Still on the books, but unenforceable in practice. This really isn't anything more than a tidying exercise - which won't necessarily stop fundamentalist loonies trying to keep it in place.

 

and atheist zealots as well.

 

The law books in states and municipalities are filled with these sorts of laws, the fact that someone is trying to purge them is not bad news at all. To me y'all should be rejoicing.

 

i read it too. right now im going through the comments part of the article and loling at dipshits on it

 

Cool!! Fancy being as close as all that eh!! Still no cigar though baa!!

I honestly thought the law was introduced during Liz One's time because of the whole Catholic/Protestant infighting that went on with the royals during that period. Told you I needed to brush up on my history again!!

 

Here we go .....

I would be if I was a US citizen.
I was mildly elated when the centuries-old UK blasphemy law was repealed.

 

You've got the infighting right, but you woefully underestimate how long it took to get sorted out.

 

I wasn't woeful at all!! I don't own a horse!! :excited:

 

Tis true in most countries that have been around for any length of time. We've got hundreds of the things.

 

I just reread the amendment.

What it says is, if passed, it will give atheists the right to be witnesses and hold government positions.

When I first read this I thought it was saying they were going to take away the atheists rights.

Can someone confirm what the Bill is actually trying to do?

 

There's an (unconstitutional, unenforceable and unused) law still on the books in Arkansas, which forbids atheists from doing those things. This Bill is designed to remove that law.

The grounds, presumably, are that even though the law is meaningless in practice, it's offensive even in principle to have such a law on the books. Treating people as lesser citizens just because they don't share your beliefs is barbarous.

 

Ditto

 

Unless you are an atheist, it's okay for them to treat others as lessers. At least in here it is.

 

The California paster that did the talk with McCain and Obama at his mega church was asked why he wouldn't vote for an atheist. He said he couldn't vote for someone that didn't believe they answered to a higher power. That's a common answer given by fundies all over the place.

-S-

 

I take offense to that. I treat everyone equally but I don't treat all ideas equally.

-S-

 

Hey!! Just brushing up there on my old knowledge and would you Adam and Eve it - but Lizzie was on the throne in 1588. From 1558 right through to her death in 1603 in fact. Looks like I wasn't even a hare's breath out in my estimation of the monarchy after all

 

Sorry to offend you, I guess I was mislead by the "anyone who believes in God is an idiot" theme of your posts.

 

Like Shake, I find this a tad offensive.
I don't regard people who embrace religion as "lessers" in fact, I often feel quite compassionate toward them as they are - in my opinion - the victims of an elaborate confidence trick. In fact, I have seen more discrimination, fear and hatred directed toward atheists from 'religious' folk.

I don't have a problem with people, but I do have a problem with religion and the divisions that it creates.
I rarely get involved with these kind of threads because they are really rather pointless and generally degenerate into abuse and bad feeling. I responded to this thread to ask if anyone could explain why atheists are the subject of an unfair (although it seems - unenforced) state law.

 

Since you don't post regularly anymore and are a tad more diplomatic in your posts, I will apologize for any offense.

That being said, it is standard practice i here that if anyone expresses a beief in any deity, they are pilloried ruthlessly. Turnabout is fair play.

 

'nuff said ...