Atheist barred from office in North Carolina?
posted at 9:30 am on December 10, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly
A strange story surrounding a North Carolina city council election has suddenly become national news. Cecil Bothwell won his election fairly, a fact no one disputes. However, the former head of the Asheville NAACP has attempted to block Bothwell’s seating by pointing out an obscure clause in North Carolina’s state constitution that bars atheists from holding public office. The dispute will likely have to be settled in federal court:
“I’m not saying that Cecil Bothwell is not a good man, but if he’s an atheist, he’s not eligible to serve in public office, according to the state constitution,” said H.K. Edgerton, a former Asheville NAACP president.
Article 6, section 8 of the state constitution says: “The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.”
Rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution trump the restriction in the state constitution, said Bob Orr, executive director of the N.C. Institute for Constitutional Law.
“I think there’s any number of federal cases that would view this as an imposition of a religious qualification and violate separation of church and state,” said Orr, a former state Supreme Court justice.
Some confusion over Bothwell’s actual status has arisen since then. Bothwell doesn’t like the term “atheist,” preferring “post-theist” instead. He lists himself as an atheist on his Myspace page. Bothwell also denied the specific charge of “deny[ing] the being of Almighty God,” saying that the question is irrelevant for his public office.
But it’s not as if this was something voters didn’t know before the election. Bothwell’s opponents attacked him for a book that he had written called The Prince of War that attacked Billy Graham for pursuing a “theocratic agenda.” Bothwell apparently isn’t bright enough to understand the difference between public policy in a democracy and a real theocracy (like Iran), but voters had the opportunity to take that under consideration as well. They chose Bothwell, “post-theism” and all.
The state constitution does bar publicly-avowed atheists from holding office, but Article 6, Section 8 won’t withstand court scrutiny. The Supreme Court has already overturned Maryland’s constitutional bar for public office on religious affiliation in 1961, and North Carolina will lose this one, too. The federal constitution bars religious tests for office, which will trump North Carolina’s Section 8, probably on a unanimous vote. For those who may be tempted to argue federalism, the incorporation doctrine that would appear to dictate that outcome in this case is also the same line of thought that the court used to dismiss gun bans as a violation of the Second Amendment.
This is a foolish and wrong-headed objection to the outcome of a fair election. Unlike some other laws the courts have tossed for merely being stupid, this one is also unconstitutional and should be eliminated. The people of North Carolina would be well advised to repeal it themselves and to let Bothwell take his place on the city council.
I’m still mystified as to why a former head of the NAACP would bother to inject himself into this situation at all.
Update: Plenty of schadenfreude for atheists in this thread, but commenter Good Lt reminds them of what’s at stake:
Let’s flip it around for the people claiming “haha serves atheists right!” here.
If a deist or a believer (of any faith) was barred from serving in office in a state Constitution, would you support the restriction? If a clan of Dawkins worshipers managed to get a state constitution changed to put this restriction in, would you shrug and just say, “eh, whatever?”
Don’t think that wouldn’t get tried, either.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
Well said…
Tim Burton on December 10, 2009 at 1:50 PM
Constitution? What’s that?
The Race Card on December 10, 2009 at 2:31 PM
This should only be a suprise to those who have bought into revisionist history. Each of the 13 orginal states have something similiar in their constituions. After they signed the US constitution they went back and did their state constitutions. They all knew that the first amendment was just to prohibit the Federal government from establishing a Ferderal Christian demonination as the official denomination. In England the state church had become corrupt- that’s why their forefathers had come here. They did not want a corrupt Federal official church happening in America. But they loved Christ and recognized that if this country was to be great they would need to honor God and obey his commandments. They knew that dishonoring God would bring judgement on our Country. Duh -is that why our Country is now under judgement from God? Thanks liberals. The early US goverment funded Christian missionaries to the indians. The US supreme court opened session with a prayer by a Christian pastor. Jefferson, as president was the head of the D.C. school district and ordered that the only “required” text books be the Bible and Watts Hymnal. Prayer and fasting ordered in first constituional congress that drafted the US constitution. Many of the signers of the Dec. of Independence and US constition had seminary traing. Etc. Etc Etc. Etc. I guess the revisionist need to start working on State constitutions now. That way they will be happy when God moves from judgement to destruction of our country. 50 million abortions, no family values, porn capital to the world, adultry, no prayers in the schools, can’t pray in Jesus’s name in the military, over spent our budgets nationally and individually, shocking crud on prime time TV….. Repent America or God will destroy this country. It’s not about politics or taxes – its’ about sin.
CertainVictory on December 10, 2009 at 3:49 PM
I just love Asheville and its culture wars. It’s just perfectly placed for such conflict. It’s a lesbian magnet a and a hippy magnet with the nearby Warren Wilson College being one of the best places to get drugs as an undergrad. Yet, Bob Jones U students come up to Asheville to evangelize.
Here are some fun culture war stories from Asheville:
The Buncombe County commission (Asheville is in Buncombe county) was dominated by social cons a few years ago and they passed a law against for-pay fortune telling. Fortune telling is big business among some hippy communities in Asheville. So the fortune telling witches held a protest right in front of the Buncombe County courthouse where they had their customers pay for their fortunes. The police had enough sense to realize just how ridiculous they would look arresting witches, and so the law was ignored.
