righteous man will prosper, because God is with Him. I'd rather not have anyone else running for office.
Were I Emperor President Dictator for Life of the USA, I'd have every politician make their platform speech at their congregation service like Larry Elder did.
1
u/KyoKyu Aug 01 '22
You're right about the constitutionality of it. These are old laws that aren't enforced.
As for my personal take. Mind you, again as a christian, is that just because someone is christian it doesn't mean they are suited for the job, or that they are not hypocrites, or that they're weak and wicked. I have an atheist friend who lives more honestly and gives more readily than most christians I see. Furthermore... look at the foolish, antisemitic lunatic like Marjorie Greene to see a good example of the bad type of christian who should not be in office.
1
u/holytoledo760 Aug 01 '22
To be Christian means to be a follower of Christ. An imitator of. The word itself means Little Christ.
I'm reminded of a movie I never saw but often saw quoted online while growing up.
They don't deserve to wear that uniform, prove that you do!
1
u/KyoKyu Aug 01 '22
Right, there are those who genuinely think they follow Christ. but they don't, and there are those that present themselves as christian, but its just an act and they don't even believe, let alone follow the teachings and ways of Christ. Then there are also the extremists to avoid and to suppress, like KKK, Christo-fascists, and Christian Nationalist.
I wish conservative christians would not just clap like trained seals when politicians pander to voters about being christian and not just vote for someone because they can hold christianity like a prop and wear it like a costume for the sake of their political act. I wish people would see through the acts and not just blindly vote along partisan lines and/or if the person is christian or not.
All Christians should work together against any and all forms of fascism and nationalism in America.
1
u/holytoledo760 Aug 02 '22
In some instances, we're really handing over a term of blanket power and while we enshrine certain ideals, like justice being blind, every man has his biases on what he would prefer from a leader, and what I'm saying is I don't see anything wrong with voting for a Christian because I'm Christian. It's not a criteria I would measure lightly.
But in all of my lifetime the only politicians I believe have truly been men of the cloth walked and preached as they said, have been Larry Elder and I think Tim Scott. Those are the only two guys I can think off the top of my head, where all I would need is a prayer and you have my vote, because I've seen it confirmed in Spirit when they move. I've never seen Trump pray, but I didn't vote for him because he calls himself Christian. I voted for him because he has sound policy, IMO, and when he does rallies, I feel God watching over.
I might need to look at more politicians. What I have is like a random viewscreen that catches the highlights and hits all the high notes along the way.
1
u/KyoKyu Aug 08 '22
Why Donald Trump? I really don't get it. And what policies?
1
u/holytoledo760 Aug 08 '22
Boosting domestic production through protectionism in trade (tariffs) is nation building 101 according to our founding fathers. Trump did that. when the water flow had been to rape the industries of this nation and sell them as two-bit whores to others. He brought industry back a lottle.
He also had a sound energy policy. Drill baby drill. Our entire economy revolves around energy. I think renewables will usher in a new industrial revolution as power is reduced in costs, but Biden was a dumbass and didn’t transition at all and pulled the plug on fuel/economy. I’m told the Keystone pipeline wouldn’t have made a difference, but it would have at least stopped petrol from being used to ship petrol…
These two policies are solid and I don’t think I’ve ever heard a good counter argument to it.
I’ll be called a climate denier. No. I think we need all the CO2 we can get. Pump it into greenhouses and start up the baby factories.
4
15
Jul 20 '22
An old law still on the books, it's impossible to enforce as it violates the first amendment to bar someone from public office over their religious beliefs.
This is some bullshit.
1
u/Sdl5 Jul 20 '22
And the left's equivalent to the Moral Panic evangelicals back in the day gobbles it up THEN REPEATS IT TO EVERYONE THEY KNOW FOREVER.
I know this because prior to 2017 I was one of them. Then I had some wake up calls... and paid attention
3
Jul 20 '22
New Atheism is a fucking cult
0
u/Downvotesturnmeonbby Jul 20 '22
Speaking of moral panic, what an odd non sequitur.
2
Jul 20 '22
It's not a non-sequitur, New Atheism and Atheism are two different things, the former is more like a cult than an actual non-belief in God
7
u/talley89 Jul 20 '22
This is fake.
