Author Topic: More Americans see religion’s influence waning, want bigger role in politics  (Read 2442 times)

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/16/states-atheists-banned-public-office/

JUST AS I THOUGHT!!!!!!!

It’s strange but true. Provisions barring atheists from holding public office are written into the constitutions of those states, even though they can't be enforced.

That's because the Supreme Court ruled in 1961 that a Maryland man who was appointed as a notary public did not have to declare his belief in God be eligible for the office, which was required under the state’s constitution. The justices ruled unanimously that forcing the man to do so would violate his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31073
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
give us a recent instance where these laws prevented someone from running for office.

Enforcement has nothing to do with the fact that it is legal.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Read more yourself

https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Ale6Gg2k7YnNFXli4a7LmsKbvZx4?fr=yfp-t-415-s&toggle=1&fp=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&p=states%20ban%20atheists%20from%20office

I just read the first article from the link you posted.  Says they are unenforceable.  So what was your point in posting this?

Unenforceable ban on atheists holding public office still on the books in 8 states
By Stephanie McNeal
Published July 16, 2014
FoxNews.com

The U.S. Constitution says religious tests cannot be required to hold public office. But if you read through the constitutions of eight states, they seem to require just that.

It’s strange but true. Provisions barring atheists from holding public office are written into the constitutions of those states, even though they can't be enforced.

That's because the Supreme Court ruled in 1961 that a Maryland man who was appointed as a notary public did not have to declare his belief in God be eligible for the office, which was required under the state’s constitution. The justices ruled unanimously that forcing the man to do so would violate his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

The case, Torcaso v. Watkins, made enforcement of the provisions illegal, but merely allowing them to remain on the books does not violate the U.S. Constitution. So they remain in Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.

Mississippi’s Constitution states, “No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.” Arkansas' Constitution goes even further; it bars atheists from testifying in court.

Tennessee's bars atheists from office, but, curiously, the state also forbids ministers. Its provision states that any minister of the gospel or priest of any denomination is barred from public office because they “ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their functions.”

Dave Muscato, a spokesman for American Atheists, said it is “fair and right” that the Supreme Court declared the provisions illegal, calling them “blatantly discriminatory, immoral, and un-American.”

He said having the provisions on the books is a “stark reminder” of the discrimination atheists have faced in America.

“While the social stigma still exists and black-and-white laws on the books do lend informal credibility to the stigma, insofar as it's our place to as (nonprofit) to speak on the issue, we encourage our lawmakers to spend as much time as possible making sure that religion and government stay separate in their work now, and that atheists are not discriminated against in the present,” he told FoxNews.com in an email.

The provisions still cause controversy. North Carolina’s caused a stir in 2009 when Cecil Bothwell, an atheist, was elected to the city council in the city of Asheville.

Bothwell’s critics said he should be barred from office because of the state Constitution's guidelines, but ultimately he was sworn in. One of those critics, Southern heritage activist H.K. Edgerton, told FoxNews.com the provision barring atheists should be enforced because it “is in the North Carolina State Constitution, and is law.”

“The Asheville, North Carolina City Council has placed itself above the law for two terms with Cecil Bothwell sitting there passing rules and regulations and dictating law unlawfully,” he said.

Muscato said it is unlikely lawmakers will ever seek to get the provisions taken out of the state constitutions, as there is rarely a push to remove unenforceable laws from the books.

“However, having them on the books, even though they aren't enforceable, is a stark reminder that our country once considered an atheist so unfit for office that it was proper to bar a person from serving the people just because the candidate wasn't indoctrinated into believing,” he said.

Atheist lawmakers are rare in the U.S. A Pew Research poll found only one current member of Congress, Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., said she was "unaffiliated" with a religion. Ten other lawmakers refused to answer the question or said they did not know.

Former Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., was the only open athiest in Congress from 1973 to 2013. He was defeated in the Democratic primary by current Rep. Eric Swalwell when he ran for re-election after redistricting in 2012.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/16/states-atheists-banned-public-office/

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/16/states-atheists-banned-public-office/

JUST AS I THOUGHT!!!!!!!

It’s strange but true. Provisions barring atheists from holding public office are written into the constitutions of those states, even though they can't be enforced.

That's because the Supreme Court ruled in 1961 that a Maryland man who was appointed as a notary public did not have to declare his belief in God be eligible for the office, which was required under the state’s constitution. The justices ruled unanimously that forcing the man to do so would violate his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Hey I just said that.   :D

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Learn to read moron.
You dont think:


Nothing prevents legislators from voting for religious-based policy

conflicts with

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion
so youre now saying its ok to vote on issues based on your religious views?

good to see your stupidity has subsided.

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Enforcement has nothing to do with the fact that it is legal.
plenty of old laws on the books their lurker only a dumbass thinks its relevant in a discussion on this subject.

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Enforcement has nothing to do with the fact that it is legal.
and actually it is illegal, you know since the supreme court said it was....;)

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31073
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
My point is not about the fact that it is illegal to enforce it, it is about the fact that it even exists on the states constitution in the first place.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
My point is not about the fact that it is illegal to enforce it, it is about the fact that it even exists on the states constitution in the first place.

There are unconstitutional provisions in a handful state constitutions.  So what?  What does that have to do with this discussion?   

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
My point is not about the fact that it is illegal to enforce it, it is about the fact that it even exists on the states constitution in the first place.
so your point is that the process set forth by the constitution works?

The fact of the matter is there are a lot of laws passed that have both religious leanings and non religious leanings. Those that dont stand up to the test of the constitution are done away with as in the case with this irrelevant example.

There are unconstitutional provisions in a handful state constitutions.  So what?  What does that have to do with this discussion?   
EXACTLY!!!

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31073
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
If there have been no attempts by religion to influence politics, why does it even exist in the first place?  This is evidence of an attempt of pure religious influence on the state constitution, it makes no difference whether it is enforced today or not.  The fact it is on the books shows that there was an intention of having it enforced. 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
If there have been no attempts by religion to influence politics, why does it even exist in the first place?  This is evidence of an attempt of pure religious influence on the state constitution, it makes no difference whether it is enforced today or not.  The fact it is on the books shows that there was an intention of having it enforced. 

Who said there have no attempts by religion to influence politics?  The article that started this thread and the discussion is the exact opposite of that.

States put unconstitutional provisions in their state constitutions probably upwards of 100 years ago or so.  That is relevant to nothing, at least as far this discussion goes. 


LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31073
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
Who said there have no attempts by religion to influence politics?  The article that started this thread and the discussion is the exact opposite of that.

States put unconstitutional provisions in their state constitutions probably upwards of 100 years ago or so.  That is relevant to nothing, at least as far this discussion goes. 



I said there HAVE been. 

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
If there have been no attempts by religion to influence politics, why does it even exist in the first place?  This is evidence of an attempt of pure religious influence on the state constitution, it makes no difference whether it is enforced today or not.  The fact it is on the books shows that there was an intention of having it enforced. 
LMFAO are you drunk????

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31073
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
LMFAO are you drunk????

No.  I was posting in between Crucible matches on Destiny.

But that is no excuse for you not understanding something so simple.  If the fact the laws exist in the first place do not signify a religious attempt in politics, then what kind of attempt is it?  Racial?  Gender based?  ?????