Maybe George Sr is why George Jr is so **** dumb!!

[chicamahomico]

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."

- George Bush, to a AA reporter Robert I. Sherman in August 27,1987, while serving as vice-president and running for President, Full text of exchange follows:

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are Atheists?
Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the Atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are Atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens,
nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle
the separation of state and church?
Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on Atheists.

[chicamahomico]

This is where it came from: http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/s...rch_state.html

It can't be true.....somebody tell me it isn't. How can a President of the most influential nation on the planet be so ignorant?

[BigGreen]

This is where it came from: http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/s...rch_state.html

It can't be true.....somebody tell me it isn't. How can a President of the most influential nation on the planet be so ignorant?

Trueth though thist may be, thy "new world" dareth be presumed not to surpasseth the glory of England, doth it? Ignorance doth pervadeth thy "presidents" and peasants aliketh, though I doth profess to sayeth that in the instance of "presidents" sucheth an ignorance doth spurn troubles most foul. *

*http://anabolicreview.com/vbulletin/...ad.php?t=74811

[PTbyJason]

I found several web sites that contain the quote, unfortunately none of them are from a respected news organization or journalist. I think if President GHW Bush had said this at a news conference, of all places, it would have been front page news throughout the country for months. I do not remember any uproar in 1987 about this.

I think it may be urban legend and nothing more.

If someone could provide a link to a real news orgainzation that reported this I would like to see it.

Posted by: Jim Brown at October 28, 2003 01:30 PM

I've found that quote was claimed to have been made in 1982 as well as 1997 and 1988 depending on which website I visit.

I think it's purely myth.

[Dude-Man]

senior unlike junior is very eloquent.. i doubt he would say "i'm not very high on atheists"

[sin]

i dont see why this would surprise anyone. religious people try and force their beliefs on everyone. its like any other group, if your not with them your, against them. (no intent to upset the religious folk, i dont dislike you i just know you dislike me).

[PTbyJason]

i dont see why this would surprise anyone. religious people try and force their beliefs on everyone. its like any other group, if your not with them your, against them. (no intent to upset the religious folk, i dont dislike you i just know you dislike me).

ummm, got to disagree with this statement. You made a huge character generalization with that statement.

I personally don't feel it is my place to force my beliefs on others and I don't judge others either. If I feel that someone comes to me and wants to talk about religion, I am going to be as open and honest as I can be. But they begin the discussion and I am there primarily to listen and answer questions they may have.

So why do people "force their beliefs" on others? If there is a situation where someone who does believe in God hears someone speaking against God, they will more than likely speak up. Just like those who do not believe in God will speak up when someone talks about their beliefs in God. Why? Because someone is speaking against what they believe in with all of their heart.

Those who study any type of activity, religion, subject matter, etc... will speak up when a related topic is brought up based on their knowledge and understandings. Understand that there is so much more out there in protest to God and the Bible than there is in support, and unfortunately it is more so every day.

[sin]

let me start this by saying i have the utmost respect for those who are religious. however, through the years i can think of countless people that i have worked with, parents of friends and girlfriends, as well as people who randomly show up at my door or talk to me while im in a city park, etc who have tried to show me their beliefs, and then get upset or even outright angry if i question them. ive even had people go as far as telling me that they knew i was the devil in disguise trying to mess up their minds. i know i made some generalizations in my previous statement, and i apologize, but there certainly is that block of society that want everyone to be like them.
as for people protesting god and the bible, i do agree with you in that i really think this is a problem, because most people in american society get their views of right and wrong based on these teachings.
anyway, i dont disrespect anyone for any culture, custom, beliefs, or anything of the sort, but ive found plenty of people who will push on me for my beliefs (or lack of beliefs as it were).

[PTbyJason]

let me start this by saying i have the utmost respect for those who are religious. however, through the years i can think of countless people that i have worked with, parents of friends and girlfriends, as well as people who randomly show up at my door or talk to me while im in a city park, etc who have tried to show me their beliefs, and then get upset or even outright angry if i question them. ive even had people go as far as telling me that they knew i was the devil in disguise trying to mess up their minds. i know i made some generalizations in my previous statement, and i apologize, but there certainly is that block of society that want everyone to be like them.
as for people protesting god and the bible, i do agree with you in that i really think this is a problem, because most people in american society get their views of right and wrong based on these teachings.
anyway, i dont disrespect anyone for any culture, custom, beliefs, or anything of the sort, but ive found plenty of people who will push on me for my beliefs (or lack of beliefs as it were).

I can't argue with that. Those were your experiences, so I will believe you. It's not my place to judge if they were right or wrong for what they did. That is between God and them. I would hope that they were felt it was their place to speak, so they did so. But it isn't my place to say if they were right or wrong at that time. I do understand your original statement more now. Thank you for clearing it up.

