Im a devout Christian. but i was shocked by something i picked up from that bastion of time-wasting, fark.com. Here is the link
http://www.nebraskaatheists.org/article1.htm
This looks like clear discrimination against atheists, and im suprised that there hasnt been any uproar over it. In this day and age, how can those states still have those statutes on their books? And why haven’t they repealed? Are atheists actually denied the chance to stand for office because of the laws?
I’d love to see somebody try to enforce those - what a circus that would be
At first it seems obvious that each of those state constitutions openly and directly violates the federal provision of separation of church and state. But there is no doubt that if they were challenged, they would claim that the separation clause only refers to the state supporting one religion over another. Technically, though, there is nothing I know of in the Constitution that refers in any way to one who has no religion or belief at all.
The point is moot anyway. In virtually every state, county, or municipality, by tradition if not by law, an electee must be sworn in before he/she can take office. Constitutional or not, can you imagine anyone refusing to be sworn? If you don’t at least pretend to believe in a supreme being good luck getting elected to any office in America.
Of course atheists are discriminated against in the US. So are short people, fat people, the halt, the lame, the physically deformed, and most people who could be called ugly by our society’s narrow standards of acceptable appearance. Can you name a hunchback that achieved political office even if he/she was a genius? I doubt it. That’s not rally a challenge, but if anybody knows of one, I’d welcome the opportunity to say I was wrong. It would raise my estimation of people in general.) Discrimination is a fact of life. The disturbing thing is that it’s still written into some of our laws (re. the examples in the link.
In 1987, Bush senior said, “I don’t know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.”
To laugh? Or to cry?
Could you imagine if he had said that about any other “denomination”? Mormons? Jews? Muslims?
I believe this has been shown to b an urban legend. I’ll try to get a site later (it’s not mentioned in Snopes), but as I recall efforts to verify the conversation between Bush and atheist journalist Robert Sherman came up empty.
They haven’t been repealed because no one’s challenged them. And no one has challenged them because no one has been denied the chance to stand for office because of them. In fact, I’d be surprised if anyone outside of a few legal scholars even take any notice of them.
And The Great Unwashed, that quote gets bandied about quite frequently, but I’m not sure that anyone has ever corroborated the story beyond the one guy who says it happened.
Only because bigots refused to believe Sherman because he was an atheist. Google the quote and you’ll find more on the topic.
Find me one corroborating witness, DesertGeezer.
Just because there were no other witnesses, does not mean it did not happen. Some events have only one witness, yet still actually occurred, believe it or not.
I can see why people say they don’t believe it, but I am always amazed at the people who are so sure it was made up. It seems possible either way to me.
Very true, Revtim, but the fact that this came at a big news conference in Chicago, with lots of other reporters around doesn’t the fact that no one other than Mr. Sherman has ever asserted this story occurred raise an eyebrow as to its veracity?
Doubting it seems reasonable; flat-out stating it did not occur is not.
In other words, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
US Constitution http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html, article VI, clause 3:
OK, let’s break this down. What is an Oath? That is where you swear to god that you will do something (tell the truth, serve your constituents, etc, etc). What is an affirmation? It’s like an oath, but it isn’t sworn to god. Why would you affirm, rather than take an oath? Perhaps because your religion is opposed to oaths (i.e. quakers and amish are two that I know of - taking an oath makes it sound like you are promising to god not to lie right now, but you could have lied a minute before, which is a sin), or perhaps because you don’t believe in god.
And what does “no religious test” mean? There is some disagreement here, but you could take it two ways:
- Any religion is just fine, we’re no going to discriminate against you just because your religion is the same as ours.
- Religion doesn’t enter into any of this. If you are religious, that’s fine, if you aren’t, that’s fine, too.
I would argue that definition #2 seems to be a more accurate interpretation, but as I said, it is up to debate.
Finally, if you search through the constitution, you will find that there are exactly 3 occurances of the word “oath”. And beside each of these occurances you will see “or affirmation”.
It has happened. Franklin Pierce, president from 1853 to 1857, affirmed.
Also, as I noted above, some religions are opposed to oaths. There are also religions (buddism, for one) with no god. I’m sure a few of these folks have been elected. And probably even some (gasp!) atheiests, too.
Are you saying that other reporters were present when Sherman asked Bush the question? If that is the case, and if Bush did not say those things, then surely one of those reporters would have contradicted the story. Can you point us to that evidence?
I would be more worried about discrimination against people who profess belief in creation in academic circles than about this never-enforced law.
>In other words, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I find that slightly amusing because of the atheists’ scoffing at admittedly-weak “proofs” of creationism using that argument.
Do you really mean “profess belief in creation”, or are you actually talking about “reject evidence for evolution and cosmology in favor of a wholly unsupported hypothesis”?
Actually, I find this to be a more shocking example of discrimination against atheists in the United States. Granted, it’s a bit dated, but I can’t imagine things having changed much in the last few years.
Which is what I did. And my response was to DesertGeezer’s assertion that only bigots don’t believe the story is true because we hate atheists so much.
And bnorton also did not say flat out that it didn’t occur. He merely said he believed someone had shown it to be an urban legend and said he would try and find a cite.
The only people flat out stating anything are the people who say it did happen. So turn your wrath towards them.
According to Rob Sherman, the only source for this story, the entire Washington press corps plus Chicago and national media were all there. And why would any of them go out of their way to have anything to do with a story that only sees the light of day on the internet? It’s never, to my knowledge, been made an issue of except on the rounds on the internet. So why would someone bother to refute something they’ve probably never heard of?
Sorry, but what it comes down to is that Rob Sherman’s mouth is the only source of this story. There has been no corroboration by anyone actually there, there has been no recording found of it, etc. Sure, it may have happened. But I see no reason to believe it did.
My apologies Neurotik; you clearly did not state “flat-out” he didn’t say it. I don’t know why I thought you did.