(no subject)

[alexmegami]

So we're having a conversation on the Stupid Evil Bastard forum, and the topic of constitutional freedom from religion.

Apparently, the arguments that the fundamentalists use is, in some cases, correct: you don't get freedom FROM religion, you just get freedom TO religion.

Quoted post here; bulk of message behind the LJ-cut



Arkansas State Constitution, Article 19 Section 1 ("Miscellaneous Provisions")

QUOTE
No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court.

Maryland's Declaration of Rights, Article 36

QUOTE
"That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefore either in this world or in the world to come."


---so, for those of you that want the Coles Notes, in Arkansas you can't testify in court without belief in God (assumedly decreed by finishing the oath with "so help me God"), and in Maryland you can't serve as a juror.

It goes on; in SEVEN DIFFERENT STATES, lack of belief in God or Heaven is grounds for being unable to run for governor or other official positions.

Quotes:

Mississippi State Constitution. Article 14 ("General Provisions"), Section 265

QUOTE
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.


North Carolina's State Constitution, Article 6 Section 8

QUOTE
"Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."


Pennsylvania's State Constitution, Article 1 Section 4

QUOTE
"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."

Note that this one merely protects other religions; still, there's nothing saying that you can't discriminate against atheists.

South Carolina's State Constitution, Article 4 Section 2

QUOTE
"No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor who denies the existence of the Supreme Being; ..."

Note: If you continue reading you will find that (in Section 8) the Lieutenant Governor must also meet the same qualifications as the Governor.

Tennessee's State Constitution, Article 9 Section 2

QUOTE
"No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."

Texas' State Constitution, Article 1 Section 4

QUOTE
"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."



It's really kind of sickening. In fact, very sickening.

Comments

[sasuran.livejournal.com]

Oooch, those are bad. But, keep in mind - most were probably written in the eighteen-hundreds - there are a lot of old laws that have simply been ignored, rather than repealed, because no one wants to take the time to change them. (Like all those stupid laws you hear about on the radio all the time).

I'd be much more worried if this were a new law being passed - like the one in France banning Muslims from wearing a certain dress that shows their religion. :\

[alexmegami]

While that is probably so, it doesn't change the fact that they're still there - and could be used as a tool to boot an atheist out of a trial, jury, or race for position. :/ Not that, from what I can tell, Americans would vote an atheist in for anything anyway, regardless of platform. >.<

The France law is pretty strict, but it only covers schools, from what I understand, and applies to pretty much any show of religion. France is pretty dogmatically secular. And I don't agree with them, either; it's just their attempts to reduce racism and religious bigotry. Misguided, but that's what they're trying for, I think.

[sasuran.livejournal.com]

*nods* I'd agree the laws are worth changing, but like many things, it will probably only be got around to when it becomes an issue (i.e., someone actually tries to use it to get someone kicked out).

I don't see how changing what one wears can reduce racism, though - race is usually fairly obvious (into the major divisions, anyways...) by physical appearance. As to religious bigotry, what you wear doesn't determine whether or not you are a bigot. (And again, would atheists, who generally don't have symbols or clothes etc. associated with their beliefs, be considered free of bigotry, then, in France?) Let me tell you, if someone told me I couldn't wear my cross to school, I'd drop out of school and self-study. What they are doing is saying that anyone under 18 doesn't have a right to freedom of expression - they'd never get away with this in an adult workplace. I had my faith when I was fairly young (probably 10?), and my family doesn't attend church, so no one could "blame" my parents for my beliefs.

Oh yeah, would I be mad. :\

Then again, this makes me wonder about what it means to be "secular" - I much prefer religious tolerance to banning any faith that involves a God. (I maintain that atheism is as much a matter of faith as most religions are - out of curiosity, what's your view on something like that?)

[jaceling.livejournal.com]

"Let me tell you, if someone told me I couldn't wear my cross to school, I'd drop out of school and self-study."

Out of curiosity, what if the converse was true? What if someone told you that you must wear your cross to school.

[sasuran.livejournal.com]

If it's my cross, I'd honestly have less of an issue. If I weren't Christian, then I would. If someone was told to and they had that much of an issue, I'm pretty sure they could make enough of a racket to get kicked out. (Whereas in the "can't wear a cross" case, I'd just drop out. ^^;; )

[alexmegami]

Agh, I meant to get back to this but I forgot >.<

Racism in France (again, to the best of my understanding) is very closely linked to religion. The entire idea behind banning religious clothing was to prevent religious bigotry against those women, not by them. (Ironic, I know.) Without a specific marker to demonstrate that they are Muslim/Christian/Jewish/etc., no one would know, therefore reducing religious (and racial) tensions in schools.

I disagree that they're necessarily 'banning' freedom of expression - adult workplaces and schools usually have dress codes. Nor are they not allowed to talk about their faith. I do agree that it is a stupid law, but not for that reason.

"Secular" itself just means non-religious. The American government, in theory (if not practice) is secular - seperate from church and state. Canadian government likewise. Some places just enforce their secularism more dogmatically than others (just as some places enforce their religion more dogmatically in others).

And, again, France is not banning faith; France is banning clothing in one specific location, on the same basis that most Canadian schools have banned "gang-related paraphernalia".

As for atheism being a matter of faith, the answer is no. Since there is no physical evidence of God that we can point to and say, "that is God", an atheist's view of the world supports what can currently be proven empirically. Atheism can be considered "correct" for all logical proof and material evidence. There is nothing for the atheist to require faith in.

That doesn't negate the possibility that there is a God, mind you, just that the current world does not support material evidence for one.