Atheist barred from office in North Carolina?
posted at 9:30 am on December 10, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
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.
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: 1 2 3 Next »
Wow. That’s just weird.
Red Cloud on December 10, 2009 at 9:34 AM
Heartbreak!—-Oh My!
Rovin on December 10, 2009 at 9:34 AM
Oh, amen to that!
tree hugging sister on December 10, 2009 at 9:34 AM
Is NC where the whole religious license plate thing took place? Cuz if it is, I’m glad this is happening. You want fascism, atheists? Come get it.
Darth Executor on December 10, 2009 at 9:34 AM
Well, there is one obvious reason. Bigotry against
atheists.
thgrant on December 10, 2009 at 9:35 AM
If Obama can be president, an atheist can hold a city council office.
therightscoop on December 10, 2009 at 9:37 AM
Very interesting case. The above statement is 14th amendment incorporation issue, which I hate. In my ideal world, unless the state power is explicitly forbidden by the federal constitution, the state should be allowed to do it (if the people allow the state such power).
I would like to see the US Supreme court upfold this and the state of NC get rid of this absurd clause.
WashJeff on December 10, 2009 at 9:37 AM
Did Bothwell defeat a black candidate? Otherwise I can’t see why anyone in the NAACP would care.
jwolf on December 10, 2009 at 9:38 AM
How so? It’s in their constitution.
I thought the first amendment disallowed the congress from enacting a federal religion but still allowed the states to create a state one if they wanted. I live in MA and I remember in high school being told that MA pushed for the FA because they wanted to make sure they were free to enact a state religion. Then again maybe I was told wrong. It was a long time ago.
RagTag on December 10, 2009 at 9:39 AM
The NC state head of NAACP likes to inject himself into any issue that he can to get publicity. Why should former local head’s be any different. Was one of the losing opponents black?
Monica on December 10, 2009 at 9:40 AM
It’s because Bothwell refuses to acknowledge Obama as God, silly. Circle squared. You’re welcome.
Weight of Glory on December 10, 2009 at 9:42 AM
Every single state constitution mentions God.
This will be used to assault the states. The concept of the united “states” has been withering away since the War for Southern Independence.
I’m not commenting on the merits of the case, only that the original Jeffersonian concept of a “state” was that it would and should be allowed to have these sorts of restrictions for state offices if it so wishes.
The decision should be left to NC and it (we, from where I’m sitting) to change that provision… which, I believe we would if given the chance to vote on it.
mankai on December 10, 2009 at 9:43 AM
What if you admit to the presence or persona of Almighty God, but deny His being?
Chris_Balsz on December 10, 2009 at 9:46 AM
Very interesting situation.
OmahaConservative on December 10, 2009 at 9:48 AM
Darth Executor on December 10, 2009 at 9:34 AM
That was SC.
cs89 on December 10, 2009 at 9:49 AM
shouldn’t this be a state issue?
trailortrash on December 10, 2009 at 9:50 AM
Well, in New Hampshire it may still be illegal to serve your indentured servants Lobster for more than three meals per week.
Wind Rider on December 10, 2009 at 9:50 AM
As a North Carolinian I would just like to say that we like our Constitution just fine the way it is thank you.
Guardian on December 10, 2009 at 9:51 AM
Clash of the Titans!
Texas Cage Match!
Godzilla vs King Kong!
Undercard:
NAACP vs ACLU!
Knott Buyinit on December 10, 2009 at 9:51 AM
Tenth Amendment… it’s still in there.
I realize that things got murky after the Civil War and with the post-war amendments, but the federal government has never gone after a state for having God in its Constitution… before, during, and after the Civil War.
mankai on December 10, 2009 at 9:53 AM
Of course, common sense will prevail here and this law will be thrown out. After all, we all know that this is no longer a Christian nation.
How can North Carolina be so backwards in today’s progressive and diverse society? Why did they think it was important to be grateful to an Almighty God? Don’t these people understand that atheism is a religion?
Rovin on December 10, 2009 at 9:56 AM
Did a quick Google on H.K. Edgerton (NAACP guy, African-American, Southern heritage advocate), and my initial impression is he’s looking for publicity and is about to get it.
cs89 on December 10, 2009 at 9:57 AM
Winner!
p0s3r on December 10, 2009 at 9:57 AM
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?”
Good Lt on December 10, 2009 at 9:57 AM
This is a foolish and wrong-headed objection to the outcome of a fair election.
No, it’s not. It may in fact be a foolish and wrong-headed part of the NC Constitution but it is none-the-less a very real part of their law and thus must be obeyed first and then changed if it need be.