Personally I like to hear both sides about things such as religion. I don't have all of the answers for people. I have no problem with people questioning my beliefs. I may not always have all of the answers, but it motivates me to seek out those answers so that I can speak about my beliefs with confidence. In all honesty I have only recently recommitted myself to God. I have so much to learn, but everyday of my life my confidence grows in my beliefs. I only speak when I truly feel that I should. Listening seems to be the most important thing I can do most of the time.

I don't know if this thread was suppose to be about all of this or not. If we got off topic, I'm sorry about that.

[sin]

yeah, i guess were kinda off topic, sorry chicamahomico you can have your thread back now.

[RON]

Even if he feet that way, No one running for president would say that. If he did the other Candidates would all have commercials made up from it in 10 mins. No way that happened.

[chicamahomico]

Even if he feet that way, No one running for president would say that. If he did the other Candidates would all have commercials made up from it in 10 mins. No way that happened.

Thats what I figured. **** self serving special interest groups!!

yeah, i guess were kinda off topic, sorry chicamahomico you can have your thread back now.

No worries guys, I posted up this thread for the hell of it.....its a garbage thread anyway.

[Tock]

I've found that quote was claimed to have been made in 1982 as well as 1997 and 1988 depending on which website I visit.

I think it's purely myth.

============


I checked most of the sites you referenced and saw most dates were 1988 and only one was 1987. The one that said 1987 was from a newsgroup post, not from some lofty organization, so I kinda think it was probably just a typo.
I vaguely recall seeing references to that event in the Dallas Times Herald . . . was just a little blurb, it's the sort of thing that I've found merits little attention here in the Dallas area.
.. I've found that people are seldom bothered when they learn I'm gay, but for some reason most people are uncomfortable when I tell them I'm an atheist. So I don't think too many folks get their panties in a wad when atheists get shafted. Yah, in some states like here in Texas, it's unconsitutional for atheists to hold public office

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/txcon...00-000400.html
The Texas Constitution
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 4 - RELIGIOUS TESTS
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.

Last I checked, it's illegal to publicly criticise the Bible on a public street in Arkansas. Gets ya jail time, I think it was . . .

There's crazy laws like this still around in several states, and there's not much said about 'em. The US Senate pays its chaplain something like $168,000 a year just to do a daily prayer once a day, and then only when they're in session. Plus he gets an expense account, an office, and two secretaries. Taxpayers fork over the cash for this, all just for 4 prayers a week for 9 months a year. The US Congress has a similar deal going, too.
Yah, as far as the $$$ amount goes, it's a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things. But the total $$$ for those weekly prayers could buy an awful lot of medicine for sick kids, or books for a library, or maybe half of a HARM missile to shoot in the next big war.
. I've pointed this stuff out to people, and the reaction is usually a yawn. Yah, I can see you yawning now. So what? So what. Ya don't give a **** about the little stuff, then ya can't do anything about the big stuff, then nothing improves. Eyes glaze over then re-focus on the TV and bag of cheetos and the tube sucks their minds dry and tells 'em how to vote . . .

So yah, maybe once upon a time, people would express outrage over this stuff. But times have changed and folks don't care so much about protecting their civil rights any more. Oh well .. . it's your kids future, not mine (I ain't got any) .. .

--Tock
www.babesagainstbush.com

[PTbyJason]

============


I checked most of the sites you referenced and saw most dates were 1988 and only one was 1987. The one that said 1987 was from a newsgroup post, not from some lofty organization, so I kinda think it was probably just a typo.
I vaguely recall seeing references to that event in the Dallas Times Herald . . . was just a little blurb, it's the sort of thing that I've found merits little attention here in the Dallas area.
.. I've found that people are seldom bothered when they learn I'm gay, but for some reason most people are uncomfortable when I tell them I'm an atheist. So I don't think too many folks get their panties in a wad when atheists get shafted. Yah, in some states like here in Texas, it's unconsitutional for atheists to hold public office

www.capitol.state.tx.us/txconst/sections/cn000100-000400.html
The Texas Constitution
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 4 - RELIGIOUS TESTS
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.

Last I checked, it's illegal to publicly criticise the Bible on a public street in Arkansas. Gets ya jail time, I think it was . . .

There's crazy laws like this still around in several states, and there's not much said about 'em. The US Senate pays its chaplain something like $168,000 a year just to do a daily prayer once a day, and then only when they're in session. Plus he gets an expense account, an office, and two secretaries. Taxpayers fork over the cash for this, all just for 4 prayers a week for 9 months a year. The US Congress has a similar deal going, too.
Yah, as far as the $$$ amount goes, it's a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things. But the total $$$ for those weekly prayers could buy an awful lot of medicine for sick kids, or books for a library, or maybe half of a HARM missile to shoot in the next big war.
. I've pointed this stuff out to people, and the reaction is usually a yawn. Yah, I can see you yawning now. So what? So what. Ya don't give a **** about the little stuff, then ya can't do anything about the big stuff, then nothing improves. Eyes glaze over then re-focus on the TV and bag of cheetos and the tube sucks their minds dry and tells 'em how to vote . . .

