• 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
Do you honestly believe that the constitution only protects people who believe in god? Seriously?

you are correct it certainly does not if we are referring to AA/EEO (affirmative action and equal employment opportunity )
 
Do you honestly believe that the constitution only protects people who believe in god? Seriously?

When it comes to the 1st Amendment, yes. It only mentions religion with atheism not being a religion unless court cases or laws classify it as one.

I do think it should be unconstitutional to deny someone, who is an atheist, from public office due to their beliefs. I think our interpretation of the 1st Amendment needs to be changed or the Amendment altered. However, by the current wording I don't see it as extending to philosophies or non-religious beliefs. The protection just isn't there. Do I want it to be there? Yes. Do I think it's there based on the wording and state precedence? No. If it is there I would love for these laws to be brought to court and struck down. No one should be legally discriminated against based on their beliefs.
 
Last edited:
It is constitutional because the language of the 1st amendment only regulates congress /the fed govt establishing an official religion. It does not regulate the states in any way whatsoever.
 
It is constitutional because the language of the 1st amendment only regulates congress /the fed govt establishing an official religion. It does not regulate the states in any way whatsoever.

Are you not aware that the first amendment has been incorporated against the states?
 
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
The much abused Establishment Clause was intended to bind a single Entity, that being the United States Congress. Wider interpretations have been based in imaginary language.

At the time of the adoption of the First Amendment, several States had official religions and similar tests for office. It was considered beyond the purview of the Constitution to address such l issues.

Whether these laws are wise or not should be entirely up to the residents of the States in question and their state constitutions.

Besides, Atheists can just lie about it. Are they afraid that to do so would be a sin?
 
When it comes to the 1st Amendment, yes. It only mentions religion with atheism not being a religion unless court cases or laws classify it as one.

I do think it should be unconstitutional to deny someone, who is an atheist, from public office due to their beliefs. I think our interpretation of the 1st Amendment needs to be changed or the Amendment altered. However, by the current wording I don't see it as extending to philosophies or non-religious beliefs. The protection just isn't there. Do I want it to be there? Yes. Do I think it's there based on the wording and state precedence? No. If it is there I would love for these laws to be brought to court and struck down. No one should be legally discriminated against based on their beliefs.
Have you even read the first ammendment? Two parts deal with religion....first is the establishment clause, which forbids establishing a religion (and requiring a specific religious belief is establishing a religion) and the second part require free exercise. Required oaths or statements of belief are not free exercise, but required.

By your argument, it would be legal to make church attendance mandatory, as long as people could go to whatever church they want. Do you really believe that?
 
Atheists cant be freemasons either.

But i agree that you shouldnt have to believe in god to hold office.
 
i partially agree, if theres been some ruling or referendum saying these laws just simply wont be enforced you are probably right why waste time.

but then again since the laws are so mentally insane you would think the process would be very easy to remove them as the vast majority would just agree.

Well exactly. But my problem is that there is no point in wasting time till this becomes an issue. I suppose if some atheists wants to take this to court...they can. But why bother with something that is going to be whited out the day someone runs.
 
You mean the civil war? The war that virtually ended states rights?
But, but, but, the Civil War was about slavery!! Nothing else!! The Anti-Federalist papers were just someone's doodles.

Gotta love revisionist history. I would wager that slavery wasn't even a top 3 concern during that time period. Sure, it probably was to the slaves, which is a no brainer. But to politicians, I'd say it probably wasn't. A good way to think of it is this. Nowadays, politicians don't even care about the poor of America. So if they don't care about actual voting citizens that are struggling financially now, do we really think they cared about a people that weren't even citizens and meant essentially nothing to their re-election efforts? I don't.

This isn't to say that slavery wasn't wrong. It most definitely was. However, as it has been said before, I believe Lincoln used slavery as divisive issue that would put the Union in a positive light and the Confederacy in an "evil" light. Much like our current POTUS has done with Dems and the GOP (The dude thinks he is Lincoln after all). I don't believe Pres Lincoln really gave a crap about blacks much like I don't believe Pres Obama really gives a crap about illegal immigrants. They both just use them as issues that they know the other side is defensive about and will come across as callous and cold about. To be clear, the difference in this is that at least Pres Lincoln was in the right, even if his motives weren't pure. Pres Obama isn't in the right, per se. There are many ways we can tackle immigration that are humane and fair. But that's another thread.
 
But, but, but, the Civil War was about slavery!! Nothing else!! The Anti-Federalist papers were just someone's doodles.

Gotta love revisionist history. I would wager that slavery wasn't even a top 3 concern during that time period. Sure, it probably was to the slaves, which is a no brainer. But to politicians, I'd say it probably wasn't. A good way to think of it is this. Nowadays, politicians don't even care about the poor of America. So if they don't care about actual voting citizens that are struggling financially now, do we really think they cared about a people that weren't even citizens and meant essentially nothing to their re-election efforts? I don't.

This isn't to say that slavery wasn't wrong. It most definitely was. However, as it has been said before, I believe Lincoln used slavery as divisive issue that would put the Union in a positive light and the Confederacy in an "evil" light. Much like our current POTUS has done with Dems and the GOP (The dude thinks he is Lincoln after all). I don't believe Pres Lincoln really gave a crap about blacks much like I don't believe Pres Obama really gives a crap about illegal immigrants. They both just use them as issues that they know the other side is defensive about and will come across as callous and cold about. To be clear, the difference in this is that at least Pres Lincoln was in the right, even if his motives weren't pure. Pres Obama isn't in the right, per se. There are many ways we can tackle immigration that are humane and fair. But that's another thread.

Right,Lincolns stated goal at the beginning of the war was "to preserve the union". Nothing at all about slavery.
 
It is constitutional because the language of the 1st amendment only regulates congress /the fed govt establishing an official religion. It does not regulate the states in any way whatsoever.

So, Utah could adopt Mormonism as t he official state religion and give Mormons special privileges.

Really?
 
Right,Lincolns stated goal at the beginning of the war was "to preserve the union". Nothing at all about slavery.

And, of course, the Emancipation Proclamation had nothing to do with it. It was just another executive order.
 
I would call this evidence of past discrimination. While these laws are on the books, simply challenging them would result in their nullification. As it should be.

Quote honestly I don't think we should waste time or energy on this. Just get some white out and fix the obvious unconstitutional law.

Do you have any proof that any of these states have used these laws lately? There are many stupid rules on many states but are they really used? I wonder. P.S. I am an atheist.
 
And, of course, the Emancipation Proclamation had nothing to do with it. It was just another executive order.

I could be wrong here and I should Google it before I post this but I will throw caution to the wind. I believe that was well after the war started and the north was going squishy. He did that to prop up support .
 
I could be wrong here and I should Google it before I post this but I will throw caution to the wind. I believe that was well after the war started and the north was going squishy. He did that to prop up support .

Seems you're right:

a panel of historians emphasized in 2011, "while slavery and its various and multifaceted discontents were the primary cause of disunion, it was disunion itself that sparked the war."[1] States' rights and the tariff issue became entangled iAs n the slavery issue, and were intensified by it.[2] Other important factors were party politics, abolitionism, Southern nationalism, Northern nationalism, expansionism, sectionalism, economics and modernization in the Antebellum period.

Emancipation proclamation:

The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order issued by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, as a war measure during the American Civil War, to all segments of the Executive branch (including the Army and Navy) of the United States. It proclaimed the freedom of slaves in the ten states that were still in rebellion,[1] thus applying to 3.1 million of the 4 million slaves in the U.S. at the time. The Proclamation was based on the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the armed forces;[2] it was not a law passed by Congress.

So, slavery was one of several issues. This is interesting, too:



Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 presidential election without being on the ballot in ten of the Southern states. His victory triggered declarations of secession by seven slave states of the Deep South, and their formation of the Confederate States of America, even before Lincoln took office.

We heard of individuals threatening to leave the country if Obama was elected, but never of whole states leaving the union because they didn't like the president. Seems Lincoln was quite the controversial figure.
 
And, of course, the Emancipation Proclamation had nothing to do with it. It was just another executive order.
I believe it was an example of political grandstanding. If you've ever read some of the transcripts of debates back then (Im sure you have knowing you), then you know that politicians were just as capable of grandstanding then as they are now. As I said before, Lincoln was in the right with the position he took. No doubt about it. I'm just saying that I don't believe it meant as much to him or the Union as it's been portrayed.
 
I believe it was an example of political grandstanding. If you've ever read some of the transcripts of debates back then (Im sure you have knowing you), then you know that politicians were just as capable of grandstanding then as they are now. As I said before, Lincoln was in the right with the position he took. No doubt about it. I'm just saying that I don't believe it meant as much to him or the Union as it's been portrayed.

So, maybe politicians haven't changed all that much since Lincoln's time, have they? Maybe they've been the same since Og won the office of leader of the caves.
 
I answered the poll with: I'm against it, it's bigotry, it's discrimination.

It's not necessarily disgusting, because it might be ignorance. Ignorance is only "disgusting" when it's willful.
.

I included "its disgusting" because even if it is ignorance, I find it disgusting that this ignorance persists, willful or not.

edit: dammit, this is a zombie thread coming back from the dead.
 
Last edited:
1.)Well exactly. But my problem is that there is no point in wasting time till this becomes an issue.
2.) I suppose if some atheists wants to take this to court...they can. But why bother with something that is going to be whited out the day someone runs.

1.) im fine with that
2.) well thats what the OP says it says this "I’d love to see someone try to enforce this so it can be defeated and destroyed like it should"
 
So, maybe politicians haven't changed all that much since Lincoln's time, have they? Maybe they've been the same since Og won the office of leader of the caves.

Og probably accused Ug of being a racist...
 
Hmm...I chose "I'm against it", "It's bigotry", and "It's discrimination".

I don't know if it's actually unconstitutional, and I'm not sure if it's disgusting or not - depends on the intent behind the passage of said law.


That said, I think those laws should be changed.
 
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

Are these actually being enforced?
 
Back
Top Bottom