According to this atheist website there are six states including Texas with statutes on the books prohibiting atheists from holding public office, but the statutes are not enforced.
There are quite a few dopey laws on the books in various states. If challenged, the anti-atheist laws undoubtedly would get reversed, whether by higher state courts or the Supreme Court. I suspect the reason that lawmakers don’t get rid of them is that doing so would be politically detrimental, and the reason the ACLU doesn’t spend more time attacking them is that they have no impact and its resources are needed elsewhere.
I’m obviously shocked that provision exists. I’ll be sure to check out its history when I’m at work (:() tomorrow. Needless to say, however, that provision is unquestionably illegal under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, so claiming it’s illegal for atheists to hold office in Texas is rather like claiming it’s illegal to have an abortion in Utah or Alabama. Thank God for the Supremacy Clause, eh?
Getting back to the OP for a sec, I think the reason Jack Chick is such a popular target for the left, or the goofier brands of atheism with the right, is because they’re such easy targets. After spending a lot of time arguing with people who disagree with you in spite of being intelligent, well spoken, and having facts to back up their arguments, it’s kinda fun to go find a big fat target like Jack Chick and just start swinging. They’re like real live straw men.
pldennison: It turns out in the early 80’s, Madalyn Murray O’Hair sought a declaration from the federal courts that Article 1, section 4’s “Supreme Being” clause was invalid under the federal constitution and the Voting Rights Act. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals eventually decided that she had standing to challenge the clause and that there was no justification for the lower court not to consider the merits of her claim . . . but that’s the last reported opinion I can find on her suit. Not sure what happened on remand to the district court, but the whole thing appears to have gone away.
And that is pretty much that for the section 4 case law. It just hasn’t been examined or applied, no doubt because it’s so blatantly contrary to the U.S. Constitution.
Incidentally, you may have noticed that section 4 only applies to those “holding office.” The original 5th Circuit panel* questioned whether that included jurors, as there was no Texas case law on point. So you may be jumping to conclusions that it excludes atheist jurors, even if it were otherwise valid.
The 5th Circuit eventually decided the case on a rehearing en banc, reversing the original panel’s determination that MMO had no standing.
Carter is a born again Christian. However, he’s more like what a Christian SHOULD be, and I don’t believe he ever used his religion to push legislation through.
Minty, you might be interested in the case of Herb Silverman, Notary Public (he’s also incidentally a math professor at the College of Charleston as well as, not so incidentally, an atheist). Article IV (Executive Department), Section 2 (Qualifications for Governor) of the Constitution of South Carolina begins by saying
Article VI (Officers), Section 2 extends this to any office:
Just to drive the point home, this is repeated verbatim in Article XVII (Miscellaneous Matters), Section 4:
(except that here “the Supreme Being” becomes “a Supreme Being”–of course logically [Highlander]there can be only one![/Highlander] “Supreme” Being).
The oath of office in Section 5 of Article VI, and the oath for legislators in Section 26 of Article III also include “So help me God” in the text, as do the legal texts of many oaths in U.S. and state laws, although not of course any of the oaths (or affirmations) in the U.S. Constitution.
Initially, Professor Silverman was only aware of the gubernatorial provision (this was several years ago, before everybody’s constitution was on-line and subject to easy text searches). So, he ran for governor. In this case, the local courts did reject the case for lack of standing. Basically, the judge said “come back when you actually get elected”. Of course Silverman had zero chance of being elected–he said if he were elected, his first official statement would be to demand a recount–then again, it’s doubtful that even a serious candidate for governor who happened to be an atheist could be elected if his or her lack of belief were public knowledge. There are cultural as well as political or constitutional forces at work here, but to give those prejudices official sanction in the state constitution certainly doesn’t help to change anyone’s attitudes.
However, Silverman (and his lawyer) then found the other “Supreme Being” provisions and mounted a campaign to get Silverman a notary public commission. He crossed out the “So help me God” on the form, his application was duly rejected (apparently a first in South Carolina history), and–after several years–a court ruled in his favor. He’s probably the most zealously dedicated notary public in South Carolina, if not the country, but I digress. Note that all of the religious test clauses are still included in the official text of the S.C. constitution, even if they are dead letters by judicial ruling. There has certainly been no political stampede to change these “obviously” unfair and “blatantly” unconstitutional provisions, and there was considerable political resistance to Silverman’s campaign to have them overturned by judicial ruling. One wonders how a provision in a state constitution which declared “No person who acknowledges the authority of the Pope of Rome shall hold any office under this Constitution” would be received. “Of course” it would be an unenforceable dead letter; but somehow I don’t think that would be considered sufficient.
