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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
I disagree. The same people at my public institution who went to the administration to have the atheist group listed as a “religious” group are the same people who would NEVER allow any idea suggesting a non-natural answer to the anti-science position of anti-entropy to be introduced in the classroom.
Again, individual atheists may not care… but as any sort of movement… they show up in big numbers on both sides. I suspect that if a court ruled that atheism was not a religion and then allowed atheist groups to be listed as religion groups… atheist would cheer both.
I seriously do not believe that atheists who do not that atheism is a religion would lament a legal decision on behalf of an atheist student organization seeking to be listed as a religious one… they want it both ways.
And for those who want atheism treated as a religion, I highly doubt that they would accept that other “religious” ideas be allowed into the classroom debate… they want it both ways.
mankai on December 10, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Ok. You’ve said individual atheists might not care but they show up on both sides as a movement. And somehow showing up on both sides as a movement doesn’t represent internal debate or different desires within the group – it really points out that the group as a whole wants it both ways. And even if they have a personal desire for one outcome they wouldn’t lament it turning out the other way because they secretly want it both ways.
Over-reduction and over simplification. I understand that it’s easier to treat them as a blob or a mono-culture but it doesn’t seem to work that way.
dieudonne on December 10, 2009 at 11:05 AM
Had he known the law, he wouldn’t have a monetary “test”… and I’d like to know which blacks decided they wanted to be black.
Valid points.
I don’t have a hierarchy that I look to. I am a Theology of One. Whether my personal conclusions move me in any particular direction with the lack of a hierarchy is inconsequential as to the definition of religion.
They can exercise their free wills all they want… I’m just concerned when they want that free will treated as a religion when it’s convenient and as not a religion when that’s convenient. (I’m generally agreeing with you.)
mankai on December 10, 2009 at 11:05 AM
No, he DOES describe personality to the divine. He just lumps everything he has philosophical problems with God about into “personality quirks” and then claims that they can’t really exist therefore his modified model of God is the correct one.
Therefore he cloaks himself in pseudo-babble claiming to be intellectualism all the while doing the same thing the rest of us do when wrestling with matters of faith, but not being honest about it at all.
Skywise on December 10, 2009 at 11:08 AM
Trust me, as a native of California for close to 60 years, your comparison/association to SF and Asheville is a condemnation the folks in Asheville may not care for. I pray that no region in this country can be as poisoned with such a mental disease that emanates from San Fran-sicko.
Rovin on December 10, 2009 at 11:10 AM
Your argument can be used of every single religious group on the planet. It is therefore irrelevant to my point.
Let’s take Baptists as an example. There are wildly different views amongst those who call themselves Baptists… but there is no stark contrast in LEGAL terms that exists among them as we see among atheists.
Name a LEGAL issue upon which Baptists want to viewed as a completely different and contradictory entity solely for legal advantage (whether they agree on specifics or not)? Conversely, show me an atheist who wants atheistic tenets kept out of the classroom based on the notion that it is a religion? Or an atheist who wants atheism treated as a non-religion who would refuse First Amendment rights or who would oppose an atheist student group from being listed as a religious group?
You are comparing apples to oranges.
mankai on December 10, 2009 at 11:11 AM
I believe you have misunderstood him. His book “Why Christianity Must Change or Die” is entirely devoted to explaining why he thinks it is an error to suggest that there is individuality or personality in the the Divine. He sees it as a human limitation being projected onto the divine (amongst other problems). He has also touched on this in other books and essays. I disagree with the man but he’s very clear about his ideas.
dieudonne on December 10, 2009 at 11:12 AM
That’s why I wrote “in terms of NC”…
;)
Asheville is bad… but straight up… nowhere near SF… although they do have their days up there.
mankai on December 10, 2009 at 11:12 AM
I would disagree. Incorporation decreases freedom by restricting choice. You have no choice but to live under the Federal rules. If that doctrine was not in effect, States would be free to experiment. Many of these would likely fail, but they would have options available that they do not now.
I am not saying that those rules are bad. Just that it does not increase freedom. No restriction by government does.
OBQuiet on December 10, 2009 at 11:12 AM
I’m always proud to see Americans trash one another.
dieudonne on December 10, 2009 at 11:13 AM
Since we’re into simile here, your question is better worded “I’d like to know which blacks decided they wanted to take a literacy test.” That certainly puts it into the correct framework.
