DU Poll - Surprised? 7 States That Ban Atheists From Holding Public Office

[RKP5637]

Wow, I really did not know this! This IMO sure conflicts with separation of church and state.

See >>> http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/959292/7_states_that_ban_atheists_from_holding_public_office/

States with laws on the books barring atheists from holding public office: Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.

Surprised or no?

36 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	I already knew this.
	7 (19%)
	I'm surprised.
	19 (53%)
	I'm *not* surprised.
	10 (28%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[elleng]

1. Sure violates the Constitution!

OMG! Maryland!

[RKP5637]

6. Maryland really surprised me, some of the others not very much. n/t

[elleng]

11. Gotta check it out,

maybe after November.

[Roselma]

28. Not since 1961 in Maryland:

US Supreme Court determined that in this case in 1961

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins

I suspect that since this is a USSC decision that it applies to all states, and that the OP is wrong.

[Zalatix]

2. Un fragging constitutional. How can these laws still be standing.

[RKP5637]

12. And how can this possibly be separation of church and state. Yet another WTF

for me.

[elleng]

15. No challenges,

ignorance, no opportunities to challenge?

[trotsky]

38. Some people say it's foolish to fight things like this. n/t

[elleng]

55. 'Some' people may misunderstand others, I guess.

Being able to run for office is rather different from words on currency.

You may note the Supreme Court has already decided this to be unconstitutional.

[trotsky]

57. Because some pesky, foolish person decided to challenge it.

How crazy of them. They should have just let it go!

[elleng]

60. Some truly aggrieved athiest,

who was running or wanted to run for office, chsllenged it. Nothing pesky or foolish about that.

[trotsky]

61. I understand.

Some people have a tough time seeing the big picture.

[cthulu2016]

22. Not standing, merely on the books

They have been knocked over (using the standing metaphor), but the text can linger on.

Until after the Civil War the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states.

Swathes of state laws were invalidated by a series of court decisions over about a century. But the Supreme Court cannot amend state laws by, for instance, removing language from the state code.

Only the state legislature could do that and there may not even be the votes there to remove some of these bogus laws from the books, even today.

But since they are invalidated by the US Constitution that cannot be enforced. No enforcement, no cause of action, no judicial review.

Some southern states only got around to removing segregation laws decades after the were invalidated by Federal law and/or federal court rulings. But though "on the books" they were invalid for reasons outside the books, and not enforcable.

[Zalatix]

25. That's good to hear. Nice to know our laws are working to some feeble extent!

[Warren Stupidity]

3. oh those huffy atheists always whining about some nonsense.

[JNelson6563]

5. lol +1

[RKP5637]

9. LOL !!! n/t

[rhett o rick]

31. Heyyyyy, you shouldnt say that. nm

[Arugula Latte]

53. That's because they're so militant and Atheism is their religion!

[WillyT]

4. Fucking MARYLAND ???

[Spider Jerusalem]

8. Article 37 of the Maryland constitution.

Voided de facto by unanimous Supreme Court decision in the case of Torasco v Watkins: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins

[WillyT]

13. Well Thanks For That... So What The Hell Is Going On ???

We're gonna have to re-litigate this ???

[Spider Jerusalem]

16. Not unless a state bars someone from public office...

for refusing to declare a belief in god. These provisions are still there but not enforced and unenforceable.

[elleng]

20. Thank you!

Thank Justice Black! (and the rest of the Court!)

Writing for the Court, Justice Hugo Black recalled Everson v. Board of Education, and explicitly linked Torcaso v. Watkins to its conclusions:

There is, and can be, no dispute about the purpose or effect of the Maryland Declaration of Rights requirement before us - it sets up a religious test which was designed to and, if valid, does bar every person who refuses to declare a belief in God from holding a public "office of profit or trust" in Maryland. ... 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." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.

Rebuffing the judgment of the Maryland Court of Appeals, Justice Black added:

The fact, however, that a person is not compelled to hold public office cannot possibly be an excuse for barring him from office by state-imposed criteria forbidden by the Constitution.

[RKP5637]

10. My thought too on Maryland, WTF!!!

[coalition_unwilling]

47. To which I riposte: "Fucking Pennsylvania?" (where Gettysburg

was fought and won by the Union).

Jesus H. Christ (npi)

Shit, I used to admire Pennsylvania. Not so much any more.

[onehandle]

7. I smell seven lawsuits. nt

[struggle4progress]

27. Settled long ago in Torcaso v. Watkins:

Torcaso v. Watkins - 367 U.S. 488 (1961)

MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court ...

The appellant Torcaso was appointed to the office of Notary Public by the Governor of Maryland, but was refused a commission to serve because he would not declare his belief in God ...

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." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against nonbelievers,and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs ...

This Maryland religious test for public office unconstitutionally invades the appellant's freedom of belief and religion, and therefore cannot be enforced against him ...

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/367/488/case.html

Thus, none of these state constitutional provisions currently enjoys the force of law

[eallen]

32. Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Give that man a cigar!

[jmowreader]

14. North Carolina too

Article VI (suffrage and eligibility to office), section 8 of the North Carolina Constitution:

"The following persons shall be disqualified for office:
First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."

[RKP5637]

19. Wow, I am truly amazed by this, absolutely amazed. Certainly not what

I was taught in school, all of the stuff about separation of church and state. They really do a snow job on students in some schools.

[Art_from_Ark]

17. I am surprised, and not surprised

to find that Arkansas is one of those states. The state is still going mostly by the constitution that was imposed on it by the Grant administration during Reconstruction (1874). I have never heard of anyone actually being disqualified from holding office by declaring themselves to be an atheist, but I can imagine that they probably wouldn't get elected anyway, regardless of the law.