So yah, maybe once upon a time, people would express outrage over this stuff. But times have changed and folks don't care so much about protecting their civil rights any more. Oh well .. . it's your kids future, not mine (I ain't got any) .. .

--Tock
www.babesagainstbush.com

It sounds like you took everything I said very personally bro. I have nothing at all against you, but I will respond.

There were also websites that said 1982. The 1987 could have been a typo, I agree with that, but there are still 2 different years out there, therefore there is still no definite proof of the quote. I can also see Dallas cutting the story because he is a Texas boy, but the internet reaches organizations worldwide. No actual media organization website has shown this quote. I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm just saying that there is lack of proof of it.

Personally I'm not uncomfortable if you are atheist or gay. You have the same rights as an American as I do. I honestly do not believe any person running for office has been told they cannot run for office because they are atheist. I understand that is a law on the books, but I want you to find me an example of someone this happened to. There are laws that were done decades ago that are no longer enforced. I can find examples in every state of laws that were made and are not enforced. Let's take Texas since we were talking about it.

Criminals are required to give their victims 24 hours notice, either orally or in writing, and to explain the nature of the crime to be committed.
Illegal to raise alligators in your home.
When two trains meet each other at a railroad crossing, each shall come to a full stop, and neither shall proceed until the other has gone.
You need a five-dollar permit to go barefoot.
Kingsville: Two pigs cannot have sex on the city's airport property.
Lefors: Illegal to take more than three swallows of beer at any time while standing.
San Antonio: Illegal for both sexes to flirt or respond to flirtation using the eyes and/or hands.

Don't get so worked up over old laws. I am sure that if you ran for office they would not tell you that you are not allowed to run. I wouldn't even imagine the question coming up during your campaigning.

The government blows a ton of money on things that are ridiculous. I will be the first to admit it. Is it something to yawn about? Of course not, but no one is doing anything about it. $168,000 is a ton of money. I'd love to be the one getting that kind of money, but I also wish that the ones that are serving as a chaplain volunteered their time. I don't know what job they do whenever they are not praying. I would imagine for them to have secretaries, they do more than make a couple of appearance a month. Neither of us have the entire story in order to make a fair judgement. This is all a totally different argument that we are getting off on here. If I told you that Clinton spent $50 million on a India/Pakistan trip when he was office, would it make you feel better? Of course not. Don't make assumptions that I don't care about those kinds of things, I really don't know why think I would "yawn" about that. It is very important, but it is a different argument for another day. Oh, and I hate Cheetos.

I would love to see the US rise up and tell the gov't to stop wasting money. Nothing would make me prouder. I don't have kids either, so at this time it doesn't affect me personally. But my friends have kids and your friends have kids and I want the best for them. I want this country that we grow up in to be better and better for the next generation. Personally I feel that you have every civil right that I have, but you are more than welcome to try and prove me wrong. Now we are going to be way off topic with this statement. I feel there is more discrimation in regards to color of skin or gender. I am caucasian and male, but I still feel that there are certain races and females do not always get the same civil rights, and it is very unfortunate.

Again, I will reiterate. I'm not sure if I pissed you off or not, but I have nothing but love for you bro. You are entitled to your opinions just like I am. I honesty can't recall any time that I have ever bashed someone because of their beliefs, and that's not going to change.

[Tock]

=========
JASON -- It sounds like you took everything I said very personally bro. I have nothing at all against you, but I will respond.
=========

TOCK-- Not at all . . . I guess it just seems that way, as I have a tendency to be a bit *too* thorough when making a point. Nah, I'm pretty much used to everyday xxxx nowadays, but still get riled over gov't or orher big organization's bullying

=========
JASON--There were also websites that said 1982. The 1987 could have been a typo, I agree with that, but there are still 2 different years out there, therefore there is still no definite proof of the quote. I can also see Dallas cutting the story because he is a Texas boy, but the internet reaches organizations worldwide. No actual media organization website has shown this quote. I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm just saying that there is lack of proof of it.
========

TOCK--Huh. Ok . . . I'm sure that if we were to trudge through the video files of CBS or whoever, we'd find the tapes. My guess is if this issue ever comes to the national front burner, yah, we'll see the tape. But if you won't be convinced until you see the actual footage, that's cool. There's lots of things I won't beleive either until I actually see it.

