Athiests are too untrustworthy for America.

[Tostig]

Now, to be fair I'm not an American, or a constitutionalist at that, but I do like the idea that a country can sit down and decide that

Article VI.
Clause 3
"... but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Or that
Amendment I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

In essence that you shouldn't persecute against people for holding beliefs, or for practising them so long as they haven't been outlawed. It's a nice, fluffy kind of ideal, one which Mill would approve of, utterly divorced from Rousseau's grotesque censorship and indoctrination. Image how shocked I was to discover, when reading my daily FARK, that one has to be a Christian, or at least a Deist, to hold public office(s) in nine states of the union. Imagine the uproar if a fifth of the counties of England were to decide that their officials had to be members of the good old C of E.

Arkansas State Constitution, Article 19 Section 1 ("Miscellaneous Provisions")
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.

Maryland's Declaration of Rights, Article 36
"That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefore either in this world or in the world to come."

Massachusetts' State Constitution, Article 3
"Any every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law."

Mississippi State Constitution. Article 14 ("General Provisions"), Section 265
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

North Carolina's State Constitution, Article 6 Section 8
"Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."

Pennsylvania's State Constitution, Article 1 Section 4
"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."

South Carolina's State Constitution, Article 4 Section 2
"No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor who denies the existence of the Supreme Being; ..."

Tennessee's State Constitution, Article 9 Section 2
"No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."

Texas' State Constitution, Article 1 Section 4
"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."

Now then, usually I'd be quite happy to accept and carry on life regardless, however it made me start thinking. Is there any correlation between those states. Interestingly enough all but one of them, Pennsylvania, was either a member of the Confederacy or a "border" state. Now, I'm not one for judging other cultures, especially when you consider the South's long stance on racial inferiority and voting Republican, but none the less I do believe that this is perhaps the most striking example of the hypocrisy between republican Idealism and Liberalism*.

*With a capital L, as in the harm principal, representative democracy and reading Homer when you're three.

[sdjenkyn]

There is more great evidence why organized religion should be outlawed in todays societies. Believe what you want but keep it out of politics once and for all. Thx for digging that up.

[Gaidin]

Of course...some lines of thought say that there are offices under the US...and then there are offices under the individual states.

[Tostig]

I'm not extremely well acquainted with the American Constitution, but I would have thought that the tenth amendment made it clear when it made explicit the idea that the federal government is limited only to the powers it is granted in the Constitution.

But surely, in the days after that big war thingy with all the killing, what with the liberating of those Negroes, and then after all those court cases that ruled that denying them the vote at the local level because they were black was illegal, and then after all of those court cases where segregation at the state level was banned, it was pretty much done and dusted that the state governments had to obey the federal one.

Especially when you consider the Civil Rights act, which states "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States", but that seems to go against the idea from Pennsylvania that you can be disqualified from a place of "trust or profit under this Commonwealth" for being an atheist. Just look at Massachusetts, which says that atheists shall not be equally under the protection of the law.

[bdh]

I'm not extremely well acquainted with the American Constitution, but I would have thought that the tenth amendment made it clear when it made explicit the idea that the federal government is limited only to the powers it is granted in the Constitution.

But surely, in the days after that big war thingy with all the killing, what with the liberating of those Negroes, and then after all those court cases that ruled that denying them the vote at the local level because they were black was illegal, and then after all of those court cases where segregation at the state level was banned, it was pretty much done and dusted that the state governments had to obey the federal one.

Especially when you consider the Civil Rights act, which states "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States", but that seems to go against the idea from Pennsylvania that you can be disqualified from a place of "trust or profit under this Commonwealth" for being an atheist. Just look at Massachusetts, which says that atheists shall not be equally under the protection of the law.

Its not really that much of an issue. Should an Atheist get elected, the clauses would quickly be overriden by the Supreme Court. Since it isn't an issue yet, it can't be brought before the court since no one has any standing. Otherwise, the only way to get it overriden is to have a change in the state constitution, which no one really cares about doing.

[sdjenkyn]

I think what you have found are antiquated laws that could not pass muster if challenged. These laws are not common knowledge to most citizens and therefore dont directly effect them. I seriously doubt they are even upheld and the simple fact that Americans expect there politicians to be god fearing public servants means most people running for office would not jeopardize there chances of winning office by declaring themselves an atheist even if they are.

[Kscott]

Interestingly enough all but one of them, Pennsylvania, was either a member of the Confederacy or a "border" state.

Not true, Massachusetts is about the furthest thing from being a Southern State.

So of 9, 3 are Northern(yes Maryland was a border state, but it still is far more Northern), 6 are Southern. Maryland, Mass, and Penn were all originated as religous havens. So religous states have religous laws in their constitution. Hardly suprising.

[mrjesushat]

Not true, Massachusetts is about the furthest thing from being a Southern State.

So of 9, 3 are Northern(yes Maryland was a border state, but it still is far more Northern), 6 are Southern. Maryland, Mass, and Penn were all originated as religous havens. So religous states have religous laws in their constitution. Hardly suprising.

I beg to differ on the case of Maryland, Kscott. Were it not for Lincoln's brilliantly unconstitutional closure of the Maryland State Legislature, Washington D.C. would have been firmly situated in the midst of the Rebel states.

