Atheists & Agnostics
Related: About this forumThere are states where you technically can’t hold public office if you’re an atheist
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/07/08/there-are-states-where-you-technically-cant-hold-public-office-if-youre-an-atheist/The Washington Post
There are states where you technically cant hold public office if youre an atheist
By Hunter Schwarz July 8
Eight state constitutions include restrictions on people who dont believe in a supreme being. In Arkansas, denying the existence of God means you cant hold civil office or testify in court, while in Tennessee there are also guidelines about belief in the hereafter.
However, the Supreme Court ruled in a 1961 case that a Maryland man appointed as a notary public didnt have to declare his belief in a supreme being to hold office, arguing it violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Since then, these restrictions havent been enforced, said Dave Muscato, a spokesman for American Atheists.
Still, candidates for office who are openly atheist face discrimination at the polls. Muscato said a belief that atheists arent moral or trustworthy contributes to voters reluctance to say theyd vote for them. A 2014 Pew poll found 53 percent of Americans think its necessary to believe in God to be moral, and a 2012 Gallup poll found 43 percent of voters would not vote for a candidate who was atheist.
Here are the states and what their constitutions say about belief in a supreme being....
MORE at link posted above.
libodem
(19,288 posts)You must buy into the collective mythology or you can't play in the game. How juvenile.
(secret message to Handpuppet, I found a touching story of a Mormon family with a trans child. I posted it in Feminism and Diversity, you might like it)
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)I wish the best for that family but I fear it will be a long, hard fight.
Sometimes it's such a damn, tiresome battle fighting a society so entrenched in religious prejudice. My wife and I are lesbians. We are older lesbians. We are older, feminist lesbians. We are older, feminist, atheist lesbians. We are older, feminist, atheist lesbians in what some would consider a mixed marriage (she is Hispanic, me a mongrel). There are those times I feel I haven't enough arms to wage all these battles, especially against magical thinking. It really can be exhausting and it's all so stupid and unnecessary.
libodem
(19,288 posts)I was so touched by the total sweetness of that family. I don't expect the church to understand. They are absolutist in their dogma. I hope she can work out her religious ideation and be happy.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)The most important factors in her chances for a happy future are the love and support of her family. That she has in abundance!
libodem
(19,288 posts)Family is so understanding. Sometimes family is the first and worst obstacle for self acceptance. They really love her.
valerief
(53,235 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)and violating the constitution. Stop being so emotional.
Sarcasm notice to avoid alert trolling.
deucemagnet
(4,549 posts)Those laws are unenforceable. Can you name a single instance where these laws were enforced? Stop your whining, atheists.
(I'm going to assume that this post is grandfathered under your sarcasm notice.)
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)4 Reasons Atheists Have to Fight for Their Rights
In the U.S., atheists have laws protecting them. But laws aren't always obeyed, or enforced -- and fighting for legal rights can have dire consequences.
August 6, 2012
"You atheists are just taking on the mantle of victimhood. There are laws protecting you -- especially the First Amendment. Therefore, you're not really discriminated against. And it's ridiculous for you to claim that you are."
Atheist activists get this one a lot. When we speak out about ways that anti-atheist bigotry plays out, we're told that we're not really oppressed. We're told that, because we have legal protection, because anti-atheist discrimination is illegal, therefore we don't really have any problems, and we're just trying to gain unearned sympathy and win the victim Olympics. (I'd love to hear Bob Costas do the commentary for that!) It's a classic Catch-22: If we speak out about oppression and point to examples of it, we're accused of "playing the victim card," and the oppression becomes invisible. And if we don't speak out about oppression ... then the oppression once again becomes invisible.
If you've ever made this "discrimination against atheists is against the law" argument, I have some really bad news for you. You may want to sit down for this, it may come as a shock:
People sometimes break the law.... MORE (long article)
trotsky
(49,533 posts)"People sometimes break the law!"
Shocking but true!
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Here's another fun list.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/16/atheists-discrimination_n_4413593.html
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)This wouldn't be a problem.
onager
(9,356 posts)ON EDIT:
And my home state is one of those with a constitution barring atheists from public office. That got tested in 1997 and unanimously kiboshed by the state Supreme Court. But the law remains on the books.
From Positive Atheism:
Note: "The State" is the newspaper in Columbia, SC. Being the state capital, Columbia is home to the State Legislature, the state prison and the state insane asylum. All three of which often greatly resemble each other in the actions of their inmates.
