Well I guess I'll never hold a civil position in this state...

C

Clak

CAGiversary!
So I was browsing reddit earlier and came across this Reuters article about atheist persecution around the world.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/10/us-religion-atheists-idUSBRE8B900520121210

This little tidbit got me curious:
In at least seven U.S. states, constitutional provisions are in place that bar atheists from public office and one state, Arkansas, has a law that bars an atheist from testifying as a witness at a trial, the report said.
Click to expand...

Hmm, which states?

Then i went looking for the report it's citing.

http://www.iheu.org/new-global-report-discrimination-against-nonreligious

Bottom of the page for PDF link.

I had a bad feeling that this state would be on that list, and sure enough:

Tennessee constitution (Article 9, Section 2):
“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.”
Click to expand...

You'll notice form that list that most of the states with constitutional bans are from the south. Big surprise, right?
 
[quote name='Clak']So I was browsing reddit earlier and came across this Reuters article about atheist persecution around the world.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/10/us-religion-atheists-idUSBRE8B900520121210

This little tidbit got me curious:


Hmm, which states?

Then i went looking for the report it's citing.

http://www.iheu.org/new-global-report-discrimination-against-nonreligious

Bottom of the page for PDF link.

I had a bad feeling that this state would be on that list, and sure enough:



You'll notice form that list that most of the states with constitutional bans are from the south. Big surprise, right?[/QUOTE]

That's not right. Are there any recent examples of this being enforced?

I'm sure there are many ridiculous and outdated laws on the books but I would have figured that by now something like this would have been challenged.

But then again how many atheists run for public office? I would think being open about that would hurt your chances of getting elected, especially in the south.
 
Hmm, then why the hell haven't those states removed that language from their constitutions?

Oh and in before the states rights, big gubment, blah blah herp derp begins.
 
I'm actually with you on this one, Clak. You oughta run with that as your main position. I think it would definitely open some eyes.
 
[quote name='Clak']Hmm, then why the hell haven't those states removed that language from their constitutions?[/QUOTE]

Because there likely haven't been any challenges to the laws.
 
Not to mention, it isn't just as simple as taking a bottle of white-out to the original document.

It's a similar, but more involved, reason as to why sodomy laws are still on the books in some states. It takes effort to repeal a law - and if it's not being enforced, no one really cares enough to spend the time/money to do it.

In the case of something in the actual state constitution, it could be one of those things where you have to go through all kinds of crazy things (signatures, constitutional convention, etc.) to get it changed. It's easier (not necessarily better) to just not enforce it.
 
Not to mention, it isn't just as simple as taking a bottle of white-out to the original document.

It's a similar, but more involved, reason as to why sodomy laws are still on the books in some states. It takes effort to repeal a law - and if it's not being enforced, no one really cares enough to spend the time/money to do it.

In the case of something in the actual state constitution, it could be one of those things where you have to go through all kinds of crazy things (signatures, constitutional convention, etc.) to get it changed. It's easier (not necessarily better) to just not enforce it.
 
If a law is enacted in a forest, and no one is around to be oppressed by it, does it make a sound? It sounds like the Supreme Court trumps whatever these states put into their constitutions, so why get your panties in a bunch over it? I can't imagine many overt atheists would have a chance of being voted into public offices in these states anyway. There's Pete Stark and he's in California.
 
I'm just gonna take a shot in the dark, maybe someone else can tell me. The last three posts, herp, derp, derp?
 
[quote name='Clak']I'm just gonna take a shot in the dark, maybe someone else can tell me. The last three posts, herp, derp, derp?[/QUOTE]
Good luck on your campaign!
 
[quote name='Clak']I'm just gonna take a shot in the dark, maybe someone else can tell me. The last three posts, herp, derp, derp?[/QUOTE]

And your reaction is based on what? You asked a question, and I gave you an answer.
 