A few years, Asheville had a Jewish woman as a mayor who looked like a witch–a nice witch, but still a witch. She declared the week before Halloween, Earth Religions Week. The Sountern Baptists demanded a Jesus Christ week. I don’t think that the ACLU got involved.
Another time, the Christians reserved a high school football field to protest for school prayer at football games. So the next Sunday, a pagan group reserved the same field to protest for pagan prayers at football games. The pagan protest was well attended.
thuja on December 10, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Count to 10 on December 10, 2009 at 12:21 PM
Honestly, I find this so far out of line that I’m not even sure why we’re debating it. No religious tests for office.
Nuance, I guess.
TheUnrepentantGeek on December 10, 2009 at 3:52 PM
This just goes to show that boundaries don’t exist in the dummybutt world for religion of the lack thereof or race or the lack thereof or brains or the lack thereof.
Speakup on December 10, 2009 at 4:20 PM
I wonder if christians ever feel awkward when there are more than say…3 denominations in the same room. and if you just preached that catholics aren’t christians what are they exactly?
Zekecorlain on December 10, 2009 at 4:27 PM
rotfl thank the gods for pagans with a sense of humor
Zekecorlain on December 10, 2009 at 4:27 PM
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
The Native Americans looovved them some missionaries.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
.
And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
whiskeytango on December 10, 2009 at 4:32 PM
That’s my point. It’s not a “religious” test.
Skywise on December 10, 2009 at 4:38 PM
No mystery, I think. The NAACP chap brought up the objection, perhaps, to HIGHLIGHT this unfair code.
I doubt he truly objects to Bothwell. I am almost certain he objects to the law.
Or perhaps he dislikes Bothwell and highlights the unfair code at the same time. Two birds.
Reverse counter-operations, if you will. And then reverse that for fun.
Psy-ops.
Deep black.
Minor story anyway. I am sure Bothwell will prevail.
I am more worried about socialism and islam and stuff like that these days . . . .
Sherman1864 on December 10, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Do you believe in God? No? Then you can’t be in office.
There is clearly a test. If you don’t pass the test you can’t serve. In order to pass that test you have to have a particular religious belief – the belief in God.
Who is buying that this isn’t a religious test?
dieudonne on December 10, 2009 at 4:45 PM
Cecil Bothwell who has identified himself as an atheist, has stated that his being constitutionally prohibited from holding office is irrelevant. Witch while to be expected form someone on the left, makes him unsuitable for the office.
But that still leaves us with one question.
Is Article 6, section 8 of the state constitution, legal under the federal constitution?
Having said that, I wonder if the requirement to believe in the almighty god was a moral test, or an intelligence test? After all, anybody who can look at the complexities of the natural world around him and not see a creator, is dumber than a box of rocks.
darktood on December 10, 2009 at 4:45 PM
There is absolutely no way this is Constitutional. Article VI, section 3 and he First Amendment make it unconstitutional. And no, individual states can’t violate those provisions due to the 14th amendment and the supremacy clause.
HeroesforGhosts on December 10, 2009 at 4:45 PM
Dieudonne,
The issue still is, is it really a religious test. One can be religious and not believe in a ‘god’ and one can believe in a ‘god’ and not be religious.
The question falls as to whether the believe in god creates a religion in and of itself and whether the non believe of such is a religion.
I’ll have to look to see if anyone wrote anything specifically on that section of Article 6 to see what the actual intent was. Was it a way to prevent the requirement of a particular religion (like are you Baptist or Catholic?), or is it more free form to prevent a general concept of religion testing (Do you believe in God?).
Given everything I’ve read in the constitution and the classes I’ve had on it, I’d say it was intended to be a protection from establishment of a particular religion (a more general 1st amendment, perhaps. Perhaps they greyness of that statement is part of why they created the 1st amendment.) But I’d rather research before I put my foot in my mouth, as I’m prone to do :p
TKSnider on December 10, 2009 at 4:52 PM
I respect your desire to research more but I think some things are clear on the surface here. I think it’s very clear that the article in question was meant to prevent avowed atheists from holding office. That makes it a test. A test that can be failed. This would have been constitutional at the time it was written but that was before the 14th amendment.
dieudonne on December 10, 2009 at 4:57 PM
I like Article 6, Section 8, however short lived the snub against athiests.
madmonkphotog on December 10, 2009 at 5:11 PM
Well, looking around a bit, it seems that the intent was more specific as it was meant to prevent issues such as many fled in England where statesmen were required to make oaths to a specific religion to hold office.
I think the only way this would be considered a religious test per their standards is if the statement was. If you are not Baptist (insert your religion of choice) you can not hold office, thus they are testing for a religion.
In this case, where they are stating that you can’t hold office unless you believe in god, was not intended as a religious test, but rather a means of creating an ethical or morality test. The question, do you believe in god, does not really test for religion. As I said above, you can believe in a god and not be religious (I would of fit into that category for a long time in my life) and you can be religious and not believe in a god. So, can the question really be a religious test, when those who are both religious and non religious pass the test?
