I'm An Athiest! I Would Like To Be President! Why Can't I?

[DistressedAmerican]

Anyone?

I really want to know. It pissed me off.

How long until you think an atheist can become president? Ever?

[Taxloss]

1. Not for a very long time.

However, in the UK we have had some atheist and areligious prime ministers.

[BlueEyedSon]

2. I'm not even sure a SANE person can be president

between the electorate & the system.....

[DistressedAmerican]

4. RIGHT!!!

[jobycom]

3. In Texas, you can't even legally hold office

The Texas Constitution requires a belief in a divine being to hold office.

As for atheists being president, I'm sure there have been many. I doubt Bush really believes in any God other than beer. Most politicians spend a lot of time pretending to believe things they really don't.

[DistressedAmerican]

5. That Is AMAZING! I Have Never Heard Of Such A Thing.

We usually at least pay lip service to religious tollerance and separation of state!

You are right that some were most certainly pretenders. However, if they feel the need to pretend, there must be a reason. Bush is no one's holy man!

[GiovanniC]

6. Seriously?

Link?

[noamnety]

10. Here's a link, and it's not just Texas

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/StateConstitutions.htm

[DistressedAmerican]

11. Fuck! And I Can't Even Testify In Court In Arkansas!

From that fucked up state's constitution - "No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court."

So if I am arrested and beaten by the police in that state, I can't testify against the fascist cops that did the beating??? WTF???

I deny it and I DEMAND my equal protection under the law!

[DistressedAmerican]

13. Maryland Either!

"...nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefore either in this world or in the world to come."

So now I am incompetent as a witness and juror? WTF???

[DistressedAmerican]

14. Then There Is Mass, Kerry and Kenedy's Home State...

"Any every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law."
Comment: Apparently Non-Christians are not "equally under the protection of the law".

[DistressedAmerican]

15. And Mississippi Is Burning...

Mississippi State Constitution. Article 14 ("General Provisions"), Section 265
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

This is really blowing my mind! I had no idea!

[DistressedAmerican]

16. North Carolina...

North Carolina's State Constitution, Article 6 Section 8
"Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."

[DistressedAmerican]

17. Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania's State Constitution, Article 1 Section 4
"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."

[DistressedAmerican]

19. South Carolina...

South Carolina's State Constitution, Article 4 Section 2
"No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor who denies the existence of the Supreme Being; ..."
Note: If you continue reading you will find that (in Section 8) the Lieutenant Governor must also meet the same qualifications as the Governor.

[DistressedAmerican]

20. Tennesee...

Tennessee's State Constitution, Article 9 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."

[DistressedAmerican]

23. And Texas. I Really Love The Wording Of This One! "No Test" My Ass!

Texas' State Constitution, Article 1 Section 4
"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."

OK I'll stop. But, Damn people what a freaking revelation that many state constitutions are in direct violation of the Establishment Clause. I really didn't have a clue. Mind boggling!

Why the hell have athiests sued the shit out of these states?

[jobycom]

32. In Texas in 2000 they circulated a motion to the precinct caucuses

to amend the Constitution to remove that requirement. Even at a Democratic precinct caucus, we couldn't pass the motion. Two of us voted for it, four against. It wasn't even brought to the floor of the state convention, as I recall.

The reason no one sues over it is because no one is really harmed by it. No serious politician would admit he or she is an atheist in Texas. And since no one tries to enforce the law, there's no real point in setting up a lesser candidate just to oppose the law. It's just an offensive part of the Constitution that no one pays attention to.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jobycom]

50. You missed the point

In order to challenge a law, you have to show that you were harmed by it. If the law is never enforced, you aren't harmed by it, in a legal sense, so you can't challenge the law in court. The only way a law can be ruled unconstitutional is in court. If someone challenged an atheist's right to run for office, that atheist could appeal the law. Otherwise, it's just an offensive part of the Constitution that doesn't really harm anyone, since it is never enforced.

The clause could be changed without going to court, but you'd have to convince the legislature that it needs to be changed. That's very different than declaring the law unconstitutional, though.

There used to be a law in Memphis (might still be a law) that a woman couldn't drive a car unless a man walked in front of the car waving red flags. Obviously, this law hadn't been enforced, and probably couldn't have been enforced, but it had never been taken off the books. Thus, it didn't harm people.

Jim Crow laws were obviously enforced.

[beam me up scottie]

54. It's discriminatory, not offensive.

The fact that ANY discriminatory laws remain on state constitutions is revolting and indicative of the hatred that still poisons society.

It DOES harm people.
It reinforces stereotypes and justifies bigotry.
By not removing the statutes, the states are advocating discrimination.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Generic Other]

88. Isn't Memphis the auto accident capital of the US?

Now I know why! Doesn't waving a red flag mean "GO" if you are a race car driver? :rofl:

"...a woman couldn't drive a car unless a man walked in front of the car waving red flags..."

[jobycom]

120. I imagine driving at walking speed would cause a few accidents too

LOL!

[Zhade]

84. It's blatantly discriminatory. It's a violation of SoCaS.

Of course it harms people. What a patently ridiculous notion, that a lack of equal treatment under the law doesn't harm those it affects!

[jobycom]

87. Not what I meant

Read the argument upstream. If the law isn't enforced, it does no legal harm, so no one can bring a case against it.

As I also said upstream, it pisses me off, and I've done more than the average Texan to oppose it, but legally, if the law isn't used against me, it doesn't harm me.

[Zhade]

89. Do you not think even one person has ever been banned from running...

...because they were atheist? Or if not banned, actively discouraged because they know the law?

I'm certain I've read about that - which would, if confirmed, indicate that the law does, in fact, discriminate and has in fact harmed real people before.

[jobycom]

116. If they were, they should have sued.

They would be the only ones to have the right to sue. That's my point. And for the record, I've not heard of the law being invoked in Texas, at least in modern times, and since I have been involved in attempts to overturn it, I have read quite a lot that others have written about it, and I've not run across any examples of it being invoked.