[quote name='Clak']I'm just gonna take a shot in the dark, maybe someone else can tell me. The last three posts, herp, derp, derp?[/QUOTE]

Clak is "liberal" with the ignore feature. Most likely he honestly couldn't see those three posts... or this one for that matter.
 
it'll make more sense when it was enacted... if it was say 150 years ago, then it was "of the times" and no one bothered to fix the laws.

laws are made all the time, who has time to remove them?
 
[quote name='xycury']it'll make more sense when it was enacted... if it was say 150 years ago, then it was "of the times" and no one bothered to fix the laws.

laws are made all the time, who has time to remove them?[/QUOTE]

I was going to post something along the lines of this, I know some states have really dumb laws that haven't been removed.

A few always come to mind but it's so much more enjoyable just reading them

@clak, do you know when that was enacted into the corresponding states constitution?
 
[quote name='Clak']I'm just gonna take a shot in the dark, maybe someone else can tell me. The last three posts, herp, derp, derp?[/QUOTE]

Why do I get the feeling this was in response to the one post above it where the member didn't reply to this particular post? I also wouldn't know what it was because that same person is on my ignore list as well. I'm just gonna go ahead and also assume it was herp, derp, derp...
 
[quote name='Cantatus']And your reaction is based on what? You asked a question, and I gave you an answer.[/QUOTE]
Ok, when I posted that your post wasn't there. It was three folks I've got on ignore, not you.

Wtf...

Edit- Actually my post was originally under spokker's, making that the three posts.
 
[quote name='skiizim']I was going to post something along the lines of this, I know some states have really dumb laws that haven't been removed.

A few always come to mind but it's so much more enjoyable just reading them

@clak, do you know when that was enacted into the corresponding states constitution?[/QUOTE]
From what I can find, 1870. My points is though, that at any given time things like this could have been removed, but weren't. Sure plenty of states have silly laws that aren't enforced, but this isn't silly, this is real discrimination on the part of the state, written directly into it's constitution. Something I know some of us here would be fine with, but as the one being discriminated against, I'm certainly not. Surely in these states this has been brought up before as being incredibly wrong and simply unenforceable. Hell in TN's own constitution it also states there should be no test of religion.
 
[quote name='Cantatus']Well, now I don't feel special anymore![/QUOTE]
Everyone is special to someone!

Or so I've been told....;)
 
“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.”
Click to expand...

Why don't you declare yourself a god, and state that you're bringing in a new system of divine rewards and punishments when you get elected.

Can you say loophole!
 
[quote name='camoor']Why don't you declare yourself a god, and state that you're bringing in a new system of divine rewards and punishments when you get elected.

Can you say loophole![/QUOTE]
I don't believe in god....

I AM GOD!!!!!

Yeah something tells me that won't go over too well here. Everyone thinks they can talk to god, but as soon as someone claims to actually be god, well that's just insane....
 
[quote name='Clak']I don't believe in god....

I AM GOD!!!!!

Yeah something tells me that won't go over too well here. Everyone thinks they can talk to god, but as soon as someone claims to actually be god, well that's just insane....[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that's a conundrum...

If you talk to god, you are praying and are labelled religious.
If god talks to you or you claim to be god, you are labelled a schizophrenic.
Thomas Szasz has some nice writings about this, and the arbitrary nature of defining mental "disease."

BTW, even though I'm Catholic/Christian (in my own unique way... read Unamuno's San Manuel Bueno, Martir), the whole thing about atheists being denied various privileges in some states is downright silly...
 
[quote name='BigT']Yeah, that's a conundrum...

If you talk to god, you are praying and are labelled religious.
If god talks to you or you claim to be god, you are labelled a schizophrenic.
Thomas Szasz has some nice writings about this, and the arbitrary nature of defining mental "disease."

BTW, even though I'm Catholic/Christian (in my own unique way... read Unamuno's San Manuel Bueno, Martir), the whole thing about atheists being denied various privileges in some states is downright silly...[/QUOTE]

Kierkegaard goes into this in length with his dissection of Abraham and Isaac, one of those stories that most Christians prefer to ignore.
 
I've always thought that most religious people realize their beliefs are at least a little bullshit. I mean no jury is going to accept "god told me to kill my son", yet there it is in the Abrahamics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top