Six US States Ban Atheists from Public Service

[iNow]

Did you know that Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas have constitutions that explicitly forbid atheists from holding state office? Well, they do.

 

http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Laws_and_other_rules_against_atheists_and_agnostics

 

 

I must say, it sure is a good thing we have that intelligent piece of writing we like to call the Establishment Clause. Maybe if we pretend it doesn't exist then people can just keep pushing their religion throughout our society until they're forcibly stopped from doing so, and forced to abide by our constitution (or, instead

).

 

 

Speaking of legality, all laws against atheists holding office were ruled unconstitutional and unenforceable by the 1961 Supreme Court case Torcaso v. Watkins on a first amendment basis. Well, that's good, but then why are they still on the books of those states? I sense some dissonance here. A SCOTUS ruling with no teeth being selectively ignored.

 

To the credit of some brave folks in that state, it appears that Arkansas is at least trying to repeal their law against atheists holding office, but they've been rather unsuccessful in doing so.

 

 

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2009/02/an_advocate_for_atheists_in_ar.html

Hard to say what was more remarkable about the resolution that was read into the record and referred to committee Wednesday by a member of the 87th Arkansas General Assembly.

 

The resolution itself: HJR 1009: AMENDING THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REPEAL THE PROHIBITION AGAINST AN ATHEIST HOLDING ANY OFFICE IN THE CIVIL DEPARTMENTS OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS OR TESTIFYING AS A WITNESS IN ANY COURT.

 

Or the fact that it was submitted by the Green Party's highest-ranking elected official in America, state Rep. Richard Carroll of North Little Rock, who was elected in November winning more than 80 percent of the vote in his district.

 

Arkansas is one of half a dozen states that still exclude non-believers from public office. Article 19 Section 1 of the 1874 Arkansas Constitution states that "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."

 

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled all such state provisions unconstitutional and unenforceable in a 1961 ruling in a Maryland case: "We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person 'to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.'"

 

Carroll is merely trying to do some symbolic constitutional housecleaning, but it won't be easy.

 

In 2005, state Rep. Buddy Blair filed a resolution to affirm Arkansas' support for the separation of church and state. The resolution lost 39-44 in the House.

 

And last month, Rep. Lindsley Smith offered a resolution to declare Jan. 29 at Thomas Paine Day in Arkansas.

 

"I consider myself a very religious person," Smith told the committee considering her bill to designate Jan. 29 as Thomas Paine Day in Arkansas. Paine, the colonial patriot who wrote "Common Sense," a pamphlet that built support for the American Revolution. Paine also was a Deist who believed in God but not religion.

 

The proposal died in committee, even after Smith assured her colleagues that she was not an atheist. Which they would have known if they'd read the state constitution.

 

Meanwhile, in a related story, the Arkansas House passed a bill Wednesday allowing people to bring their guns to church.

 

Well... thank goodness. I may not be able to be elected as an atheist, but at least I can bring my gun to church. At least they have their priorities straight.

 

I find it worth mention that even without those laws on the books, this "ban of atheists from public office" is still in practice in all of the 50 states implicitly since public opinion makes it almost impossible for an atheist to get elected to high office. Sad, but true. Hopefully, that's changing, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

 

What do you think? How far from our founding principles and the rule of law have we strayed? Is this normal for a representative republic, or is America not far off from formalizing its own sweet version of Sharia law under the guise of Judeo-Christian morality?

[swansont]

Has anyone been explicitly denied office because of these constitutional clauses? If not, then what's the big deal? There are thousands of outmoded laws that nobody enforces.

 

 

That said, though, I think it will be interesting to see if anyone in Arkansas objects to the amendment. I've wondered why the left seemingly never uses the "you're not patriotic" tactic to attack legislation that is clearly (or probably) unconstitutional.

 

I find it worth mention that even without those laws on the books, this "ban of atheists from public office" is still in practice in all of the 50 states implicitly since public opinion makes it almost impossible for an atheist to get elected to high office. Sad, but true. Hopefully, that's changing, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

There's a de-facto ban on admitted nudists, too, and probably a whole host of other behavioral categories that deviate too far from the mean. I think that's just the nature of the politic of large numbers in the US.

[D H]

Speaking of legality, all laws against atheists holding office were ruled unconstitutional and unenforceable by the 1961 Supreme Court case Torcaso v. Watkins on a first amendment basis. Well, that's good, but then why are they still on the books of those states? I sense some dissonance here. A SCOTUS ruling with no teeth being selectively ignored.

You have it the other way around. These laws are unconstitutional and unenforceable. Just because a law is on the books doesn't mean it is or even can be enforced.

 

In the case of Texas, the clause "provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being" is a part of the Texas Constitution. Changing it would require a constitutional amendment to "remove the need to acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being from Article I, Section 4 of the Texas Constitution." You're from Texas. Be honest: What are the odds such a proposed amendment would even appear on the ballot, and if it did, what are the odds it would pass? Getting Texans to vote to remove that phrase would require an act of god.

[iNow]

I'm in Austin, a free-thinking oasis in this rather large state, so fortunately a bit insulated from the rest. However, I understand your point, DH. In fact, your point is part of the problem I have with the current setup and why I often get so frustrated.

 

 

Swansont - If I read the recent posts about this correctly, they've tried and failed now to pass this at least 3 times. I need to look a little more closely to say with more certainty.

[jackson33]

DH, makes an interesting point. However no State Constitution trumps the Federal or law established by the Congress or the SC. Both by making law, establish the date, when no State can THEN make law or enforce any existing law on an issue. That is on the books or not, they cannot be enforced.

 

Under *Strange/Silly/Dumb Laws*, there are hundreds, in constitutions or on the books, that have long been forgotten. I am sure many carry Sodomy, abortion or race laws, voting among others that are just assumed off the books...

[Pangloss]

Interesting. Certainly would seem to be a violation of freedom of religion. I'm curious to learn more about this.

[Daecon]

What about if the atheists promise to convert to Islam?

 

Will that be acceptable?

[john5746]

I thought these were funny.

 

Weird Laws

 

Also, some of those state constitutions also bar god deniers from being a witness in court. I wonder if a lawyer has tried to use that one?

[iNow]

Interesting. Certainly would seem to be a violation of freedom of religion.

 

Well, that's exactly what the SCOTUS ruled way back in 1961, yet these laws are still on the books, and attempts to remove them from the books have repeatedly failed. It just goes to show how people who don't bow to a magically sky pixie are treated as second class citizens in our country, despite how proudly we proclaim to be free and fair.

[jackson33]

Well, that's exactly what the SCOTUS ruled way back in 1961, yet these laws are still on the books, and attempts to remove them from the books have repeatedly failed. It just goes to show how people who don't bow to a magically sky pixie are treated as second class citizens in our country, despite how proudly we proclaim to be free and fair.

 

*Legislative Reference Library of Texas* Shows no amendments offered to change Article 1, Section 4 of their constitution. The Texas Legislature has passed 632 amendments, of which 456 have been ratified by the voters.

 

I would suggest, applications for employment or the placement on to any elected office on any ballot, has no mention of religious preference (is in their constitution) or if you acknowledge a superior being. I would further suggest, Taxes may have plenty of folks working or having been elected, that are in fact atheist. Having lived in the Austin Area, in Texas and doing business most of my life I could name a good many.

 

I see no reason for condemnation of the US Legal System or that of any State, to justify personal preferences of any one person. If nit-picking gets to that point, we are in serious trouble.

 

And by the way, you cannot carry a gun legally into any Arkansas Church and what on earth reason would an atheist want to be in one, in the first place.

[iNow]

I see no reason for condemnation of the US Legal System or that of any State, to justify personal preferences of any one person. If nit-picking gets to that point, we are in serious trouble.