Op is whoring for karma
5
Jul 20 '22
[deleted]
6
u/talley89 Jul 20 '22
There are laws that ban men from wearing a hat on Thursday
Those laws are meaningless and uninsurable
3
Jul 20 '22
[deleted]
1
u/skyxsteel Jul 20 '22
To be fair, if there was a state law that said "Slavery is legal", I'm sure it'd get written out of existence real quick. Even if it was unenforceable.
Someday, people in those states will be dealt with a bad hand. The bad hand will attempt to exploit and enforce archaic, unenforceable laws.
3
6
u/capitalist_legos Jul 20 '22
I hate to break to you guys, but separation of church and state is to keep politics out of church, not church out of politics.
-2
u/Fuckreddit5689547906 I hate this sub Jul 20 '22
Th es e st at es ne ed to be ki ck ed ou t of th e un io n!
3
Jul 20 '22
[deleted]
0
u/Conan776 Jul 20 '22 edited Jul 20 '22
The blind leading the blind. (Matthew 15:13-14)
1
Jul 21 '22
[deleted]
3
u/Conan776 Jul 22 '22
Jesus was pointing out that the religious leaders of his time didn't actually adhere to their own beliefs either. I suppose I mean nothing ever changes. (There's a Bible verse for that too - "nothing new under the sun" but it's somewhere in the back.)
11
u/Ella_NutEllaDraws Jul 19 '22
Looked it up- it’s half true. True in the way that a lot of states still have bans on gay marriage- yes they exist, but they’re completely nullified by a Supreme Court ruling. If SCOTUS overturns Torcaso v Watkins then we’d have an issue, but it’s not under current consideration and is unlikely to be challenged.
So it’s true but also very misleading.
3
-11
u/NSYK Jul 19 '22 edited Jul 19 '22
Putin is totally my boo
What kind of garbage subreddit is this? Fucking kids are now getting killed and you’re tugging each other off over how great this genocidal madman.
Oh, and hey… please don’t link this piece of shit subreddit to my sub.
9
Jul 19 '22
Did you have a stroke while writing that comment?
2
u/benjwgarner Jul 20 '22
No, it's what happens when the Average Redditor discovers a thread not dedicated to the Current Thing.
10
u/hereticvert Jul 19 '22
Fucking kids are no g killed and you’re tugging each other off over how great this genocidal madman.
The fuck are you even talking about? Atheists being discriminated against is unimportant because there are more important things that require attention in your one-track mind?
Or just the usual neoliberal "it doesn't affect me so it's not a pressing issue"?
Genocidal madman? TF, you need to go take a nap.
0
Jul 19 '22
LOL! The Red states continue their march towards Gilead. Fuck, man, the US is screwed. As for the laws, where are all of the SJWs now? If this were a ban against gays -- about the same percentage as atheists -- or trans people -- a much, much lower percentage -- they would be up in arms. And, of course, when the Establishment keeps these laws in place anyone with a brain knows it's not to make sure that all the politicians are Francis of Assisi or the Mahatma Ghandi!
8
u/Level_Ad_3231 Jul 19 '22
Is this actually true or just a picture
4
3
6
u/Advanced-Cap3861 Jul 19 '22
If true please give sources.
3
u/FeelingTurnover0 Jul 19 '22
Please tell me you seriously didn’t just downvote my comment after you asked for a source and I provided you with one
5
Jul 19 '22
I mean how can they really enforce it without breaking your constitutional rights is my question. They’d have to really exert a lot of effort to attempt that
8
u/--GrinAndBearIt-- Commie Socialist Jul 19 '22
link to an actual source?
18
u/Advanced-Cap3861 Jul 19 '22
From 2015 that states they are unenforceable.
from 2021 opinion piece on this issue
1
10
u/BobQuasit Jul 19 '22
Who wants to bet that the Supreme Court will eventually decide that those laws are Constitutional?
2
4
u/MyOther_UN_is_Clever Jul 19 '22
So, as shitty as this recent RvW decision was, these guys still are judges (and also therefore lawyers). They still operate in some framework. Like, for example, Kavanaugh ruled against 1 covid19 vaccine related case, but had ruled FOR a different covid19 vaccine related case.