Do you realize that I'm not supporting the law, that I'm saying that the reason it isn't challenged is because it is not enforced, which means there is no one to challenge it? Do you know what side I'm on and what I'm arguing?

[Zhade]

155. Yes. Do you realize you blow off discrimination a bit too easily?

You sound callous. I doubt you really are.

[RPM]

176. Joby isnt being callous - just detailing the legal definition of harm

I agree that there is a social harm imposed by these rules; however, the plaintiff-to-be in a case on the matter must have suffered a legal harm. I.e., the plaintiff must have been elected to the position and then denied the position. Otherwise the connection between the harm and the alleged cause are too tenuous.

It's the difference between the standard in reality (where you stand Zhade) and the standard at law (where Joby stands).

At the end of the day, you are both right.

(i know, i know - the legan standard sucks, right - perhaps, but the justicibility of the cause, as it relates to standing, is a necessity - if we wanted to litigate all potential, unrealized or possibly connected harms we would need more lawyers and courts. Do we really want that?)

[beam me up scottie]

123. Be careful who you piss off Zhade.

nt

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

138. Oops, I forgot.

I guess I should be nicer to certain people now.

:spray:
Yeah, right !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:rofl:

[RPM]

98. joby - don't bother trying to explain

I tried to explain the legal limits to a self-defense claim the other day and was pretty much attacked for being on a pedopheliac's side. :eyes: people wouldn't accept that there are limits you can use in the defense of others.

Looks like you are runnning up against a stone wall despite having proffered a solid explanation of standing. Ultimately, some folks are too happy being indignant to step back and slowly read what you are explaining. You may as well just save your breath...

[DistressedAmerican]

101. Self delete.

[RPM]

148. believe me - i share your dismay with these laws

but joby's explanation of standing, while frustrating in a techincal legal sense, is dead on.

Until someone is elected to an office and is then denied the office for not believing in "a higher being", there is no standing to file a suit on the violation of the establishment clause.

There must be a plaintiff with a ripe, non-moot action who has personally suffered a demonstrable harm (i.e. he must win and be denied the office - simply not winning the office is insufficient as the cause for not winning may not necessairly be caused by the alleged establishment clause violation) in order for there to be a justiciable case that a court would hear. Sucks, but thats the nature of it.

Remember that most civil rights cases were set-ups; i.e. NAACP would find a favorable plaintiff, and get him in trouble - that was a prereequisite before they could have a justicable case.

Thank you for bringing this amtter to folks attention - it is important; but if you are going to fix it through the courts, this is the first hurdle that must be cleared.

[beam me up scottie]

107. How do YOU know what happened ?

Since most of the posts were deleted you must have second sight unless you're just here to cheer lead.
Rah Rah and all that.
:eyes:

[RPM]

145. Posts 32 & 50 are enough...

but if it bugs you so much, i dont recall those posts being deleted when i looked in here before.

mellow down....

[beam me up scottie]

154. If you read my posts 54, 58 and 80, you will observe

that I am indeed quite mellow.

Then read #109 and please let me know what I did to deserve that.

I have had many posters misunderstand me and I have NEVER treated anyone that atrociously for asking me to explain my position, even if I had to try several times to get my point across.

This is, after all, an internet board and one cannot always read intent.

I am human, I make mistakes and I apologize for them.

I WOULD have apologized to him once I realized his position if he hadn't attacked me after 3 exchanges.

He hurt my feelings, to tell the truth because from my past dealings with him, I expected debate and instead received disrespect and a personal attack.

There is no excuse for that type of behaviour, regardless of how long someone has been a member of this board.

[RPM]

159. i just did - i do not alter my position at all

All i saw in those Joby is attempting to explain the legal concept of standing - which is different from your personal definition of 'harm'. You manifested an earlier misapprehension of what harm means in a legal sense and continually rebuffed his proper explanations.

You do need to mellow out instead of coming right at me with wise-ass "second sight" comments and accusations of cheerleading....
I don't care what he did to set you off- but for someone who seems to whine about having their feelings hurt, you seem awfully ready with sharp words for others...

[beam me up scottie]

164. How did I continually rebuff his explanations?

I asked him to clarify. TWICE. Politely.
He asked me if I was stupid.

You don't care that he attacked me and you don't know all of the facts, yet you jump in after the fact and post your opinion that he was wasting his time.

What do you call it ?

Oh, BTW, I do not whine.
I respected that poster until today.
When a person I respect attacks me for no reason, I get upset.
Then I realize they don't deserve my respect.
And I get over it.

And if a johnny-come-lately shows up and insults me, I respond.

Sorry if he's your bud, he's wrong and I'm not the only one who misread his comments.

[RPM]

167. sorry - my "second-sight" isnt working - i can't read the deleted messages

but what i saw was him explaining standing and legal harm and you keep coming back with "but I am harmed"

My comment had nothing to do with the "stupid" post - I hadn't read down that far when i posted, an my comment was confined to the string on which i posted. Sure, the stupid comment was out of line, but i got the sense that he was banging his head on a brick wall because your requests for clarifcation read more like "but that is bullshit" protests.

I'm dropping it - far too much time wasted on this.

PS - he's not my bud, never seen him before, but he knows what he is talking about with respect to standing.

[beam me up scottie]

171. That's okay.

I was publicly "warned" that I was being watched after offending him.

Apparently I upset someone important, so I must be doing something right.

Too bad I never use the alert button myself, it's too much like tattling to the teacher-very effective when you cannot hold your own.

peace

[RPM]

172. yeah - the warn button should be used very conservatively...

and by that I do not mean on conservatives lurking here (although it often winds up that way)

it's certainly something that I have only used when someone threatens me - certainly something that requires malice on the other end.

i wisht there was a "right to confront your accuser" clause in the DU rules; alas, nonesuch luck.

nevertheless - don't fall for that "I upset someone, so I must be doing something right":: if that were the case, Bush would hav done a lot of things right. Somehow, i don't think he has....