As for the rest of it, as Vizzini said, “Now you drink from your cup, and I from mine…” And, of course, the atheists get to drink from theirs, as our Constitution dictates.
unclesmrgol on December 10, 2009 at 11:16 AM
As a lot of people figured out during the Prop 8 debate, older African Americans — NAACP-era — tend to be religious and conservatives. And a lot of leaders in organizations like that are preachers, deacons and senior lay people. Not surprising but not something I think a civil rights activists should be distracting himself with.
I wonder, if it did come down to a popular vote to amends the constitution, how the money and the politics would play out.
Bleeds Blue on December 10, 2009 at 11:18 AM
A clause which has been ignored and forgotten until now.
There are many weird/strange/illogical laws still on the books which DA’s wisely choose to ignore.
This clause will be thrown out and the gentleman will be seated.
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2009 at 11:18 AM
By the way, none of this has actually come to pass — the question mark in Ed’s title is significant.
We are all arguing hypotheticals; Mr. Bothwell seems to be only under rhetorical threat — not actual threat.
unclesmrgol on December 10, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Actually – I believe you are. The Baptists have organized themselves into a co-operative on some level. They come together, decide what they stand for, and then present that on a more-or-less unified basis. They are organized if not hierarchical so that they can co-operate and speak with a more-or-less unified voice in lawsuits for example. While democratic on the local level they present themselves as part of an organized movement.
Now who speaks for the atheists? If I stand up and say “I’m an atheist and I don’t want you doing this in school!” do I speak for all atheists or am I speaking for myself and whatever random collection of people decide they agree with me?
If another atheist says “I’m an atheist and a I DO want this done in school!” are they the REAL atheist?
dieudonne on December 10, 2009 at 11:19 AM
First of, this is techincally constitutional, because the constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” (emphasis mine), congress didn’t create this, it is a constitutional law, not a congressional one, so in that regard it is valid and doesn’t violate the 1st OR 14th amendments.
Secondly, for those who say that would invalidate the 2nd amendment at states, you will note that the second amendment does not give a restriction in abridgement. It states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” I want you to note, that it doesn’t say that congress shall not infringe, it states it shall not be infringed, period.
One (the 1st) is a qualified restriction, the other (2nd) is a unqualified restriction.
TKSnider on December 10, 2009 at 11:20 AM
And later amendments folded the Bill of Rights downward and made them binding on the states.
dieudonne on December 10, 2009 at 11:21 AM
I agree, that is what the 14th did. But again, it would hold that the state congress would not be able to make such laws, not that the constitution can’t. Again, it is a difference between a qualified and unqualifed restriction.
TKSnider on December 10, 2009 at 11:23 AM
And who wrote that constitution?
dieudonne on December 10, 2009 at 11:25 AM
Not the congress, it is not a congressional law. In fact, until the state constitution was drafted, they technically didn’t even have a ‘congress’ under the federal constitution.
So, in that regards the constitution is of and by the people, regardless of if it is a state or federal level.
TKSnider on December 10, 2009 at 11:27 AM
Dieudonne, I’m not arguing whether it is a good or bad constitutional statement, but it is legal and constitutional based upon the federal constitution.
Should it be repealed, probably, but that is upto the people of NC to do, not me.
TKSnider on December 10, 2009 at 11:28 AM
Every act of congress is an act of and by the people in as much as representatives and senators are elected to represent them. A congress most certainly did meet at a constitutional convention to come up with that state constitution. That doesn’t mean that anything they did there would be acceptable and not a congressional law.
dieudonne on December 10, 2009 at 11:29 AM
My question is: This is obviously unconstitutional, how did it get on the books in the first place?
[ignoring atheist/theist debate raging. There is no way that an atheist should ever be barred from public office.]
jimmy the notable on December 10, 2009 at 11:30 AM
I understand that you aren’t arguing a good or bad for it. Sorry if they way I wrote seemed to single you out. Do I sound angry?
dieudonne on December 10, 2009 at 11:33 AM
Oh I agree… he’s very clear about how God should act according to the gospel of Spong.
That’s essentially what I said. Everything he hates about God he’s lumped together into a philosophical personality problem ascribed by “man”. Therefore he can worship God without worrying about all those pesky philosophical problems and crises of faith that the rest of us of peons have to deal with.