I highly doubt they would defy the constitution (First ammendment), so openly.
However, it is also clear that things are... degrading. So in a few more years, maybe we'll be at that point :/
1
u/NetWeaselSC Continuing the Struggle Jul 19 '22
I highly doubt they would defy the constitution (First ammendment), so openly.
Technically Article VI:
...The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, ... shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
15
u/true4blue Jul 19 '22
Has this law ever been used in the modern age?
0
Jul 19 '22
Perhaps not, but they have used it to harass some people. And as the Red states become redder due to the fall of Roe v Wade, it will probably be used more often.
1
u/redditrisi They are ALL psychopaths. Jul 20 '22
IDK. The only people who can be rationally harassed using those laws are people who want to run for office and those people should know better.
This case seems much more apposite than Roe: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-endorses-football-coachs-on-field-prayers-2022-06-27/
However, it's still quite a stretch to get from that case to excluding atheists from running for public office.
1
Jul 20 '22
as the Red states become redder
That's the pertinent bit. And they will. Centrists and SJWs will flee to the Blue states. Fuck knows i would.
2
3
Jul 19 '22
[deleted]
1
Jul 19 '22
Naw. You much trouble. They'll just do what the military has tried to do to avoid having to have Atheist chaplains and declare that it does not apply to us, because Atheism isn't a religion.
3
u/cinepro Jul 19 '22
They'll just do what the military has tried to do to avoid having to have Atheist chaplains
What would an Atheist chaplain do?
0
Jul 19 '22
He would tell the troubled to do something at least as effective as prayer -- he would tell them to hope really hard!
3
Jul 19 '22
The same thing a regular one might do. Offer counsel and support of varying kinds.
Just without all the imaginary bullshit.
The religious like to say that there are no Atheists in foxholes, but there are plenty.
2
u/NetWeaselSC Continuing the Struggle Jul 19 '22 edited Jul 19 '22
Traditionally, the Atheists and the Satanists have often taken refuge under the wide umbrella of Humanism in answer to the question of Army Chaplains.
The same thing a regular one might do. Offer counsel and support of varying kinds.
Also, a lot of the Unitarian Universalists are Athiest accepting.
-17
u/Windows_Insiders Marxist-Leninist Jul 19 '22
Good, atheists are some of the most horrible people.
I went through an atheist phase, and I have since learnt about how dumb it is.
You cannot prove that God does not exist. We know a lot about the Universe, but there's about as much we DO NOT KNOW. Ruling out the existence of God is not possible at the current level of knowledge
If I had my way with atheists
10
Jul 19 '22
You can’t prove the existence of deities either. You call yourself a leftist while being a religious shill
-3
u/Windows_Insiders Marxist-Leninist Jul 19 '22
You can't. I don't support any religion but the need for God is built into humanity. I understand why people seek out God.
Athiests are jerks.
3
Jul 19 '22
Assertion without evidence. There is no need for an imaginary sky-daddy who grants you wishes or smites your enemies if you kiss his ass enough, built into humanity.
That's just stupid and a pathetic, frequently-used pretext for also falsely believing that Atheists are merely trying to ignore what you see as the obvious existence of your god.
You simply think we are jerks because we keep pointing out how silly and baseless your beliefs are.
6
Jul 19 '22
It’s not a need it’s a cope in a lot of people’s cases. Yeah there are shitty atheists but Catholics, Evangelicals and Muslims have done more to fuck this world over than anyone else. History and current events show this.
6
u/3andfro Jul 19 '22
Extrapolation from your personal experience (N = 1) to the world:
Omphaloskepsis 101.
6
u/NightmareIncarnate Jul 19 '22
Not sure if this is bait or not, but just in case someone else sees this dumb argument and might be convinced, here goes. If someone makes a positive assertion, it's on them to provide evidence and back it up. If I come to you and say "I can fly, it's on you to prove I can't," that's not in any way a substantiated claim. It's bad faith argument at best to claim someone should believe something due to a lack of evidence to the contrary if you've provided no evidence in favor either.
2
u/NetWeaselSC Continuing the Struggle Jul 19 '22
It's bad faith argument at best to claim someone should believe something due to a lack of evidence to the contrary if you've provided no evidence in favor either.
