Six States Ban Atheists from Public Service

[Temporal Renegade]

From U.S.News and World Report:
Arkansas and five other states are planning measures to ban atheists from public service.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/erbe/2009/02/17/arkansas-5-other-states-ban-atheists-from-public-service-seriously.html


The article contains a link to a Washington Post article; link of which is here:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2009/02/an_advocate_for_atheists_in_ar.html

[slingblade]

I don't think it's that they "have taken" measures, which implies these measures have been recently implemented, but rather that these provisions still remain, despite being declared unconstitutional almost 50 years ago.

At any rate, here's one answer for all those threads that have asked "Are you treated differently/poorly/wrongly because you're an atheist?"

We sure can be, at least in some parts of the U.S.


So. How does one get this sort of thing changed? Because it's dead wrong.

[Temporal Renegade]

I don't think it's that they "have taken" measures, which implies these measures have been recently implemented, but rather that these provisions still remain, despite being declared unconstitutional almost 50 years ago.

At any rate, here's one answer for all those threads that have asked "Are you treated differently/poorly/wrongly because you're an atheist?"

We sure can be, at least in some parts of the U.S.


So. How does one get this sort of thing changed? Because it's dead wrong.

Thanks; I've re-edited my post to clarify that. :)

I am wondering, though...if atheists can't serve as a witness in state court, could they also get out of jury duty, because of that?

"I'm sorry, Your Honor, but as an Atheist, my thoughts and opinions aren't being directed by God, so I feel I shouldn't serve on the jury."

[madurobob]

Maybe I've just not had enough coffee yet and my reading comprehension is weak. But, when an article says that six states have such laws, is it too much to ask that it tell us which states? The article(s) mentions Arkansas and Maryland. I believe Texas is also one of them. What are the other three?

ETA: A list? http://everything2.com/node/1203320

[Temporal Renegade]

I noticed that, too; you'd think that if they were secure in their belief that what they're doing is *right*, they'd mention their state with pride.

[Aitch]

Does paying taxes count as public service? After all, you are effectively working for the state for a percentage of your time. ;)

[This Guy]

Maybe I've just not had enough coffee yet and my reading comprehension is weak. But, when an article says that six states have such laws, is it too much to ask that it tell us which states? The article(s) mentions Arkansas and Maryland. I believe Texas is also one of them. What are the other three?

ETA: A list? http://everything2.com/node/1203320

Tennessee does have the Article 9 Section 2 clause as listed ("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. ")

But this is almost (not quite!) directly opposed to Article 1 Section 4 which states: "That no political or religious test, other than an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and of this state, shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state."

I suppose by the Constitution, you could be removed from office if it came out later you were Atheist, but it appears you can't be asked that up front, or something :covereyes

[Lonewulf]

Tennessee does have the Article 9 Section 2 clause as listed ("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. ")

But this is almost (not quite!) directly opposed to Article 1 Section 4 which states: "That no political or religious test, other than an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and of this state, shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state."

I suppose by the Constitution, you could be removed from office if it came out later you were Atheist, but it appears you can't be asked that up front, or something :covereyes

Well, supposedly, but the law is ineffective, I think. National law trumps it, so it won't even come up at all.

[This Guy]

Well, supposedly, but the law is ineffective, I think. National law trumps it, so it won't even come up at all.

I agree, but also wonder if it would come down to a Federal Court trial to do away with the Anti-Atheist clause.

[bignickel]

I suppose by the Constitution, you could be removed from office if it came out later you were Atheist, but it appears you can't be asked that up front, or something :covereyes

Don't ask, don't tell.

Maybe someday many of us can come out of the atheist closet.

[lauwersw]

Do I understand correctly that it doesn't matter in which god you believe? You just have to believe in some god(s)? I would say I believe in FSM, just to be annoying. Or is that not the real intention of this law, as one might suspect?

[This Guy]

Do I understand correctly that it doesn't matter in which god you believe? You just have to believe in some god(s)? I would say I believe in FSM, just to be annoying. Or is that not the real intention of this law, as one might suspect?