 

How is my desire to remove an unconstitutional law from state constitutions "nit-picking" or a mere "justificatoin of personal preferences?" Honestly, Jackson... You baffle me sometimes. The fact that you think it's okay to have such a law is what suggests we are in serious trouble, not my defense of the constitution or my desire to strip religion out of the selection criteria for office.

[swansont]

How is my desire to remove an unconstitutional law from state constitutions "nit-picking" or a mere "justificatoin of personal preferences?" Honestly, Jackson... You baffle me sometimes. The fact that you think it's okay to have such a law is what suggests we are in serious trouble, not my defense of the constitution or my desire to strip religion out of the selection criteria for office.

 

But you haven't established that religion is part of the official selection criteria. The presence of unenforceable laws does not, IMO, imply that, since there can be a number of reasons that they have not been removed from the books. Why would an elected official push for it if it is unpopular with the electorate, and may cost him/her in the next election? And you can't mandate that the people vote to overturn it, when it comes time for the popular vote. It's a vestigial article; it serves no purpose but can't be eliminated.

[john5746]

But you haven't established that religion is part of the official selection criteria.

 

No, just that the majority of people continue to be religious bigots, especially in the bible belt. It's kind of a "don't ask don't tell" at the moment, although people can ask and the atheist must do or they won't be elected.

[waitforufo]

But you haven't established that religion is part of the official selection criteria. The presence of unenforceable laws does not, IMO, imply that, since there can be a number of reasons that they have not been removed from the books. Why would an elected official push for it if it is unpopular with the electorate, and may cost him/her in the next election? And you can't mandate that the people vote to overturn it, when it comes time for the popular vote. It's a vestigial article; it serves no purpose but can't be eliminated.

 

In a similar vain, if you have ever purchased a home built before the civil rights movement and have read the deed for the property you will likely find covenant requirements that forbid you from selling your home to "colored people." The fair housing act makes these covenant agreements unenforceable. You do occasionally hear about people attempting to have their property deeds changed to remove these racist covenant requirements but I have never heard of any one succeeding.

[iNow]

Why would an elected official push for it if it is unpopular with the electorate, and may cost him/her in the next election?

 

In my mind, it's more than just symbolic... While it's certainly the "right" thing to do, it's also necessary to ensure our laws are constitutional. An elected official should push for it to show how important the constitution is. While I take your point that this might make them lose in bible belts, I think it would make them gain a pretty significant number of votes from people who are nonbelievers or who take our constitution seriously enough to respect the motion. We really seem to be at a loss these days for people who argue on principle, instead of catering to the lowest common denominator of the electorate. Principled stands matter.

 

Also, how do we know it's not enforcable? I'd like to run a test case and have an atheist openly run in one of those states to challenge the law. For all I know, I could win an election and be stripped of office for openly admitting I'm atheist. It's not worth the risk. It's a discriminatory and unconstitutional law, and should not even exist. We need to fix things like this at every chance we get.

 

I live in Texas, man. It's probably much different over there in the DC area. These little battles ultimately add up in the larger war for equitibility and constitutionality. This is similar to my stance in support of allowing gay marriage. We need to make these changes because it's the right thing to do.

 

 

And you can't mandate that the people vote to overturn it, when it comes time for the popular vote.

I don't have to mandate it be overturned. SCOTUS already did.

 

 

It's a vestigial article; it serves no purpose but can't be eliminated.

I tend to disagree with this. While I completely agree with your sentiment that it is vestigal, there is no reason it "can't" be eliminated, nor relevant secular reason why it should remain.

 

As I'm sure is obvious to our regular members, I am an atheist, and it's a smack in the face to have laws like this which treat me as if I'm some kind of second class citizen or inferior person. With that said, it's simply unconstitutional, and should be purged for that reason alone.