What Tostig has found is an unfortunate series of references to a rather ugly and un-American part of our history. It is true that these laws would not hold up if challeneged, but it is also the case that these are "theoretical artifacts" demonstrating the ignorance and closed-mindedness of certain periods of our history, at least in certain states.

Of course, every country has nasty little skeletons like these lurking in the national closet. For further examples of American legal gaffes, I direct you to the following:

http://www.dumblaws.com/

And for international legal idiocies:

http://electriccommentary.blogspot.c...und-world.html

Enjoy.

[Kscott]

I beg to differ on the case of Maryland, Kscott. Were it not for Lincoln's brilliantly unconstitutional closure of the Maryland State Legislature, Washington D.C. would have been firmly situated in the midst of the Rebel states.

What Tostig has found is an unfortunate series of references to a rather ugly and un-American part of our history. It is true that these laws would not hold up if challeneged, but it is also the case that these are "theoretical artifacts" demonstrating the ignorance and closed-mindedness of certain periods of our history, at least in certain states.

Of course, every country has nasty little skeletons like these lurking in the national closet. For further examples of American legal gaffes, I direct you to the following:

http://www.dumblaws.com/

And for international legal idiocies:

http://electriccommentary.blogspot.c...und-world.html

Enjoy.

Yes, but now Maryland is most certainly Northern. At least in my view.

[the_mango55]

As was said before, those are old laws that nobody even pays attention too anymore.

I imagine if you look at many of Britain's billions of ancient laws that are still "valid" you will find quite a few references requiring people to be a respectable Christian or somesuch.

EDIT: But it would be difficult (impossible in many states) for a professed Atheist to win a major election

[HMMcKamikaze]

These really are the sort of things that aren't enforced anymore. There are plenty of crazy laws that are technically valid, but if anyone actually tried to uphold them they would probably be overruled.

[Tom Paine]

I'm led to confusion about how these got onto the statute books, though, as they were drawn up after the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which explicitly made them illegal. Meh.

[Gaidin]

I'm led to confusion about how these got onto the statute books, though, as they were drawn up after the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which explicitly made them illegal. Meh.

As people have stated, they aren't really enforced anymore. As I have stated, there are those think a federal office and a state office are two different things, and one interpretation goes to that a religion cannot be required to hold a federal office(ie..."Office or public Trust under the United States"), but does not comment on a state office. Which would be why we haven't really bothered wasting time weeding out old laws that aren't enforced when they can be left well enough alone given an interpretation that does not have them breaking the constitution over their back.

[Sher Khan]

To be fair, I haven't heard of a situation where these statutes were enacted to bar an athiest or non-Christian from office. I think these are along the lines of 'random laws that few know about and even less care about.' Like those weird laws you have sometimes that just boggle the mind - things like taking a girraffe for a walk on Wednesday is illegal in some random town somewhere in North America.

[Tom Paine]

All that explains why they remain on the statute books, unenforced; that's not what I was confused by. What I was and remain confused by is how they got into the statute books in the first place.

[bdh]

All that explains why they remain on the statute books, unenforced; that's not what I was confused by. What I was and remain confused by is how they got into the statute books in the first place.

Because they are very old and people from a long time ago thought it was a good idea. A law does not have to be constitutional in order to be passed in the first place.

[Roy Batty]

All that explains why they remain on the statute books, unenforced; that's not what I was confused by. What I was and remain confused by is how they got into the statute books in the first place.

Being far from a legal expert my guess would be that it was one aspect of state governments trying to remain autonomous from a young (and near-powerless) federal government. I remember from what few history classes I've taken on the 'States that most of the states did not want to become a "Union" but preferred to remain independent, with borders defined as they were as colonies.

Another possiblility is that people were just uneducated back then and probably never even bothered to read the Constitution or anything else for that matter, lacking the ability to do so.

[Tom Paine]

Surely it does, as a constitution sets out what laws may and may not be passed legally, that being its entire point...

[Gaidin]

Surely it does, as a constitution sets out what laws may and may not be passed legally, that being its entire point...

Actually, he's right. Typically, courts only get the laws in there hands once an interpretation is needed. And that means it's got to be applied. An unconstitutional law isn't so rare. An unconstitutional law that is contested and still remains is.

[bdh]

Surely it does, as a constitution sets out what laws may and may not be passed legally, that being its entire point...

There is no mechanism other than the courts for a law to be declared unconstitutional since they are the sole arbiters of what is and is not constitutional. Furthermore, in order for a law to be contested, individuals with legal standing (i.e. are actually effected by the law) must instigate the lawsuit or have somone reprsenting them instigate a suit. Ideally the legislatures wouldn't pass unconstitutional laws, but, they do from time to time. Thats why the courts balance them.

Theoretically, legislatures could pass laws impinging on the civil rights of the undead. Though the laws would be unconstitutional, the law would never actually be applied so it would never be contested so there would be an unconstitutional law.

Its exactly the same situation. As there are no undead, there haven't been any atheists elected to these offices. Should hell freeze over (causing the dead to leave there) and an atheist get elected, both laws would actually be salient and could therefore be brought before the courts.