Nighty night!

[beam me up scottie]

175. Thanks for the civil discourse.

I have actually learned more from the people I initially disagreed with on DU than I ever did from sheeple.

And I believe I have done my share of educating as well.

Live long and prosper.

[jobycom]

117. Thanks

I can't even figure out what they think I'm saying.

Oh well, I got to put three people on ignore, so at least I know how that works. I've been here for almost four years, and I've used ignore only twice before. This followed me into another thread, even, and one group calling itself "the posse" tacked insults onto every post I made, whether it had to do with them or not. They even bragged about being "the posse" and laughing that no moderator had caught them yet. So I don't think it was a misunderstanding. (Those were the three I ignored, obviously.)

Sigh.

[Zhade]

85. dupe

dupe

[tomg]

97. A future state of rewards and punishment

So you also have to believe in heaven and hell in Tennessee. That's just batshit crazy. I mean, it's all batshit crazy, but that's really batshit crazy.

[DistressedAmerican]

102. Hey tomg! Welcome To DU!!!

The More The Merrier!

[jobycom]

38. Notice how the original colonies have a different emphasis?

Pennsylvania and Massachusets (aside from being harder to spell without thinking about it) have constitutions dating from the end of the 18th century (I'm assuming). Neither of those exclude non-Christians; both prevent discrimination against Christians, in fact. Massachusets forbids discrimination based on denomination (think Church of England vs Catholics), whereas Penn says a person can't be excluded from office because he believes in a God.

America was not a Christian nation at the time of the Revolution. There were Christians, but there was a strong sentiment against them, as well. Most of our Founders weren't Christian, and actually many of those who supported the British were, possibly because the King was also the head of the Church of England.

The states with the clauses saying you have to believe in a god all came later, when America had become more of a Christian nation.

[DistressedAmerican]

49. Very Interesting Point. Direct Reaction To Religious Persecution In

England. Cathilocs killing protestants, protestants killing catholics. That explains (historically anyway) some of this maddness!

Great observation!

[foo_bar]

126. that was only on the books until 1833

They still have some zany colonial-era laws involving buggy whips in the Commons, but this isn't among them:

http://www.lettersfrombabylon.com/2005/01/musings_on_mass.html

[DistressedAmerican]

130. Good To Hear!

[madeline_con]

147. OMG!!

What if you were the only witness the prosecutor had on, say, a cannibal? Ciao, Mr. Defendent, you're free to go!

[GiovanniC]

26. That Is Seriously, and I Mean Seriously, Fucked Up

It is mind-blowing to me how fucked up that is.

[DistressedAmerican]

27. I Just Can't Believe I NEVER Knew!!!

I am reeling!

[GiovanniC]

36. Me Too!

I don't live in any of those states, and I'm a Christian, but my blood is boiling! Atheists are usually more "Christian" than a lot of Christians I know, and I just do not believe that you can measure the value of a man by which magical invisible guy he does or doesn't believe in.

God is way too big for that kind of narrow-mindedness.

[thinkingwoman]

12. um, that is unconstitutional

I'm not a lawyer, but I thought state constitutions could not contradict the US constitution.

I welcome being corrected by lawyers, btw, because this is truly bugging me.

[jobycom]

40. It's not clearly unconstitutional

It doesn't establish a religion, it simply says that you have to believe in some god somewhere. It would probably be overturned if challenged, but it doesn't establish a religion directly, so it's not actively unConstitutional.

Besides, no one enforces these laws, so no one has bothered to challenge them. Why enforce them? An openly professed atheist won't win in Texas, anyway.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DistressedAmerican]

47. Thank You! I Was Thinking Of A reply. But, You Nailed it!

:evilgrin:

[jobycom]

53. And what do you think he was arguing?

Or is it my argument that confused you?

[DistressedAmerican]

68. What He Was Arguing Is That Descrimination Is Descrimination.

To say we should not fight to change decsriminatory laws because no one pays attention to them or because the person being descriminated against will never get elected anyway is not a justification for these blatantly descriminatory laws to remain on the books.

I do not think I was confused by either of you.

What did you think he was saying? More importantly, does it matter one way or the other to you what he was saying?

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DistressedAmerican]

72. Agendas and Tudes. What Can You Do With Them?

Not in any productive.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jobycom]

82. But I said nothing of the sort.

I never said we shouldn't fight to change the Texas law. I clearly indicated I felt otherwise, and even laid out how I've tried to do it myself, further upthread. And that's not what the other poster claims I said, anyway. I don't think it is. I'm not sure what he was saying, and he found it cuter to flame than to answer me when I asked.

Show me where I said we shouldn't try to change the law. Show me where I implied it. Show me where the other poster claims I said that.

I said the law wasn't enforced, because they didn't have to enforce it, since an atheist wouldn't get elected in Texas, anyway. All I can figure is he thought "enforce" meant "repeal," as though I was saying we shouldn't repeal the law. But that didn't make sense, either, in the context of the sentence. So, to this moment, I have no idea what he was trying to say. I asked, and he jumped on me. So I jumped back.

So I'm asking you. What did he mean? What do you think he meant?

This is the damndest thing. I don't even know what set either one of you off.

[beam me up scottie]

109. Yup. You're a real peach:

"Are you trying to be stupid?

I never said it wasn't bad. Read the damn post again, and try to understand it this time. I was making a legal argument about why the law hasn't been challenged, not defending it. Jesus goddamn christ, some people want to fight so bad they'll deliberately misunderstand anything.

You want my opinion of the phrase in the Constitution, even though that's not what the question was about? Well, I'm an atheist, and as I pointed out, I supported the attempt to amend the law out of the Constitution, I've signed petitions to do so, and made donations to groups trying to get it done, and I've gotten in many arguments over it, and written letters to editors, to boot, and tried at the county convention in 2000 to introduce my own resolution against it. But that is NOT what the question was about, and I DID NOT say what you think I said, and I explained it TWICE. Three times, now.

