Yes, you’re right, it would be unconstitutional. But let’s not forget that many Conservative Republicans have been trying to change the US constitution for years. Here’s a recent list of just some of the amendments they’ve been trying to pass:
I mean some of them I can understand their reasoning on (not that I agree with them) but it doesn’t take much imagination to see that many of these purposed amendments are the byproduct of Religious Peer groups.
Not to also mention that religious groups in this country aren’t the smartest nor the most ethical bunch on the planet. And I can’t say that many of the tea partiers and conservatives are all that brilliant or ethical either. And they’re really quite good at using religious dogma to deflect their follower’s attention away from the genuine issues at hand.
I guess what I’m really wondering is why atheists don’t have some sort of charismatic presidential hopeful working in our corner?
I’m reminded of a speech Richard Dawkins did back in 2007 on militant atheism, he brought up many interesting points but one that caught my interest particularly was on regarding the parallels of intelligence and level of spiritual belief, the higher a person’s intelligence the less likely they will believe in god. He then paralleled the level of political representation for each religious group has as well as the level of political representation atheists have (which is embarrassingly low). Anyway, he did say one thing that definitely struck me and I think is appropriate as a response to why we have such little political backing:
“To put it bluntly, American political opportunities are heavily loaded against those who are simultaneously intelligent and honest.”
I’m just wondering why that is.
I've always believed that "honest politics" is a prime example of an oxy-moron. Ergo, to be a polition is to forgo honesty and intelligence for personal gain.
I'd love to be proven wrong on this, but I'm not sure it's possible.
And let’s not forget we are the same country that had the McCarthy hearings. Oh how history does like to repeat itself, it just tends to come in differing varieties of sheep’s clothing.
I mean, yes, I do have a somewhat low opinion of the intelligence of the American public, but I also live right next to a very large military base (FT McCoy) and I really can’t believe level sectarian rhetoric these folks have around here. I’m really beginning to dread this stupid little town, but it seems that the majority of folks around here are either hyper-conservative or just waaay too mentally deadened.
It occasionally reminds me of Deliverance.
So would I be correct in the assuming that you’re purposing individual states would have the decision making power of allowing citizens residence based on their level of spiritual acumen. I’m only asking this for clarity, as I wouldn’t be surprised if this wasn’t the first step in eventually creating such an amendment (if such an amendment were to be created). Although personally I still wouldn’t be surprised an “anti-atheist” amendment were purposed in the US anyway.
Yes, I admit, I do have a low opinion of the intelligence of your average US citizen. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that the rational basis for why your “average American citizen” would be against Atheism is because of the line “one nation under god” is part of our national anthem. A line that many people feel is the primary basis for why we are a country in the first place.
Plus let’s not forget “in god we trust” is on our currency, and although this wasn’t added until after 1957, most people in this country feel this is the rational basis for why our political and economic systems operate in the first place (yes, I’m being presumptuous). But let’s start polling our average citizen and see what the results would be. I wouldn’t be surprised if your average citizen had no idea what was on the US constitution (other than freedom of speech and the right to bear arms), I also wouldn’t be surprised if many of them could care less. So let’s face it; people in this country aren’t exactly the brightest (nor the most inquisitive) bunch of bulbs to begin with. Why do you think FOX network does so well, they’d rather have their thinking done for them. Not to also mention the sociology of apathy is quite popular.
You know, tough decisions need to be made, and all that rot…