May 30, 1997
Columbia, South Carolina -- An atheist does not have to swear to a "supreme being" to hold public office in South Carolina, the state Supreme Court has ruled.
According to a report in The State, the court's five justices unanimously agreed that the requirement violates the U.S. Constitution and upheld a lower court ruling in the case of a College of Charleton professor. The professor, Herb Silverman, is an atheist whose application for notary public was turned down because he had crossed out the part of an oath that read "so help me God."
"The state Supreme Court didn't hesitate to find the religious test for public office to be a violation of religious freedom," Steven Bates, Executive Director of the ACLU of South Carolina, told the State.
The ACLU had filed the original lawsuit in 1993 on behalf of Professor Silverman.
The South Carolina high court agreed that forcing public officers to acknowledge the existence of a "supreme being" -- required by the state's constitution -- violated the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment that provides for religious liberty and separation of church and state.
South Carolina was one of seven states that require belief in a higher power to hold public office, the State said.
Arkansas, Maryland, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Tennessee and Texas have similar clauses, the paper said, but they don't enforce them.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)it is freedom "of" religion, not freedom "from" religion. And I have had that little point thrown at me more than once. :sigh:
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)Whenever I hear that, it probably bothers me more than anything else. I try to lead a moral life, I treat people as I would like to be treated, and as far as trustworthy, my credit rating is better than most other people (if you can use that to measure trust).
I just hope that as more people admit to being atheists, people will realize that they know a lot of good people who just do not believe in god.
libodem
(19,288 posts)No wonder it makes you mad. I don't think honestly and truthfulness have a thing to do with religion.
Really you are a better person, for being honest and trustworthy, for its own sake and not because you fear hell.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)Don't tell me that I am a better person for it, because I already have a tad bit of superiority feelings.
If you have not been hit with the "you can't be moral if you don't believe in god" comments, you are very lucky. Well, I have not be told that I CAN'T be moral, but I am often asked HOW can you be moral without god. Good gravy!
defacto7
(13,485 posts)The argument is usually that religion is necessary to teach morality and honesty because we are all born bad. How ironic that tricking or forcing yourself to believe in something that can't be proven and that must not be proven, that there is any level of honesty, in that? It's more like learning to be dishonest. How can trust come from dishonesty? How can a morality that comes from being dishonest be of value? I just don't get how that makes any sense at all.
Your last sentence is right on the money but there is a catch. Being out as atheist can be a real shunning experience if you live in one of those places where you are such a minority among the extreme religious that the probability of finding other non-theists makes it seem not worth being completely invisible or worse. When I lived in the Northwest it was no big deal to be and say that you were a non-believer, no big deal. When I moved to Utah, I jumped right in and if the subject arose where it was "honest" to speak about my non-status I just did so. Biggest mistake of my life. But you know, had I kept my mouth shut, I would have been more miserable. A lot of years have gone by. I have met a few atheists passing in the night but they are just as reticent to speak up as I am now. Religion in mass creates a lot of fear, not only in believers but it can create fear and distrust in anyone it surrounds. Psalms 34:11 Come, my children, listen to me; I will teach you the fear of the Lord.... Philemon 2:12-13 ...continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling... Religion is a bully, I see no morality in it.
Do I hear Amen?
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)Fear is the biggest reason for people to believe, although I am amazed at how immoral so many people who profess to believe in god can be. It makes me wonder how they can truly believe if they are not living the best life that they can live. The only thing I can figure is that the fear is mitigated by the "ask for forgiveness" get-out-of-jail-free card.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)Yep, that's called not taking responsibility for your own actions. There's morality for ya.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)I wouldn't be so sure that those laws couldn't come out of mothballs and haunt us even if just a futile exercise. We need those laws to go off the books de facto for the point of it and not just assume trust in our sacred SCOTUS.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)there for context or something, you don't follow them, just as reminders of something something stop taking the bible, I mean law out of context!
defacto7
(13,485 posts)There's a state, can't remember which, that has a law on the books that says women are not allowed to cut men's hair. Well that is reasonable because there is a bible verse that says that it's an abomination for a woman to cut men's hair. So in that case it's a reminder that the bible confirms that important abomination, and there's also something about jock itch reminding us of something in the bible... well anyway, the law is an ass.