Apparently I Am A Downtrodden Minority In North Carolina
Irradiated by LabRat
In the past I’ve made plenty of hay over hyper-reactive atheist groups that seem to be convinced that the Methodists down the street intend to crucify them if they ever get a little too over-excited at a church supper, and tend to spend their time griping about the Pledge, crosses in national cemetaries, and so forth. I don’t think much of them, if it’s not apparent, and since qualitatively speaking I’ve been persecuted more for my politics, choices in body art, and preference in handguns than my lack of faith, I usually don’t see much of a reason for them to even exist.
It’s therefore easy for me to forget that legitimate civil rights battles over atheism do still exist: North Carolina Bars Atheists From Holding Public Office.
It’s not a new law- it probably dates back to one of the more enthusiastic periods of religious revival in American history- but it IS being used as a challenge to an openly atheist man who recently won a clear electoral victory to hold public office. It wasn’t exactly a big dark buried secret that hoodwinked the vulnerable voters of North Carolina; it’s right there on his Facebook page. And it’s right there on the NC Constitution that no atheist can hold public office in that state. It’s also right there in Article VI of the US Constitution that no religious test shall ever be required for public office, so this is going to hold up in federal court about as well as a Kleenex in a hailstorm and the end result will be costing North Carolina a big chunk of change for a law they should damn well have known better than to have written into their Constitution.
The other interesting thing about this case is that the man who brought the challenge is the former president of the local chapter of the NAACP, which adds a nice coating of ironysauce to the whole proceeding. I can’t imagine what he thinks he’s going to gain from it- unless he’s a secret atheist crusader looking to get it brought to court so that the law can be shot and buried- but the last page of the article hints that he’s a bit of a fruitcake anyway, so maybe it’s just for the sake of any kind of publicity at all.
The comments both at the Asheville article and the Hot Air article are predictably depressing. Judging by the various currents of public opinion, North Carolina should be free to do anything it wants up to and including child sex slavery if that’s what they wrote into their Constitution in order for federalism to be preserved, the entire South should secede again (depending on the flavor of commenter, either to get away from fascist Yankees or to rid the rest of the country of incestous yahoos), religious tests for public office are totally awesome because atheists are ahead of Christians on the oppression scoreboard and the Jesus side needs more points as we go into the final half, and none of it matters because God’ll give the whole lot of us a good telling off after we die, that’ll show us.
December 10th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Interesting. I’m an atheist myself. And I admit, there are some Christians (individual ones, mind you) that make me a bit nervous. I’ve got my issues with the pledge, but mainly because it is my understanding that the ‘under God’ part was added as part of a propaganda campaign. Crosses in national cemetaries don’t bother me, unless they’re over the grave or are a marker for an atheist. Give them the respect they deserve, afterall Jews get a Star of David, don’t they?
All in all though, you’re right. This is only going to cost tax payers money that could be better spent elsewhere.
I really wish that people would learn that it’s perfectly alright for an individual to do whatever they damned well please, so long as they leave all the other individuals alone while they’re doing it.
December 10th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
the end result will be costing North Carolina a big chunk of change
Hopefully North Carolina is smart enough to not spend that big chunk of change on it. If I was in charge of where those tax dollars went, I’d recognize a lost cause when I saw one, I hope, and just let this one go, ’cause man, it’s gone.
December 10th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Unfortunately it’s a law on the books so it’s either going to have to be repealed or ruled unconstitutional by a court. Can’t just be ignored or it will keep popping up.
December 11th, 2009 at 1:36 am
I think that “religious test” clause only applies to Federal offices. There’s nothing in the Federal Constitution forbidding State Churches in the several States, and some of them did indeed have have State churches well into the nineteenth century.
December 11th, 2009 at 1:46 am
Ah, citation! “but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Article VI, Paragraph 3.
The country _was_ founded by British Christian Protestants, y’know.
December 11th, 2009 at 10:34 am
“I think that “religious test” clause only applies to Federal offices. There’s nothing in the Federal Constitution forbidding State Churches in the several States, and some of them did indeed have have State churches well into the nineteenth century.”
The Fourteenth Amendment changes that game, though, extending restrictions on federal governent to the states as well (I understand McDonald v. Chicago may end up clarifying this). Prior to the 14th, the states could ban books and guns, too.
December 11th, 2009 at 11:42 am
Seems silly to specifically rule out atheists. From a devoutly Christian (my brand, I’ll stipulate) point of view, there is little theological difference between atheists, mormons, muslims, hindus, catholics, Barack Obama, animists, deists, gnostics, agnostics, and even a fair number who claim to be of our own flock. I fully understand and appreciate the practical differences.
Since those practical differences are entirely relevant to the institution of civil government I’d prefer to be represented by a conservative atheist rather than a Huckabee. Because my political views are so thoroughly saturated with my spiritual outlook I am willfully biased against any Christian whose politics run counter to good Doctrine.
December 11th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
@Perlhaqr “Hopefully North Carolina is smart enough to not spend that big chunk of change on it. If I was in charge of where those tax dollars went, I’d recognize a lost cause when I saw one, I hope, and just let this one go, ’cause man, it’s gone.”
Given the idiots in Raleigh the folks down East and in Charlotte have managed to inflict upon the rest of the state, I have absolutely no faith that it won’t go to court.
December 14th, 2009 at 7:44 am
South Carolina’s state Constitution says in Article VI, Section 2:
“No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.”
Rules out atheists, but allows for any other religion. I suppose if your belief is in a number of Gods without there being one Supreme Being that it would disqualify you as well.
Hey, what if you’re an atheist and you say that each person is their own Supreme Being? That might work.
December 14th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Oh, my. Very interesting. And I was just in North Carolina.
December 14th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Dr. Feelgood wins the thread, by articulating my vague uneasiness about Governor Huckabee, and many other folks.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Technically, the folks saying that the constitutions religious test prohibition only applies federally is correct.
HOWEVER…
This would be a very good case for incorporation; and after Chicago gets adjudicated, it will probably be struck down.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
An extremely similar case in Maryland has already been tried, and the religious test lost. Can’t dig up the ref right out of hand, but this ground has done been gone over, at least on the First.