Well, I guess belief in the FSM would come off better to some voters than claiming to be a God, as I would prolly do ;)

ETA: I think the answer to your question is more likely that it doesn't matter which Jewish/Christian faith you follow, as long as it's one of them.

[sphenisc]

I thought atheists simply lacked a belief in the existence of gods. Nothing in the Tennessee clause against that.

[This Guy]

I thought atheists simply lacked a belief in the existence of gods. Nothing in the Tennessee clause against that.

Please look here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4449329#post4449329) again :)

[sphenisc]

Please look here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4449329#post4449329) again :)

Have done so. :confused:

[This Guy]

Have done so. :confused:

Unless I misunderstand what your saying, this is the answer :)

Tennessee does have the Article 9 Section 2 clause as listed ("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. ")

Perhaps you are making a distinction between a lack of belief and denial. If that is so, I suspect you are drawing a line that the state would not recognize. :)

[linusrichard]

No no no no no no.

No states "are planning measures to ban atheists from public service." Or at least, there's no reason to believe they are.

Six states still have old unenforceable laws on the books which purport to ban atheists from public service. When the Supreme Court strikes down a state law as unconstitutional, they don't head out to the law libraries, Sharpies in hand. The state law is a nullity, but unless and until the state legislature does something about it, it remains on the books. What Arkansas is doing (and what five other states should and hopefully will do) is remove these bad laws from the books - the effect is entirely symbolic. The fact that they remain on the books in six (soon to be five) states does not mean that these states legally bar atheists from public service.

(They might illegally bar atheists from public service, but then, so might any of 44 other states, for all we know.)


The thread title is misleading. The links in the OP give no reason to believe that any state bans atheists from public service. It is possible that six states (or more or fewer) do so, but no support for the proposition is given in the links.

[sphenisc]

Unless I misunderstand what your saying, this is the answer :)

Tennessee does have the Article 9 Section 2 clause as listed ("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. ")

Perhaps you are making a distinction between a lack of belief and denial. If that is so, I suspect you are drawing a line that the state would not recognize. :)

That's the distinction that's been drawn here often enough - what makes you think the state wouldn't draw it?

[CurtC]

I've seen these articles in the last few days, and I'm left wondering why there's a story here. There are many many laws still on the books of various states which are unenforceable because of court decisions. No one goes to the trouble of voting them off the books because it's a pointless exercise - it makes zero difference in how things operate.

Laws requiring the belief in a supreme being were ruled unconstitutional almost 50 years ago, so they are effectively gone. If someone wants to actually remove them, it's a symbolic gesture only.

I don't see why this is even newsworthy.

[This Guy]

That's the distinction that's been drawn here often enough - what makes you think the state wouldn't draw it?

I consider myself a "Weak Atheist". I don't deny the possibility of a God's existence, but I don't believe there is one. However, I think it would be safe to say that if the clause, as written, were applied it would include my view as fitting the criteria for exclusion. IMHO most theist view all Atheist as Atheist. You either believe, or you don't.

As has been pointed out by others the clause would at worse require a formal challenge via a lawsuit to get it removed. It's really serving as no more than a place holder in the Constitution. It saves the state from renumbering the other bits. ;)

That being said, I believe that any open challenge to the clause would doom the challenger to minimal votes in any election they might wish to run in. If I'm correct about my fellow Tennesseans the vast majority would find that being an Atheist (of any stripe) would be just grounds for not voting for them. This would make the law affective (effective? I never can decide), even if illegal. At least once :)

[Madalch]

Then again, Washington will be voting on wether to enact a similar law, according to PZM.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/washington_state_kook_wants_a.php

[Madalch]

Then again, Washington will be voting on wether to enact a similar law, according to PZM.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/washington_state_kook_wants_a.php

[Dr. Tobias Fünke]

Slight derail: Did the nitwits publically shot down during the Dover trial actually feel as embarassed as they should have?
You know, like the guy (back on topic :D ) cited by Madalch should after HE is shot down?

[Magyar]

what are the other 5 states? I must have missed it in the link.