There’s also Article 19, Section 1 of the Arkansas State Constitution. I don’t know its legal status, but here’s the text of that section:
Thanks for the info, MEB. I did a google search and came up with what looks like the S.C. Supreme Court’s ruling on the matter here. Apparently, the court thought the Supreme Being requirements were so obviously unconstitutional that they didn’t even bother to analyze them. All they had to say on those counts was this:
Since the OP referred to Ameican Humanists, I thought you might want to judge that “goofy brand of atheism” as they define themselves, before you start swinging at that big fat target.
Here is the American Humanist Association’s definition of Humanism. It, alternative defs, and more info can be found at: http://www.americanhumanist.org/
Humanism is a rational philosophy informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by compassion.
-Affirming the dignity of each human being, it supports the maximization of individual liberty and opportunity consonant with social and planetary responsibility.
-It advocates the extension of participatory democracy and the expansion of the open society, standing for human rights and social justice.
-Free of supernaturalism, it recognizes human beings as a part of nature and holds that values – be they religious, ethical, social, or political – have their source in human experience and culture.
-Humanism thus derives the goals of life from human need and interest rather than from theological or ideological abstractions, and asserts that humanity must take responsibility for its own destiny.
(I broke the paragraph up into sentences to make it easier for you to point out the goofier parts.)
Since there have also been repeated referencs to secular humanism, the following is an edited form of the Council for Secular Humanism’s stated ideals. The full text (and more) can be read here: http://www.secularhumanism.org/intro/declaration.html
Secular humanism is not a dogma or a creed. There are wide differences of opinion among secular humanists on many issues. Nevertheless, there is a loose consensus with respect to several propositions. We are apprehensive that modern civilization is threatened by forces antithetical to reason, democracy, and freedom. Many religious believers will no doubt share with us a belief in many secular humanist and democratic values, and we welcome their joining with us in the defense of these ideals. 1. Free Inquiry
The first principle of democratic secular humanism is its commitment to free inquiry. We oppose any tyranny over the mind of man, any efforts by ecclesiastical, political, ideological, or social institutions to shackle free thought. …
**2. Separation Of Church And State **
Because of their commitment to freedom, secular humanists believe in the principle of the separation of church and state. The lessons of history are clear: wherever one religion or ideology is established and given a dominant position in the state, minority opinions are in jeopardy. A pluralistic, open democratic society allows all points of view to be heard. …
**3. The Ideal Of Freedom **
There are many forms of totalitarianism in the modern world - secular and nonsecular - all of which we vigorously oppose. As democratic secularists, we consistently defend the ideal of freedom, not only freedom of conscience and belief from those ecclesiastical, political, and economic interests that seek to repress them, but genuine political liberty, democratic decision making based upon majority rule, and respect for minority rights and the rule of law.
**4. Ethics Based On Critical Intelligence **
… [S]ecularists deny that morality needs to be deduced from religious belief or that those who do not espouse a religious doctrine are immoral. For secular humanists, ethical conduct is, or should be, judged by critical reason, and their goal is to develop autonomous and responsible individuals, capable of making their own choices in life based upon an understanding of human behavior. …
**5. Moral Education **
We believe that moral development should be cultivated in children and young adults. We do not believe that any particular sect can claim important values as their exclusive property; hence it is the duty of public education to deal with these values. Accordingly, we support moral education in the schools that is designed to develop an appreciation for moral virtues, intelligence, and the building of character. …
**6. Religious Skepticism **
As secular humanists, we are generally skeptical about supernatural claims. We recognize the importance of religious experience: that experience that redirects and gives meaning to the lives of human beings. We deny, however, that such experiences have anything to do with the supernatural. We are doubtful of traditional views of God and divinity. …
**7. Reason **
We view with concern the current attack by nonsecularists on reason and science. We are committed to the use of the rational methods of inquiry, logic, and evidence in developing knowledge and testing claims to truth. Since human beings are prone to err, we are open to the modification of all principles, including those governing inquiry, believing that they may be in need of constant correction. Although not so naive as to believe that reason and science can easily solve all human problems, we nonetheless contend that they can make a major contribution to human knowledge and can be of benefit to humankind. We know of no better substitute for the cultivation of human intelligence.
