Well, I’m in Texas and if I decided to run for office (og forbid) I should be ok, since I “acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being”, namely ME! No problem!
How did the State (or whatever branch of it was approving the applicants) even know that he was an atheist in the first place?
The Wikipedia article says, “His application was rejected after he crossed off the phrase ‘So help me God’ from the oath, which was required by the South Carolina State Constitution.”
Not the government, but the law protects this class of person?
I note that all of these (currently unenforceable) provisions refer to a singular deity.
In the absence of caselaw prohibiting any kind of a religious test, or in the event of new caselaw reversing that precedent, could these provisions be used to bar polytheistic believers?
My thought from years ago, that a hostile witness could impair their reliability in front of jurors by refusing to be sworn in on a bible… But apparently they don’t use a bible nowadays.
I’m not familiar with eastern religions, but don’t some of them not have a supreme being or beings as the core of the belief system?
Yeah, it’s usually just the clerk (or, at times, the judge) saying “Raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?”
Most people just say yes, but there was one woman I saw respond with “So help me God.”
He crossed out “so help me God” from the oath.
As I remember from being a juror, the phrase was “Do you swear or affirm.”
I see your courtroom wasn’t as lazy as most! Yes, I agree that this is the correct language, precisely to avoid requiring somebody to “swear” in contradiction of their own religious beliefs. It seems this should also apply to atheists - you don’t have to pledge an oath before god, you just have to agree to be honest.
What would be the point of asking a non-believer to swear an oath before a God they don’t believe in? They have no fear of being sent to Hell for lying.
“I swear that the evidence that I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and acknowledge that failure to do so may result in my prosecution and conviction for the crime of perjury.”
Isn’t the operative point the “or prohibiting its free exercise”? Meaning that the free exercise of religion would include the right to NOT exercise it?
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. Would you care to make your point more clear?
MY point would be that discrimination based on status of religious belief would be equally bad, regardless of the number of people affected.
Most atheists are “soft” atheists IME. That is they have no belief in any god but do not assert a positive belief there is no god.
So you could argue they are not caught by the provisions that exclude someone who “denies the being of a God”.
I believe that’s changing. I was a soft atheist. A manger in the town square was something I could ignore. But lately the attitude of theists toward me has hardened and nowadays I’m the one fighting for my rights.
Enough is enough.
I would say that’s irrelevant to the hard vs soft issue. Is your belief that there’s no evidence for gods, or is your belief that gods absolutetly don’t exist? That would inform whether you are a hard or soft atheist. Choosing to protest or ignore a manger in the town square doesn’t impact that. There are plenty of theists who choose to protest a manger in the town square.
The soft/hard atheist distinction I’m making is not a distinction as to militancy.
It’s more of a philosophical distinction about whether one has no belief in any god, or whether one positively believes there is no god.
I believe there is no god, but could under circumstances hare do imagine be convinced there is one. I’ve been told that isn’t a belief as strong as the belief of most deists who would say they would not accept any proof there is no god. The argument that it’s the same because you can’t prove a negative falls on deaf ears.
I’ve seen many threads here on the SDMB devolve into debates over the meaning of the term “atheist,” with some insisting that the term includes all those who lack a positive belief that there is a God, even if they don’t asset that God does not exist.
So I assumed @Princhester’s original point was that “denies the being of a God” was a sufficient, but not a necessary, condition for being included under the label “atheist.”