Mr. Bingley on December 10, 2009 at 9:58 AM
it’s sort of like claiming that Obama can’t be president.
Phoenician on December 10, 2009 at 9:58 AM
And yeah, it’s in the Constitution and theoretically the States should be able to decide for themselves about issues that don’t concern Federal offices.
Practically, both sides will spend $ in court and the post-theist will be seated.
cs89 on December 10, 2009 at 9:58 AM
Did I miss the /sarc tag?
Every single state mentions God (or the Divine)… even Alaska and Hawaii (which amended its constitution in 1978 and left God in).
mankai on December 10, 2009 at 10:01 AM
I don’t see how this joker got elected in the first place. North Carolinians love Billy Graham. Hard to see how we elected a hater of someone who is so very good. It would be hard to find someone who has done as much good in the world as Billy Graham.
Guardian on December 10, 2009 at 10:01 AM
Can’t he just say he believes in mother earth and Al Gore?
Caper29 on December 10, 2009 at 10:03 AM
I agree. And states should be able to restrict or outright ban gun ownership, as well.
Bleeds Blue on December 10, 2009 at 10:04 AM
Gosh, how could that amendment have ever made it into the North Carolina constitution, since the intent of the founding fathers was to erect a strict wall of separation of church and state? In fact, the North Carolina constitution should allow only atheists to hold public office.
/s
Daggett on December 10, 2009 at 10:04 AM
The exact wording in the Constitution is that no religious test be imposed for holding public office.
Barring atheists is a religious test for office, and therefore unconstitutional. This may be why the former ACLU guy is there–to get this provision struck down legally.
Sekhmet on December 10, 2009 at 10:04 AM
I understand some commenters are getting 404s when attempting to post on this thread. We’re looking into it.
Ed Morrissey on December 10, 2009 at 10:05 AM
I’d move.
And the restriction is clearly non-sectarian. NC does grant religious freedom. And the state cannot mandate any restrictions on someone’s personal life or education… however, atheists HAVE restricted religious thought in public life. They HAVE imposed their views on education.
The only restrictions in our schools are not on atheistic thought, but on religious expression.
Atheism simultaneously claims to be a ‘religion” and “not a religion.” When it wants rights, it claims to be a religion. When it wants to proselytize in our schools it claims it is not a religion.
mankai on December 10, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Yet another state Allahpundit would be smart to avoid.
TXUS on December 10, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Unfortunately, there’s the Second Amendment.
You can’t restrict liberties the Constitution has guaranteed. You can grant MORE liberty than the Constitution provides for, but you can’t grant LESS.
Details, right? Stupid federalist Founding Fathers.
Good Lt on December 10, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Where does “atheism claim to be a religion?”
Good Lt on December 10, 2009 at 10:08 AM
It really doesn’t matter, does it. He won’t be an atheist after he passes away!
wepeople on December 10, 2009 at 10:09 AM
Are you an originalist? That provision did not apply to the states. In fact, several states still supported a clergy well into the 19th century… until the people of those states abandoned the idea… and in no case was religious expression squelched.
So you posit that atheism is a religious expression? OK, so the next time evolution is taught as assuming no deity, we should protest that “religion” is being advanced in our schools.
mankai on December 10, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Yes, you did. Sorry
Sincerely, may God bless you and your family and a very Merry Christmas Guardian.
Rovin on December 10, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Ok, but to be fair, neither of those things are unconstitutional. “Separation of church and state” is a slogan, not a clause in the Constitution.
joe_doufu on December 10, 2009 at 10:11 AM
It is the 14th amendment that incorporates the Bill of Rights to the states. Previously states could, and did, support a specific religion. IIRC MA did provide stipends to Episcopalian ministers, but not Baptists.
IMO the 14th Amendment & incorporation are good things — they tend to increase personal freedom against government imposition (even if it is a state vs. federal government).
rbj on December 10, 2009 at 10:11 AM
Atheism treated as a religion:
mankai on December 10, 2009 at 10:14 AM
I loved NC. I’d move back there in a heartbeat if I could. God bless you & yours.
Daggett on December 10, 2009 at 10:15 AM
Then you’re suggesting that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to the states but the second does?
I’m just checking for consistency among the “origionalists” here.
Bleeds Blue on December 10, 2009 at 10:16 AM
Since it doesn’t have a hierarchy, it can’t in and of itself. But a position such as “the strident denial of religion is religion itself” is a valid argument.
unclesmrgol on December 10, 2009 at 10:16 AM
Originalists understand the intent of the first, and it was NOT to create a wall of separation between church and state. It’s people like you who think the Constitution is a “living document” who create the contradiction.
