Atheists can’t be Republicans

Thirty, or even twenty, years ago, this proposition would be a hard sell. But these days... I think he's right.

Atheists can’t be Republicans

The author keeps mentioning "the atheist movement" as if there is such a thing.

In agreement with NoCo, I tend to ignore any article that speaks of an "atheist movement." Hell, I get pissed off with articles that use the word "atheism." as if there was such a thing. That damn word needs to be removed from the language.

As far as atheists and Republicans, they may someday mix (dogs and cats sleeping together), but not for a long time. Recall Bush the Elder's statement, "I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God."

The same is almost as true for Democrats. There was only one self-described atheist elected to Congress, Pete Stark from California. Now there are none (but there are two Muslims; go figure).

Even Barny Frank, who came out of the closet as being gay about 25 years ago, waited until after he retired from Congress before admitting that he is an atheist.

Seven (or is it eight?) states have state constitutional restrictions that disallows the election or appointment of atheists to state government. They try to be clever in the wording so that they can say that they do not violate the federal constitution, but they fail.

_Howard wrote:

Seven (or is it eight?) states have state constitutional restrictions that disallows the election or appointment of atheists to state government. They try to be clever in the wording so that they can say that they do not violate the federal constitution, but they fail.

Quote :

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

However, these laws are still on the books and have given atheist candidates trouble in the past. Cecil Bothwell, an atheist who in 2009 won an election for a Asheville, North Carolina city council seat, was almost unseated by local critics who pointed to a provision in North Carolina’s constitution that prohibited nonbelievers from being elected. This provision of the state constitution is similar to provisions in Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. The provisions follow:

Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1:
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.

Maryland, Article 37:
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.

Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8
The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.

Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2:
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.

Texas, Article 1, Section 4:
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.

So, what do you think of these laws? Are they an affront to the secular nature of our local, state, and federal governments, or are they just antiquated but harmless relics from the past? Should there be an active effort to remove these anti-atheist provisions from the respective state constitutions, or should the nonreligious movement just let federal law trump these discriminatory provisions as conflicts arise?

Source