NOW, do you understand, or are you still going to charge at windmills and make me explain it again?"


A regular poster child for valium...

[jobycom]

52. I'm very confused. Are you trying to argue that

they SHOULD enforce laws against atheists, or black people?

[beam me up scottie]

56. I used your words, you tell me if you advocate discrimination.

"Besides, no one enforces these laws, so no one has bothered to challenge them. Why enforce them? An openly professed atheist won't win in Texas, anyway."

[jobycom]

58. My words clearly don't advocate anything other than not enforcingq

a biased law. So if you got something else out of them, explain it, because as it stands, I said that these laws weren't enforced, and you employed they should be. The only defense I see that you can offer that makes you NOT look like you were advocating discrimination is if you don't understand the word "enforce," and think it means "repeal."

So explain it, please.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

80. I asked you POLITELY and RESPECTFULLY to explain

your position because your post seemed to be dismissive of discrimination.
I don't know you and I didn't understand if you were defending the law or just interpreting it for me.
HOW was I insulting you ?

[thinkingwoman]

64. I wasn't referring to the establishment clause

I was thinking about the statement in the constitution about no relgious test...

Article. VI.

Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, 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.

NO RELIGIOUS TEST for members of congres or state legislatures or executive or judicial officers...that's what it says.

Am I missing something?

[jobycom]

86. No, you weren't missing a thing. Thanks.

I had forgotten that. It was me missing it.

I guess when the states wrote their constitutions, they felt these weren't religious tests, or else they felt that the final clause after the semicolon only applies to the federal government--it could be read that way, in a pinch, I guess.

It would still have to be taken to court to be declared unconstitutional, and that would still require someone to actually be denied the right to run under the law, and since Texas doesn't enforce the law, there's no one to take it to court. (I hesitate to repeat that, since it seemed to be misunderstood up above. :-) )

[thinkingwoman]

94. no misunderstanding here

I get exactly what you're saying.

It's so frustrating. They (fascists) make these laws they know are wrong, then just say "hey, we're not enforcing it" as if that makes it all ok. They exploit the law to the letter, and to the breaking point.

Then, when it suits them, they change their minds and decide to enforce some obscure law to punish someone in particular, and make that person drain their resources fighting a law that never should have been made in the first place.

</rant>

sigh.

[The Magistrate]

95. At That Time, Sir

It was not felt that the Federal Constitution was binding in any way on the sovereign States, and "under the United States" was taken to mean the Federal government only, and not State office. Subsequent amendments, and Supreme Court rulings, have rather extended the application of the Federal Constitution, and these various articles probably would, if challenged in Federal court today, be overturned. But you are correct that someone must be shown to have been harmed by their enforcement before a case could be brought. Some atheist is going to have to get elected, and perhaps arrange for some friendly fellow to move for his or her removal from office, or make a scene in court when called as a witness, leading to refusal to allow him or her to testify, for any case to be pressed.

[jobycom]

118. Thanks for the explanation! nt.

[DistressedAmerican]

103. Any Laws On The Books Can Be Enforced Anytime They Want.

They should be repealed so that some fucking Tom Delay asshole does not turn around and begin enforcing it.

Enforcement of a descriminatory law SHOULD NEVER EVEN BE AN OPTION!

That to me is the bottom line of this whole discussion.

I appreciate that you have tried to change it. If is a shame you apparently couldn't. But, if you can't someone should.

[jobycom]

119. I agree that it should be changed. It's a landmine.

Some grandstanding stuffed-shirt governor (why yes, I do mean Perry) could easily invoke the law just to look tough by taking on atheists, and even though a court would probably overturn the law (as they finally did with the sodomy laws), that governor could whip people into a frenzy.

The problem is two-fold, though. One, nobody actually trying to win an election would admit to being an atheist in Texas, because they wouldn't win. And two, the Democrats are afraid to support a repeal of the law because the Republicans would use it as another wedge issue. That's why my precinct wouldn't support it, or my county (and this is a liberal county).

So until Rights become chic again, it's just an insult we have to live with.

And for the record, there are plenty of believers who would love to see it removed. One of the best Dems I know around Austin is a preacher, and there's a group of believers in Texas called the Freedom Network who opposes all religious intrusion into government. So us atheists aren't alone in the fight--we're just a minority.

[DistressedAmerican]

121. Fair Enough! Looks Like Agreement To Me. Practical Realities

of actually dealing with getting it repealed aside!

Thanks.

[The Magistrate]

125. A Pleasure To See You Gentlemen Compose Your Differences Here

"We must hang together, or we shall surely hang seperately."

[jobycom]

129. The differences weren't between us

It was another poster.

[beam me up scottie]

140. .

Funny, several posters misread your comments, I wonder why that is.
But I shouldn't be talking to you, I'll get in trouble again.
:evilgrin:

[DistressedAmerican]

177. I Find That As In The Case Of The Other "Discussion" And MOST Flamefests,

that we are on the same side. Usually these things gorw out of a simple misreading and/or unclear posts. You know the old, " Boy, I think we have a failure to communicate." scenario.

As long as the other poster does not get TOO snarky and it seems like they are open to continued discussion I usually stick it out and 9 out of 10 times we find in the end we are exactly that, on the same team.

Of course there if the occassional troll. I'll alert in 2 seconds on one of them and give them a little ass kick on the way the back to Tombstone-landia!

Peace to ALL!

[theboss]

99. Ideas change over time

The idea that the federal constitution could dictate how the states elected officials would have been seens as bizarre until at least Reconstruction.

[Roland99]

136. So, just make up a god. Every other religion has.

[ComerPerro]

24. Yeah, but the point is you can't run as an atheist

[alarimer]

61. How is that even legal?

I live in TExas and I never heard of such a thing. It has to be unConstitutional but I'll bet no one has challenged it.

[Ladyhawk]

91. That goes smack against the US Constitution.

How can they get away with that???

