| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
17 Dec 2003 01:57:46 AM |
| Object: |
In the News: Town passes 'God resolution' |
From the article:
----------------------
Clinton - The Clinton City Council approved the 'God resolution'
Monday in a 5-1 vote, with one member abstaining.
Voting against the measure that publicly acknowledges God as the
foundation of "our national heritage" was Council member Jerry
Shattuck. Council member Pat Meredith abstained, saying in a phone
interview today that her God is personal and that she did not think
the resolution has any place in government.
---------------------
Read it at http://www.oakridger.com/stories/121603/new_20031216030.shtml
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Town passes 'God resolution' |
30 Dec 2003 11:43:37 PM |
|
|
On 16 Dec 2003 23:57:46 -0800, (Jason
Spaceman) posted in alt.atheism:
From the article:
----------------------
Clinton - The Clinton City Council approved the 'God resolution'
Monday in a 5-1 vote, with one member abstaining.
Voting against the measure that publicly acknowledges God as the
foundation of "our national heritage" was Council member Jerry
Shattuck. Council member Pat Meredith abstained, saying in a phone
interview today that her God is personal and that she did not think
the resolution has any place in government.
---------------------
Maybe someone should print up copies of the U. S. Constitution for
those members of the Council who've never heard of it.
--
"I can't activate two neurons simultaneously, and I vote"
- The theistic majority
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Town passes 'God resolution' |
31 Dec 2003 08:52:38 PM |
|
|
On 16 Dec 2003 23:57:46 -0800, (Jason
Spaceman), Message ID: <b9401f8a.0312162357.29314aa8@posting.google.com>
wrote in alt.atheism;
From the article:
----------------------
Clinton - The Clinton City Council approved the 'God resolution'
Monday in a 5-1 vote, with one member abstaining.
Voting against the measure that publicly acknowledges God as the
foundation of "our national heritage" was Council member Jerry
Shattuck. Council member Pat Meredith abstained, saying in a phone
interview today that her God is personal and that she did not think
the resolution has any place in government.
---------------------
Read it at http://www.oakridger.com/stories/121603/new_20031216030.shtml
Some encouraging comments.
http://forums.oakridger.com/cgi-bin/bb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=000071
Junior Member
Member # 62
posted December 17, 2003 08:39 AM Regarding the
Clinton "God Admendment"
quote: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably
to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
From the TN Constituion:
quote: Article 1 § 3. Freedom of worship
That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship
Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience; that no
man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of
worship, or to maintain any minister against his consent; that no human
authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the
rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given, by
law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship.
quote:Article 1 § 4. Political or religious test
That no political or religious test, other than an oath to support
the Constitution of the United States and of this State, shall never be
required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this
State.
I read the article, it passed on a 5-1 vote with 1 absention. 90% of the
article was why Shattuck voted against it. But you know what, he it
right. What is the purpose of the admendment? Why did the 5 people vote
for it? Why does it need to be there?
IMHO opinion, it clearly violates the US Constitution and the TN
constitution. Posts: 30 | From: Virginia | Registered: Jul 2003 | IP:
Logged
John
Junior Member
Member # 33
posted December 17, 2003 09:16 AM I agree with
Shattuck and you RubyTue. What an absolute perversion. Most politicians
swear to uphold the US Constitution but most have never even read it
much less understand it. The foundation of this nation was the
Constitution. Posts: 21 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jul 2003 | IP:
Logged
SingingAtom
Member
Member # 16
posted December 17, 2003 11:19 AM It is so sad
that it has come to this. That some folks feel the Almighty must be
"protected" by their feeble political efforts to "support" God! If that
wasn't so sad it would be funny...
The US Constitution requres that the govenrment be NEUTRAL on Religion.
This is a big reason that the US broke away from England. England
REQUIRED that folks be members of the "right" religion, the Church of
England. And you were REQUIRED to support and attend it even if you
didn't beleive in it. Sad. And I'm pretty sure we don't want to go back
to that! Posts: 110 | Registered: Jul 2003 | IP: Logged
RubyTue
Junior Member
Member # 62
posted December 17, 2003 08:37 PM one other point
I meant to make:
It says everyone has the "natural and indefeasible right to worship
Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience." But
nowhere does it say that we have to. We have a right to worship, but
that also means we don't have to worship your God, my God, or any God.
Posts: 30 | From: Virginia | Registered: Jul 2003 | IP: Logged
georgiahikes
Junior Member
Member # 172
posted December 22, 2003 11:02 AM
Greetings, I must agree with your sentiments, and this is indeed
distressing. What is interesting to note is that there is nothing to
prevent an acknowledgement of God by these people. So why the law? I
believe that it is an example of horizontal prayer, the type of
religious activity designed not for communication with a higher power,
but rather to intimidate or exclude those who may not subscribe to their
beliefs.
In a way, it's similar to the prayer in school debate - people often
overlook that there is nothing to prevent a child from praying in
school. They can pray 20 times a day or more if they are so inclined. So
why the law? They don't want to make sure their kids are praying - they
want to mandate that yours are.
The danger here is a fine line. It is one thing for one person or even a
hundred people to stand at your door and demand that you pray to the
Judeo-Christian god. It would be annoying, but in the end they cannot
compel you to pray by force.
However, the police power of government can. It can deprive you of your
life, liberty, and property to compel you into adhering to the law - and
you can legally do nothing to stop it. That is what these zealots are
after. That's why small steps in that direction by our elected officials
are so dangerous to our freedom, and why our forefathers crafted the
constitution guard against such circumstances.
Not to rant on and on, but this is a peave with me. Thanks for
listening.
-Georgiahikes
[ December 22, 2003, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: georgiahikes ] Posts:
2 | From: Fayeteville, GA | Registered: Dec 2003 | IP: Logged
Anotherthing2
Member
Member # 106
posted December 22, 2003 12:22 PM I take for
granted the same sentiments can be directed to County Commission and the
County Mayor.
As clarification it’s not a law it’s a resolution in similar fashion to
thanking Joe for his years of service and carries about as much weight.
But I agree that the city council and county commission shouldn’t have
passed the measure or wasted their time. I will have to give kudos to a
few commissioners on County Commission who at least voted against the
resolution but I will fault the County Mayor for pushing this resolution
and pandering to the crowd that night. Oh and by the way in that same
state constitution, if I’m not mistaken, if you’re an atheist :
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.
I could not find where this section was amended at a later date, but
that doesn’t mean it wasn’t taken out at some later point. But
regardless it is unenforceable. Posts: 43 | Registered: Sep 2003 | IP:
Logged
georgiahikes
Junior Member
Member # 172
posted December 22, 2003 01:02 PM Now that
*is* interesting. Scary, but interesting all the same.
True, it is not a law, just a resolution.. but things like this often
have a way of becoming pieces of groundwork for later ordinances or laws
that favor one religion over another.
Sometimes I wish they would realize how destructive and divisive their
actions can be.
I'll second your kudos for council members Pat Meredith and Jerry
Shattuck for having the stones to stand up for the law.
I think Shattuck said it best, "It (the resolution) starts out by saying
that our founding fathers never ever intended there be a separation
between God and the affairs of government," he said. "However, our
founding fathers had learned the paramount lesson of history, namely,
that politics and religion do not mix. That's why they passed the First
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibiting any law respecting the
establishment of religion."
Can it get any plainer than that? Obviously the remaining council
members just cannot see past their personal convictions to do what they
were appointed to do.
I would really like to get a copy of that resolution and see what else
is in there. I checked the city website, but I don't think they've
posted it yet. Posts: 2 | From: Fayeteville, GA | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
(c) 2003 The Oakridger
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
