Are you an Atheist? Do you live in the state of Massachusetts? If you answered 'Yes' to both of these questions, you could be facing up to a one year imprisonment and three hundred dollar fine for your transgression.

File this one under insane, obscure, unconstitutional laws that are probably never enforced.

Chapter 272: Section 36. of the General Laws of Massachusetts states:

"Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior."

More of the article here: Link

---------------------------------------------------------------
Amazing how the christians have pressed an item of actual law against the very ideas this country was founded on... Censorship, hatred, discrimination to those that disagree. It's against the law to speak truthfully that their god is a monster... But hey, the christian god has used terrorism and fear to spread his word in the bible... Why shouldn't christians? Threatening to jail atheists or others is a nice idea to push on the faith... Least that's the idea.

It's no wonder so many atheists don't say that they are. Christian hatred and discrimination is high in this country. Saying you're atheist can hurt your job hunt, credit and even your very life.

Wow, that angers me...so I can be thrown in jail for being a Chassid? This is disgusting. But like you said Kratos, this is how they are. You don't have to look at the past, you can look at the now. It's been only one week since I left the Christ-god and already I face daily persecution from my Christian colleagues. Blech, oh well, "Vengence is mine says the Lord." Besides, isn't gay marriage legal in Massachusetts?

I wonder if this law has ever been enforced there.

I highly doubt it. All states have stupid laws that aren't enforced. I'm curious in what year this law passed.

Have they heard of the first amendment's.

Unbelievable. Is this a recent law, do you know? We have some old laws here in Oz - hangovers from a bygone era, which no-one has ever bothered repealing. One such gave us all a giggle when (about ten years ago) a law student found it was still legal to drive up to one hundred head of sheep across the Sydney Harbour Bridge, between certain hours. So he did. Not a thing the cops could do about it!

...

The riots will start soon. Even if the law isnt enforced, this will lead other states to think, "Hmm... Maybe we should too".

That angers me.

That angers others.

Anarchy is inevitable, why not now?

Don't just sit and complain, do something about it, and I plan to.

It was last updated March 7, 2006. The reason there hasn't been an uproar is probably because it's not being enforced to the point that it bothers somebody. Besides, it's not like someone won't lie to save their ass from a 300 dollar fine.

I honestly doubt that anybody would be taking this seriously, they really can't do anything to non-believers for not believing in God. That's absurd and everyone knows it..[except for the religion extremists, obviously]

I doubt it. Even the fact that it hasn't been repealed despite our laws and values shows a great intolerance among christians.



I'm sure they have, they just don't care.



Riots? Anarchy? Someone looking to use up their old bottles and rags?

I seriously doubt it would get that far.

I've thought about it, I'm just going to have to look up their state government tomarrow and spam them copy and pasted notes of my displeasurement. Maybe even find the local ACLU there and send them a letter.

Hate to burst the bubble but there are laws very similar in a lot of states. Yep mostly red states but a few blue states as well. They do go completely against the first amendment which is why they are basically unenforceable. The idea that they are even there is either one, left over antiquated laws aka "blue laws" or they are new and put there by the religious right in modern times, snuck in to try to prove some point that this is a christian nation (we all know it isn't). Either way if it’s brought to the right authorities they'd have no choice but to strike it out.

Well I say we all go over there and burn effigies of biblical characters and Jesus in front of their faces..

If I lived in Massachusetts I would try and have this law inacted on me and then I would hire a kick a$$ lawyer and sue there ass's off for violating my rights as stated in the constitution. I'm an athiest and I don't promote it, not because I'm worried about my job or life but because the reaction I get from the people that I tell. It is a very sad state, that the road does appear to be a one way street. A well another hundred years and most religions won't have a leg to stand on.

Yes...

Got a prob?

Actually, According they haven't violated the first amendment at all.




It says Congress shall make no law...the MA legislature technically isn't Congress, so the law is legal.