**8. Science And Technology **
We believe the scientific method, though imperfect, is still the most reliable way of understanding the world. Hence, we look to the natural, biological, social, and behavioral sciences for knowledge of the universe and man’s place within it. …
**9. Evolution **
Today the theory of evolution is again under heavy attack by religious fundamentalists. Although the theory of evolution cannot be said to have reached its final formulation, or to be an infallible principle of science, it is nonetheless supported impressively by the findings of many sciences. There may be some significant differences among scientists concerning the mechanics of evolution; yet the evolution of the species is supported so strongly by the weight of evidence that it is difficult to reject it. Accordingly, we deplore the efforts by fundamentalists (especially in the United States) to invade the science classrooms, requiring that creationist theory be taught to students and requiring that it be included in biology textbooks. This is a serious threat both to academic freedom and to the integrity of the educational process. We believe that creationists surely should have the freedom to express their viewpoint in society. Moreover, we do not deny the value of examining theories of creation in educational courses on religion and the history of ideas; but it is a sham to mask an article of religious faith as a scientific truth and to inflict that doctrine on the scientific curriculum. …
**10. Education **
In our view, education should be the essential method of building humane, free, and democratic societies. The aims of education are many: the transmission of knowledge; training for occupations, careers, and democratic citizenship; and the encouragement of moral growth. Among its vital purposes should also be an attempt to develop the capacity for critical intelligence in both the individual and the community. Unfortunately, the schools are today being increasingly replaced by the mass media as the primary institutions of public information and education. Although the electronic media provide unparalleled opportunities for extending cultural enrichment and enjoyment, and powerful learning opportunities, there has been a serious misdirection of their purposes. …
Dinsdale: Hey, I didn’t say anything about American Humanists. In fact, I didn’t mention any specific group of atheists because I couldn’t think of anyone as loopy as Mr. Chick on the secular side of the aisle. Chill out. Or better yet, yell at astorian. He’s the one who brought you guys up in the first place.
Yeah, Jack’s a fat target. He probably deserves pretty much whatever he gets, and I say that as a Christian. Probably only his clearly straight-ahead evangelistic tract doesn’t do a total hash job of presenting anything close to a rational presentation of the topic at hand. So he has what, about a 1-60 record?
Sorry to (mis)use your quote. I perceived a certain amount of - oh shall I say disparagement directed towards Humanism, which the OP specifically mentioned. I also sensed that some of the posts inaccurately equated Humanism with atheism. I thought it possible that not everyone involved in this debate knew exactly what Humanism was. I used your quote just because you used such plain language. Again, I apologise.
I believe it is entirely appropriate to draw certain comparisons between Humanists and the extreme religious right. I suspect that many members of both groups consider themselves to be marginalized minorities. I suspect that both groups share many similar aspects of their self perception. The first two articles I linked to indicate how similar the arguments are from both sides.
At the meeting I moderated last week, an extremely conservative christian showed up (and, in my view, attempted to dominate the discussion.) He did say one thing that stuck with me, tho. We were discussing whether or not, or the degree to which, Humanist values were represented in mass media. During the course of the discussion, one person observed that he often felt that he had to be a “closet” Humanist, that he could not openly express his philosophical beliefs at work or in most social situations. A couple of people agreed, to which the Christian guy commented that we sounded just like the people in some conservative Christian groups he took part in.
So I believe some similarities are there, whether we like it or not.
I do not know, however, to what extent it is fair or even possible to determine the relative merits of these two groups’ messages. For example, I might say that although religious conservatives and Bible literalists are a minority, their views are a subset of the majority of Americans who believe in God. To focus on the religious aspect, if you believe in a supernatural being, you have a smorgasboard of worship opptions available to you, spanning the spectrum from ultra conservative to newage.
My personal position would be that Humanists (with a capital H) are not as well represented, and do not have as many options. Disavowal of the supernatural in all of its forms distances Humanists from many portions of American society. And we could debate how important the dignity of every human being is in our nation today.
