In most states you have to use all your social connections to get elected to public office. Church is a huge social connection in the South. Ive seen candidates who ran for governor faithfully attend church until the election was over and then suddenly stop attending after they lost. SC's current Governor Haley whose family is Hindu "converted" to United Methodist right before her dive into politics. Just saying that she believed in a "supreme being" wasnt even good enough, she had to be Christian to get elected. It doesnt matter politically if you run as an atheist, Hindu, or Buddhist, you arent going to get elected in most states unless you run as a Christian. There are some exceptions to this rule because of course we have Jewish political leaders in the South but not many. The federal law (Torcaso v Watkins) supercedes in this case legally, but it really doesnt matter cause no atheist or non Judeo Christian is going to get elected in most of these states any way. Not fair, but our political system is FU! Yes I agree!
PA doesn't ban atheists. It prohibits banning anyone based on their religion.
Article 1, Section 4. 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.
any person aspiring to political office who states that they are atheist in these united states will not get to hold that office. Articles such as the above posted confirm that the people still hold bigotry and hatred to those who don't believe as they do.
Jeremy, read the first line of Article 1, section 4. "No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments…" Atheists by definition do NOT acknowledge this, therefore they don't receive the protection this article claims to grant.
If an atheist has been elected in PA *despite* this state constitutional ban, it doesn't change the fact that the ban is codified into said state constitution.
Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins) expressly prohibits States and the Federal Government from requiring any kind of religious test for public office. Just because they're on the books doesn't mean they're valid anymore.
[...] Did you know that it is illegal for atheists to hold public office in 7 states? You did? Oh you’re so smart. Can you name all 7? (Death And Taxes) [...]
TN is amusing. Yes, it does ban atheists from office. But first, it bans "Ministers of the Gospel" (because they "ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their functions"). It concludes by banning anyone who fights a duel. I find it nice to have a nearby piece of evidence that the document doesn't always fit with our times.
AR not only bans atheists from office, but also from being considered competent to testify as a witness in any court.
[...] Interesting… Atheists are currently banned from holding public office in the states of: Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Pennsylvania. This should be extended to all 50 states. These 7 states ban Atheists from holding public office | Death and Taxes [...]
a good way to mess with such states would be to run for office if you are a member of a religion that is technically atheist (one that does not believe in any gods,) maybe one such as Jainism (10th laergest religion in the world, BTW, according to wikipedia.) That would easily point out how the law is unconstitutional while not allowing the "constitution does not guarantee freedom from religion, only freedom of religion" argument to come into play, as it would be clear discrimination against a particular religion were they to attempt to apply the law.
June 06, 2012 at 10:13 pm, Jim S. Jams said:
This is beyond fucked up. What happened to separation?
June 10, 2012 at 8:55 pm, Lisa Roberts said:
In most states you have to use all your social connections to get elected to public office. Church is a huge social connection in the South. Ive seen candidates who ran for governor faithfully attend church until the election was over and then suddenly stop attending after they lost. SC's current Governor Haley whose family is Hindu "converted" to United Methodist right before her dive into politics. Just saying that she believed in a "supreme being" wasnt even good enough, she had to be Christian to get elected. It doesnt matter politically if you run as an atheist, Hindu, or Buddhist, you arent going to get elected in most states unless you run as a Christian. There are some exceptions to this rule because of course we have Jewish political leaders in the South but not many. The federal law (Torcaso v Watkins) supercedes in this case legally, but it really doesnt matter cause no atheist or non Judeo Christian is going to get elected in most of these states any way. Not fair, but our political system is FU! Yes I agree!
June 06, 2012 at 10:32 pm, Steve Lustig said:
These laws cannot be enforceable under the federal First Amendment.
July 17, 2012 at 10:27 am, Kyle Goodman said:
A lot of laws cannot be constitutionally enforced. XD Enjoy your ban!
June 06, 2012 at 11:04 pm, Cory Hauptman said:
dammit that's three of the four states I've lived in!
June 07, 2012 at 5:33 am, Kyla C. Burgess said:
WHAT?! How is this possible/ legal?
June 07, 2012 at 12:01 am, Mike Palacio said:
I did not know this crazy little piece of information… Not surprised on most of em, but PA? shame.
