GOP Raises Religion in Court Race, Calling Democrat an Atheist

[bobbieinok]

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=182398

Alleged atheism an issue in Texas judges' race

GOP Raises Religion in Court Race, Calling Democrat an Atheist
(this is link to story)

The GOP is also raising that old argument about "So help me God" - saying that an atheist could not take that oath.


Quote:
The Austin-based Republican Party of Texas played the religion card in a Sept. 21 online newsletter. As alleged in the newsletter, Texarkana solo E. Ben Franks, Democratic nominee for a seat on the 6th Court of Appeals, "is reported to be a professed atheist" and apparently believes the Bible is a "collection of myths.'"

But Franks says he has never professed to be an atheist and is not a member of any atheist organization.. . .

. . .

The Republican Party notes in its recent newsletter that Article 16, §1(a) of the Texas Constitution prescribes the oath of office for all elected or appointed officials. The officeholder swears to faithfully execute the duties of the office and, to the best of his or her ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state "so help me God."

_____


October 9, 2006, 02:31 PM #3821400 / #2
crazyfingers

I wonder if those republican even know or care that to require the "so help me god" part or to disqualify anyone from public office on account of religius belief, or lack of it, has already been ruled unconstitutonal?

I imagine some of them know and most don't care.

-----

October 9, 2006, 02:38 PM #3821421 / #3
Toto

Remember that the Texas Republican Party's platform proclaims that America is a Christian Nation.

[LiberalFighter]

1. What needs to happen is for someone to strike them dead

when they utter those words. Preferably someone/something that is not human and not seeable so that Republicans have something to fear when they utter those words.

[bpeale]

2. that phrase

as an atheist i could say that phrase. it just would be meaningless to me. so what's the problem?

[no_hypocrisy]

3. The Constitution requires that no religious test is required to

hold public office of any level. Roy Torcaso won a Supreme Court case decades ago when he was denied a position to be a notary because he would not affirm there was a God. The case has not (yet) been overturned.

[enki23]

4. just another de facto religious test for public office

and in texas, of all places.

shocking.

[bobbieinok]

5. your Hess quote is stunning!!! do you have a link??

[Alonzo Fyfe]

6. Ben Frank's Response

Ben Frank's response to this accusation is almost as bad as the Republican accusation itself.

He has so far responded by saying, "I am not an atheist."

Though different in degree, this is no different in king to responding to a Nazi Party charge of being a "Jew" by saying, "I am not a Jew."

How about a statement that condemns the attackers for their religious bigotry, and a statement that all citizens in good standing should be free to run for public office regardless of their religion.

For all practical purposes, Franks has ENDORSED the idea that atheists are not fit for public office with his response, as if to say, "Sure, if I really was an atheist this would be a good reason to vote against me. But I'm not. So, it's still okay to vote for me."

Alonzo Fyfe
Atheist Ethicist Blog