Which, in reality, is the very opposite of the nature of Faith that *his own church* subscribes to.
Oh I agree, he’s very clear that everything he detests about “God” he’s bottled up as a personality problem that has been ascribed to “God” by human kind
Skywise on December 10, 2009 at 11:33 AM
People pass LOTS of unconstitutional laws. Many of them are quite popular. Especially when they single out a group of people that many others don’t like or find annoying.
dieudonne on December 10, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Of course, what is very interesting here is that the NAACP is decidedly liberal and Democratic…
…thus while I wouldn’t be surprised to see objections coming from the AA community, I AM surprised to see it coming from the NAACP.
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2009 at 11:35 AM
You can’t “throw out” a constitutional law. It has to be explicitly repealed by another act of the constitution.
Skywise on December 10, 2009 at 11:35 AM
“Throw out” – “over turned” – “repealed” – they all mean the same thing.
And remember, just because a law is on the books doesn’t mean that a DA will use/apply it.
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2009 at 11:36 AM
This is lame beyond measure and should be struck down. Let the voters decide.
TheUnrepentantGeek on December 10, 2009 at 11:36 AM
While logical, it is incorrect. There is a legal difference between congressional and constitutional law.
The congress can not, in the normal course of business, alter the constitution as they can pass and remove laws as it is the constitution that gives them their authority to act. Only the people of the state can give that authority.
Yes, in many states, there are ways for congress to bypass that and pass constitutional amendments, but those are in fact a basis of constitutional law, not congressional law.
The 14th amendment does, by way of the 1st, restrict state congresses from enacting laws of relegious establishment, but it does not restrict the consitutions from having them. The only way they could do that is if the 1st amendment was amended to remove the qualifier on who could not make laws.
TKSnider on December 10, 2009 at 11:36 AM
Ummm…
…it’s not “on the books”, it’s actually IN the NC state Constitution.
Which, of course, makes the term “unconstitutional” not really applicable here.
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Relegious Zealot,
They can’t not enforce it, they are required by oath to do so. This isn’t a law ‘on the books’, it is a constitutional requirement. They can’t seat him unless it is resolved, especially now that it has been brought to light.
But it isn’t unconstitutional. Stupid, sure. But not unconstitutional.
TKSnider on December 10, 2009 at 11:40 AM
My appoligies, the above is for Jimmy, not Zealot.
TKSnider on December 10, 2009 at 11:41 AM
The Constitution of North Carolina
“Art. 1 Sec. 5. Allegiance to the United States.
Every citizen of this State owes paramount allegiance to the Constitution and government of the United States, and no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or subversion thereof can have any binding force.”
seems pretty clear to me…
equanimous on December 10, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Actually I think there is a difference in essence there. Literally. When you said:
I’m following up with a statement about how he wrote a book about NOT doing that.
And when you say:
I’ll follow up that he has published a number of books about his this or that crisis of faith and these sorts of philosophical problems. He is apparently unable to have a private crisis of faith without publishing a book.
I understand that you appear to dislike the mans viewpoints. I don’t agree with him either. But I think you are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting him.
dieudonne on December 10, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Equanimous,
Again, that doesn’t violate the relegious clause, as they aren’t in violation of the US constitution. As I said above, the US constitution only stops congress from enacting such laws, not a constitutional prohibition.
TKSnider on December 10, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Except that a state constitution can be in conflict with the Federal constitution. And the Federal constitution should win out. State constitutions can’t subvert the Federal if the bill of rights has actually been folded down.
dieudonne on December 10, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Atheism is technically not a religion because it does not believe in the Divine. It’s not even an ideology, just an aspect of various ideologies. Marxism and Objectivism are both atheistic ideologies, but they couldn’t be further apart epistemologically, morally and politically.