========
JASON -- Personally I'm not uncomfortable if you are atheist or gay. You have the same rights as an American as I do. I honestly do not believe any person running for office has been told they cannot run for office because they are atheist. I understand that is a law on the books, but I want you to find me an example of someone this happened to. There are laws that were done decades ago that are no longer enforced. I can find examples in every state of laws that were made and are not enforced. Let's take Texas since we were talking about it.
---s n i p ---
Don't get so worked up over old laws. I am sure that if you ran for office they would not tell you that you are not allowed to run. I wouldn't even imagine the question coming up during your campaigning.
=======

TOCK-- Check it out--it's been a problem in South Carolina : www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=2477

Atheist Sues To Become Notary Public Without Swearing To God
COLUMBIA, South Carolina (CWN) - An avowed atheist went before the South
Carolina Supreme Court today arguing that he should be allowed to be made a notary public despite his unbelief.
The South Carolina constitution requires that all public officers must acknowledge the existence of God, but the state said Herb Silverman's application was refused because of technicalities.

.... and in Arizona: www.aztriad.com/dl051100.html

(an excerpt) The Notary Public may need to place someone under oath, and is advised that the person may 'swear or affirm' their oath, the difference being as follows.
"For an oath, the person is swearing to a supreme being. For a member of one of the Christian religions, the person would swear to God. For a member of a different religion, the person would swear to whatever supreme being was recognized by that religion. If the individual does not believe in a supreme being or doesn't want to swear to a supreme being, the person makes an affirmation. The person being placed under oath must make the decision about which type is appropriate."
However, when Julia herself purchased the bond that allowed her to become a notary public, she was not allowed the choice between affirmation or swearing. She had to swear, using the words, "so help me God.". She felt troubled about it, as she is not to lie, and yet to get the bond, she had no choice, but to lie.
-----------

Here's two recent examples. These are only to low-level official offices, Notary Public, where states require you to take a God oath. But in states where it's in the state constitution, if anyone is elected to any office, school board, dog catcher, etc, all it takes is just for one partisan person in the opposing party to point out they hadn't taken their God oath, and they'd have to either give in, or quit . . . unless they wanted to spend the mega-bucks it would take to pursue such a case all the way to the state supreme court. I have an atheist pal who's been running for local Justice of the Peace without much luck, but with the local decline in republican strength, his time will come in another 10 years or so. And then he's prepared to weather a challenge to his right to hold office from the Republicans on the god-oath issue, and he's prepared to spend the $40,000 out of his own pocket it'll take to pursue the issue to the state supreme court. And there's no reason for that nonsense in the first place . . . the Rule, by simply being in the State Constitution, intimidates people from pursuing elected office, because they don't want to have to pay needless mega-$$$ to have their religious beleifs dragged through the newspapers. Those rules have no place in a democracy, they were put in place by politicians who aparrantly did not appreciate the benefits of keeping religion and politics seperate, and they are left in place by politicians who are too afraid and cowardly to mess with the whole issue.
So, though those anti-atheist rules seem like they are never enforced, they still have their effect, much as the old sodomy laws had their effect by justifing employment discrimination and other abuse against gays and lesbians. IMHO, they need to come down.

===================

Jason wrote-- The government blows a ton of money on things that are ridiculous. I will be the first to admit it. Is it something to yawn about? Of course not, but no one is doing anything about it. $168,000 is a ton of money. I'd love to be the one getting that kind of money, but I also wish that the ones that are serving as a chaplain volunteered their time. I don't know what job they do whenever they are not praying. I would imagine for them to have secretaries, they do more than make a couple of appearance a month. Neither of us have the entire story in order to make a fair judgement.
--------

Lol . . . I got the address of both the Senate and House chaplains several years ago, wrote both of them a letter asking them what they did all day long. Both said that their official duty was to do an opening prayer each day the Senate or Congress was in session. That was it. But they also make themselves available whenever a Senator or Congressman wants to "bend and ear." This is what they said that they do. Pray and chat. You can confirm this yourself, just send a similar note to the House Chaplain at the US House of Representatives in Washington DC, and another to Senate Chaplain, at the US Senate in Wash DC. No need to take my word for it.
But my gripe with this is, if they really need a religious ear to bend, Washington DC and its suburbs are chock full of churches and clergy willing to do the same thing for free . . . and really, it would probably be best if they went to their own clergyman at home, someone they've known a while, to get their advice. Yah, and saved taxpayers some $$$. And not got into the business of using gov't $$$ to provide religious advice to politicians (another bad road to go down). Besides, both chaplains are protestant, not all the politicans are . . . so between the ones they won't help, and the moral scumbags who won't go to clergy for guidance, I can't imagine they have enough to keep themselves busy to justify their fat paychecks.
====================

Jason said--
Personally I feel that you have every civil right that I have, but you are more than welcome to try and prove me wrong. Now we are going to be way off topic with this statement. I feel there is more discrimation in regards to color of skin or gender. I am caucasian and male, but I still feel that there are certain races and females do not always get the same civil rights, and it is very unfortunate.

