Some states "require" belief in a "supreme being" to hold public office.

[BurtWorm]

Poll question: Some states "require" belief in a "supreme being" to hold public office.

That is, their consititutions require candidates for public office to believe in a supreme being. These states include Maryland, Massachusetts (which technically requires belief in Christ), North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.

Do you think this is an issue worthy of a public campaign?

[trotsky]

1. Yes, because it's a Constitutional right.

It says so - there shall be no religious test for public office.

[Fenris]

2. Yes, because it's a violation of the Constitution

Not to mention judicial precedent.

[BurtWorm]

3. I'm curious about those who voted that it's not worth arguing over

antiquated beliefs. Are the people who voted for that option believers or nonbelievers?

[kiahzero]

4. I voted yes

However, those bits of the those state Constitutions are invalid - Supremacy Clause... it doesn't matter that they're in there, because the Federal Constitution invalidates them.

[NoPasaran]

5. I voted no, it's not worth fighting over

And I'm a non-believer.

I'd like to see these antiquated clauses gone, along with requiremnts to swear to this and swear to that, but there are a lot more important things to fight for. When women finally achieve full equality; when the GBLT community enjoys equal protection under the law; when racism is eliminated; then I'll be ready to fight over having to pay lip service to some folks' invisible friends.

Damned if I'll bow my head and close my eyes for a prayer though.

[BurtWorm]

7. "Devil"'s advocate here:

Are nonbelievers less deserving of shirking second class citizen status than other groups? Are our rights lower on the hierarchy of rights than other groups?

[NoPasaran]

13. No, I don't think so

Maybe I'm a bit of a moral coward to not demand that all religious references be swept from public life. But the fact is that I can live as a closeted atheist among believers much more easily than members of other groups. I support others' struggles for equality because they are really fighting my battle. Each victory on the human rights front makes society more tolerant and diverse. Someday we'll get to a point where nonbelief is not an issue. But until we're a lot closer to that point I don't see the need to raise the issue.

[BurtWorm]

14. My feeling is that the more out of the closet nonbelievers there are

the better it will be for other groups who suffer from religious intolerance.

[NoPasaran]

15. Well, I don't doubt that

I do think that the level of intolerence towards nonbelievers is greater than that toward other groups. I can't cite an exact reference at the moment, but I can recall some years ago the elder Bush saying something to the effect that atheists were not, and could not be, good citizens. There wasn't much uproar over that statement. I can't imagine a similar non-reaction if he made those remarks about any other group.

[BurtWorm]

17. Exactly right. Atheists are sitting ducks on the political landscape.

Bush senior did say that and get away with it. The press was too impressed with his thank-you card writing to notice what a snake of a human being he is.

[NoPasaran]

18. So as a sitting duck

I try not to quack too loudly.

[DieboldMustDie]

6. With the theocrats running our country...

seeking every opportunity to expand their power, how can this not be an issue?

[Mattforclark]

8. The TX constitution allows women atheists/agnostics to hold public office

but not men.

Not only does the "religious tests" portion discriminate on the basis of religion, but it also discriminates on the basis of gender.

"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

[PurityOfEssence]

9. This is too dangerous to bring up now

We have to win the White House and take back Congress this year. To do that, we should fight against the right's class warfare and hit them on national security and health care. Religion should have nothing to do with politics, but it should be avoided this cycle as a deliberate attempt to demonize us.

The monarchists will try to force the Pledge issue to the fore, and I am perfectly happy to have our team avoid and parry it each and every time.

There is no greater threat to human freedom than religion. There is no greater danger in this country's politics than the encroachment of religious privilege; this is precisely why religion is to be kept out of politics: it demands its adherents to be considered superior beings to the "others", and it demands its beliefs and opinions to be above reproach. In politics, religion is absolutely anti-democratic.

I took a lot of heat--some serious hateheat on this very board--for saying that gay marriage is not an issue to push at this pivotal time. Fine. I'm straight, so that's to be expected. this is different: I'm a hardcore agnostic, and have been since the age of six. As such, I've experienced the ostracism, prejudice, physical intimidation and violence, marginalization and assorted derision by many who consider it their due as superior beings to do so. Big deal; it's a tough town.

It's stupid to bring this kind of thing up at this critical juncture, and we should drop any activism on this subject and use every delaying and evasive tactic to avoid it being brought forward.

Means testing is literally unconstitutional, but when it comes to god, one need not answer to mere mortal law. Some day it should be addressed, but not now.

[Mattforclark]

10. Agreed

I'm agnostic too, and I don't think it is nearly as bad as, say, denying gay people the right to marry.

Gay people can't marry. Period (except in Frisco and a few other places).

I can hold public office, all I have to do is lie, which is quite possible (though I suppose it would still be lying under oath).

There is a time to fight for this. That time is not now.

[BurtWorm]

11. I wonder why we believe religion only mobilizes fundamentalists.

Is there evidence that freethinkers don't get motivated to vote when their religious freedoms (i.e., freedoms from religion) are threatened?

[PurityOfEssence]

12. It's a numbers game

The best estimate I've seen is that 10% of the population doesn't believe. Factor in to that the cultural blind eye turned toward religious hatred (many are raised with the strict belief that people who don't believe in god are immoral and venal creatures) and it's clear that this is a bad line of attack. It's more okay to hate a non-believer than a homosexual in this society.

Where are the 53.5 non-believers in Congress? There are openly gay people.

This is a losing proposition, and it should be avoided.

[Quiet Revolutionary]

16. Yes...

They can be enforced by dirty cheating Republicans.

[BurtWorm]

20. Excellent point!

:toast:

[Festivito]

19. No, not a public effort. Individual effort for SCOTUS.

SCOTUS, Supreme Court, would probably take a lawsuit for someone being denied application to run for office based on religious affiliation. By the time it would be seen, that individual would probably not be able to run, but, it would be better for all around not to further divide and harden positions of a predjudiced and unknowledgable public in order to be quick about changing some state's consititution, even though it pave a road to hell with good intentions.

-Believer

[ButterflyBlood]

21. it doesn't require a huge campaign

it's a clear violation of the Constitution, which clearly prohibits any religious test to hold public office. Someone just needs to file a lawsuit against one of the statutes and it'd be overturned in an instant. The problem is an enforcement paradox. It's tough to get a lawsuit against a law that isn't enforced. The Texas sodomy law case came from a set up. It reminds me of a case in North Carolina where a bunch of Wiccans wanted to abolish an antiquated law prohiting occult practices by holding an occult festival out in the open. But the police originally did nothing, one of them basically had to beg a sympathetic cop to arrest her. She was hoping her conviction would be thrown out along with the law, but the judge simply through the case out without bothering to even examine the law. Tricky situation.

by the way, the Massachussetts law is almost certainly not bothered with since Barney Frank is Jewish and thus clearly doesn't believe in Christ, so bringing up a lawsuit against it there would be tough.

[drdigi420]

22. YES!!!!! most definately, religion breeds hate and intolerance

im tired of being ostracized because i dont buy into the fairy tale

[ButterflyBlood]

23. what an ironic post

n/t