[jackson33]

As I'm sure is obvious to our regular members, I am an atheist, and it's a smack in the face to have laws like this which treat me as if I'm some kind of second class citizen or inferior person. With that said, it's simply unconstitutional, and should be purged for that reason alone.

 

So all the Hindu, Muslims, Buddhist, Polygamist or no telling how many minorities segments of society, SHOULD feel like second class citizens. I am agnostic, feel their may be something other than 'time on earth', just not what is presented by todays religion. Frankly I consider myself a first class citizen, BUT understand the government and laws are going to follow the majority rule. Same in politics, not every election has turned out to my liking.

 

Texas, is a State that happens to have one of the oldest Constitutions of all States. Many, if not most that could be older, have long been re-written, over a quarter have been, since WWII. Texas has amended 456 times, or clarified parts on their document, which tells me they are willing if that 'stupid majority' so desires. No State in the US has less than 70% that believe in some form of creation, many to degrees beyond science or in my opinion logic, but frankly sir, they do have RIGHTS and minorities are the villains in my mind. I suggest you read up some on minority rights in many societies around the worlds 6.6 Billion people, and realize just how good we have had it...

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Well, that's exactly what the SCOTUS ruled way back in 1961, yet these laws are still on the books, and attempts to remove them from the books have repeatedly failed. It just goes to show how people who don't bow to a magically sky pixie are treated as second class citizens in our country, despite how proudly we proclaim to be free and fair.

Can you stop being so derogatory? You seem to take every opportunity you can get to use this kind of language.

[D H]

It's a discriminatory and unconstitutional law, and should not even exist. We need to fix things like this at every chance we get. ... With that said, it's simply unconstitutional, and should be purged for that reason alone.

Yes, it's a discriminatory and unconstitutional law. It should not and cannot be enforced. Should it be removed? Absolutely not. As a starter, what if some future Supreme Court overturns the prior ruling? It's not going to happen here, but it has happened elsewhere. When that happens, those old laws once again become enforceable. Removing laws by judicial fiat grants the courts the power to write law rather than interpret law. Removing discriminatory and unconstitutional laws is the responsibility of the legislature, not the judiciary.

[iNow]

Yes, it's a discriminatory and unconstitutional law. It should not and cannot be enforced. Should it be removed? Absolutely not.

 

That just doesn't follow. Am I really just so stubborn about this issue that I'm missing some deeper point? If so, please help me. It's not my intent to have blindspots.

 

I understand your position about being weary regarding judicial fiat, but I'm still not able to latch on to the quoted bit above.

 

 

Is it discriminatory? Yes.

Is it unconstitutional? Yes.

Should it be enforced? No.

Can it be enforced? No.

Should it be removed from the books? Absolutely not.

 

That just doesn't follow.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

But you haven't established that religion is part of the official selection criteria.

 

Isn't that exactly what I did with the very first link in the very first post?

[The Bear's Key]

Why would an elected official push for it if it is unpopular with the electorate, and may cost him/her in the next election?.

You just gotta be clever about doing it. For instance, he/she might declare a clean-up of all antiquated laws that can no longer be enforced. That way no particular law is being singled out.

 

As for why it's a good idea to remove such laws, there's always the posibility of "antiquated" laws making the switch to "reality" if the sentiment for it became popular. Think how much easier it's to revive an existing unconstitutional law than it is to pass a new unconstitutional law into existence.

 

A few of those antiquated laws resemble "sleeper cells" patiently waiting until they can spring to action. Best place for them is in history books, not within actual law.

[swansont]

Isn't that exactly what I did with the very first link in the very first post?

 

You haven't shown that the rule has been enforced since SCOTUS overturned it. If it's unenforceable, it's not a criterion.

[D H]

That just doesn't follow.

Sure it does, but I should have been clearer in what I said. You appear to have implied from post #1 that laws or parts of a state constitution should be stricken as soon as the US Supreme Court declares them unconstitutional. That is what my "absolutely not" response refered to. Whether such clauses should be removed in general is a different question. There is a procedure for doing so, and the Supreme Court is not a part of that procedure.

[iNow]

Thank you for the clarification, DH. That DOES, indeed, make much more sense and I can't help but to agree.

 

IINM, your position is that it must be done via legislature, not court. As stated in the OP, that's exactly what is/was being attempted, yet it's failed repeatedly. I guess we'll just keep chipping away at it, slowly, but surely.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Swansont,

 

I'll see if I can dig anything up in terms of historical enforcement post-Torcaso v. Watkins. I sense this is not too likely to be easy, but I understand your desire to see it.

 

The thing is, as alluded to by The Bear's Key a couple of posts ago, even if it has been used zero times to restrict someone from office since the SCOTUS decision in '61, allowing it to remain on the books is like having a sleeper cell waiting to strike any time the tides shift. I'm sort of arguing on principle, I know, but it doesn't belong there, ergo should be removed.

 

Either way, if I manage to turn up any cases post-1961 where these constitutions restricted someone from office, I'll share it here.

 

 

Interestingly, during a brief search I made prior to posting this response, I found that (in addition to the 1st and 14th amendment violations) these parts stating that an atheist cannot hold office are ALSO against the "No religious test clause" of Article VI, Section 3.

 

 

 

The "no religious test" clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, section 3, and states that:

 

 

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.

This has been interpreted to mean that no federal employee, whether elected or appointed, "career" or "political," can be required to adhere to or accept any religion or belief.

 

 

And yet, what is written as required into the constitutions of these six states stands in direct opposition to that, the first, and the fourteenth amendment, enforced or not.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

You haven't shown that the rule has been enforced since SCOTUS overturned it.

I'll see if I can dig anything up in terms of historical enforcement post-Torcaso v. Watkins.

 

I'm going to now end my search after reading this:

 

 

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

In the 1994 case

Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet

, Supreme Court Justice David Souter wrote in the opinion for the Court that: "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion".

 

Everson v. Board of Education

established that "neither a state nor the Federal Government can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another".

 

This applies the

Establishment Clause

to the states as well as the federal government.

 

However, several state constitutions make the protection of persons from religious discrimination conditional on their acknowledgment of the existence of a deity, making freedom of religion in those states inapplicable to atheists.

These state constitutional clauses have not been tested

. Civil rights cases are typically brought in federal courts, so such state provisions are mainly of symbolic importance.

 

 

Well, there you have it. I suggest someone step up and test it in one of these six states (win an election and proudly proclaim their atheism), and until that time, I will keep arguing on the symbolic nature of removing this from the books based on greater principles.

Edited February 21, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[jackson33]

Thank you for the clarification, DH.

However, several state constitutions make the protection of persons from religious discrimination conditional on their acknowledgment of the existence of a deity, making freedom of religion in those states inapplicable to atheists. These state constitutional clauses have not been tested. Civil rights cases are typically brought in federal courts, so such state provisions are mainly of symbolic importance.[/indent][/indent]

 

Well, there you have it. I suggest someone step up and test it in one of these six states (win an election and proudly proclaim their atheism), and until that time, I will keep arguing on the symbolic nature of removing this from the books based on greater principles.

 

In essence, that is what arguments to you have been. Since no laws are being broken, what grounds are there for a test case. That is if a winning Candidate, an accepted Federal/State Employee or for that matter any Military person, refuses to say 'Under God', it is already perfectly acceptable to all laws. Many don't...

 

Art. VI, section three is actually invoked, when a person insist on 'Under God' be part of an Oath...

 

I would bet there are hundreds of items in any Constitution or Corporate By Laws, which can be understood as improper, more likely some issue not even mentioned, but so long as no 'HARM' is created, there is no reason/cause to rewrite or spend millions to correct.

[iNow]

Are you seriously trying to give me shit for standing up and arguing for the principles on which our nation was founded? If so, you've just made me respect you even less than I already did.