Even more so



So yes, Silver Thong, you could do that. But some fundy organization could easily hire a kick ass lawyer, and show that the law if perfectly legal. Really, it's all interpretation. Some would say that Congress also means each Congress of the individual states as well, however that would be shot down because then we could ask why each state doesn't also have a President. Also, the 12th article states "Nor prohibited to the States" and the first amendment limits Congress, not each state. So... hate to be a bubble burster.

And the bill of rights and the rest of the amendments are the highest law in this land. Meaning states have to obey to them before passing their own laws and their own laws must reflect this.

Correct, except (like all laws in the Constitution) there are some meant for only the federal government, and some meant for States as well. States are given the right (Constitutionally) to have their own laws as long as they don't condone anything that has been prohibited to the States. The 1rst Amendment applies to Congress alone, meaning that the federal government cannot prohibit the people's national right to religion. However, states are given their own laws. And in states the view of the people is to be reflected. So, you could complain to the MA Legislature (though as one who is not a MA citizen or one who has personally been affected by this law I doubt your opinion would be highly valued), however, if the law is not being debated within the legislature than it will most likely be kept. The State Government is not so much bound as is the federal government as far as law making. If the majority of the people in a state desire certain laws, than as a nation to the people, by the people, for the people those laws will be passed. So we are to assume that at some point that law was passed because a lot of MA citizens desired it. In which case we must also assume that it is currently not being contended by a big enough number to cause it to be considered for repeal. And if there is a group doing so, they are either not aware that they can appeal to Congress to get the law changed, or they don't care enough about it to go to Congress because the law isn't being enforced anyway.

Even a state government cannot bypass federal law. It wouldn't matter if the millions there all agreed with this law, it's still against the highest law of the land. Why it would still be considered unconstitutional if it's ever used and a gross violation of basic human rights no matter how many people vote for it. That's the reason it's the highest law of the land is so that even majoirty rule cannot oppress the minority. All men and women are considered equals under our laws (or they're suppose to be).

These are some blue laws for my state.. there are like a million.. but here's a few.. (funny as heck)
Bear wrestling matches are prohibited.

Incestuous marriages are legal.

It is illegal to impersonate a person of the clergy.

It is illegal to maim oneself to escape duty.
You may not drive barefooted.
Dominoes may not be played on Sunday.
It is illegal to wear a fake moustache that causes laughter in church.
Putting salt on a railroad track may be punishable by death.
Boogers may not be flicked into the wind.

It is legal to drive the wrong way down a one-way street if you have a lantern attached to the front of your automobile.
You must have windshield wipers on your car.
You may not have an ice cream cone in your back pocket at any time.
Masks may not be worn in public.
Women are able to retain all property they owned prior to marriage in the case of divorce. However, this provision does not apply to men.
It is illegal for a driver to be blindfolded while operating a vehicle.

I jsut read today in Canada that if a preacher speaks of a homosexual in a negative light he can be subject to jail time...

Your not seeing the point though, yes it is the highest law of the land. But the law is specific and applies only to Congress. It doesn't apply to State or even city governments. If it did we wouldn't have cities like Ave Maria in Florida, and we wouldn't have laws like the one in MA. I know, it sucks, but Kratos as one who has studied a little bit of law (Mostly California and Georgia law. I know the California Vehicle Code backwards and forwards.) in my free time, you'll come to realize that our laws and justice system suck and contradict often. That is why you can win any case if you work the system., and is also why a man can get 54 million dollars for a pair of pants. Our laws are made to protect the rights of all people, and also they're made so that all criminals and offenders have a right to work their way into innocence. No, American law is not perfect, and you shouldn't expect it. There are many loopholes in the law (California law anyways) and there are many crappy crappy laws. You don't live in MA so you shouldn't worry about it. Besides the law isn't enforced in the first place. In any case don't worry about it. You can fight it if you want, but all it takes is a persuasive voice and someone who knows their laws to easily wipe aside your argument, and then all you can do is go back and forth, back and forth, on and on, on and on, and it wouldn't be worth a law that isn't enforced.