----
Tock replied--
Yah, being both gay and atheist, we could say that I've got every civil right you have, but some of 'em I don't really get . . . at least, not without putting up a big fight to keep 'em.
. When I got out of the USAF back in 1977, I had considered getting a job with the Dallas Police Dept in the K-9 section, because that's what I did in the military. I found out pretty quick, though, that the DPD did not hire gay people. It was official, written policy. I knew a few Dallas cops who were gay, and they kept their job because they stayed closeted, put up with faggot jokes and stuff like that. Well, there was no way I was going to work anyplace where I had to be a closet case.
After 10 or 15 years, a few folks got the backing of the local and state gay organizations and sued the city over its policy, and the city finally had to back down. But the straight cops made life for the openly gay cops hell for the first few years, then things died down some, now prejudice agains gays is about as bad as it is for blacks. It's a pile of needless stupid crap, I wasn't going to put up with it back then, and I sure as hell ain't gonna put up with it now (BTW-I'm planning on opening my own barber shop sometime next year, and God help anyone who sits in my chair and tells a faggot joke--they're likely gonna get 265 lbs of pissed off faggot to land on them and make 'em fly out the front window, especially if I'm doing Fina at the time).
Anyway . . . I ended up working for a big multinational semiconductor company, and I had to put up with a lot of bs for being gay . . . One funny occasion--I had just transferred from one building to another, and a guy was showing me the ropes of the new job. A guy I knew-a real flaming gay type-floated down the hallway. The guy looked at me across his desk and said, "You know, I just can't stand queers." Surprised, I looked at him and said, "How do you know that guy is gay?" He looked at me and said, "Oh, I can tell a queer from a mile away!" It took an awful lot for me to both keep from laughing and to keep from bopping him on the head for stupidity. But I figured if I was gonna learn the job, I was gonna have to play "straight guy" for him, so I did.
And it was downhill from there . . . I had transferred into a hotbed of "good ol' Texas boys" who I would characterize as being somewhat socially unenlightened. I put up with various crap and transferred back out of there.
Since then, the company has established policies against gay harrassment, but back then, it was considered an acceptable form of entertainment.
. Let's see, civil rights . . . seems to me that civil rights would include the government selecting its employees on the basis of ability, and not sexual orientation. And that should include the military.
. When I was in the USAF, the other guys in the barracks didn't give a rats ass if I was gay. The other guys in the police squadron didn't care. My boss was gay (although closeted). No one really cared. But when they found out about me (long story) they said I had to go "For the morale of the troops." Here recently the military has been complaining because they don't have enough arabic translators--it's supposiedly having a serious negative effect on what they're trying to do over there . . . well, they recently kicked 4 of 'em out of the military for no other reason than because they were gay. They kick out an average of 1000 people a year for no other reason than for being gay. A few years ago the Army gave the "Soldier Of The Year" award to some guy, then during an interview he told the media that he happened to be gay. Of course, the embarrassed Army kicked him out, too.
As things stand now, you can be gay and in the FBI, CIA, and various other secret investigating organizations, hold the highest security clearances, but not join the military.
. As a consequence, you know all those teenagers getting out of school who want to go someplace where they can get a good gov't scholarship for serving 4 years in misery? Yah, well, straight kids can do that, but not gay kids, for no other reason than that they're gay. For no other reason than to satisfy the ignorant prejudice of some feeble-minded out-of-touch idiots running the Defense department . . .

Basically, that's all all of this BS is, be it either religious or gay prejudice, it's just all BS. I still get riled over it, probalby always will. Probably will always be outspoken on the issue, too. At 47, 265+ lbs, and on Fina, I ain't inclined to put up with too much BS. So you'll probalby see future rants on this topic from time to time, probably focusing on the injustice of the situation rather than descend into name-calling and mud-throwing. But yah, I've seen plenty of anti-gay and anti-atheist crap over the years, and have no illusions that a cure is anywhere in sight. Releif, maybe, but no cure.

==============

Jason wrote--
Again, I will reiterate. I'm not sure if I pissed you off or not, but I have nothing but love for you bro. You are entitled to your opinions just like I am. I honesty can't recall any time that I have ever bashed someone because of their beliefs, and that's not going to change.

=============

Tock replies:
Nah, never pissed me off. I don't really care what opinions anyone ever has, pro or against anything. Everyone's got the right to think what they honestly think. But when it comes to get a cut of the big cake that everyone incliding me has worked on, by god, I'm gonna see that it gets cut fair and square.
So don't worry about pissing me off . . . the only way you could is if you went out and deliberately did someone dirty. Then my opinion would sag . . . but you've always been gold in my book, so don't worry about it. Say what you like, be honest, I'm fresh out of rat's asses so I don't give any. I dunno about the 'love' bit though . . . the last time I got into that, I ended up moving from the big city to the suburbs, and it wasn't a good idea . . . so, let's just be pals, and leave it at that, yes?