I don’t think that constitutional prohibitions from government religious discrimination exists just for ideologies that are theistic. From an originalist perspective, when the Constitution was written there were no organized atheistic ideologies in America (AFAIK). Since that Amemdment was written to prohibit government tyranny over peoples values thoughts and ideals, the term “religion” was more meaningful than “ideology”. So when someone attempts to leverage this technical difference between a theistic ideology and an atheistic one in order to deny someone else this basic human right or to mis-characterize them as “religious”, they’re seriously misguided.
elfman on December 10, 2009 at 11:48 AM
The third clause of the article six of the US Constitution provides that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any public office.
dieudonne on December 10, 2009 at 11:50 AM
It never should have been ratified in that form, then. Goes against what this nation was founded on: freedom of belief. This seems fundamentally anti-freedom.
jimmy the notable on December 10, 2009 at 11:51 AM
I thought this was true, but I didn’t want to say anything. I wasn’t sure. I’m not a constitutional scholar, but they are Americans first, North Carolinians second.
jimmy the notable on December 10, 2009 at 11:53 AM
dieudonne on December 10, 2009 at 11:53 AM
The Constitution of North Carolina
Art. 1 Sec. 19. Law of the land; equal protection of the laws.
“No person shall be taken, imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the law of the land. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be subjected to discrimination by the State because of race, color, religion, or national origin.”
how about this one?
equanimous on December 10, 2009 at 11:53 AM
Spong is “de-personality-izing” God in his own image, which is, in effect,
a> “personality-izing” God.
b> having mastery over God.
Yes, I strongly disagree with his policies because they’re technobabble with no foundation of his theories other than what was dealt with in a better fashion in the book of Job thousands of years in the past. But then this gets him on all the “nice” talk shows where he can espouse *and is applauded for* his technobabble by the faithless while confusing the real issues of trying to deal with one’s own faith.
Skywise on December 10, 2009 at 11:53 AM
Ergo, the law is meaningless.
Skywise on December 10, 2009 at 11:55 AM
The Bill of Rights prohibits Federal, State and Local governments from enacting such laws. Otherwise, it would be “constitutional” for states to prohibit free speech, religion, assembly, private property etc…
elfman on December 10, 2009 at 11:55 AM
Ergo… ALL law is meaningless.
Skywise on December 10, 2009 at 11:55 AM
Thanks. This what I believed was true, but then I was being told because its North Carolina’s constitution, they can do whatever the fudge they want. That didn’t seem Right to me.
jimmy the notable on December 10, 2009 at 11:55 AM
Just imagine what California would be like then. Imagine it. Heh.
jimmy the notable on December 10, 2009 at 11:57 AM
I think the post title needs to be changed to “Atheist finally find an example of discrimination”.
DethMetalCookieMonst on December 10, 2009 at 11:58 AM
You’ve grossly misunderstood his work. I disagree with him but I believe he is very clear. At no point does he “de-personalitize god in his own image.” THAT is technobabble. It is literally a logical contradiction. And, again, stating your understanding of God is not mastery over him.
I think you are letting your dislike for his ideas mislead you.
dieudonne on December 10, 2009 at 11:58 AM
They can’t make a religious test but they CAN legally prevent certain people from holding office and that’s left up to the states to decide. (IE Some states bar felons from holding office, most bar non-citizens, etc)
The question is… is Atheism a religion and therefore protected by the first amendment?
Skywise on December 10, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Don’t thank me. equanimous tossed out the best part back at 11:44 AM when he quoted the NC constitution as saying:
he did his homework and actually consulted the state constitution while I debated a bishop with Skywise. =)
dieudonne on December 10, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Dieudonne,
You may have something there. I’d never really studied that part of Article 6, having always concerned myself more with the first two parts of that article (which have always seemed more important for typical discussions).
Not sure (by the writing) if it could be taken down as far as this is, as it doesn’t mention anything about anything below a state level public office, but that could, in theory, be extrapolated out. It would certainly invalidate it (and should of from the start)for anything above county level positions at the very least though.
TKSnider on December 10, 2009 at 12:02 PM
No, you’re letting your like for his ideas mislead you.
Again.
Spong is removing the “elements of personality of God” that he thinks causes man to “misunderstand God” to absolve his crisis of faith.
That, in and of itself, is giving God a form/function/personality that is ***acceptable to Spong***
So Spong rewrites God in his own image to be acceptable to Spong.