I know, it is really semantics and I think he should take office (based upon my beliefs and the belief that he won’t try to destroy my beliefs from his position of power). But the question still remains, is the law really constitutional or not and if it is, it is not my place to change is (as I’m not a resident of NC).
TKSnider on December 10, 2009 at 5:12 PM
and I disagree on one thing, this was either unconstitutional when written or it is constitutional now. The 14th amendment would not of changed this items constitutional standing and it is not subject to the 1st amendment (or shouldn’t be, but given our judicial systems inability to understand basic english…), thus the 14th wouldn’t of changed its standing.
If it is unconsitutional under Article 6, then it was unconsitutional when written, as Article 6 would of applied to state governments at the time of their constitutional conventions.
TKSnider on December 10, 2009 at 5:17 PM
So the North Carolina Constitution is unconstitutional? I don’t think so. 10th Amendment seems to cover this nicely.
Guardian on December 10, 2009 at 5:17 PM
Again, Torcaso v. Watkins. Everyone’s entitled to his own opinion, but the opinion of the USSC, even in 1961, has a bit more authority, I reckon.
VerbumSap on December 10, 2009 at 5:19 PM
Guardian,
Not necessarily, remember that the 10th only covers powers that were not previously reserved to the federal government to the states and ultimately the people. If this is an article 6 violation (which I’m still not sure on) then 10 wouldn’t help them with it, as then A6 would cover and give specific guidance to the rule and thus override the state constitution, as the federal constitution is the ONLY thing that can over ride a state constitution (unless we allow the judicial branch in on it…)
TKSnider on December 10, 2009 at 5:19 PM
Verbum,
I trust the judicial branch about as far as I can through them to actually rule correctly. They misread the constitution as they’ve been doing for the last 100 years. The constitution does not forbid a state constitution from establishing a religion, only the state congress from doing so.
Just because the judicial branch as said it is true, doesn’t mean it is.
These are the same people who declared the commerce clause an open book for the federal government to plunder the american people too.
TKSnider on December 10, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Rediculous.
It is a religous test.
Let the guy serve.
Unless he’s trying to ban all religion, there’s no point to any of this.
It’s clear NC is in violation.
Badger40 on December 10, 2009 at 5:23 PM
TORCASO v. WATKINS, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
367 U.S. 488
TORCASO v. WATKINS, CLERK.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND.
No. 373.
Argued April 24, 1961.
Decided June 19, 1961.
This is a done deal…
elgeneralisimo on December 10, 2009 at 5:27 PM
I understand your dilemma but I think that is a VERY modern understanding of religion and belief. It was certainly something loudly attacked by a number of bishops in the beginning of the 20th century.
At any rate – It remains a test for a specific belief in an almighty God. You are excluded or admitted on the basis of this belief. The fact that you can be religious and not believe in God doesn’t make this less of a religious test. It just means that some religious systems can pass and some can’t. Belief (or lack of) in God is central to religious identity. If you don’t identify as having the right sort of religious belief you aren’t admitted.
dieudonne on December 10, 2009 at 5:27 PM
Supremacy Clause: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
14th Amendment: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
If a state constitution contradicts the federal constitution, he federal constitution wins.
HeroesforGhosts on December 10, 2009 at 5:29 PM
Badger, the government has been steadily trying to do that for the last 100 years… They have interperted the establishment clause as a seperation of church and state, which is incorrect. It was never intended to be a wall that kept religion out of the state, but the state out of religion.
I’m not 100% sure this would qualify as a religious test, but it is close. I still think the guy should be allowed to take office though.
TKSnider on December 10, 2009 at 5:29 PM
Again – is the state constitution a product of the state congress? Yes. The congress would be establishing a religion through the legal device of constitution if they tried to do that.
dieudonne on December 10, 2009 at 5:29 PM
It is clear that the constitution needs to be changed, but I still am not sure that it is a violation of the federal constitution. It should be changed because it is the right and proper thing to do, we aren’t a theocracy, nor do we want to be one.
I just take exception to people screaming that this or that is unconstitution when it really isn’t. I’ve seen alot of stuff about the establishment clause that isn’t true that has been judicially driven (my wife is in a masters program for teaching) and it upsets me when the people who should be the strongest constitution scholars in the country seemingly can’t read a 20 page document coherently :P
TKSnider on December 10, 2009 at 5:33 PM
If not believing in God is treated like a religion does not buying something then count as commerce?
agmartin on December 10, 2009 at 5:34 PM
Dieudonne,
No, the state congress is not the one responsible for the state consitution, it is the people of the state that are. Congress is restricted from changing the constitution of a state and can not do so under normal law making procedures, that means the constitution is above congressional law and wholely seperate.
A law in the constitution is not subject to the same status as a congressional law and the government is forced to recognize it whether they want to or not (that has happened here in Fl from time to time). The only thing that can override the state constitution is a direct ban against the state doing something in the federal constitution, not a branch of the government, but the entire state (such as gun rights laws).
In this case, the only thing referenced is congressional law, not constitutional law. But then, the founding fathers never intended for the bill of rights to be pushed down forcefully to the states either, so they were not written with that in mind.
TKSnider on December 10, 2009 at 5:37 PM
If you support a religious test for politicians, you might be a Great American.
The Race Card on December 10, 2009 at 5:37 PM
then I’ll be a bad american who upholds what our founding fathers wished ;)
TKSnider on December 10, 2009 at 5:39 PM
Not true, but irrelevant anyway. It’s clearly unconstitutional, get over it.
HeroesforGhosts on December 10, 2009 at 5:44 PM
The people as represented by the congress in the constitutional convention that convened. The congress wrote the constitution, printed it, presented it, etc. That makes it a legal construct of the congress.
I believe that you are arguing for this in good faith but I also believe the argument is a little disingenuous. “Oh yeah. The congress itself can’t pass such a law but the congress can write a constitution making the exact same attack on personal religious decisions and that’s OK.”
Not buying it.
See article six section three of the US constitution that forbids any religious tests of any sort.
They knew it could be at any time by amendments just like the 14th. That means provisions could have been taken to prevent it. The fact that they did not take such steps says quite a lot.
dieudonne on December 10, 2009 at 5:44 PM
AND somebody that tacitly approves of religious bigotry as long as it’s the right sort. =)
dieudonne on December 10, 2009 at 5:45 PM
That may be so (and widdershins likewise), but it doesn’t demonstrate any incorrect reasoning in this particular case.
VerbumSap on December 10, 2009 at 5:55 PM
Dieudonne,
It is a matter of semantics, I agree with that. I also agree that it is immoral and should be changed. But just because I think it immoral, doesn’t make it unconstitutional and in this case, constitutional law IS different that congressional law.
They way they are passed, the way they are radified are different, which makes them different. For example, a congressional law goes to the governor for approval, but consitutional law goes to the people (not the govenor). That is what makes them different.
I am agreeing with you that there is a clear case that this should be brought up under article 6, which is the clear constitutional article this could be challenged under. I do disagree that it is an Amendment I issue as it is not a congressional law, which is the only law that amendment prevents.
TKSnider on December 10, 2009 at 5:55 PM
That being said, I’m out. :) Was fun debating this with you all, I don’t get to do that much in my current field.
TKSnider on December 10, 2009 at 5:57 PM
Are you disputing that the state constitution is a legal construct of the congress? Ratified by the people is not the question. Was it a creation of the congress?
To say it was a product of the people is a rhetorical dodge – not even a semantic one – because congressional acts are acts of the people as represented by their congressmen.
A state constitution CAN be in conflict with the federal. This one appears to be in direct conflict. If there is a conflict which one reigns supreme? That’s a settled question as well.
dieudonne on December 10, 2009 at 6:01 PM
Be well! =)
dieudonne on December 10, 2009 at 6:01 PM
No, it is only no religious tests for FEDERAL office.
Re-read Federalist 39 and the 10th Amendment, then tell me that your statement about the Religious test applies to the States.
Tim Burton on December 10, 2009 at 6:19 PM
Here is the first amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
This is a prohibition on “Congress”. Congress shall not establish a religion. If you look at the contempory writings, they were talking about establishing a national denomination. The prohitibtion of first admendment has nothing to do with the States, their constitutions, or their legislatures. I would guess that one or more of the persons who signed off on the US constution then went back to N.C. and helped draft the N.C. constitution.
Of the founding fathers, many were born again Christians. Some were deists who, while not born again, still were God fearing men who quoted the bible and understood the wisdom of Christ and the bible. Most all, even those who were not born again beleivers, still understood that God would bless this nation and make it great if the nation was obedient to God, or curse and punish this nation when as a people and nation we were disobedient to God.
They understood the danger of an official national denomination that could become corrupt. That’s why their forefathers came here. The church of England had become corrupt. They left it up to the states if they wanted an official state religion or relgious tests for holding office. A number of them adopted doctrinal statements in their constitions that any state official would have to swear to if they wantd to hold public office. They might have done same on the national level, if they had not seen the potentional problems that arose in England when the church went apostate.
CertainVictory on December 10, 2009 at 6:20 PM
People often let their personal prejudices skew their understanding of law.
The only part of this I find terribly interesting is that the NAACP would get involved. That’s almost a PR misstep except that it’s unlikely to make headlines.
Imagine the NYT running “NAACP ENCOURAGING US THEOCRACY” or some such thing. If this were the Liberty University pushing this it’d be on every talk show in America.
Probably some in the UK too, but it’s the NAACP so it’ll barely get a grumble out of the media.
One Angry Christian on December 10, 2009 at 7:45 PM
About H.K Edgerton. I live in Asheville, and I actually know the man.
He’s not your average former head of the NAACP. He’s something of a local character, often appearing in a Confederate uniform and carrying a Confederate flag. Really.
He’s a big proponent of Southern Heritage and still believes in Civil Rights – and sees no contradiction.
There’s a photo of him at the link below, in all his Confederate glory.
HK Edgerton
As for the current kerfluffle, nobody locally takes him seriously and I have no doubt that Bothwell will be seated.