Daggett on December 10, 2009 at 10:18 AM
The passage in question says “Congress shall make no laws regarding the establishment of a religion”. Where in that statement does it prohibit a member State from deciding what is required in the form of qualifications to serve in public office of that State?
Zelsdorf Ragshaft on December 10, 2009 at 10:19 AM
The secularists’ whitewash of American history is nearly complete, but there may be enough time to conduct a serious discussion about why the founders of the various states inserted God into the state constitutions in the first place. It wasn’t done haphazardly. And I can assure you it did not violate the U.S. Constitution.
flyfisher on December 10, 2009 at 10:19 AM
Where did I claim the FA didn’t apply to the states?
The Second Am. supersedes state constitutions. As does the first. And all of the Bill of Rights and the Const. It’s a super-statute – it sets the ground floor. You can’t grant less than what the US Constitution guarantees – only more.
Yes?
Good Lt on December 10, 2009 at 10:20 AM
So, then, Wikipedia claims that?
Good Lt on December 10, 2009 at 10:21 AM
Yep, every snake handling, peyote eating, medicine as sin, talking in tongues, Thetan purging religious member should be eligible; but woe unto logic spouting athiests holding office.
GnuBreed on December 10, 2009 at 10:21 AM
Tell me where anyone has established a religion or restricted the free exercise thereof? NC has not.
And I am assuming that you are arguing that atheism is a religion, are you not? So if the denial of any deity is a religion, then teaching ANYTHING in public schools based on the assumption of no deity (or restricting the mentioning of the possibility of a deity) is restricting the free exercise of religion and establishing the “religion” of atheism.
mankai on December 10, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Maybe someone just wanted to point out a wrongly enjoined law and simply found an opportunity to have it removed. Maybe.
I tend to think that it is a states issue. But that does not make that law any less wrong.
davidk on December 10, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Unbelievable. We agree on something.
(In the original post, I was interested in seeing if those defending NC would feel the same when the same logic applied to something dearer to their hearts.)
Bleeds Blue on December 10, 2009 at 10:24 AM
They inject themselves into EVERYTHING down here. It’s the only pressure any politician ever succumbs to down here. When they show up, you are going to be punished either rightly or wrongly. It’s been absurd for decades down here.
ThackerAgency on December 10, 2009 at 10:24 AM
But doesn’t a belief in Obama as ‘Teh One’ sort of equate to a belief in God?
alwyr on December 10, 2009 at 10:25 AM
So be it. This is a dark day for America.
Good Lt on December 10, 2009 at 10:25 AM
Pretty much. That’s another reason for the gov’ment to get out of education.
davidk on December 10, 2009 at 10:25 AM
Yeah, it’s completely logical.
I believe that Stonehenge was created purely by natural processes, by accident, for no reason, to accomplish nothing… and I have introduced a bill stating that all other theories should be kept out of the classroom… except the completely logical assumption that aliens may have done it.
mankai on December 10, 2009 at 10:25 AM
With that wording would Buddhists be barred from office too? How about Shinto or Hindu? Could it also be stretched to include Muslims? This may get interesting.
Oldnuke on December 10, 2009 at 10:26 AM
Should speak volumes…
Give me a scenario that is equal?
Is atheism a religion or not? You atheists seem to want it both ways.
mankai on December 10, 2009 at 10:27 AM
Wouldn’t it be interesting to know how the reverends Sharpton and Jackson would weigh in on this?
Rovin on December 10, 2009 at 10:30 AM
I guess an agnostic would be Ok then since they don’t deny the existence of God?
Oldnuke on December 10, 2009 at 10:31 AM
Not sure what you’re looking for. In the case at hand, neither presence nor absence of any religious belief should disqualify and individual from holding public office. If you’re talking schools, then absence of religion is not the same as anti-religion, and so as long as teachers are not teaching that any or all religions are wrong or dangerous or incorrect, than everything is, ahem, Kosher. And if it comes to tax deductions, I think my bar tab should be as deductible as your tithes.
Beyond that, I need a more specific question.
Bleeds Blue on December 10, 2009 at 10:31 AM
Edgerton is trying to find a way to prevent Bothwell from taking office. He is just using the “atheist” angle because it gives him constitutional cover. It isn’t his religious (or non-religious) beliefs that he has trouble with.
PimFortuynsGhost on December 10, 2009 at 10:32 AM
It won’t get that far. The guy will be seated.
The greater point for me is whether Atheism wants to be treated as a “religion” or not. When they proselytize in the schools, they are NOT a religion… when they want the “rights” of religion, they claim to be a religion.
mankai on December 10, 2009 at 10:34 AM
Interesting point Ed and I agree its bigoted but… the law, in this case THE STATE CONSTITUTION, is the law.