Skywise on December 10, 2009 at 12:04 PM
I see it as the absence of religious belief, in that an atheist is, IMO, technically a religious definition. You can’t ban someone from office on a religious definition. There’s no other way to categorize atheism.
jimmy the notable on December 10, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Mind you – I think the congress of NC knew about that article and wrote this anyway. People write lots of laws of questionable constitutionality and count on them never REALLY being enforced or carefully avoid court judgments that would strike them down.
dieudonne on December 10, 2009 at 12:05 PM
I thought I thanked him too. It was good quotes all around. I mean, obviously the state constitution can’t supercede the federal one. Just doesn’t make sense.
jimmy the notable on December 10, 2009 at 12:06 PM
But if atheism gets labeled as an “official religion” this impacts a LOT of other laws…
Skywise on December 10, 2009 at 12:07 PM
This is not a “religious test”. Belief in God is not religion. Religion is a man-made organization that teaches a philosophy about God. The reason the Bill of Rights has its first amendment is because in the old days, membership in a particular church (i.e. the Anglican Church) was a requirement for advancement in government, which was both to the detriment of religious freedom and to good government. The founders wanted people to be free to worship God in their own way without political corruption. They wanted church and state to be separate, not God and state. The idea of a non-Christian running even a local government would probably have struck them as quite bizarre.
joe_doufu on December 10, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Also I’d point out what many atheists here have pointed out to me on this board.
Absence of religion is not a religion.
Skywise on December 10, 2009 at 12:09 PM
This isn’t about a test ruling out particular religions, but one only accepting believers in one particular one (with a diversity of sects). You seem to be saying its okay to select against people for what they don’t believe, but not for what they do believe.
Count to 10 on December 10, 2009 at 12:09 PM
I just see it as if there is an implied “(or lack thereof)” in the constitution. But you’re right, this could set atheists up for religious protection. I’m not sure whether they’d want that or not. They’re hard to figure out.
jimmy the notable on December 10, 2009 at 12:10 PM
Jimmy,
The question Sky is asking is valid though and it should come down to that defination. If Atheism is not a relegion, then it doesn’t fall under that protection and therefore, this isn’t a relegious test. If they define atheism as a relegion, then it becomes a relegious test and thus is unconstitutional. Sometimes a defination means everything.
The correct means for this argument isn’t the 1st amendment, as it is constitution in that regard, but Article 6, as mentioned above.
TKSnider on December 10, 2009 at 12:11 PM
…and I would have to find some other word to describe my views on the issue…
Count to 10 on December 10, 2009 at 12:11 PM
You are capable of reading and understanding the statement that I disagree with Spong aren’t you? I can think you are wrong because I sincerely believe you to be confused and unclear on his ideas without liking his.
No. He is not performing some surgical removal that leaves god otherwise intact minus the emotions and personality there before. He is proposing a radical and total reconceptualization. He proposes removing the ENTIRETY of personality from the concept of the divine – not elements – not parts – the entirety. He states that the divine has no individuality, personality, or unique being.
And again – this new idea is not entirely acceptable even to Spong. He regularly writes about his struggles of faith and philosophy when trying to understand this concept of God. While asserting the truth of it he also cannot fully comprehend it and the challenges of faith remain. This isn’t merely tossing God out and replacing him with something Spong wants. If that was all he was doing there wouldn’t be this or that crisis of faith to struggle with.
dieudonne on December 10, 2009 at 12:13 PM
Testing for religion positively and testing for religion negatively are both religious tests.
Count to 10 on December 10, 2009 at 12:14 PM
Would this test disbar a Hindu from being allowed to hold office? Yes, and Hinduism is, without question, a religion. Therefore, whether or not it really applies in this case, the article in question is unconstitutional, because it *is* a religious test of office.
jimmy the notable on December 10, 2009 at 12:14 PM
In regards to the LAW, yes. Atheism is NOT a belief system… right?
I don’t support the law. But I do argue that it’s not protected by the first amendment. The states DO have the legal right to restrict whom they want to hold office so long as it doesn’t infringe upon the US constitution.
Skywise on December 10, 2009 at 12:15 PM
There may be some wiggle room on this (though I don’t think it would be a particularly good resolution) if he hasn’t actually stated “I deny the existence of God”, or even if he simply states “I don’t deny that God could exist”.
Count to 10 on December 10, 2009 at 12:17 PM
Errr. Yes it is. It’s a belief system that denies the existence of a creator god. That doesn’t make it NOT a belief system. It just makes it a belief system in which some things are denied.
dieudonne on December 10, 2009 at 12:18 PM
I’m not sure about that Jimmy, the clause is pretty generic in the defination of who ‘God’ is. Never does it state that it is the Jewish or Christian God, nor does it forbid someone who follows another god. Just a belief in an almighty god.