Curmudgeon on December 10, 2009 at 7:50 PM
Why would you guess when the historical record is available? Are you admitting to being a fool or just lazy?
Also, unconstitutional laws are not protected by the US Constitution.
What proof do you have of the founders’ beliefs?
The Race Card on December 10, 2009 at 8:20 PM
What proof do you have of the founders’ beliefs?
The Race Card on December 10, 2009 at 8:20 PM
——-Just their own words. ——-
George Washinton – 1st U.S. President
“While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.”
–The Writings of Washington, pp. 342-343.
John Adams –
2nd U.S. President and Signer of the Declaration of Independence
“Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God … What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be.”
–Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. III, p. 9.
Thomas Jefferson
3rd U.S. President, Drafter and Signer of the Declaration of Independence
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event.”
–Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237.
“I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.”
–The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.
John Hancock
1st Signer of the Declaration of Independence
“Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. … Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us.”
–History of the United States of America, Vol. II, p. 229.
Ben Franklin -
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Unites States Constitution
“Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped.
That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see;
Samuel Adams
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Father of the American Revolution
“And as it is our duty to extend our wishes to the happiness of the great family of man, I conceive that we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world that the rod of tyrants may be broken to pieces, and the oppressed made free again; that wars may cease in all the earth, and that the confusions that are and have been among nations may be overruled by promoting and speedily bringing on that holy and happy period when the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and all people everywhere willingly bow to the sceptre of Him who is Prince of Peace.”
–As Governor of Massachusetts, Proclamation of a Day of Fast, March 20, 1797.
James Madison
4th U.S. President
“Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ.”
–America’s Providential History, p. 93.
James Monroe
5th U.S. President
“When we view the blessings with which our country has been favored, those which we now enjoy, and the means which we possess of handing them down unimpaired to our latest posterity, our attention is irresistibly drawn to the source from whence they flow. Let us then, unite in offering our most grateful acknowledgements for these blessings to the Divine Author of All Good.”
–Monroe made this statement in his 2nd Annual Message to Congress, November 16, 1818.
John Quincy Adams
6th U.S. President
“The hope of a Christian is inseparable from his faith. Whoever believes in the divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures must hope that the religion of Jesus shall prevail throughout the earth. Never since the foundation of the world have the prospects of mankind been more encouraging to that hope than they appear to be at the present time. And may the associated distribution of the Bible proceed and prosper till the Lord shall have made ‘bare His holy arm in the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God’ (Isaiah 52:10).”
–Life of John Quincy Adams, p. 248.
William Penn
Founder of Pennsylvania
“I do declare to the whole world that we believe the Scriptures to contain a declaration of the mind and will of God in and to those ages in which they were written; being given forth by the Holy Ghost moving in the hearts of holy men of God; that they ought also to be read, believed, and fulfilled in our day; being used for reproof and instruction, that the man of God may be perfect. They are a declaration and testimony of heavenly things themselves, and, as such, we carry a high respect for them. We accept them as the words of God Himself.”
–Treatise of the Religion of the Quakers, p. 355.
Roger Sherman
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution
“I believe that there is one only living and true God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the same in substance equal in power and glory. That the scriptures of the old and new testaments are a revelation from God, and a complete rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him. That God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, so as thereby he is not the author or approver of sin. That he creates all things, and preserves and governs all creatures and all their actions, in a manner perfectly consistent with the freedom of will in moral agents, and the usefulness of means. That he made man at first perfectly holy, that the first man sinned, and as he was the public head of his posterity, they all became sinners in consequence of his first transgression, are wholly indisposed to that which is good and inclined to evil, and on account of sin are liable to all the miseries of this life, to death, and to the pains of hell forever.
I believe that God having elected some of mankind to eternal life, did send his own Son to become man, die in the room and stead of sinners and thus to lay a foundation for the offer of pardon and salvation to all mankind, so as all may be saved who are willing to accept the gospel offer: also by his special grace and spirit, to regenerate, sanctify and enable to persevere in holiness, all who shall be saved; and to procure in consequence of their repentance and faith in himself their justification by virtue of his atonement as the only meritorious cause.
I believe a visible church to be a congregation of those who make a credible profession of their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, joined by the bond of the covenant.
I believe that the souls of believers are at their death made perfectly holy, and immediately taken to glory: that at the end of this world there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a final judgement of all mankind, when the righteous shall be publicly acquitted by Christ the Judge and admitted to everlasting life and glory, and the wicked be sentenced to everlasting punishment.”
–The Life of Roger Sherman, pp. 272-273.
Benjamin Rush
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Ratifier of the U.S. Constitution
“The Gospel of Jesus Christ prescribes the wisest rules for just conduct in every situation of life. Happy they who are enabled to obey them in all situations!”
–The Autobiography of Benjamin Rush, pp. 165-166.
“Christianity is the only true and perfect religion, and that in proportion as mankind adopts its principles and obeys its precepts, they will be wise and happy.”
–Essays, Literary, Moral, and Philosophical, published in 1798.
“I know there is an objection among many people to teaching children doctrines of any kind, because they are liable to be controverted. But let us not be wiser than our Maker.
If moral precepts alone could have reformed mankind, the mission of the Son of God into all the world would have been unnecessary. The perfect morality of the Gospel rests upon the doctrine which, though often controverted has never been refuted: I mean the vicarious life and death of the Son of God.”
–Essays, Literary, Moral, and Philosophical, published in 1798.
John Witherspoon
Signer of the Declaration of Independence, Clergyman and President of Princeton University
“While we give praise to God, the Supreme Disposer of all events, for His interposition on our behalf, let us guard against the dangerous error of trusting in, or boasting of, an arm of flesh … If your cause is just, if your principles are pure, and if your conduct is prudent, you need not fear the multitude of opposing hosts.
What follows from this? That he is the best friend to American liberty, who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down profanity and immorality of every kind.
Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy of his country.”
–Sermon at Princeton University, “The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men,” May 17, 1776.
Alexander Hamilton
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Ratifier of the U.S. Constitution
“I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man.”
–Famous American Statesmen, p. 126.
Patrick Henry
Ratifier of the U.S. Constitution
“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”
–The Trumpet Voice of Freedom: Patrick Henry of Virginia, p. iii.
“The Bible … is a book worth more than all the other books that were ever printed.”
–Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry, p. 402.
John Jay
1st Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and President of the American Bible Society
“By conveying the Bible to people thus circumstanced, we certainly do them a most interesting kindness. We thereby enable them to learn that man was originally created and placed in a state of happiness, but, becoming disobedient, was subjected to the degradation and evils which he and his posterity have since experienced.
The Bible will also inform them that our gracious Creator has provided for us a Redeemer, in whom all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; that this Redeemer has made atonement “for the sins of the whole world,” and thereby reconciling the Divine justice with the Divine mercy has opened a way for our redemption and salvation; and that these inestimable benefits are of the free gift and grace of God, not of our deserving, nor in our power to deserve.”
–In God We Trust—The Religious Beliefs and Ideas of the American Founding Fathers, p. 379.
“In forming and settling my belief relative to the doctrines of Christianity, I adopted no articles from creeds but such only as, on careful examination, I found to be confirmed by the Bible.”
–American Statesman Series, p. 360.
ETC ETC ETC
CertainVictory on December 10, 2009 at 8:57 PM
Am I the only one that finds it ironic that a former chief of a civil rights organization (NAACP) has no qualms about violating another person’s civil rights?
mizflame98 on December 10, 2009 at 9:00 PM
Your comment on my statement of — I would guess that one or more of the persons who signed off on the US constution then went back to N.C. and helped draft the N.C. constitution. was the following
*Why would you guess when the historical record is available? Are you admitting to being a fool or just lazy?*
****My response **** —Just lazy –
I assummed that if each state sent 4 or 5 men to the US constitutional convention (56 signers divided by 13 states) that they would send their most esteemed politions. So when the the states had their own state constitutional convention, they would be present also. Not a “foolish” assumption, a quite logical assumption.
CertainVictory on December 10, 2009 at 9:09 PM
This is really REALLY interesting. By law, the guy cannot take office until the law is changed. So change the law. If instead, you have the COURTS change the law, you therefore support bypassing the legislative branch in making law.
This is NOT a simple call by any means. In THIS case, I would say the courts need to stay out of it, the guy cannot take office, and the law needs to be changed at the state level.
Seems unfair, but doing this via the courts helps destroy states rights, separation of powers, and that’s worse than having a single person not take office.
Danzo on December 10, 2009 at 10:18 PM
Hey… I’ve seen that guy on Penn & Teller’s BS series…
He actually seemed very level headed, if not unorthodox, on the show.
Skywise on December 10, 2009 at 10:39 PM
Should Edgarton’s position prevail, would that re-affirm property convenants that prohibit non-whites from buying property?
In MN, the housing area we lived had, at one time, covenants that did just that.
Mr. Egarton, be careful what you wish for.
BobMbx on December 10, 2009 at 10:41 PM
Oh, please, I haven’t read all the comments but isn’t it OBVIOUS that it is unconstitutional to ban someone from public office because of a religious test? A religious test can only be used if it is a bonafide job qualificaiton, for example, priests have to be catholic.
He should be seated, the law should be changed and this should be a non-issue. If the NAACP wants to sue the City Council, fine, that would then make changing the law unnecessary because it makes the point moot once the law is declared unconstitutional.
JustTruth101 on December 10, 2009 at 11:12 PM
Exactly! GP. There are areas int he City of St. Louis that can’t be sold to non-whites according to the law on the books. Once declared unconstitutional, don’t have to change the law.
JustTruth101 on December 10, 2009 at 11:13 PM
Fundamentalist Christians like the Constitution until they realize it was written by secularists as a check on the power of Fundamentalist Christians. From Article VI:
What kind of religious tests did the Founders have in mind when they banned all religious tests? How about this one, from Delaware’s 1776 Constitution:
Or these several, from the South Carolina Constitution of 1778:
If Christians actually understood the Founders, they’d respect them a whole lot less.
hicsuget on December 10, 2009 at 11:18 PM
And exactly when was that? Before, during, or after Henry VIII split from the “papists” so he could do whatever he wanted? And which current American religions are apostate, and which are not?
I don’t believe the stuff you believe, but I’ll fight for your right to believe it. As a fellow American though, I get pretty sick of hearing holier-than-thou a-holes like you spew about how God will “curse and punish this nation when as a people and nation we were disobedient to God”.
Is there even the slightest room in your head for the thought that folks who don’t believe what you believe hold those beliefs honestly and with integrity?
peski on December 10, 2009 at 11:27 PM
You read (not re-read; that would imply you had read it before) Section 1 of Amendment XIV.
hicsuget on December 10, 2009 at 11:35 PM
I’m a fundamentalist Christian and I both love the constitution and understand the founders. Don’t confuse me with certain groups that have hijacked the name Christian without knowing what it means.
The true essence of Christianity ifs freedome to choose or reject God’s message. I don’t try to force my religion on anyone…to do so (as if one even could) would not successfully give anyone salvation, because choosing Jesus has to be free will. I not only CAN’T force people to believe, I wouldn’t want to.
Our founders understood this, too. That’s why freedom of thought and speech was such a big deal for them, and is so enshrined in our founding documents. They wanted to make sure no one in power could force religion down anybody’s throat. The religious ones wanted people to be able to choose freely, and the secular ones wanted the same thing. A perfect meeting of the minds.
JustTruth101 on December 11, 2009 at 12:16 AM
No, SCOTUS dismissed the gun ban in D.C. as a violation of the 2nd amendment, only because D.C. is governed by federal law (it’s not a state). SCOTUS had not applied the 2nd amendment to the states yet. They might soon.
crr6 on December 11, 2009 at 12:49 AM
CertainVictory on December 10, 2009 at 8:57 PM
Thank you.
oldleprechaun on December 11, 2009 at 9:07 AM
Heh. Been reading your David Barton?
davidk on December 11, 2009 at 9:34 AM
A friend of mine mentioned Article 6 of the US constitution, which implies that the NC constitution violates the US constitution:
But I doubt the founding fathers ever considered a religious test to deal with atheism. To them, a religious test would be, “you must be deist” or “protestant” or “Catholic”, etc.
The foundation upon which this country is built is simple: We are endowed by our CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights.
The constitution is designed to protect those rights by establishing strict rules about what neither government nor people can do to violate those rights.
The constitution, therefore, protects the right of people to be atheists.
But it is a contradiction in terms for an atheist to vow to uphold and protect a constitution designed to protect the rights endowed by God. The atheist does not believe that God is the source of the rights that the constitution protects, leaving only Government to establish what rights an individual may or may not have.
That is exactly what the constitution is supposed to prevent — government determining what our rights may or may not be. That is the very definition of tyranny, which we escaped. And we justified our escape with the phrase, “We are endowed by our CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights”.
So the North Carolina amendment is not only constitutional, it is necessary for maintaining the integrity of the constitution.
That is the ORIGINALIST stance. It does not reflect what we have become. We’ve already destroyed the original intent of the constitution. The government has been controlling our rights for a long time now.
Daggett on December 11, 2009 at 11:14 AM
*peski* -To answer your question – A religion is false and church becomes apostate when it disagrees in doctrine or practice expressed in the opinion of the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Particularly in regard to doctrine of salvation.
John Jay
1st Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and President of the American Bible Society
“By conveying the Bible to people thus circumstanced, we certainly do them a most interesting kindness. We thereby enable them to learn that man was originally created and placed in a state of happiness, but, becoming disobedient, was subjected to the degradation and evils which he and his posterity have since experienced.
The Bible will also inform them that our gracious Creator has provided for us a Redeemer, in whom all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; that this Redeemer has made atonement “for the sins of the whole world,” and thereby reconciling the Divine justice with the Divine mercy has opened a way for our redemption and salvation; and that these inestimable benefits are of the free gift and grace of God, not of our deserving, nor in our power to deserve.”
–In God We Trust—The Religious Beliefs and Ideas of the American Founding Fathers, p. 379.
“In forming and settling my belief relative to the doctrines of Christianity, I adopted no articles from creeds but such only as, on careful examination, I found to be confirmed by the Bible.”
–American Statesman Series, p. 360.
False religions teach that man is saved by working his way up to a god to get to heaven. Such as by good works, or by obedience to a set of rules and regulations. Even those who attend a true church often think in terms of this false means of salvation. I know, I sat in church for 36 years thinking I was going to heaven because I was a “good” person. After I was saved by the glorious grace of God, I witnessed to many people. My informal survey, having witness to hundreds of Americans, showed me over 90% of Americans believe in the false system of salvation by works.
Many of these people were church goers who never learned, or rejected, the historical basic teaching of own church regarding salvation. Moreover, now if you look at the doctrinal statements on the websites of some of the once great mainline Christian churches they are changing and/or confusing their doctrinal statements on salvation. I saw one that only had a few paragraphs on salvation and pages and pages on health care and health insurance. For their section on salvation they extensively quoted from a theologian from the 1980′s to over-ride their historical biblical position on salavation.