[greekspeak]

7. You CAN...you just MAY not

You might be physically capable of being President, but you are not permitted to. Of course, you can be an athiest and say you are a Baptist and get some nice shots on TV praying. Then you MAY be president. I am sure Washington is crawling with this sort of "Christian."

[TayTay]

8. Because not enough people will vote for you

You can run, raise money, get an organization and so forth.

However, in America, voters are free to base their decision on who they vote for on anything they want. If they decide not to vote for you based on a religious factor, then there is little you can do about it.

This is a case of you running as yourself. And a case of voters not voting for you because of their own beliefs. That is a basic foundation of democracy, the voters get to choose based on whatever occurs to them at the moment.

Have you an amendment to the Constitution that would solve this?

[beam me up scottie]

9. Atheists are godless immoral heathens.

In this country christianity = morality.

When you mention all of the christians who are anything BUT ethical, they tell you that that those people aren't REAL christians.

Bad person = not a christian.

[Lerkfish]

18. I'd vote for a liberal atheist president.

who addressed my issues. Yes indeedy I would.
I'm a christian but I've NEVER felt the private religious life of any candidate should be relevant. When we "make" it relevant as voters (which we apparently have), then all you do is encourage posers willing to fake sincerity in order to be elected.

IMHO

[beam me up scottie]

31. One would have to get that far

and atheists can't hold office in many states.
It's a nice dream.

[paineinthearse]

21. Atheists certainly CAN become POUS

Just get born again first!

:sarcasm:

[NewJeffCT]

22. I think there may have been some many years ago

in the first half of the 19th century. I thought I remember reading it on DU last year some time.

the US has become steadily more religious over the years.

[jobycom]

41. Our first half dozen presidents weren't Christian, but I'm not sure they

were atheist. Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison were deists. Not sure about JQ Adams or Jackson. I know in the middle of the 19th century, Christians used to lament that our first six presidents weren't Christian, and that therefore we were a heathen nation. The movement to put God on our money was related to this movement to redeem the nation from its heathen past.

But there is a difference between Deist and atheist. I think Benjamin Franklin was an outright atheist for a while, but in his older years he began to believe in a god. On his deathbed he was asked about his beliefs, and he teased the person asking. He admitted he believed in God, but accused the questioner of really asking if he believed that Jesus was God. He said he never worried about that, because he figured he'd know soon enough. So he wasn't an atheist at the end, but clearly not a Christian, either.

[Telly Savalas]

25. I'm a Christian Socialist, and I'd like to be president too. Why can't I?

[beam me up scottie]

28. Socialists can't hold office ?

Someone should tell Bernie that.

[Fluffdaddy]

29. I'm Fat and Bald, I Would Like To Be President! Why Can't I?

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jobycom]

42. You could even be president, if your "boss" isn't careful

Can't you see Cheney around Bush? "Nah, George, it was fluke. Eat all the pretzels you want. And why don't you ride that mountain bike on a real mountain, along some cliffs, like a real man?"

[DistressedAmerican]

48. Yepper!!!

[beam me up scottie]

35. So there are no follicularly-challenged obese politicians now ?

You have my sympathy.

[spooky3]

156. ??? there have been Presidents with those characteristics

what's your point?

[beam me up scottie]

170. Some people are

threatened by the idea of equality.
They think that equal rights mean "special" rights.
You know, for atheists, women, gays, black people, minorities in general.
So when all of us ask why we can't be equal under the law, we are REALLY asking for special consideration.
He was just letting us know that he is oppressed too.

We hear this same thing frequently in the Women's forum.

[spooky3]

191. ah yes, those "special interest" groups.

[KansDem]

30. I believe it has to do with our currency...

Every coin/bill has "In God We Trust" engraved/printed on it, so if you don't trust in God, then you don't trust in our currency. And if you don't trust in our currency, you can't be POTUS because, it seems, everything the President does these days has to do with $$$, either grabbing plenty of it for himself or his cronies.

And, besides, the big-money boys wouldn't support you if you don't believe in their "god."

I think that's why you can't be POTUS, but don't quote me...:hi:

[aden_nak]

34. Because us atheists ain't got no morals.

See, most people are so morally bankrupt, they can't imagine ever behaving like decent human beings if it weren't for the threat of going to hell over it. So they assume that everyone else is just as bad as they are, and needs some spooky, fire'n'brimstone paternal figure to Big Brother their lives from the astral plane in order to keep us all from acting like evil, sadistic animals.

Which is funny, since the worst of the lot, right now, pay the most lip service to their religion.

[DistressedAmerican]

37. Bingo! DING DING DING!

[msmcghee]

43. Well said kanneda . .

[aden_nak]

44. Actually, that my name spells Canada backwards is a coincidence.

I literally had this handle online for at least two years before someone pointed out that phoenetic quirk. I'm from Jersey, myself. ;)

[Double T]

39. Can you Lie? Can you deceive? Can you fabricate evidence?....

Can you rig the voting system in your favor? Can you act like a phony Christian? Can you screw up words and sentences on a routine basis? Can you repeat the "Administration Message" a billion times? If you answered yes to all of these questions, you are ready to become a shoe in candidate for the republicans in 2008 to be president!!!! See How Easy That Was!!!

[leftofthedial]

51. because you are a godless commie who is an enemy of Murka

or something like that.

But we are the most openly discriminated-against group in America, are we not?

[H2O Man]

55. Can't sell your soul

if your one of them there atheists.

[ArkDem]

63. Not smart enough.

[Modem Butterfly]

65. Just tell them you're a Xian

It's really easy. Just tell people you're a Xian, tear up a little when you talk about the baby Jesus, stay awake at church and suppress your gag reflex when talking to relgious leaders and you'll be fine. If anyone questions your sincerity, question their patriotism and they'll shut right up.

[funflower]

70. We've had tons of atheists presidents.

They're just good liars.

[beam me up scottie]

71. Really ?

Which ones ?

[funflower]

75. OK. Maybe not atheists, but Jefferson and Lincoln, for starters, were

absolutely against organized religion. Jefferson called the Bible "diamonds in a dung hill" or something like that created his own edited version of the Bible that threw out a lot of what he considered the "dung" He predicted that within 50 years, conventional Christianity would be gone from the U.S..

Heck. Reagan didn't go to church.

[DistressedAmerican]

76. If Only Jefferson Had Been Correct!

[Ladyhawk]

93. I agree. I keep hoping this power grab is fundamentalism's

last breath. If they win, we get some more dark ages or something. Sigh.

[funflower]

174. I've thought the same thing.

After the fall of the Roman Empire, it was a 1,000 years of theocracy and regression. God! Could that happen again?

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

78. A majority of voters ???

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
:rofl:

Where the hell do you live ???

:rofl:

[DistressedAmerican]

83. QUIT WHINING? Are you freaking Kidding Me?

Well as long as the majority ALL descriminate I guess that is just fine. I guess you don't mind the lack of minority or female presidents either? Hell the majority of Americans disagree with those folks getting the job. I guess they should just deal with it and stop whining?

I for one am just so danm bored with their "melodramatic self pity". Its fun for them to feel descriminated against, for a time.

That is the most messed up post I have read today!

Keep justifying descrimination....

[beam me up scottie]

92. Don't pay attention

to him.
He hates atheists.
You know how the E.A.C. turns people into chickens ...

[Modem Butterfly]

90. So is all discrimination okay in your book...

...or just discrimination against atheists?

[beam me up scottie]

106. BINGO !

We're scum, you know.

[Itsthetruth]

77. Because You Have To Be Nominated By God Or His/Her Representative

eom

[Pockets]

79. Missouri is interesting

In my home state of Missouri their constitution seems fairly progressive but there's something weird about it:

"...no person shall, on account of his religious persuasion or belief, be rendered ineligible to any public office or trust or profit in this state, be disqualified from testifying or serving as a juror, or be molested in his person or estate"

Molested!?! Gee I'm glad they clarified that.

[Cleita]

81. I think most of them are closet atheists.

What I want to know is why only Christians are deemed worthy to be President?

[Jose Diablo]

96. Sorry, but unless

you are a member of the American Royalty, you can never be President. They do allow temporary membership if you agree to follow their agenda, but otherwise, tough toenail.

Wouldn't you rather be a singer on American Idol or maybe a young Republican, you can go pretty far money wise if you promise to help when needed by being a young Republican.

I think Moon might have some openings, or maybe Falwell. You could go to a missionary school, maybe the one down in Argentina that Moon flies to all the time. Be a big shot in a church.

But President? No chance.

[boohootwo]

100. No problem. But you should give faith a chance anyway.

[Bouncy Ball]

113. How do you know he hasn't?

What a weird thing to say.

[JackRiddler]

104. wow good work kick & recommend

[Bouncy Ball]

105. I'm a Christian

and I don't care what the religious beliefs are of a presidential candidate, if they are atheist or not.

I would care if they did anything illegal or said "YAY SATAN!" mostly because I would worry about their sanity, but honestly, I worry about the sanity of the fundies!

You would have my vote!

[DistressedAmerican]

108. Trolling For A VP Slot? We Could Use You To Appeal To The Devout!

I'll have my people give your people a call!:bounce:

[Bouncy Ball]

110. LOL!

Great!

No, seriously, I don't understand the hangup about atheists. Some of my closest friends are atheists, what's the big fucking deal?

Sometimes I think this country needs to get over itself. Being Christian doesn't automatically make me any more moral than being atheist makes a person immoral. You don't have to have religious beliefs to have ethics and principles.

[DistressedAmerican]

111. Sadly That Is The Presumption.

I once had a Christian argue that I really did believe in God and just wouldn't admit it. Because "EVERYONE believes in God!" That is nhow MANY think. We are like some sort of freak to them. Abnormal or lying!

One word - Wackadoo!

[Bouncy Ball]

112. I just don't get why anyone CARES!!!

WHY do I care whether you believe in God or not? Not one Christian has been able to explain that to me. What kind of emotional investment am I supposed to have in people believing in God? I don't get it.

I don't care if a person believes there's a purple three-headed god living in their teapot. I don't care if a person doesn't believe in ANY supernatural thing at all. Heck, I don't believe in ghost stories.

As long as people don't hurt each other with it (and in my opinion, atheism hurts NO ONE), then I just. Don't. Care.

:shrug:

[Vinca]

114. I wish an atheist was president and not beholden to a whacko

sect of breast beaters in the performance of his (or, I'm dreaming, her) duties. It's apparent that in this country you have to be white, male, rich and of the correct religion to be nominated, much less elected. And, goes without saying, no room for gays.

[DanCa]

115. I have no idea why

I am a christian I would vote for ron reagan jr and mike malloy in a heart beat. In my book i vote for a way a person carries themselves, and treats other people. I doesnt matter if said person is a jew a christian an aethiest a wican or pagan. So long as they respects others and my right to worship as I please Ill do like wise.
Btw Bush is no more of a christian the adolf hitler.

[AntiCoup2K4]

122. Strictly speaking as a "Devil's advocate" here.....

...technically speaking, an Atheist would have an advantage as far as being able to act improperly in office, as they would not be bound by an Oath of Office, since "so help me God" doesn't mean anything to an Atheist.

Yes it's a ridiculously simple explanation, but probably very close to what actually took place when such laws were passed.

Now as for the actual religious beliefs of some of these so called "leaders", I doubt seriously whether George Bush Jr has read a Bible in his life. I also doubt Osama Bin Laden (being a long term CIA operative) is really as religious as his followers think he is. Though I'll give him credit that he probably knows Wahabbi fundamentalism better than the Chimp knows Christianity.

[onager]

184. "So help me god" is not part of the Presidential oath

Check out the REAL oath of office, which is in the Constitution. The words "so help me God" are nowhere to be found.

Like so much of the religious cant and bullshit we have to deal with every day in this country, saying "so help me god" is nothing but an "old tradition."

In fact, there's not one mention of a god anywhere in the Constitution. Religion is only mentioned twice. Once in Article 6 (No religious test for Federal office) and, of course, in the First Amendment.

(Lincoln had this same problem with the Gettysburg Address. His original draft, which still exists, does not contain the words "under God." Those words were added by some of the newspaper reporters listening to him. His Secty Of State, the excessively religious Seward, leaped at the chance to make them part of the official record.)

[NNadir]

124. Because you're an atheist. So am I, but I don't want to be President.

I know cooties aren't real, but I would feel cooties nonetheless whenever I sat in the White House.

In the old days, atheists could be President: Thomas Jefferson was one of us probably, others were as well.

"George Washington, first president: He seems to have had the characteristic unconcern of the 18th century deist for the forms and creeds of institutional religion. Although he often referred to Providence as an impersonal force, remote and abstract, he never declared himself to be a Christian according to contemporary reports or in any of his voluminous correspondence. Washington championed the cause of freedom from religious intolerance and compulsion. When John Murray (a Universalist who denied the existence of Hell) was invited to become an army chaplain, the other chaplains petitioned for his dismissal. Instead, Washington gave him the appointment. On his deathbed, Washington uttered no words of a religious nature and did not call for a clergyman to be in attendance. (2)

John Adams, second president: Drawn t the study of law but facing pressure from his father to become a clergyman, he wrote that he found among the lawyers "a noble air and gallant achievements" but among the clergy, the "pretended sanctity of some absolute dunces." (3) Late in life, he wrote, "Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, 'this would be the best of all possible Worlds, if there were no religion in it'!!!!" (4)

It was during Adams' presidency that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that "the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." This treaty with Tripoli was written and concluded by Joel Barlow during Washington's administration. (2)

Thomas Jefferson, third President and author of the Declaration of Independence: "I trust that there is not a young man how living in the United States who will not die an Unitarian." (5) He referred to the Revelation of St. John as "the ravings of a maniac" (6) and wrote, "The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained." (7)"

http://www.atheistalliance.org/library/morris-founding_fathers.html

Herndon says Lincoln, his law partner, was one of us.

But forget about the United States. It has abandoned its principles and its constitution. It is now a theocracy. Get used to it, we are entering a period of extraordinary decline.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kliljedahl]

134. That's true

Sorry, my bad.


Keith’s Barbeque Central

[DistressedAmerican]

135. Good Day At UDU?

[kliljedahl]

137. You liked my photo I assume

Keith’s Barbeque Central

[DanCa]

128. Chimpy's church photo ops don't make him a Christian

Sorry I just had to say it. Funny how they right refuses to acknowledge evolution but there in love with dictator who looks like a man monkey eh?

[DistressedAmerican]

133. Sure Wish The Fucking Fundies Could Figure That Out!

Or maybe they do not care as long as he does their bidding!

[DanCa]

163. Fundies love it when chimp goes to church

That means they can take the weekend off. Seriously you go into a church after chimpy chatters a few words and the pews are practically empty.

[LiberalAndProud]

139. Because you're not good enough at lying. Gotta be able to lie real good.

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Modem Butterfly]

142. I'm an athiest .. and I would NOT vote for you

I would vote for someone who believes that his or her actions are going to be judged at the end of their lives.

:rolf:


What a strange crop of "athiests" we have today!

[beam me up scottie]

149. Is there some new

definition of the word that I didn't know about ?

The E.A.C. should really send out memos for this sort of thing, you know ?

[Modem Butterfly]

152. We say atheist, he says athiest

Really, we should just call the whole thing off.

:evilgrin:

I wonder if an athiest could be elected president.

[beam me up scottie]

160. BWAHAHAHAHAHA !

An athiest could, especially if he voted for chimpy and the chicken hawks, they have RULES you know...

:rofl:

You got to hand it to DA, he really knows how to smoke 'em out !
Did you tutor him ?

[NMMNG]

181. Don't ask

Somehow I think we're better off not knowing :scared:

[beam me up scottie]

187. Funny how these odd atheists just started outing themselves, no ?

How can so many self-proclaimed atheists be unaware of the definition?

Interesting.

[Swamp Rat]

188. Did I miss something?

:D :hi: :hug:

[beam me up scottie]

190. DUDE!

How are you ???
Man, we've missed you.
You missed an "athiest"(sic) claiming he would not vote for DA because at least xtians have rules.(#141)

:wow:

You just missed it, damn it!

[salvorhardin]

144. Soo...

You voted for Tom Delay, George W. Bush, and Bill Frist, right? They believe (or at least they say they do) that they're going to be judged at the end of their lives.

They've got rules too... it's just that their rules seems to be "Do unto others before they do unto you" and "Whoever dies with the most toys wins."

[beam me up scottie]

150. Zowie !!!

:applause:

[beam me up scottie]

168. So-since we feel our actions should be judged by the citizens of the world

in the here and now, he thinks we are morally inferior to someone who thinks a big guy that looks like Jerry Garcia is keeping score somewhere up there in the clouds ?

Oh, well good, I feel SO much safer now...

[jonnyblitz]

146. wow..i don't believe an atheist would say something that..

umm..nevermind.

[Modem Butterfly]

153. But an "athIEst" would

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[jonnyblitz]

166. damn i am slow..LOL

took me a few to figure out what u meant..duh me..but then..i am a crappy speller myself.

[Zhade]

157. Sure. We believe you. Really.

NT!

[DistressedAmerican]

169. WTF? Athiests Can't Have A Set Of Personal Values That Guide Their Action

That is now officially the second craziest thing I have read today. The first was deleted by the mods.

I have a set of rules. Do I think I will burn if I break them? NO. In most cases, I think that MY set of rules is far more moral than those being played out by these fundie freakshows. For example, I do not believe that it is acceptable behavior to kill abortion docs. Where some christians do. Whose rules do you think are better there? Huh?

Bow down and assume that Christians are inherently more moral than athiests because they fear being punished in the afterlife if you freaking want.

But, I submit that if that is the way you feel about athiests and you actually ARE ONE, that you yourself must have a value system that you would not want a president to have. That would be a personal issue and not something to project on other folks.

[Zhade]

194. That guy's an atheist the way I'm the pope.

NT!

[NMMNG]

180. People who act good only because they feel they are going to be judged

are not good people at all.

People who are good because being good is the right thing to do are the truly good people.

[EnfantTerrible]

143. ummmm... because where you get your directives?

n/t

[beam me up scottie]

151. What do you have against the E.A.C. ?

We run a clean ship and I am offended by your implication, sir !

[salvorhardin]

158. The EAC?

The Embroiderers' Association of Canada? :-)
http://www.eac.ca

[beam me up scottie]

161. Evil Atheist Conspiracy.

Huge threat.
Ask a fundie.
We're taking over the world, just like the villains in the old cartoons. Woo hoo !
But then, so are the Embroiderers !

[salvorhardin]

165. ROTFL!

It's clearly the evil atheist embroiderers that you really have to watch out for. :-)

[beam me up scottie]

173. Directive ! Do you mean THE PRIME DIRECTIVE ?

"As the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred, no Star Fleet personnel may interfere with the healthy development of alien life and culture. Such interference includes the introduction of superior knowledge, strength, or technology to a world whose society is incapable of handling such advantages wisely. Star Fleet personnel may not violate this Prime Directive, even to save their lives and/or their ship unless they are acting to right an earlier violation or an accidental contamination of said culture. This directive takes precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral obligation."


Too bad the fundie zealots don't watch Trek instead of Falwell.

[EnfantTerrible]

178. I just realized that my attempt at pith

had a typo. It should have read

"ummmm... where would you get your directives?"

Shrubya humor... didn't mean to offend... I was, um, trying to be, oh... funny, I guess...

since chim listens to a higher father? I was... oh, never mind....

[beam me up scottie]

183. Sorry, but mention Directive to a Trekkie

and what do you expect ? :evilgrin:
No offense taken, I was being funny too.
Two different kinds of funny.
It's kind of sad more than funny, actually.
I just remembered who was in charge.
Now I'm depressed.
sigh...

[EnfantTerrible]

195. As you wrote earlier

intention can get lost in posting.

Glad we're okay.

:)

[AngryAmish]

162. Because you are not 35

Or you were not born a US Citizen. Or you are Bill Clinton.


All joking aside, unless you renounce atheism you will never get elected. Just the way this country is.

I'll never be president but for good reasons. There has been some...unpleasantness...in my past.

[NMMNG]

179. Because 76.something% of the US believes in a fairy in the sky

And they don't trust people who don't. They think that people are incapable of being moral without religion. They'd be afraid that if an atheist became president s/he'd order all churches burned down or something crazy like that.

[onager]

185. Or we'd turn all the churches into casinos.

Maybe start with Bingo and gradually acclimate the congregations to it. :eyes:

[elshiva]

182. Because Religious Bigotry stinks!

Sorry! :(

[beam me up scottie]

189. Thanks for the support, Elshiva !

LOVE the new flag!
Phelps' crew was here today protesting a soldier's funeral, I would have LOVED to see a counter demonstration all waving that flag.
Their maggot-filled heads would have exploded !

[elshiva]

202. YOU are welcome, bmus!

That is a great flag and would love to wave it at Phelps and crew.

[Swamp Rat]

186. 'Cause yer a fucking nutcase, DA!

I saw your circus pic on bartcop the other day... you fucking rule dude!!! :headbang:

[DistressedAmerican]

196. I Can't Help It I'm An Athiest Which To These Folks Means I Have Been

tricked by the DEVIL!!!

[Swamp Rat]

197. Check out this GIF:

I made it with a free program, so it has severe limitations. Working with GIFs forces me to use 256 colors, but all my pics require, at minimum, thousands of colors. This causes some pixilation I'd like to get rid of. Any suggestions? ... no, I can't afford the full version Photoshop right now... unless it has a GIF animator built in, which means I will sell my fat ass on Bourbon St. to pay for it. :D

[DistressedAmerican]

198. Nice To See You Playing! Digging it. What are you using?

I have had the same problems. Not really sure.

If you are using that Ulead Gif animator. I can gove you a couple of tips. PM me!

I suggest one blend cell in the middle to make the transitiona bit smoother. That is how I did this one and it worked well:



Did several levels of transition on this one to get the growing ears and teeth effect:



Just some thoughts. You Rock The Southland!!!

[Swamp Rat]

200. The GIF animator that I found, that worked, has NO options

except for length of still. I made a movie last night using Final Cut Pro (like Avid) that is really cool - I added trippy synth noises and dissolves - but it is 6 megs, which is way too big. I may need to buy a decent animator real soon... this is TOO fun!!! :D

[Kiteflyer]

192. Fake it like Bush

Tell the public that Jesus talks to you. All the brain dead religious right will vote for you. Put prayer back in school and they will re-elect you to a second term. Then you will be free to start wars all around the world like Bush and kill non-white non-christians.

[Solly Mack]

193. As soon as America overcomes it's widespread fear and ignorance

So...ah...Never?

I'm jus' sayin'

[Lisa]

199. as long as you like ice cream ...

After observing American voters for more than 3 decades, I've concluded that it's more likely they'd choose an atheist or agnostic than someone who admitting to disliking ice cream! (Practically the first question the press asks aspiring candidates is "which kind of ice cream do you like best?")

[Dee625]

201. You cannot hold office because we cannot have choices made

by people of reason. Governing must be done by faith.
/sarcasm

Also because you belong to one of the last few minorities it is politically correct to discriminate against. In this administration it is even politically desired.