Really, this could go either way. Like many others, I do not support the law, but that doesn’t mean it is unconsitutional.
This test does not test for positive or negative relegion, but a positive negative believe in God. God and relegion are not the same thing, one can follow a relegion and not believe in a god, one can believe in a god and not follow a relegion. Semantics, I know. But sometimes these cases come down to semantics.
TKSnider on December 10, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Which is exactly what I said.
That, in and of itself, is giving God a form/function/personality that is ***acceptable to Spong***
Of course not… but you see, I’ve read Spong. Without this theory of his, he’d be much further from accepting God than he is. Spong has said so himself.
Skywise on December 10, 2009 at 12:21 PM
That sounds about right. Not being eligible for office can’t really be considered a restriction on free expression, though it might be iffy on the establishment of an official religion. The relevant clause would be the “no religious test” one, which would be up to whether or not that is incorporated to the states. The reality is that this is a restriction on the voters as to who they can put in office, and not a restriction on the candidate.
Count to 10 on December 10, 2009 at 12:21 PM
Do you believe it to be a religious test?
dieudonne on December 10, 2009 at 12:22 PM
Not as has been argued to me here in these forums… But I note suddenly EVERYONE’S religious now…
Skywise on December 10, 2009 at 12:23 PM
It would be more accurate to say atheists refuse to worship a god (creator or otherwise).
Count to 10 on December 10, 2009 at 12:23 PM
Not I.
Count to 10 on December 10, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Torcaso v. Watkins
VerbumSap on December 10, 2009 at 12:26 PM
How so? Hindu is very theistic. (They’ve got more Gods than we do! To paraphrase Mel Brooks…)
Skywise on December 10, 2009 at 12:27 PM
Dieudonne,
I really don’t know. I’ve never been one (other than jokingly) to beleive that Atheism is a religion. I’ve always seen it more of an anti-religion. So in that regard, since they are not requiring one to be of a specific relegion, it is not.
On the other hand, it is denying one the right to run for an office because they believe differently than I might.
I have no issues with people who are athiests, other than those who attempt to destroy what I believe in because it offends them. I’m am just not sure I could rule this in violation of the constitution, but I’m not sure I couldn’t either.
One thing is clear though, this is not a violation of the 1st amendment. But it could be of Article 6, might.
TKSnider on December 10, 2009 at 12:28 PM
No. It isn’t. It really isn’t what you said. You said it removed elements. It doesn’t remove elements and leave everything else intact. It’s a bottom up completely new vision of God. Just like you said that he “No, he DOES describe personality to the divine.” and I pointed you back to the specific books in which he condemns that idea.
And you keep saying:
And I keep emphasising that it isn’t acceptable to Spong. He’s written several books about how it isn’t acceptable, about how he struggles with it, how he believes it to be true but can’t comprehend it all.
I’ve also read him. In his entirety. I think you’ve grossly misunderstood him. Certainly you statements about him here have veered wildly. First you say he does ascribe personality to God, then you say he has removed elements of it, and then you say he is “de-personalityzing him in his own image” (a complete logical contradiction) and suggested that my fondness for Spong’s ideas were clouding me when I was very clear from the beginning that I disagreed with him.
dieudonne on December 10, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Ahh… well that settles that then. This shouldn’t even be an issue then other than a summary court hearing…
Skywise on December 10, 2009 at 12:30 PM
SOME strains of hinduism do. Astika schools of Hindu philosophy are specifically atheistic.
dieudonne on December 10, 2009 at 12:31 PM
I disagree with that court decision, if it is in the state constitution, it is not a violation of the 1st or 14th amendments. That was a bad decision (for the right reason, but the decision itself was unconstitutional)
TKSnider on December 10, 2009 at 12:32 PM
Dieudonne,
They still believe in a being higher than themselves, just not a creator god (which this law doesn’t forbid). Some sects of some relegions believe that all is a dream, but that would make the dreamer their ‘god’ as it were.
Just about any ‘religion’ in the world could be justified in this way.
TKSnider on December 10, 2009 at 12:35 PM
Simple. If they’re a philosophy they’re not a religion.