As USSC Chief Justice John Jay correctly understood. The true means of salvation is not man working his way up the heaven, but God reaching down to a helpless wicked sinner to rescue man from the eternal consequences of his sin. This happens when a man repents of his sins, and through faith in what Christ did on the cross, asks for God’s forgiveness of his sins. A sincere wicked sinner is then clothed in Christ’s perfect righteousness received as free gift from God. God requires perfect rightousness to get into heaven. With man this is impossible, but obtaining perfect righteous is posible if one receives the gift of Christ’s righteous imputed to them through faith in the cross. A perfect plan – in salvation God is merciful, but he still is just. My sins are not just sweep under the rug (could a perfect judge let a criminal off without justly due penalty? What would you say if a guy who murdered your close relatives was let go. What if the Judge did this over and over again. Even in Vermont, they would probably impeach the judge. Certainly, such a judge would not be considered a just judge). In God’s chosen path of salvation, perfect justice is maintained by God because my sins were fully paid for. Not by me, but by Christ on the cross.I accepted this free gift by faith alone. God chose this plan of salvation before the foundations of the world, because it gives all the glory to God. Where is the boasting by this saved wicked sinner CertainVictory? Moreover, after (justification)salvation I am still a sinner, but I am a new creation in Christ. Due to the scantifying work of the Holy Spirit I have victory over sin. Thus, I now am capable moving more and more towards being in the image of Christ. Upon my resurection from the grave in my new glorified body, and will fully conformed to the image of Christ. I will no longer desire or be capable of sinning. Praise God!!!
CertainVictory on December 11, 2009 at 11:30 AM
John Jay is the ultimate arbiter of apostasy in Christianity?
Man you’ve got more screws loose than I thought.
peski on December 11, 2009 at 12:50 PM
I thought of that too. That’s a hell of a good reason why NC’s state constitution should just roll over and play dead in this case.
Ryan Anthony on December 11, 2009 at 1:01 PM
That’s demonstrably false and insulting.
TheUnrepentantGeek on December 11, 2009 at 1:20 PM
LOL I don’t think so, you just usually view history through the lens of expectation. Accepting that most of them had a fr different understanding of Christianity than you do would mean that you did not have an unbroken connection with people you respected. The mere fact that Deism was so popular at the time, and that most of them despised organized religion, and that the documents they forged were forged through mutual distrust never shines up quite so bright as the official story.
Zekecorlain on December 11, 2009 at 1:25 PM
Religion is such a protection racket, for generations priest under the direction of Rome and Constantinople milked their populations for money, tribute and position while promising to shepherd their followers through this life. Later protestants revolted only to let their local preachers and charismatics do the same things. How many of your preachers drive nicer cars than you do?
Zekecorlain on December 11, 2009 at 1:28 PM
*peski* said -”John Jay is the ultimate arbiter of apostasy in Christianity?
Man you’ve got more screws loose than I thought.”
CertainVictory’s response is : The point I was trying to make was that even the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS
once knew was apostacy was. Chief Justice John Jay was a born again Christian and certainly knew basic historical Christian doctrine. He knew that throughout history anyone that has ever been saved, was saved in one way and one way only. Either looking forward to what the promised Messiah would do, or looking back to what the Messiah did on the Cross.
Your comment -
“Man you’ve got more screws loose than I thought.”
Such comment would not suprise John Jay, nor does it suprise me. The Messiah told us – Don’t be suprised when they hate you, because they have hated me first.
The Gospel is the power unto salvation, but foolishness to the “wise” who stumble on the cornerstone, who is Jesus the Christ.
Going to be with my Savior, “loose screws” and all.
CertainVictory on December 11, 2009 at 1:49 PM
yes the line is used extensively by the fred phelps clan to excuse all kinds of horrid behavior, I’m sure you want to be lumped together with them.
*also I fixed ur spelling*
Zekecorlain on December 11, 2009 at 1:58 PM
Apostasy by legal fiat, how utterly disturbing, and you want this? What’s the proper jail sentence for apostasy, death isn’t it?
Zekecorlain on December 11, 2009 at 2:00 PM
Zekecorlain my friend. –
Hebrews 9:27 – And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment. – So the apostate (like all unbelievers) dies twice, first a physical death, and then after judgement, a second spiritual death of eternal torment for their sins.
Fred Phelps is looking at a double death ( unless he gets saved before he dies), and you?
Fred Phelps is an easy one. The book of Romans tell us that the “pagan”, the “religious man” (who hopes his false religious beliefs saves him) and the “moral man”( who hopes to escape the second death by his own goodness apart from Christ)are also in a grave predicament of the second death.
Also, I think some believe there may be a second death for those who correct spelling errors of others, and then mock the poor spellers. Both John Jay and myself, however, have strongly rejected this heresy.
CertainVictory on December 11, 2009 at 2:44 PM
very thoughtful commentary, however I think we may be over thinking the whole issue. Is the NAACP involved because of religion, or did this guy beat a democrat in the election?
mpk on December 11, 2009 at 6:10 PM
I haven’t followed all the pages of comments in this thread, so forgive me if I’m repeating someone else:
Has anyone considered that the salient rule in the state constitution was pointed out specifically to call attention to its violation of the US constitution?
JamesS on December 11, 2009 at 7:15 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3