Do state officers uphold the law or do they just selectively enforce whatever laws they like this year?
Is Mayor Gavin, then, correct in honoring gay marriages because the law barring it was bigoted?
Should we just allow illegal immigrants to run for office and, if they win, let them stay in office because, hey, the people have spoken?
Skywise on December 10, 2009 at 10:34 AM
I live in Asheville.
True, most of NC is as you say, but we’re talking Asheville here. It’s the most liberal city in NC. And I mean serious moonbat liberal, almost comparable to Berkeley. Almost.
SouthernDem on December 10, 2009 at 10:34 AM
Sure does… Note that the wikipedia article is carefully neutral on the concept of religion encompassing a supreme being — especially given that at least one religion, Buddhism, does not have the concept of a supreme being.
The opening words from Wikipedia are:
The Wiki’s attempt to encompass non-theistic religion (such as Buddhism) stretches the umbrella of religion over atheism as well.
Atheism has, as its dogma, the active denial of a supreme being, which gives rise to its own set of belief, practice, and ultimate truth.
unclesmrgol on December 10, 2009 at 10:35 AM
Think that is complicated? Imagine if an atheist Muslim ran and won. NC would have to stone him to death.
BL@KBIRD on December 10, 2009 at 10:35 AM
I agree with you on that. The most expedient thing Boswell could do would be to ‘suddenly‘ find religion, join a church and take office, of course that ain’t gonna happen.
Oldnuke on December 10, 2009 at 10:35 AM
Incidentally THIS is HK Edgerton. He’s quite the character in Asheville.
Ed, you’d do well to do a little research on him. He’s not some NAACP tool in the vein of Sharpton and Jackson.
SouthernDem on December 10, 2009 at 10:38 AM
Atheism isn’t a religion, therefore it’s not protected by the first amendment.
OR Atheism IS a religion and therefore IS protected by the first amendment.
Which is it?
Skywise on December 10, 2009 at 10:38 AM
Of course he’ll be seated, but with much hand wringing. Whether atheism is a religion depends on your point of view. My view is that it’s a religion, but from the athiest’s point of view it’s the absence of religion.
Oldnuke on December 10, 2009 at 10:38 AM
Um… it was your suggestion:
I asked for such an issue that would be deemed equal.
As for the schools, they are most decidedly anti-religion in that my child cannot suggest as a logical proposition that an intelligence was applied to chaos to bring forth design (which is not only logical, but scientific and consistent with the known laws of physics)… yet an atheist can openly say that evolution occurred as a purely natural process (for no reason) and add that (despite no evidence and an inability to reproduce it) it happened with no deity.
The latter is a “religious” idea whether expressed overtly or covertly.
mankai on December 10, 2009 at 10:39 AM
Even State officers swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and the rights and restrictions of every State Constitution are subordinate to those rights guaranteed to the People by the United States Constitution.
The first amendment, coupled with the fourteenth, certainly covers this situation. I view atheism as a religion, and, as a religion, it falls under the “free exercise thereof” clause.
I believe my position will be borne out by the courts.
unclesmrgol on December 10, 2009 at 10:40 AM
I find it seriously amusing that the comment conversation is currently leaning towards the idea that atheism is, in fact, a religion. Especially considering that just two weeks ago I was slammed as a jihadi sympathizer for insisting that Islam is, in fact, a religion.
How fluid our foundations can be. =)
dieudonne on December 10, 2009 at 10:41 AM
Atheists alternate on their description as it suits their needs. They’ll sue to get their campus group listed with the religious groups… then claim that it is not a religion when the proselytize in the classroom.
mankai on December 10, 2009 at 10:42 AM
Is it possible that some atheists view it as the absence of religion while other individual atheists claim that it should get religious protections? It is possible that atheists are not a monolithic group marching in complete lockstep with one another but rather that there is a wide range of thought within their community?
dieudonne on December 10, 2009 at 10:43 AM
Just a query… how is his right to exercise his religion being restricted?
As I’ve stated, I believe he’ll be seated. But this thread proves my point that atheism cloaks itself as a religion one day and as not a religion depending on what day of the week it is and what their goals are on a given issue.
mankai on December 10, 2009 at 10:44 AM
To force the issue and get Article 6, section 8 declaired unconstitutional.
If someone’s religion, or lack of same doesn’t matter to the voters, they should be able to hold office.