Quote by knight

"So yes, Silver Thong, you could do that. But some fundy organization could easily hire a kick ass lawyer, and show that the law if perfectly legal. Really, it's all interpretation. Some would say that Congress also means each Congress of the individual states as well, however that would be shot down because then we could ask why each state doesn't also have a President. Also, the 12th article states "Nor prohibited to the States" and the first amendment limits Congress, not each state. So... hate to be a bubble burster." unquote


Ok so since Atheism isn't a religion the right to free speech can be null and void?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

I don't believe any court would up hold a law that would persecute someone from expressing a view. Oh wait a sec yes I do sorry, a corrupt legal system.

Quote
"But some fundy organization could easily hire a kick ass lawyer, and show that the law if perfectly legal." Unquote

Well

"the establishment of a national religion by Congress and 2) the preference of one religion over another or of religion over non-religious philosophies in general. The first approach is called the "separationist" or "no aid" interpretation. In separationist interpretation, the clause, as historically understood, prohibits Congress from aiding religion in any way even if such aid is made without regard to denomination."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment...First_Amendment

I don't think any fundy's argument would hold water. Thats if the the church truely has seperation from government.

Quote from knight

"and is also why a man can get 54 million dollars for a pair of pants." un quote


Did he win? NO

In Australia it is illegal to read someones tarot or give them a psychic reading as these are forms of withcraft.

Then why does the surpreme court take on state laws and apply then to state laws, local laws and such? It is the highest law of the land as it's the United States law, states part of the United States must obey it's laws.

I should worry about it though. Even if it's not enforced it's still a slam against those who are not christians.

If Atheism isn't a religion than it can certainly be prohibited. Yet free speech may not be prohibited. An Atheist can say "There is no God" <<Freedom of Speech, but to practice their Atheism publicly (Ie holding Atheist meetings where they make agendas with which to defeat Christian legalism) that would be illegal (if it was prohibited).





No, they wouldn't persecute someone for expressing a view, but to have rallies for that view, that could be illegal. Yes, a Neo-Nazi can say "I hate Jews." But to publicly rally against them, that would be illegal because we have hate laws.


Why would it? If some Christian decides to fight against your appeal than they have that right. It would hold water because the law is in fact legal. I have a tad bit of faith in our legal system and doubt that if this law and laws like it were illegal that they would still be passed.

Because the Supreme Court isn't limited to merely fighting against federal law. In fact, it says in the Constitution (Article 3 Section 2) that the Supreme Court's power extends to all laws in the United States of America.

I dont know if this is because of christians. In New York a fine of $25 can be levied for flirting. This old law specifically prohibits men from turning around on any city street and looking at a woman in that way. A second conviction for a crime of this magnitude calls for the violating male to be forced to wear a pair of horse blinders wherever and whenever he goes outside for a stroll.

All laws yes, but the top dogs of the US are still the constitution ones that rule over all others. No one is above them and no other law is above them.

Your right. It is the highest law in the land. But that doesn't matter because the law doesn't ban States from prohibiting or respecting religion, it bans Congress from doing that, and Congress alone.

Godless blasphemers!

PS. those sure are a lot of rules...so many sections and chapters detailing what you can and cannot do. Land of the free, yay!

It IS wonderful. It's a wonderful Constitution with much much much love and beauty within it. Almost as much as the Tanakh. I love reading the Constitution. However, it has its bad parts, and there are quite a few loop holes.

Supremacy clause

Provision under Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, providing that federal law is superior to and overrides state law when they conflict.

Source

You misquoted hun, Article IV Section 2 talks about how you can't escape crime across state lines. Your source was unhelpful. My source is a book entitled "Our Documents: 100 Milestone Documents from the National Archives" compiled by workers of the National Archives working with Oxford University Press. I read here in Article IV Section 2 and see nothing about how Federal law is superior to State Law. However I know it is. Yet that is not the point because the third Article of the Bill of Rights applies only to Congress. Not each State and or every governing body in the USA.

Supremacy Clause

The Supremacy Clause is the common name given to Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, which reads:

“ This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. ”

The Supremacy Clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The Constitution is the highest form of law in the American legal system. State judges are required to uphold it, even if state laws or constitutions conflict with it.

Treaties must comply with the Constitution. However, the treaty-making power of the U.S. Government is broader than the law making power of Congress. The Supreme Court ruled in Missouri v. Holland (1920) that pursuant to a treaty with Britain, the United States could regulate the hunting of migratory birds, even though Congress had no independent authority to pass such legislation.

There has been some debate (and fear) as to whether or not some of the basic principles of the United States Constitution, such as the country's system of government or Bill of Rights could be affected by an ambitious treaty. Since the constitution states that a treaty has supremacy over "any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding," it has been argued that the potential for abuse is present. In the 1950s a constitutional amendment known as the Bricker Amendment was proposed in response to such fears; it would have mandated that all US treaties not conflict with the existing powers granted to the US government. Subsequent legal precedents, notably, Seery v. United States, 127 F. Supp. 601 (Court of Claims, 1955) and Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), ultimately established some of the limitations sought by the Bricker Amendment.

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (1983) is a Supreme Court case that lays out a variety of tests that may be used to determine if state statutes are superseded or preempted by federal legislation.

Source

You even know it's the highest law. There, you've said it. So this state law is against the United States and it's values.

Quote from Knight

"If Atheism isn't a religion than it can certainly be prohibited. Yet free speech may not be prohibited. An Atheist can say "There is no God" <<Freedom of Speech, but to practice their Atheism publicly (Ie holding Atheist meetings where they make agendas with which to defeat Christian legalism) that would be illegal (if it was prohibited)." unquote

Well as an Athiest thanks for the free speech thing. I have never nor will ever attend a ralley. I have an issue with the fact that Christians are protected and no one else. Every religion/belief that opposses "Christian legalism" is illegal?????? Again that is against the law!!!!!!.

Quote from Knight

"No, they wouldn't persecute someone for expressing a view, but to have rallies for that view, that could be illegal. Yes, a Neo-Nazi can say "I hate Jews." But to publicly rally against them, that would be illegal because we have hate laws" Unquote

So you are saying that Athiests promote hate towards Christians let alone any other religion?????? Shake your head......
Athiests have no hate toward other religions,we just disregard it. Oh and by the way almost any oganization can hold a ralley. Tell me the last Athiest rally you saw
Quote from Knight

"Why would it? If some Christian decides to fight against your appeal than they have that right. It would hold water because the law is in fact legal. I have a tad bit of faith in our legal system and doubt that if this law and laws like it were illegal that they would still be passed" Unquote

So you are saying that a Christian has more rights then me? Just because they have a certin religion does not mean that they supersead the constitution. So by your understanding of the law if I lived in lets say Texas and the law said I couldn't wear a turban and I wore one anyway that I could be brought up on charges? Cause we all know that if i wear a Turban I will be promoting my religion hence anti Christian.

Hehe you did misquote, in your previous post you said Article IV, in any case its a common mistake


No it isn't. Because the US Constitution only prohibits Congress from making such a law. It does not prohibit any other state from making such laws.

Article 3 of the Bill of Rights clearly starts with "CONGRESS" It doesn't say that restrictions set on Congress apply to all other forms of Government in the US. If that was the case than by Article 1 Section 7 all Bills made by state Legislatures should also be put to the president. Moreso, if laws that apply to Congress also apply to other forms of American Government than States would have all powers mentioned in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. All laws concerning States are in Article 4 of the Constitution and none of them say that State legislature carries the restrictions that federal legislature does.

Oral sex is still illegal in my home State.

They leave those laws on the books to see if anyone is actually reading the laws.

We have a bunch of stupid ones on the books here, including:

You can't legally take a fishbowl full of water on a city bus because the sound of sloshing water might bother someone.

Also:

A woman cannot sit on a man's lap on a city bus unless there is a phone book between them.

For Pete Sake, Mass. is one of the very few states that allow Gay marriage, don't you think this is more along the lines of the Mass. State officials keeping a law on the books to see if anyone is actually paying attention to the laws? That's what they're there for, they'll never be used, they aren't designed to be used.

LOL I think you have to come up here for a visit

edit: Falco ummm sorry LOL

off subject but it is this that also makes the Iraq war illegal. yet so many think wrongly that it is legal.

the United Nations Charter (1945) – that its statutes then become (according to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution), “the Supreme Law of the Land,” and U.S. federal law. This means that the current “pre-emptive war” in Iraq – which bypassed the UN Security Council and violated core tenets of the UN Charter - was both a violation of U.S. federal law, and a violation of the UN Charter. The same may be said of recent court rulings, which indicate systematic violations of the Geneva Conventions.

just a little fyi tidbit.

No, not every religion/belief, just Atheism, which according to you isn't a religion. Besides, not only Christianity is protected, All other religions are protected as well.


I didn't say they promote hate against Christianity. I'm just saying that under such law it would be ok to assume that it means that Atheists cannot rally against any religion solely for its beliefs. And no, not any organization can hold a rally. In fact, holding rallies isn't protected by the Constitution, and in California you need a permit to.


First off, it's not just Christians, it's all religious peoples. I use Christians because they are the religion the law mentions. If the law in Texas said you couldn't wear a turban than no, you couldn't wear a Turban because such laws dictating what a person wears are NOT illegal. It's not because its anti-Christian because our laws are not slanted towards any particular religion.

What stuck up prude came up with that ridiculous law? Better yet, got a picture? I'll betcha ten bucks he's wearing a derby hat.

It wasn't illegal. Other nations trusted our intelligence and that is why our allies joined us in the start of the Iraq war. It passed the UN Security council because it wasn't convened as is there was support for this war when it started (which many seem to forget. Hell, I was in fifth grade and I remember that there was support for it).

Ok so just Athiests are pursecuted, how nice and how unconstitutional.

So I can rally against such things as not to wear fur because i'm a member of peta or say that eating meat is wrong because I'm a vegan and believe animals have rights, so they do....... I have less rights then a chicken, being an Athiest??

If Texas told me I couldn't wear a turban that would be Illegal.... period

Quote agin from Knight
"our laws are not slanted towards any particular religion."

Yet your constitution says otherwise. So do certian states get to pick what parts of the constitution to adhear to????

Well, You said Atheism isn't a religion. So if its prohibited than...oh well. After all, Atheists say it isn't a religion.



Not less rights, less protection. Atheism isn't (as admitted by Atheists) a religion.



Prove it with the Law sweety.


No, they don't. They adhere to the Constitutional laws that are given to them. And it is true, our Constitution is not slanted towards any religion. It is protecting the rights of God-believers, which most of the world is. And besides, (as an Atheist will tell you) Atheism isn't a religion. In which case you don't gain the protection that religions gain. You could say that Atheism is a religion, but could you prove that based on the definition of religion?

Ok, how about this...

Kratos (or anyone in Mass to make this easier)... if you can go to Mass. and get arrested specifically for being an Atheist, I'll pay your $300 fine.

That has to be the ONLY charge though and I'll need a notorized copy of the ticket... I'm not going to bail you out for disturbing the peace or anything, the only thing you can be arrested for is being an Atheist.

It's the 2007 UM Atheist Challenge, bring it on.

Yes Atheism is not a religion but deserves the same protection as any other BELIEF system, don't you think? I can say Christians are full of it and Christians can say I'm full of it. Whats the difference???????

Prove it with the LAW? Well I have the same rights as you do, prove that wrong.....

Why the hell would I want to prove Atheism as a religion? It's not! So being an Atheist means you don't have the same protection as a Christian or Muslim or any other? I thought that God was not allowed in the courtroom. Reading your posts shows me that you do believe in this law and that Atheists should be shunned. I have seen the constitution butchered but wow.

Oh and you saying that most of the world believes in God, sure I understand that but most of the world does not believe in the same God, so this law should apply to any non Christian, don't you think?

no no no, we were told in another thread this week by countless Atheists that Atheism isn't a "belief" either. Sorry. We can only go on what they're telling us here.

(of course I think everyone should be protected to think what they want... )

Well yes it is a belief, I read the same thread. How could it not be? I don't believe in God in any form, thats a belief. You should have read the whole thread. For any religious person there belief is backed by faith yet still a belief. Religion is organized.