Are there any Oklahoma residents on here, or people with family/friends in Oklahoma?

[Ruth Harris]

This specifically applies to people living in Oklahoma’s 3rd congressional district – but also indirectly to all of us in the US.

Wade Burleson is a retired pastor and is running for that congressional seat. Today on his personal Facebook page, he posted this comment on a post titled “SAVE OUR REPUBLIC - SAY "NO" TO DEMOCRACY!”



This was my reply to him. I quoted the applicable portion of his comment so he could not edit it after the fact to make it sound better.



If you live there, or know someone who lives there, please make this known and encourage people to vote in the primary the end of this month. Our country does not need someone with this attitude holding a seat in our government.

Ruth

 

[Elixir]

Ruth, I sincerely doubt that this preacher creature knows what democracy is. He vilifies it because he conflates democracy and Democrats.

 

[laughing dog]

I looked up the age demographics of OK’s 3rd Congressional district and about 13% is 65 yrs or older. That demographic tends to have a high turnout rate for elections. Maybe Mr Burleson killed his chances with that particular bit of hateful stupidity.

 

[bilby]

I looked up the age demographics of OK’s 3rd Congressional district and about 13% is 65 yrs or older. That demographic tends to have a high turnout rate for elections. Maybe Mr Burleson killed his chances with that particular bit of hateful stupidity.

I doubt it. Generally, authoritarians get plenty of support from people who are happy to see the cruelty towards people who are not them; And those people are also confident that “of course, he doesn’t mean us”. Right up until the point when it turns out that he did mean us.

First they came for the recipients of government money, and I did not speak out, because I didn’t like to think of myself as a recipient of government money…

 

[laughing dog]

I looked up the age demographics of OK’s 3rd Congressional district and about 13% is 65 yrs or older. That demographic tends to have a high turnout rate for elections. Maybe Mr Burleson killed his chances with that particular bit of hateful stupidity.

I doubt it. Generally, authoritarians get plenty of support from people who are happy to see the cruelty towards people who are not them; And those people are also confident that “of course, he doesn’t mean us”. Right up until the point when it turns out that he did mean us.

First they came for the recipients of government money, and I did not speak out, because I didn’t like to think of myself as a recipient of government money…

You may be right. But if US history is any guide, US geezers are protective of their Social Security, so this may prove an exception to your trenchant observation.

 

[Politesse]

I do, but alas, my Oklahoma relations would not see the problem with this. We're not close.

 

[Ruth Harris]

And this is our latest interaction - note that he very carefully did not use the "Reply" function, so I would not be notified of his comment



Ruth

 

[ZiprHead]

NO ONE serving our country should lose their voting rights.

FTFY

 

[Ruth Harris]

NO ONE serving our country should lose their voting rights.

FTFY

Well, I do agree with you on that - but the idea that someone thinks a service member who receives SNAP benefits should lose their voting rights positively sets my head on fire with anger. Anyone who is honorably serving in the military deserves only our highest respect, and taking away their right to vote definitely does not meet that standard.

Ruth

 

[ZiprHead]

NO ONE serving our country should lose their voting rights.

FTFY

Well, I do agree with you on that - but the idea that someone thinks a service member who receives SNAP benefits should lose their voting rights positively sets my head on fire with anger. Anyone who is honorably serving in the military deserves only our highest respect, and taking away their right to vote definitely does not meet that standard.

Ruth

Understandable.

On the rare occasion I'm on Twitter, I don't hold back on such folk. I clearly tell them that they are vile pieces of shit. I only rarely go there so I don't care if I get suspended or thrown off.

 

[Ruth Harris]

I offer without comment his latest Facebook post - read it carefully and make sure you select to see "All comments" under his post.

American Constitutionalist

Ruth

 

[Hermit]

I offer without comment his latest Facebook post - read it carefully and make sure you select to see "All comments" under his post.

American Constitutionalist

Ruth

From that post:

...though you can be an atheist and a citizen of the United States, you can't as an atheist take an oath of political office within the United States and swear "to uphold and defend the Constitution from enemies, both foreign and domestic."

That is utter bullshit. From the Wikipedia article titled Religious qualifications for public office in the United States:

Religious requirements for political office in the United States were unconstitutional on the national level of the federal system of government established by the Constitution of the United States since the ratification of the articles of the Constitution in 1788. The No Religious Test Clause of Article VI of the Constitution expressly stated that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States".