Bobbertsan on December 10, 2009 at 10:45 AM
Or better yet, found his own religion. The First Church of Cecil Bothwell, anyone?
either orr on December 10, 2009 at 10:45 AM
Were you being slammed by the same posters who believe that atheism is a religion? Or are you just painting with a really really wide brush? I ask because I view atheism as a religion and I don’t remember slamming you about Islam since I also view Islam as a religion.
Oldnuke on December 10, 2009 at 10:45 AM
It’s Asheville. Thriving lib community surrounded by apathetic redneck hollers. this sort of thing helped Libby Dole lose to Kay Hagan.
bloggless on December 10, 2009 at 10:47 AM
Sure, they can disagree all day long amongst themselves.
My problem is when an individual atheist alternates depending on the situation… and there must be some legal ruling that is consistent. If a court rules that an atheist student group MUST be included in the list of “religious” groups, then the notion that there are only natural causes for everything (a tenet of atheism) must be treated as a religious idea and other religious ideas should be allowed to be introduced in the classroom.
But they won’t accept that. They want it both ways.
mankai on December 10, 2009 at 10:48 AM
I’m sorry – I never intended to suggest that you were personally involved. I really was simply amused that the same community that had members reacting angrily to the idea that Islam was a religion is seriously debating whether or not atheism is a religion. And not bad amused – at least people are grappling with how they want religion to be defined.
dieudonne on December 10, 2009 at 10:48 AM
No, dude, *I* am an athiest. You are a poseur. ‘Post-theist’? Spare me.
Here’s the real problem. Any grown man with a Myspace page should be immediately disqualified for public office.
Bartrams Garden on December 10, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Heh, I like your idea too. Actually all he has to do is profess a belief in
.
Oldnuke on December 10, 2009 at 10:49 AM
With respect, this statement should be prefaced with an “IMO”, because, obviously, the writers of NC constitution did not share your “observation”. “should” is a little weak as a qualifier, IMO.
Rovin on December 10, 2009 at 10:50 AM
In terms of NC… Asheville is our San Francisco… Chapel Hill is our Manhattan’s Upper West side.
mankai on December 10, 2009 at 10:50 AM
I think you missed my point. I don’t believe that the vast majority of atheists want it both ways. Some want it one way and some want it another. Both groups will pursue lawsuits based on their different motivations. Conflicting lawsuits even. I suppose you could have one deeply confused man suing both ways but nobody likes him anyway.
dieudonne on December 10, 2009 at 10:51 AM
I have no problem with a fairly elected official being an atheist.
If the people knew the person was an atheist and voted for him/her, then there shouldn’t be any problem.
And while this thread is descending into the usual atheist/Christian argument…
…I’m still surprised and intrigued that it was the former head of the NAACP who made this objection.
Have any religious leaders hopped on this objection?
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2009 at 10:53 AM
Post-theism and atheism are not 1:1 – I think Bishop Shelby Spong has staked out some interesting ideas in the post-theist territory and he is DEFINITELY not without religion…
dieudonne on December 10, 2009 at 10:53 AM
Spong is MOST DEFINITELY without religion. Anybody who goes around touting how “MY god wouldn’t do” this or that is surely the master of his own universe and worshipper of none.
Skywise on December 10, 2009 at 10:54 AM
Yes, we can do that in this country, and not just religion either pretty much anything. Wonderful isn’t it. For the record I took no offense, just wanted to point out the danger of broad brush strokes.
Oldnuke on December 10, 2009 at 10:54 AM
His right to exercise his religion is restricted in the moment he has to defend his right (either with money or with time) to take office because of his religion. The monetary test exacted of him because of his religion is every bit as onerous as the poll (voting) tax exacted on blacks in Southern states many years ago.
As for atheists themselves, I don’t agree with their premise, but they (a) do not have a hierarchy dictating a particular dogma, as I, being a Catholic, do, and (b) they are certainly welcome, in the absence of such a hierarchical dogma, to independently pursue whatever path gives them the most freedom. After all, unbelief in a supreme being merely makes you the new supreme being within the confines of your mind.
This position is entirely consistent with my personal theistic beliefs, which has free will as part of the equation of a relationship with God. Choosing not to believe in Him is certainly an exercise in free will.
unclesmrgol on December 10, 2009 at 10:56 AM
Except for the fact that it’s unconstitutional by their own state’s constitution…
Skywise on December 10, 2009 at 10:56 AM
*grin* Read his books? He definitely is post-theist because he doesn’t ascribe personality to the divine (he sees it as a human limitation being projected out the infinite) but he certainly isn’t without religion. Saying “My God wouldn’t do that” is a statement of his understanding – not a declaration of mastery over god.
dieudonne on December 10, 2009 at 10:56 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »