A friend of mine is in a tizzy about atheists being banned by law in seven states from holding public office.
I looked it up and also looked up religious test for office.
===============
No Religious Test Clause - Wikipedia
Some of these same states specify that the oath of office include the words "so help me God". In some cases, these beliefs (or oaths) were historically required also of jurors, witnesses in court, notaries public, and state employees. In the 1961 case Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that such language in state constitutions was in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Citing the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Establishment Clause in Everson v. Board of Education and linking this to Torcaso v. Watkins Justice Hugo Black stated for the Court:
We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.
The Supreme Court however did not rule on the applicability of Article VI, stating that "Because we are reversing the judgment on other grounds, we find it unnecessary to consider appellant's contention that this provision applies to state as well as federal offices."
In the 1997 case of Silverman v. Campbell[5] the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution requiring an oath to God for employment in the public sector violated Article VI of the federal constitution, as well as the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore could not be enforced.[6] The other seven states still have similar provisions in their constitutions, but they are not enforced in modern times because it is taken for granted they would be held to be unconstitutional if challenged.
=============================================
Basically because the Constitution already guarantees that no religious test will be required for federal office (and subsequent laws and interpretations expanded civil rights and protections to states and to public institutions) it is ASSUMED that nobody will enforce the state laws (still on the books) because these would not survive court challenges that would clearly find such discrimination to be unconstitutional.
Should states go through the process to amend or remove these laws if they are unconstitutional?
My friend is championing this issue as PROOF that atheists are discriminated against.
And "no other group" not even "Christians" are barred by any similar law by their label.
I said no that Christians may not be banned by name, but INDIRECTLY with the laws on abortion and now forcing people to recognizing LGBT practices against their beliefs, there is discrimination against Christians in practice, even if it isn't written literally into the laws. Where they are threatened with penalties by govt if they don't comply with laws that force them to violate their beliefs. This does happen even if not by name, but in PRACTICE.
Aren't Christians persecuted and discriminated for their beliefs, and not just atheists?
If you are going to say that's okay, why suddenly get so upset when atheists get their share of bashing for their beliefs. If you are going to say NOBODY should suffer discrimination,
then why push policies that penalize Christians for not believing in gay marriage for example?
I don't agree with this "victimization" mentality of one group claiming more suffering and persecution than another. If it's wrong for your group, then don't tolerate it for ANY group.
I find it hypocritical to only complain when it's YOUR beliefs being infringed upon,
but then preach and celebrate bashing another group when it's their turn to be the target?
NO.
All beliefs should be respected, and none imposed or treated with bias by govt.
If it's wrong when done to you, THEN DON'T DO IT TO OTHER PEOPLE. LIKE DUH!!!!
I looked it up and also looked up religious test for office.
===============
No Religious Test Clause - Wikipedia
Some of these same states specify that the oath of office include the words "so help me God". In some cases, these beliefs (or oaths) were historically required also of jurors, witnesses in court, notaries public, and state employees. In the 1961 case Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that such language in state constitutions was in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Citing the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Establishment Clause in Everson v. Board of Education and linking this to Torcaso v. Watkins Justice Hugo Black stated for the Court:
We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.
The Supreme Court however did not rule on the applicability of Article VI, stating that "Because we are reversing the judgment on other grounds, we find it unnecessary to consider appellant's contention that this provision applies to state as well as federal offices."
In the 1997 case of Silverman v. Campbell[5] the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution requiring an oath to God for employment in the public sector violated Article VI of the federal constitution, as well as the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore could not be enforced.[6] The other seven states still have similar provisions in their constitutions, but they are not enforced in modern times because it is taken for granted they would be held to be unconstitutional if challenged.
=============================================
Basically because the Constitution already guarantees that no religious test will be required for federal office (and subsequent laws and interpretations expanded civil rights and protections to states and to public institutions) it is ASSUMED that nobody will enforce the state laws (still on the books) because these would not survive court challenges that would clearly find such discrimination to be unconstitutional.
Should states go through the process to amend or remove these laws if they are unconstitutional?
My friend is championing this issue as PROOF that atheists are discriminated against.
And "no other group" not even "Christians" are barred by any similar law by their label.
I said no that Christians may not be banned by name, but INDIRECTLY with the laws on abortion and now forcing people to recognizing LGBT practices against their beliefs, there is discrimination against Christians in practice, even if it isn't written literally into the laws. Where they are threatened with penalties by govt if they don't comply with laws that force them to violate their beliefs. This does happen even if not by name, but in PRACTICE.
Aren't Christians persecuted and discriminated for their beliefs, and not just atheists?
If you are going to say that's okay, why suddenly get so upset when atheists get their share of bashing for their beliefs. If you are going to say NOBODY should suffer discrimination,
then why push policies that penalize Christians for not believing in gay marriage for example?
I don't agree with this "victimization" mentality of one group claiming more suffering and persecution than another. If it's wrong for your group, then don't tolerate it for ANY group.
I find it hypocritical to only complain when it's YOUR beliefs being infringed upon,
but then preach and celebrate bashing another group when it's their turn to be the target?
NO.
All beliefs should be respected, and none imposed or treated with bias by govt.
If it's wrong when done to you, THEN DON'T DO IT TO OTHER PEOPLE. LIKE DUH!!!!