I thought mods were supposed to be impartial.

[markw]

I guess they don't like it being pointed out that they aren't.

[ForeverAutumn]

I didn't delete your posts and close the thread because you accused me of not being impartial. For what it's worth, I haven't even read the Romney thread other than the last three pages. I closed the thread because I wanted to make a point about the comfort of the users of this site and you and Feanor wanted to hijack the thread and fill it with your negative comments.

I made my point and deleted everything else, including a negative comment about you.

[JohnMichael]

This is probably one of the least moderated sites as far as giving much leeway. We rarely ban anyone, we seldom close a thread and do not get overly concerned when threads go too far off topic.

Mark if you have an accusation to make, make it and show what you see as partiality.

[Feanor]

This is probably one of the least moderated sites as far as giving much leeway. We rarely ban anyone, we seldom close a thread and do not get overly concerned when threads go too far off topic.

Mark if you have an accusation to make, make it and show what you see as partiality.

I agree that moderators here are forbearant as well as impartial, and the recent Romney thread is good example.

[markw]

This is probably one of the least moderated sites as far as giving much leeway. We rarely ban anyone, we seldom close a thread and do not get overly concerned when threads go too far off topic.

Mark if you have an accusation to make, make it and show what you see as partiality.

It's strange that you chose to finally close that "Romney" thread when it encroached on a subject close to your heart. Had you left it closed when you initially did, this would not have been an issue but, I guess since up to that point it consisted of mainly religion-bashing, a subject you tangentially support, I gather you had no problems with reopening it on request.

Does that answer your question?

[JohnMichael]

It's strange that you chose to finally close that "Romney" thread when it encroached on a subject close to your heart. Had you left it closed when you initially did, this would not have been an issue but, I guess since up to that point it consisted of mainly religion-bashing, a subject you tangentially support, I gather you had no problems with reopening it on request.

Does that answer your question?

No it does not. my opinions as a member are different than my actions as a mod. I am not always impartial in beliefs but when it comes time to close a thread it is not one comment or theme. I first closed it when the inbred comments began. Next I gave everyone a 24 hour warning because the thread had become so hate filled that they had that time to get the hate out. I also wanted to give everyone a chance for a final say. Sounds impartial to me.

Again what in your mind thinks something was close to my heart that caused me to close the thread? Out with it man.

[markw]

Romney thread,post 415: Comment is made for me to "bend over and turn the other cheek.

Post 416: I note the offensive nature you might see in that terminology. I surely saw it. If you try to deny it, I'll outright call you a liar to your face.

Post 418: In you come, jumping in with both feet playing the big, bad mod. It's odd that you didn't say a word with all the religion bashing but, let one a gay allusion is made, you come running in, all huffing and puffing.

So, as I said before, it all depends on whose bull is being gored, doesn't it?

Happy now?

[Feanor]

I didn't delete your posts and close the thread because you accused me of not being impartial. For what it's worth, I haven't even read the Romney thread other than the last three pages. I closed the thread because I wanted to make a point about the comfort of the users of this site and you and Feanor wanted to hijack the thread and fill it with your negative comments.

I made my point and deleted everything else, including a negative comment about you.

You have shown impartiality, IMO.

[dingus]

good moderation is never impartial when it comes to the well being of the forums...

[Florian]

I did not know we where the most hated group. I asume this is only for red states in the USA?

[noddin0ff]

The only thing I care about is when your beliefs affect me in any way shape or form.

Well, we live in a Society so we all impact one another regardless of what we believe or what those beliefs rest on. It is possible to respect, but differ. Set a good example and over time people may follow it.

[ForeverAutumn]

Atheists...can't run for office in 7 U.S. States?

Is that true? It seems to me that would go against First Amendment rights.

[markw]

Is that true? It seems to me that would go against First Amendment rights.

I'd like to see some proof of that, too. But, since it's more of rich's delusional BS, I doubt it'll be forthcoming.

[noddin0ff]

From Wiki (Discrimination against atheists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The constitutions of these six US states ban atheists from holding public office:

Arkansas:

"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."[78]

Maryland:

"That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.”[79]

Mississippi:

"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state."[80]

South Carolina:

"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."[81]

Tennessee:

"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."[82]

Texas:

"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."[83]

A seventh state constitution discriminates against atheists by affording special protection to theists only.

Pennsylvania:

"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."[84]

[markw]

From Wiki (Discrimination against atheists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The constitutions of these six US states ban atheists from holding public office:

Arkansas:

"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."[78]

Maryland:

"That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.”[79]

Mississippi:

"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state."[80]

South Carolina:

"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."[81]

Tennessee:

"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."[82]

Texas:

"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."[83]

A seventh state constitution discriminates against atheists by affording special protection to theists only.