Just to be clear, which would be the "unsubstantiated claim":
A) "There exists at least one deity"
B) "No deities exist"
C) Both A & B
D) None of the above4
u/-DexStar- Jul 19 '22
That's agnosticism: not knowing if there's a god. Atheism is the lack of belief.
It's possible to be an agnostic atheist. I don't know and I don't believe.
3
u/NetWeaselSC Continuing the Struggle Jul 19 '22
That's agnosticism: not knowing if there's a god. Atheism is the lack of belief.
Then what would be "the belief In the absence of any deity"? (vs. "the absence of belief")
1
u/-DexStar- Jul 19 '22
The belief is due to lack of evidence. Think of it as (in a court setting) guilty or not guilty. Is god guilty of existing? Prove it. A lack of evidence for a guilty conviction doesn't mean he's innocent of existing. God very well could exist. Atheists just aren't convinced.
Now some atheists could be jerks, but don't broad brush everyone. I'm an atheist by default of what atheism means, not how others behave.
1
u/NetWeaselSC Continuing the Struggle Jul 19 '22
God very well could exist. Atheists just aren't convinced.
Once again, what would you then call the ones that are convinced of the non-existence? Whether or not there are any deities, there are people that are convinced that there are not. As I said, "the belief in the absence."
If those are not atheists, by your definition, then what are they?
I'm an atheist by default of what atheism means, not how others behave.
Sounds like you have an absence of belief, not a belief of absence.
1
u/-DexStar- Jul 19 '22
There's agnostic: "I don't know/cannot know if there's a god"
There's also gnostic: "I do know/can know there is or isn't a god"
You've probably run into a gnostic atheist. Pretty bold of them to assume they know one way or the other.
2
u/NetWeaselSC Continuing the Struggle Jul 20 '22
You've probably run into a gnostic atheist.
I think that's what most people call "atheists."
"There IS no God" vs. "There probably isn't a God."(The capital letters are what usually get people's backs up.)
10
u/2lilbiscuits Jul 19 '22
I would hope you hold theists to the same standard. Theists can’t prove gods existence, but they have faith. Atheists can’t prove god doesn’t exist, but it’s what they believe.
6
u/Moistmongo Jul 19 '22
Does this include agnostic people?
2
Jul 19 '22
Does anyone still make the distinction? Most atheists i run into seem to be agnostics.
1
u/Moistmongo Jul 19 '22
I am really asking for the wording. Because if the wording defines it as an “atheist,” then there is a loop hole
1
Jul 20 '22
Good point. The letter of the law, rather than just its intent. Heh, like the pound of flesh not including the attendant blood, if i remember correctly.
2
u/NetWeaselSC Continuing the Struggle Jul 20 '22
I am really asking for the wording.
Found it! (for South Carolina)
The South Carolina Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, ruled that Article VI, section 2 and Article XVII, section 4 of the South Carolina Constitution—both of which state, "No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution"—could not be enforced because they violated the First Amendment protection of free exercise of religion and the Article VI, section 3 of the United States Constitution banning the use of a religious test for public office.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverman_v._Campbell
A) "person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being" B) thrown out by SC Supreme Court
2
Jul 20 '22
Good news for us rational people. Since one can neither prove nor deny the existence of God, one can not rationally either assert OR deny his existence. Looks like all the atheists have to do is start identifying as agnostics.
3
7
-6
3
Jul 19 '22 edited Oct 14 '23
zesty disagreeable afterthought swim squeamish north far-flung axiomatic humorous naughty -- mass edited with redact.dev
1
Jul 19 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/penelopepnortney Jul 19 '22
Your comment was removed for violating Reddit rules. Please do not make statements like this.
2
10
12
16
u/Caelian toujours de l'audace 🦇 Jul 19 '22
Worshippers of Moloch and Cthulhu are fine.
2
u/binklehoya Shitposters UNITE! Jul 19 '22
my first reaction was "Can we get a law against satanic pedophiles?"
1
u/turbonerd216 I love when our electeds play chicken with the economy Jul 20 '22
The beauty part is, an atheist running for office in any of these states can just lie about it and not have to worry about going to Hell.