As an aside, this is one reason I have opposed (with varying degrees of success) attempts to overtly inject “spiritualism” into UU churches I attend. If someone wants spiritualism, they have any number of churches that will address their need. An atheist does not have such options.
Another possible distinction would be whether you can compare a system based upon unprovable belief and faith, with one that is based upon reason. Can you make a value judgment (other than one personal to you) as to the relative merits of such systems? It seems to me it might be easier to mock someone’s “beliefs” than someone else’s exercise of reason. (Not to say such mocking is good, deserved, etc.)
Finally, and personally, I get a little involved in discussions about Humanism because it is a topic very dear to me. I have done a lot of searching, which at an early point involved the rejection of any and all deities. For a long time I simply considered myself an atheist. Which bothered me a bit - defining myself by what I rejected, instead of what I accepted. Humanism may not be a perfect fit for me, but so far it is the philosophy that closest describes what I feel.
Okay, it’s clear I’m just about the only one who still gives a shit about this topic. I promise I’ll soon give it a rest. But I thought I’d share with you a couple of posts that were made yesterday on a dialogue group for a UU church I attend. The church is currently seeking a new minister. As part of the process, the church writes up a statement describing the church and what they desire in a minister.
A Humanist who attends the church had this to say.
**I feel that our Humanist tradition is downplayed too much by the statement “…it is significant that in the last decade, this humanist tradition has been modified and leavened by a diversity of spiritual orientations.” … I feel the emphasis on spiritual growth and spirituality is out of proportion with this [church’s] focus. **
A fellow Humanist responded:
*The word spirituality is a word we should use sparingly if at all. It is not that it means something, but too much and is a barrier to communication. Using it becomes quite like a Rohrshach test where each person has a particular meaning. For some it means an emotional experience. For others it is what ultimately grounds them. For others it means something supernatural. It means we are not clear with our language and act as if we are in all agreement when in fact we have radically different meanings and definitions. *
Another party posted the following:
**I also believe that some of the people trying to promote humanism at ___ are so hard core and regimented in their description of humanism that they are hurting their own cause. I would like the self-proclaimed (are there really any other kind) humanists to consider that it is their strict definition of humanism that makes me feel excluded from being a humanist, not mine. **
I thought it was an interesting criticism of Humanists, that they had exercised the intellectual rigor to determine what they considered important, and this guy is bothered because they do not define themselves generally or vaguely enough to include him. He has not responded to my request for examples. IMO, he is trying to bait the Humanists into responding intemperately.
This is not germane to this topic, but my main criticism of this particular church is that they seem to be unwilling to ascertain exactly what they stand for. They seem to think they can be all things for all people. Which in the end, I believe, results in their standing for nothing.
I’m a Christian (Presbyterian) and a liberal Democrat. I had never heard of Jack Chick before seeing the people obsessed with him on this board.
I’ve been aware that there is a lot of bigoted and hate inspired stuff like this out there because it makes ignorant people feel morally superior to an imagined enemy, but really, let’s stop obsessing over this one bigot and fight some ignorance!
Well, you’d never heard of Jack Chick, and now you have. See, your ignorance–of the existence of Jack Chick–has been successfully fought!
Seriously, I don’t think most people around here really take old Jack that seriously. He’s just more of a running joke, and a well-known shorthand reference for a particular variety of bigotry.
That was all pretty much just fallout from one installment of the Pat and Jerry Show. I think I may have missed a few threads, plus I think there was some discussion of l’affaire Jerry Falwell makes a complete idiot out of himself outside of the Pit as well. There was also this Pit thread about the Rev. Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition.
Personally, I do take Robertson and Falwell and their ilk, who have occasionally wielded something like real political power in this country, much more seriously than I do Jack Chick. Jack Chick-bashing is mainly just recreational. (And of course Robertson and Falwell and Sheldon and LaHaye and Dobson and D. James Kennedy and so on don’t draw cartoons. The artwork is a major part of the fun.)
But I thought I’d share with you a couple of posts that were made yesterday on a dialogue group for a UU church I attend. The church is currently seeking a new minister. As part of the process, the church writes up a statement describing the church and what they desire in a minister.