Pennsylvania:

"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."[84]

Apparantly, no atheist has ever shown an interest in serviig the public by running for office in any of those states. If they had, this issue would have been brought up sooner. So, obviously, it's a moot point.

[ForeverAutumn]

Apparantly, no atheist has ever shown an interest in serviig the public by running for office in any of those states. If they had, this issue would have been brought up sooner. So, obviously, it's a moot point.

Or an atheist walks among you. I mean, if an atheist wanted to run for office in one of those states it's not likely they would show their horns.

[markw]

Or an atheist walks among you. I mean, if an atheist wanted to run for office in one of those states it's not likely they would show their horns.

Can you find any athiests that hold any office in any state at all? I can't. And I'm not just looking in those seven states.

So, it's a moot point. They simply aren't interested in running for office anywhere AFAICT.

[ForeverAutumn]

Can you find any athiests that hold any office in any state at all? I can't. And I'm not just looking in those seven states.

So, it's a moot point. They simply aren't interested in running for office anywhere AFAICT.

First of all, that's not a logical argument. (There are no atheists in office therefore no atheists are interested in running). There are all kinds of other reasons that an atheist may choose not to run. Or perhaps they ran for office and were not elected. Or perhaps there are atheists in office and you just don't know it.

Second, based on the strength of religious beliefs in the USA and the importance that it plays in politics, if I were an atheist who wanted to run for office I would not be waving my atheist flag (as I stated in my last post).

Third, just because you think it's true (AFAYCT) doesn't make it so.

[ForeverAutumn]

Can you find any athiests that hold any office in any state at all? I can't. And I'm not just looking in those seven states.

You're not looking very hard then. Several are named in the article that noddinoff posted.

I'll post the link again so that you don't need to scroll back to find it and read it. Just scroll down to where it says United States. Discrimination against atheists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And before you suggest it, I'm not whining that Atheists are being descriminated against (as the article title implies) I'm just responding to your inquiry regarding whether I can find an atheist in any office in any state at all. My answer is "yes, I can".

[noddin0ff]

Apparantly, no atheist has ever shown an interest in serviig the public by running for office in any of those states. If they had, this issue would have been brought up sooner. So, obviously, it's a moot point.

Kinda like saying no gays ever showed an interest in being in the military until they were allowed to do so. ;-)

[markw]

Kinda like saying no gays ever showed an interest in being in the military until they were allowed to do so. ;-)

Well, it's been over a year since they were allowed in and I haven't heard of any breaking down the doors to the recruiting centers to enlist. Anoter moot point. Lotsa noise, all for nothing.

[JohnMichael]

Well, it's been over a year since they were allowed in and I haven't heard of any breaking down the doors to the recruiting centers to enlist. Anoter moot point. Lotsa noise, all for nothing.

Federal Eye - Eye Opener: Estimate: 66,000 gays in the military

Eye Opener: Estimate: 66,000 gays in the military
By Ed O'Keefe

Happy Tuesday! An estimated 66,000 gay, lesbian and bisexual people are serving in the U.S. military, roughly 2 percent of all military personnel, according to a report released Tuesday by a gay rights policy center. The figures suggest a slight increase in the number of gays, lesbians and bisexuals in the military, and they provide opponents of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy with fresh data as they lobby the Obama administration for its repeal.

Gays, lesbians and bisexuals account for approximately 13,000 active duty service members, equal to less than 1 percent currently deployed, the report estimated. About 53,000 others serve in the National Guard and reserves, equaling about 3.4 percent.



I remember a highly decorated soldier speaking to us at a Gay Alliance after his discharge and his words stuck with me. I received a medal for killing men and I was discharged for loving a man. It was then I realized how screwed up things were. Now that gays can serve openly is a step in the right direction and after all they have been serving along side straight service people for years.

[ForeverAutumn]

Okay, I've had a bit more time to thoroughly read this...

Arkansas:

"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."[78]

So if you wanted to get out of testifying in court in Arkansas all you have to do is claim that you're atheist? I'm willing to bet that's not well publicized.

[noddin0ff]

Perhaps we could all try to use our heads instead of calling BS (both ways)

[ForeverAutumn]

Thanks noddinOff. The silly thing about this is that's it's impossible to prove someone's religious beliefs (or lack thereof). If I wanted to run for office in any of these states, and it was important enough to me, I would just join a church, become very active in the church community, and claim that I found religion. Whether I actually truly believed in a "Supreme Being" would up for the voters' interpretation.

But I also wonder about my original question...how is this not going against the First Amendment? Or is it just that since nobody has ever challenged the laws in these States they remain on the books.