State requirements for political office were not entirely abolished until 1961, when the Supreme Court of the United States rejected a provision of the Maryland State Constitution requiring all public officeholders to declare a belief in God in the case of Torcaso v. Watkins.[2] Roy Torcaso, an atheist, had filed suit in Maryland to establish his right to become a notary public without swearing his belief in God, as demanded by the Maryland Constitution. After being rebuffed, Torcaso went to the Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously that the state's religious restriction was invalid as a violation of guaranteed constitutional rights.

Although the Torcaso decision dismissed enforcement of religious requirements for office as unconstitutional in the United States, antiquated provisions barring atheists from occupying political offices were not immediately stricken from state legislation. As a result, a number of lawsuits were initiated after 1961 to secure the right to hold public office without conforming to religious requirements. These cases followed the United States Supreme Court's precedent.

In 1997, the Supreme Court of South Carolina decided the case of Silverman v. Campbell, likewise following the Supreme Court ruling in Torcaso v. Watkins. The court held that Article VI, section 2 of the South Carolina State Constitution ("No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution") and Article XVII, section 4 ("No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution") could not be enforced as articles in conflict with the Constitution of the United States.

Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States:

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.

 

[crazyfingers]

Stupid and evil go hand in hand.

 

[Jarhyn]

Stupid and evil go hand in hand.

I would say it's more stupid and evil go leash in hand.

 

[Ruth Harris]

This morning, I finally commented on his post:



I just went back to his page to see if he had replied - and POOF!



Don't know if it was due to me or other comments, but he has either deleted his personal Facebook page or changed the permissions to allow only certain people access. But I did save that particular page and all comments as a pdf file after I made my comment so I still have it

@Hermit I read your comments. They were very good.

Ruth

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I just went back to his page to see if he had replied - and POOF!

View attachment 39098

Don't know if it was due to me or other comments, but he has either deleted his personal Facebook page or changed the permissions to allow only certain people access. But I did save that particular page and all comments as a pdf file after I made my comment so I still have it

@Hermit I read your comments. They were very good.

Ruth

He just blocked you. He presumably nuked your comment but his reply is there:

Ruth Harris - it is a philosophical test, not a religious test. Belief in a Creator and the Laws of Nature is Constitutional (see the Declaration of Independence, the FOUNDING DOCUMENT upon which the Constitution springs). A denial of the Creator is irrational, not irreligious. You don't have to be religious to believe in a Creator. You just can't be a moron (Greek for foolish). Infidels who deny a Creator will become tyrants when in charge of a government, at least according to our Founding Fathers.

 

[Ruth Harris]

He just blocked you.

Well, isn't that special. Bless his heart.

Ruth

 

[crazyfingers]

He just blocked you. He presumably nuked your comment but his reply is there:

Ruth Harris - it is a philosophical test, not a religious test. Belief in a Creator and the Laws of Nature is Constitutional (see the Declaration of Independence, the FOUNDING DOCUMENT upon which the Constitution springs). A denial of the Creator is irrational, not irreligious. You don't have to be religious to believe in a Creator. You just can't be a moron (Greek for foolish). Infidels who deny a Creator will become tyrants when in charge of a government, at least according to our Founding Fathers.

Bullshit from a piece of shit.

"Denial of the Creator is irrational, not irreligious"?

What's this rubbish?

People who don't believe in a Creator become tyrants? Since most people in Denmark and Sweden don't believe in a God, they must be tyrannical hell holes to live in despite Nordic countries having the happiest people. On the other hand, theocracies are so enlightened.

 

[Hermit]

This morning, I finally commented on his post:

View attachment 39097

I just went back to his page to see if he had replied - and POOF!

View attachment 39098

Don't know if it was due to me or other comments, but he has either deleted his personal Facebook page or changed the permissions to allow only certain people access. But I did save that particular page and all comments as a pdf file after I made my comment so I still have it

@Hermit I read your comments. They were very good.

Ruth

Your comment is more incisive - which probably is why Burleson blocked you.

He might give me the chop later, but I have screengrabbed the entire thread as it stood half an hour ago. You may or may not want to do something with those images.

 

[Ruth Harris]

You may or may not want to do something with those images.

I may

Thank you. He apparently has a very thin skin, if his only idea was to block me and delete a comment which was just asking a question.

Ruth