June 07, 2012 at 2:38 pm, Jon Kostesich said:
PA doesn't ban atheists. It prohibits banning anyone based on their religion.
Article 1, Section 4.
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.
June 07, 2012 at 4:25 pm, Kyle Ingram said:
you realize though that an atheist doesn't acknowledge the being of a god, so this would make them not included in this..
June 08, 2012 at 4:20 am, Jeremy Nicoll said:
At the same time, Kyle, they are not banned from office either. When's the last time an atheist has been denied office?
June 09, 2012 at 6:35 pm, Kyle Ingram said:
any person aspiring to political office who states that they are atheist in these united states will not get to hold that office. Articles such as the above posted confirm that the people still hold bigotry and hatred to those who don't believe as they do.
June 11, 2012 at 5:09 pm, D'Arcy Mann said:
Jeremy, read the first line of Article 1, section 4. "No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments…" Atheists by definition do NOT acknowledge this, therefore they don't receive the protection this article claims to grant.
If an atheist has been elected in PA *despite* this state constitutional ban, it doesn't change the fact that the ban is codified into said state constitution.
June 19, 2012 at 10:14 pm, Misty Tempest Barnes said:
Jon failed reading comprehension in school.
September 19, 2012 at 4:11 am, Dwayne D-Rob Robinson said:
Jon, Kyle is correct in his assessment of what you posted.
December 07, 2012 at 3:45 am, Tony Kurth said:
Jeremy Nicoll Please do me the favor of naming 1 atheist in public office.
June 07, 2012 at 2:51 pm, Kasey Bevers said:
Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins) expressly prohibits States and the Federal Government from requiring any kind of religious test for public office. Just because they're on the books doesn't mean they're valid anymore.
June 07, 2012 at 10:52 pm, Steven Skorheim said:
all horrible places. don't know what kind of moron would move to any of them.
June 07, 2012 at 11:02 pm, Kasey Bevers said:
the kind of moron who needed a job.
June 10, 2012 at 3:28 pm, Lisa Roberts said:
the kind of moron who was born there, has family, friends and a job there. Thanks Steven.
June 10, 2012 at 6:12 pm, Kasey Bevers said:
Don't mind him. He just enjoys being an ass
June 10, 2012 at 8:23 pm, Steven Skorheim said:
there are a lot of morons born in Texas, as is evident here
November 12, 2012 at 3:00 pm, Kimberly Frazier Baker said:
I was thinking the same thing Lisa. I'm not a moron, I'm a person who loves my family, friends, and a person who wants to make her state better.
June 07, 2012 at 2:27 pm, Stephen Colbert Names America’s Most Likable Gay Person | SPH - Small penis humiliation said:
[...] Did you know that it is illegal for atheists to hold public office in 7 states? You did? Oh you’re so smart. Can you name all 7? (Death And Taxes) [...]
June 10, 2012 at 6:53 pm, John W. Scott said:
Agreed that PA doesn't truly count.
TN is amusing. Yes, it does ban atheists from office. But first, it bans "Ministers of the Gospel" (because they "ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their functions"). It concludes by banning anyone who fights a duel. I find it nice to have a nearby piece of evidence that the document doesn't always fit with our times.
AR not only bans atheists from office, but also from being considered competent to testify as a witness in any court.
October 29, 2012 at 11:08 am, Will atheism/non-belief be illegal in the U.S. in the future? - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 20 - City-Data Forum said:
[...] Interesting… Atheists are currently banned from holding public office in the states of: Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Pennsylvania. This should be extended to all 50 states. These 7 states ban Atheists from holding public office | Death and Taxes [...]
April 15, 2013 at 8:23 am, Thomas Snert King said:
a good way to mess with such states would be to run for office if you are a member of a religion that is technically atheist (one that does not believe in any gods,) maybe one such as Jainism (10th laergest religion in the world, BTW, according to wikipedia.) That would easily point out how the law is unconstitutional while not allowing the "constitution does not guarantee freedom from religion, only freedom of religion" argument to come into play, as it would be clear discrimination against a particular religion were they to attempt to apply the law.