Take care,
--Tock

ps-sorry for making this so **** long . . .

[PTbyJason]

TOCK-- Not at all . . . I guess it just seems that way, as I have a tendency to be a bit *too* thorough when making a point. Nah, I'm pretty much used to everyday xxxx nowadays, but still get riled over gov't or orher big organization's bullying

Not a problem bro. It's all good. I'm glad that we can prove that 2 sensible people can discuss 2 things that you are never suppose to talk about...religion and politics.

TOCK--Huh. Ok . . . I'm sure that if we were to trudge through the video files of CBS or whoever, we'd find the tapes. My guess is if this issue ever comes to the national front burner, yah, we'll see the tape. But if you won't be convinced until you see the actual footage, that's cool. There's lots of things I won't beleive either until I actually see it.

I don't need video. I would love to see it on a news website of some type. I guess it's possible that he said it, but there are just too many suspicious things about it for me to label it as fact.

TOCK-- Check it out--it's been a problem in South Carolina :

www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=2477

Atheist Sues To Become Notary Public Without Swearing To God
COLUMBIA, South Carolina (CWN) - An avowed atheist went before the South
Carolina Supreme Court today arguing that he should be allowed to be made a notary public despite his unbelief.
The South Carolina constitution requires that all public officers must acknowledge the existence of God, but the state said Herb Silverman's application was refused because of technicalities.

.... and in Arizona: www.aztriad.com/dl051100.html

(an excerpt) The Notary Public may need to place someone under oath, and is advised that the person may 'swear or affirm' their oath, the difference being as follows.
"For an oath, the person is swearing to a supreme being. For a member of one of the Christian religions, the person would swear to God. For a member of a different religion, the person would swear to whatever supreme being was recognized by that religion. If the individual does not believe in a supreme being or doesn't want to swear to a supreme being, the person makes an affirmation. The person being placed under oath must make the decision about which type is appropriate."
However, when Julia herself purchased the bond that allowed her to become a notary public, she was not allowed the choice between affirmation or swearing. She had to swear, using the words, "so help me God.". She felt troubled about it, as she is not to lie, and yet to get the bond, she had no choice, but to lie.
-----------

Here's two recent examples. These are only to low-level official offices, Notary Public, where states require you to take a God oath. But in states where it's in the state constitution, if anyone is elected to any office, school board, dog catcher, etc, all it takes is just for one partisan person in the opposing party to point out they hadn't taken their God oath, and they'd have to either give in, or quit . . . unless they wanted to spend the mega-bucks it would take to pursue such a case all the way to the state supreme court. I have an atheist pal who's been running for local Justice of the Peace without much luck, but with the local decline in republican strength, his time will come in another 10 years or so. And then he's prepared to weather a challenge to his right to hold office from the Republicans on the god-oath issue, and he's prepared to spend the $40,000 out of his own pocket it'll take to pursue the issue to the state supreme court. And there's no reason for that nonsense in the first place . . . the Rule, by simply being in the State Constitution, intimidates people from pursuing elected office, because they don't want to have to pay needless mega-$$$ to have their religious beleifs dragged through the newspapers. Those rules have no place in a democracy, they were put in place by politicians who aparrantly did not appreciate the benefits of keeping religion and politics seperate, and they are left in place by politicians who are too afraid and cowardly to mess with the whole issue.
So, though those anti-atheist rules seem like they are never enforced, they still have their effect, much as the old sodomy laws had their effect by justifing employment discrimination and other abuse against gays and lesbians. IMHO, they need to come down.

Truly fascinating. I wasn't aware of either of these situations. I have been very careful not to express my personal opinion on any of this discussion and I don't really want to start now. I do have a question though. If you do not believe in God, then what do you have to fear by swearing on the Bible? I'm not trying to start anything with that question, I am just curious for my own understanding. My assumption would be that it would be lying about your beliefs by swearing on the Bible, therefore it wouldn't be right. But in regards to the issue. If someone is chosen by the people to represent them, then that is who their leader should be. That's constitutional rights.

Lol . . . I got the address of both the Senate and House chaplains several years ago, wrote both of them a letter asking them what they did all day long. Both said that their official duty was to do an opening prayer each day the Senate or Congress was in session. That was it. But they also make themselves available whenever a Senator or Congressman wants to "bend and ear." This is what they said that they do. Pray and chat. You can confirm this yourself, just send a similar note to the House Chaplain at the US House of Representatives in Washington DC, and another to Senate Chaplain, at the US Senate in Wash DC. No need to take my word for it.
But my gripe with this is, if they really need a religious ear to bend, Washington DC and its suburbs are chock full of churches and clergy willing to do the same thing for free . . . and really, it would probably be best if they went to their own clergyman at home, someone they've known a while, to get their advice. Yah, and saved taxpayers some $$$. And not got into the business of using gov't $$$ to provide religious advice to politicians (another bad road to go down). Besides, both chaplains are protestant, not all the politicans are . . . so between the ones they won't help, and the moral scumbags who won't go to clergy for guidance, I can't imagine they have enough to keep themselves busy to justify their fat paychecks.

Well that really opened my eyes. It's rather sad that they can't do more for the amount of money that they make. I would rather that be a volunteered position. You are right. There are many churches around there and it would do more for them if they had their own particular pastor that they consulted with in their own religion.

Tock replied--
Yah, being both gay and atheist, we could say that I've got every civil right you have, but some of 'em I don't really get . . . at least, not without putting up a big fight to keep 'em.
. When I got out of the USAF back in 1977, I had considered getting a job with the Dallas Police Dept in the K-9 section, because that's what I did in the military. I found out pretty quick, though, that the DPD did not hire gay people. It was official, written policy. I knew a few Dallas cops who were gay, and they kept their job because they stayed closeted, put up with faggot jokes and stuff like that. Well, there was no way I was going to work anyplace where I had to be a closet case.
After 10 or 15 years, a few folks got the backing of the local and state gay organizations and sued the city over its policy, and the city finally had to back down. But the straight cops made life for the openly gay cops hell for the first few years, then things died down some, now prejudice agains gays is about as bad as it is for blacks. It's a pile of needless stupid crap, I wasn't going to put up with it back then, and I sure as hell ain't gonna put up with it now (BTW-I'm planning on opening my own barber shop sometime next year, and God help anyone who sits in my chair and tells a faggot joke--they're likely gonna get 265 lbs of pissed off faggot to land on them and make 'em fly out the front window, especially if I'm doing Fina at the time).
Anyway . . . I ended up working for a big multinational semiconductor company, and I had to put up with a lot of bs for being gay . . . One funny occasion--I had just transferred from one building to another, and a guy was showing me the ropes of the new job. A guy I knew-a real flaming gay type-floated down the hallway. The guy looked at me across his desk and said, "You know, I just can't stand queers." Surprised, I looked at him and said, "How do you know that guy is gay?" He looked at me and said, "Oh, I can tell a queer from a mile away!" It took an awful lot for me to both keep from laughing and to keep from bopping him on the head for stupidity. But I figured if I was gonna learn the job, I was gonna have to play "straight guy" for him, so I did.
And it was downhill from there . . . I had transferred into a hotbed of "good ol' Texas boys" who I would characterize as being somewhat socially unenlightened. I put up with various crap and transferred back out of there.
Since then, the company has established policies against gay harrassment, but back then, it was considered an acceptable form of entertainment.
. Let's see, civil rights . . . seems to me that civil rights would include the government selecting its employees on the basis of ability, and not sexual orientation. And that should include the military.
. When I was in the USAF, the other guys in the barracks didn't give a rats ass if I was gay. The other guys in the police squadron didn't care. My boss was gay (although closeted). No one really cared. But when they found out about me (long story) they said I had to go "For the morale of the troops." Here recently the military has been complaining because they don't have enough arabic translators--it's supposiedly having a serious negative effect on what they're trying to do over there . . . well, they recently kicked 4 of 'em out of the military for no other reason than because they were gay. They kick out an average of 1000 people a year for no other reason than for being gay. A few years ago the Army gave the "Soldier Of The Year" award to some guy, then during an interview he told the media that he happened to be gay. Of course, the embarrassed Army kicked him out, too.
As things stand now, you can be gay and in the FBI, CIA, and various other secret investigating organizations, hold the highest security clearances, but not join the military.
. As a consequence, you know all those teenagers getting out of school who want to go someplace where they can get a good gov't scholarship for serving 4 years in misery? Yah, well, straight kids can do that, but not gay kids, for no other reason than that they're gay. For no other reason than to satisfy the ignorant prejudice of some feeble-minded out-of-touch idiots running the Defense department . . .

Basically, that's all all of this BS is, be it either religious or gay prejudice, it's just all BS. I still get riled over it, probalby always will. Probably will always be outspoken on the issue, too. At 47, 265+ lbs, and on Fina, I ain't inclined to put up with too much BS. So you'll probalby see future rants on this topic from time to time, probably focusing on the injustice of the situation rather than descend into name-calling and mud-throwing. But yah, I've seen plenty of anti-gay and anti-atheist crap over the years, and have no illusions that a cure is anywhere in sight. Releif, maybe, but no cure.

We are getting off topic on this, but you will find that I agree with you. I have friends that are gay and they are treated differently from others. I don't think it's right.

Tock replies:
Nah, never pissed me off. I don't really care what opinions anyone ever has, pro or against anything. Everyone's got the right to think what they honestly think. But when it comes to get a cut of the big cake that everyone incliding me has worked on, by god, I'm gonna see that it gets cut fair and square.
So don't worry about pissing me off . . . the only way you could is if you went out and deliberately did someone dirty. Then my opinion would sag . . . but you've always been gold in my book, so don't worry about it. Say what you like, be honest, I'm fresh out of rat's asses so I don't give any. I dunno about the 'love' bit though . . . the last time I got into that, I ended up moving from the big city to the suburbs, and it wasn't a good idea . . . so, let's just be pals, and leave it at that, yes?

LOL, you got it bro. It's been a fun and eye-opening discussion.

[Tock]

[/i]
I do have a question though. If you do not believe in God, then what do you have to fear by swearing on the Bible? I'm not trying to start anything with that question, I am just curious for my own understanding. My assumption would be that it would be lying about your beliefs by swearing on the Bible, therefore it wouldn't be right.

================

What does a non-beleiver have to fear by swearing on the Bible? Huh, good question.

Two things that I can think of . . .
First, if a person is known to his friends and acquaintances as an individual with no religious beleifs and is seen taking a god-oath, then he loses a certain credibility with them . . . they could be dismissed as a sort of hypocrite much as an anti-immorality preacher would when discovered patronizing the services of "ladies of easy virtue." Yah, losing face would be one potential situation.

Second, and more significant (to me, anyway), would be having to acknowledge that the government could indeed force me to recite a religious oath before I would be entitled to my rights as a citizen. It would be as if the gov't was a bully who required me to say "I beleive in God" instead of "Uncle."
IMHO, the gov't does not have the right to ask a person what their religious beleifs are, or even if they have any beleifs at all. Neither does the gov't have the right to make any of my rights contingent on having or expressing religious beleifs. IMHO, it is none of the government's business whatsoever. Yet, most elected offices in the US require the winner of an election to take a god-oath before he's allowed to assume office.

An interesting situation, I think, is what could have happened the last time I was called in to jury duty. Here in Texas, potential jurors are sworn in several times along the selection process, each time with the phrase, "so help me god." I don't mind raising my right hand in the proceedure, or promising to tell the truth. But when they get to the "so help me god" phrase, I clam shut.
I happened to be selected to serve on that jury, took a week, was about a child custody case (we had to decide where a 4 year old went--to his mother, who worked as a stripper, or his father, a reformed coke addict). Anyway, the decision was obvious, and we returned the verdict, and the case was done. However, the whole thing could have been undone had the losing attorney discovered that I am an atheist and had either (1) taken a religious oath which I likely had no regard for, or (2) not taken the oath at all. Yah, had the losing attorney picked up on this (which he could have, had he merely looked at the juror information cards, which asked for individual's religous preferences), he could have had the judge declare a mistrial, and everything would have had to be done all over again. I have no idea what would happen to me, I suppose the judge could put me in jail for 30 days or so, depending on his mood, I guess.

So, I guess it's a good thing I'm not tied to a regular job, so if I end up in jail like that I can consider it as a sort of "adventure" than tragedy.
And yes, something like this did happen here in Texas before . . .
It seems that Madelyn Murray O'Hair's adopted daughter was called in for jury duty in Austin. She showed up on time, and when it was time for the swearing-in, she raised her hand and said, "Excuse me your honor, but I am an atheist and require something other than a god-oath." Well, at that time, the judge was allowed to offer only that one god-oath (now they have "affirmations"), so the lady was in the position of either taking a god-oath and laying herself open for some sort of perjury charges by the case's losing attorney, or not taking the oath. Well, she decided not to take the oath, and the judge got so mad, that he had her arrested, and strip-searched. She was stuck in the Austin jail for almost a full day before she could get out. Again, it's just crazy. They wound up filing a lawsuit over the issue, and in "Society of Separationists v. Herman" (1991) the state of Texas had to start offering a non-religious "affirmation" during the jury process. Hah . . . by law, they do, but few judges actually do.
I was called for jury duty one time and the judge did the swearing-in business, and I raised my hand and asked for a non-religious oath, and he gave me a hassle, and I'm disinclined to go through that hassle again . . . I think I'll just make my point should a trial that I sit on turn into a mistrial over the issue.


Well, I hope that answers your question . . . basically, it's an issue of integrity. I know what I beleive and what I don't, and I ain't gonna be railroaded into saying something that I don't beleive. Funny how the only time this sort of thing ever happens is when I get around the government. Sheesh . . .

Well that's it, take care, stay warm, and stay anabolic for the holidays . . .
--Tock