[cthulu2016]

18. None of these laws are in force (though on the books)

The incorporation of the 14th amendment (the gradual judicial process of extension of the US constitution to the states during the century after the Civil War) made these all invalid, but that doesn't mean a state has to amend their code to remove them.

(Much like some of states kept segregation laws on the books after they were no longer operative as law)

[RKP5637]

21. Interesting, thanks for posting this additional info.! n/t

[lib2DaBone]

23. Religion is the problem...

The world will never know peace until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.

[RKP5637]

24. I really think religion is the root of evil. n/t

[Arugula Latte]

54. ...the root of ignorance and evil, which go hand-in-hand.

[RKP5637]

56. Yep, ignorance too, definitely!!! n/t

[Mean Gene]

26. MS. Par for the course. n/t

[RKP5637]

41. Yep, no surprises on MS. n/t

[Roselma]

29. In 1961 the US Supreme Court determined that

this is an unconstitutional practice. Here is the court case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins

I suspect that the books still hold the laws, but that they are never enforced. It is a matter of the legislators getting around to purge them.

[RKP5637]

33. Thanks for the additional info.! n/t

[susanr516]

30. Surprised that MD and PA are on the list

not so surprised by the rest. Frankly, I would have been shocked had TX NOT been on that list.

[Jim Lane]

34. Didn't one of the southern states recently have a big battle about interracial marriage?

IIRC, the "anti-miscegenation" statute was still on the books, although of course it, like the religious tests for public office, couldn't be enforced. Mixed-race couples were getting married without incident. Nevertheless, some people thought it would be of symbolic value to repeal the statute, instead of merely not enforcing it. Other residents of the state, however, resisted, apparently seeing symbolic value in maintaining their official commitment to racism. Can anyone fill in the gaps in my memory?

If anyone were to attempt to repeal one of these outmoded religious tests, there might be similar resistance. This time it would come from people who've never really accepted this separation-of-church-and-state thing.

[struggle4progress]

35. Alabama, the last hold out, changed its unenforceable law a dozen years ago

But troglodytes like Keith Bardwell still pop up now and again:


Louisiana justice resigns after interracial wedding flap
by theGrio | November 3, 2009 at 10:13 PM
http://thegrio.com/2009/11/03/louisiana-justice-resigns-after-interracial-wed-flap/

[Jim Lane]

39. Thanks for the correction! (n/t)

[LeftishBrit]

36. I knew about Tennessee, but am surprised at some of the others, especially Maryland.

[Honeycombe8]

37. But those Constitutional provisions are illegal, so atheists CAN run. They just won't

get elected. People won't vote for atheists in public offices.

[Nye Bevan]

40. Only in America.

In the UK, two of the three major party leaders are atheists. And nobody cares. It never became an issue in the election campaign.

[RKP5637]

43. America is very backward in many ways. If we hadn't had a good run of

things after WWII, manufacturing, lots of employment and all it's hard to tell where we would be today.

[Woody Woodpecker]

42. The Church of Whatever

http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Church-of-Whatever/148301358516414

Just perfect.

[mainer]

44. And let's not forget the Boy Scouts

they don't allow scouts who disbelieve in a supreme being. I had to struggle with that as a den mother, since I'm an atheist. But then I decided, since I believe in Mother Nature, I do (sorta) believe in a supreme being and could participate.

[RKP5637]

46. Incredible, absolutely incredible. n/t

[dmallind]

45. For all the "this is all ok because Torcaso fixed it" types

Would it be ok if state constitutions said "no black people can run for office or be employed by the state" as long as they weren't enforced any more?

[RKP5637]

48. In Kansas, for example, it's a criminal offense to be gay, and they just

voted recently to keep it on the books, basically a jailable offense. Some of the legislatures wanted it on the books so when the Texas decision is overturned they can jail gay people in Kansas. Right now, cops hassle gay people for being criminals under the Kansas law. And it's not going to get any better in Kansas, for example.

[coalition_unwilling]

50. Wow, that's incredible. I had no idea. Sounds like an opening for a new

Martin Luther King, Jr.-type leader to emerge. People will have to be willing to face jail time though to win the battle for gay rights there, just like blacks had to go to jail and even die back in the 50s and 60s to win their battle.

My Dad lives in Lawrence. I'll definitely be bringing it to his attention. (He despises all things Repig.)

[RKP5637]

51. Lawrence is a great place for feeling not ruled by overreaching Repigs. The rest

of Kansas not so good in many places. People are nice in Kansas, but they vote in Repigs, so I just don't get it ... Here's a link to some more information on it ...

"Gay sex is still illegal in Kansas, and lawmakers won't do anything about it"

http://www.pitch.com/plog/archives/2011/03/10/gay-sex-is-still-illegal-in-kansas-and-lawmakers-wont-do-anything-about-it

[coalition_unwilling]

52. My Dad fought in Korea with the newly-integrated US Marine Corps, so he's

pretty strong on civil rights no matter who is being discriminated against. But he's also getting on in years now, so other than sympathize and maybe contribute some $$ to the gay rights cause, he'll be content to let my generation and those that come after mine take up this fight.

[coalition_unwilling]

49. Good point! (Altho we must remember that 1% of the population

continues to control 40% of the wealth and not let ourselves become overly distracted

[KansDem]

58. So what if you're elected to public office, then announce...

...after you take the oath of office that you're an atheist, would there be some kind of state show trial to have you removed?

It'd be Scopes all over again...

[Sans__Culottes]

59. Blatantly unconstitutional.

I suppose there's never been a test case because it would be political suicide to announce as an atheist in any election in this country.


EDIT: Oops, should have read through thread, these laws have been challenged. I reiterate that it would be foolish to announce as an atheist in most jurisdictions.