Skywise on December 10, 2009 at 12:36 PM
Actually, all religions are philosophies, not all philosophies are religions. By technical defination, a religion has to have a belief in a higher being to be a religion. Many religions have a living philosophy, but is not required. The one thing it seems to require is that it has a belief in the supernatural and some aspect of faith in that belief.
Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back — more at rely
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
— re·li·gion·less adjective
TKSnider on December 10, 2009 at 12:41 PM
Very correct.
Possibly. Many Taoists do not teach any belief in the supernatural. They do teach that the universe has a balance and that they universe is greater than themselves. But Carl Sagan said the same thing and he was clearly an atheist.
dieudonne on December 10, 2009 at 12:46 PM
And listen to the applause. Un-$%^&ing-believable.
RightOFLeft on December 10, 2009 at 12:49 PM
And I’m off. It’s been a pleasure. =)
dieudonne on December 10, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Asheville is a very left of center town full of artsy, liberal types. I’d say the proportion of atheists to general population in Asheville is higher than any other part of the state (with the possibly exception of Chapel Hill). It does not surprise me that the city elected an atheists. (The Billy Graham book is a big story there because Graham has his home near the city.)
As a Christian conservative, I wouldn’t have voted for this guy (making the assumption that he is a liberal. Again safe assumption for Asheville), but that doesn’t mean he should be allowed to serve if elected by the people.
Christians should have a better view of history than to shrug this off. It wasn’t too long ago, historically speaking, that Protestants had limited rights in England and even in colonial America dissenters like Baptists had few rights and could be imprisoned for not being a good Anglican.
The only thing this NAACP guy has accomplished is making the atheist a martyr and more than likely having the Supreme Court strike down religious requirement.
wardrobedoor on December 10, 2009 at 1:01 PM
But they clearly don’t believe in the Almighty God. They would deny that vociferously. If it had said Creator, there might be some wiggle room.
jimmy the notable on December 10, 2009 at 1:02 PM
Oops: Should say “that doesn’t mean he should NOT be allowed to serve if elected by the people.”
wardrobedoor on December 10, 2009 at 1:03 PM
I have no argument with an atheist running for office, but Bothwell is wrong when he says that his “world-view” is irrelevant for his public office. What a person believes is relevant. For example, if you believe that the ancestors of human beings are Sea Stars then you are a few fries short of a Happy Meal and the American people should question your judgment.
apacalyps on December 10, 2009 at 1:11 PM
What happened to State’s Rights. Last time I checked, the Constitution wasn’t to bar states from making rules with their Constitution.
So let the state ban who they chose to ban…I think it’s dumb, but I’d rather adhere to the Constitution as intended.
Tim Burton on December 10, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Are they then allowed to ban speech as well? Black people? Gays? Its a public office. If the people want to vote for someone, there should be no restrictions other than *maybe* felons.
jimmy the notable on December 10, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Yes, because Federalism will correct the issue on their own when people vote with their feet.
Which is better? Federalism based on Republican ideals (Not the GoP) or a tyrannical judge telling us something is wrong? Which is less likely to result in abuse?
If people don’t like it they can amend their Constitution, if a judges make the order, who can reconcile their disagreement?
Tim Burton on December 10, 2009 at 1:33 PM
Jimmy,
The thing is, if it is in their constitution, it is legal. The 1st amendment doesn’t restrict what is in the constitution.
That is why amendment 10 exists, it is to reinforce that the constituion is a restrictive document, it covers what the government is allowed to do, not a guideline for how they may act. Anything not so designated as authorized to the federal government is the responsiblity of the state and the people ultimately.
In this case, the congress (not the government or constution) can not create laws to establish religion, create laws that abridge the freedom of the press. But until the 14th that didn’t stop states congresses from doing so and then even with the 14th, it doesn’t stop their constitutions from doing so.
On the other hand, the second amendment is a clear statement that the right can not be infringed at all and with the 14th, that actually would include state constitutions as well, because even the constitution is forbidden from infringing that right, unlike the first where the restriction is for congress only.
Sometimes a simple word in these phrases will completely change the way the whole thing is worded and back when this was written, the people who wrote the constitution were very strong in this regard and phrased things very carefully for just such reasons.
TKSnider on December 10, 2009 at 1:47 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »