Happy Ramakwanzamas! My oh my! I don’t even know how to respond to that. I completely understand that the US Constitution prohibits state-established or federally-established religion. Few people likely know that the Episcopal faith, the US variant of the Church of England, used to be the Official Religion of Virginia. The arguments over church versus state will continue. People will wrestle over the “In God We Trust” on US currency. Should city council meetings open with prayer? The words “Under God” were added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, 62 years after it was originally written.
It’s almost 2010, and we head to Asheville, North Carolina. City Councilman Cecil Bothwell is elected. Some in North Carolina do not want him to take office, because he is an atheist. My initial reaction is, “So…” But North Carolina’s state Constitution clearly states that to hold office in North Carolina, you must believe in God. The North Carolina Constitution disqualifies anyone from holding office “who shall deny the being of Almighty God.” Six other states, Arkansas, Maryland, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas also prohibit atheists from holding office. Some contend that the US Constitution, which supersedes state constitutions, makes the requirement in a belief in God unenforceable. But, the Constitution says that the governments can not “establish” a religion.
Does the US Constitution bar states from prohibiting atheists from holding office? Should it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It would be nice if every one who held office was a christian. However telling some one they have to believe in God is like taking aways the right we was given by God to have free will to decied for ourselves.
ReplyDeleteArticle 6 of the US constitution prohibits there being a religious test for federal office-holders, but states could argue that this leaves them free to decide whether to have such a prohibition. I don't think there should be one at the state level either, since states should respect the same right to freedom of religion as the federal government.
ReplyDeleteIf there is a true separation between church and state than how could an atheist be prohibited in holding an office? And to wish that every one in office was a christian would be disallowing other individuals that practice other religions that aren't based on the belief of Christ, such as the Jewish faith. The fact that someone is atheist or christian or whatever has nothing to do with the ability to hold an office position. But it's the mentality of most Americans that people who believe in God and preferably through Jesus Christ that is even "worthy" of this position as they feel these individuals are more "moral" than others...and I strongly disagree with this mentality....most wars are started because of religious indifference...so this is why there must be separation between church and state and religious issues must stay out of government.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that those who would argue against the right of an atheist to hold elective office would also inveigh against the right of a Muslim or a Hindu or a follower of Santeria from holding office; though clearly all three hold beliefs of supernatural omnipotent beings.
ReplyDeleteHow can anyone believe that freedom OF religion must necessarily include freedom FROM religion?
Even an atheist has a religiosu faith - he believes there is no God. Everyone includes their religious philosophy into their world view, and it impacts how they made decision and govern.
ReplyDeleteWhat the Constitution guarantees is that no specific religious perspective would be given pre-eminance in the United States. Although the Founders in the First Amendment were [ri,aril;u trying to prevent the problems found in Europe's many state churches, they also specified that the free expression of any religious perspective. That, IMHO, means the atheist is just as protected as a Jew, Catholic, Protestant (of whatever flavor), Hindu, Muslim, Wiccan or anything else you might what to suggest.
In the intersts of full disclosure, I'm a theist of one of the minor Prostent flavors, and I have to admit being a little irked by the sterotype that says I'm of the opinion that a believer in God is more worthy than a non-believer. I'm on this side of the fence and,w hile there are SOME who feel that way, it's frankly a small minority. Like judging all gays by the actions of a few flamboyant queens, it's unfair to paint all Christians with the same brush.