• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Appalling Discrimination against atheist?

What do you think of the laws banning atheist from some offices?


  • Total voters
    97
A very long decision to read right now but in the end it looks as though it was dismissed and the state was able to keep on keepin on.

This was the finding of the case.
We affirm the circuit court's holding that South Carolina Constitution art. VI, § 2 and art. XVIII, § 4 violate the First Amendment and the Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution.
SC Judicial Department
 
Interesting, so why did the OP say that state is still doing it? Honest question, something doesn't add up.

The op says that the laws are in the state constitution, not that the laws are being enforced.
 
The op says that the laws are in the state constitution, not that the laws are being enforced.

I don't know wolf but I would think if what the states are doing is against the law they wouldn't be able to do it.

EDIT: I misread your post, good question, are they actually being enforced?
 
I don't know wolf but I would think if what the states are doing is against the law they wouldn't be able to do it.

EDIT: I misread your post, good question, are they actually being enforced?

I didn't see any cases after Silverman v Campbell in 1996. So either they aren't enforcing, or no one has contested the law.
 
I didn't see any cases after Silverman v Campbell in 1996. So either they aren't enforcing, or no one has contested the law.

Be interesting to know more about this really, Agent should have done more research on this issue before posting. Maybe this weekend when I have time.....
 
really? so you are saying the state can violate the constitution as it sees fit? WHy do we have a constitution then?

That's a good question. Why have a constitution, I mean. In Canada our constitution is a pretty recent development and I've been against it since it was proposed. My rights were well protected by British Common Law, which has evolved over centuries according to the changes in society, and will continue to change and evolve as needed, unlike constitutions which cause nothing but problems.
 
Now I’m not an atheist myself and I know many atheists that do believe in religion just don’t think anybody has it right but discrimination is discrimination and it amazed me that these things below are actually in state constitutions. I just learned this in another thread.
The constitutions of these seven US states ban atheists from holding public office:

Arkansas:
"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."[81]

Maryland:
"That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.”[82]

Mississippi:
"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state."[83]

North Carolina:
"The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."[84]

South Carolina:
"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."[85]

Tennessee:
"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."[86]

Texas:
"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."[87]

An eighth state constitution discriminates against atheists by affording special protection to theists only.
Pennsylvania:
"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."[88]

Discrimination against atheists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That’s appalling to me and the purest form of bigotry and discrimination IMO. SO I’m curious where you stand.
I’d love to see someone try to enforce this so it can be defeated and destroyed like it should, wonder if there are any recent cases of it.

What do you think of the laws banning atheist from some offices?

I’m against it
it violates the constitution and should be removed
it’s discrimination
it’s bigotry
it’s disgusting
I support this
it does NOT violate the constitution and should stand
it’s NOT discrimination
it’s NOT bigotry
it’s righteousness
This actually doesn't surprise me. Although I really doubt anyone would have the audacity to try and enforce these laws. Besides, I think these laws will be gone when my generation (millennial) becomes the majority of voters and gets old enough to run for office. A lot more of us are atheist/agnostic (they are different) and the ones that are religious are a lot more accepting of people who aren't IMO.
 
Last edited:
Ditto...now that is funny. "Demonstrate a knowledge of what is in it? Because somebody is atheist...there's a likelihood they don't know what's in the Constitution?

Surely you jest...
No, no, no.. that's not what I meant at all.
What I meant was that, instead of swearing in on the Bible, why not swear in political leaders on the Constitution?

Atheists may not know the Bible, but that's OK. What we need are politicians who know what's in the Constitution and then support it.
 
A very long decision to read right now but in the end it looks as though it was dismissed and the state was able to keep on keepin on.
The decision cited Torasco v Watkins (1961), so the state requirement had already been ruled unconstitutional 37 years earlier. The reason those clauses are still in the state constitutions is that it's a pain in the ass to amend the constitution, and it's unnecessary to remove a clause that's not enforceable anyway.
 
The decision cited Torasco v Watkins (1961), so the state requirement had already been ruled unconstitutional 37 years earlier. The reason those clauses are still in the state constitutions is that it's a pain in the ass to amend the constitution, and it's unnecessary to remove a clause that's not enforceable anyway.

Well then this whole thread has been a complete waste of time! :doh
 
Well then this whole thread has been a complete waste of time! :doh

Pretty much. A similar stink was made when G. W. Bush was running for president the first time and it was revealed that a house he sold a few years earlier had a covenant in the deed forbidding sale to non-whites. The covenant hadn't been enforceable since 1947, Bush didn't know about it anyway, and even if he did, it would have been very difficult and expensive to change.

But still...the clauses are still offensive.
 
Pretty much. A similar stink was made when G. W. Bush was running for president the first time and it was revealed that a house he sold a few years earlier had a covenant in the deed forbidding sale to non-whites. The covenant hadn't been enforceable since 1947, Bush didn't know about it anyway, and even if he did, it would have been very difficult and expensive to change.

But still...the clauses are still offensive.

Was it the house in Highland Park?
 
Ditto...now that is funny. "Demonstrate a knowledge of what is in it? Because somebody is atheist...there's a likelihood they don't know what's in the Constitution?

Surely you jest...

What he meant is that swearing on the constitution and proving some actual knowledge of the constitution would be preferable to a bunch of elected officials who don't know squat about what the constitution says or what it means. :)
 
No, no, no.. that's not what I meant at all.
What I meant was that, instead of swearing in on the Bible, why not swear in political leaders on the Constitution?

Atheists may not know the Bible, but that's OK. What we need are politicians who know what's in the Constitution and then support it.

Ditto...sorry...it didn't sound like something you'd say. That's why I sounded a bit perplexed...and other poster wrote saying that I misunderstood your post. It happens every now and then.

But I did say to Fletch...who replied about your post that that was actually a pretty good idea - foregoing your remark meant just for atheist. And you didn't mean it that way.

My apologies...no disrespect intended...it was something I just didn't connect coming from you.
 
What he meant is that swearing on the constitution and proving some actual knowledge of the constitution would be preferable to a bunch of elected officials who don't know squat about what the constitution says or what it means. :)

Yeah, Di...I screwed up and misread his intended meaning. Fletch pointed out and I wrote Ditto an apology. His idea is a good one. I agree. We've got too many idiots in office who can't read and comprehend the phone book much less the Constitution.

Thanks for bring it to my attention. I'm do make an error every now and then...well, not more than a few times a day. :lol:
 
give me examples of these religious rights you are speaking of?

again if a person has the same political views as you and cares about the constitution and rights of Americans this doesnt happen.

To be able to practice my religion or lack there of, without interference from the government. The government must remain neutral. (barring practices that may violate certain laws)

How many current Atheist to you believe had some sort of religious upbringing? Just wondering where they received guidelines for their morality? It's not something you are born with.
 
There is no law against what those states are doing so you are just spouting s***.

There's the 14th amendment. If the federal government cannot bar atheists, neither can the States. You're just spouting bigotry.
 
There's the 14th amendment. If the federal government cannot bar atheists, neither can the States. You're just spouting bigotry.

This thread has been settled, apparently a court case ended these laws years ago. They are still on the states books I guess kind of like laws against spitting on the street but they are not enforced, the whole thread was bogus from the start.
 
This thread has been settled, apparently a court case ended these laws years ago. They are still on the states books I guess kind of like laws against spitting on the street but they are not enforced, the whole thread was bogus from the start.

Well there you go, people can not vote for atheists all they want but you can't bar them from participation in their own government. Proper.
 
Back
Top Bottom