Religious Tests For Public Office

[JoeyKnothead]

From the article here:

North Carolina's constitution is clear: politicians who deny the existence of God are barred from holding office.

Opponents of Cecil Bothwell are seizing on that law to argue he should not be seated as a City Council member today, even though federal courts have ruled religious tests for public office are unlawful under the U.S. Constitution.

...“I'm not saying that Cecil Bothwell is not a good man, but if he's an atheist, he's not eligible to serve in public office, according to the state constitution,� said H.K. Edgerton, a former Asheville NAACP president.

Article 6, section 8 of the state constitution says: “The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

...Additionally, Article VI of the U.S. Constitution says: “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.�

For debate:

Should religious tests for public office be actively stricken (rather than remain even if unenforced) in order to prevent abuse of such unconstitutional measures?
----------------------------------------------------
I say yes. To leave an unconstitutional law on the books is to invite the very sort of confusion/abuse this case represents.

[Goat]

From the article here:

North Carolina's constitution is clear: politicians who deny the existence of God are barred from holding office.

Opponents of Cecil Bothwell are seizing on that law to argue he should not be seated as a City Council member today, even though federal courts have ruled religious tests for public office are unlawful under the U.S. Constitution.

...“I'm not saying that Cecil Bothwell is not a good man, but if he's an atheist, he's not eligible to serve in public office, according to the state constitution,� said H.K. Edgerton, a former Asheville NAACP president.

Article 6, section 8 of the state constitution says: “The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

...Additionally, Article VI of the U.S. Constitution says: “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.�

For debate:

Should religious tests for public office be actively stricken (rather than remain even if unenforced) in order to prevent abuse of such unconstitutional measures?
----------------------------------------------------
I say yes. To leave an unconstitutional law on the books is to invite the very sort of confusion/abuse this case represents.

There are a lot of laws on the books that have been ruled unconstitutional. It wasn't until just recently that the law against interracial marriages were offically dropped from South Carolina (1998) and Alabama (2000), even though it hadn't been enforceble since 1967.

[micatala]

From the article here:

North Carolina's constitution is clear: politicians who deny the existence of God are barred from holding office.

Opponents of Cecil Bothwell are seizing on that law to argue he should not be seated as a City Council member today, even though federal courts have ruled religious tests for public office are unlawful under the U.S. Constitution.

...“I'm not saying that Cecil Bothwell is not a good man, but if he's an atheist, he's not eligible to serve in public office, according to the state constitution,� said H.K. Edgerton, a former Asheville NAACP president.

Article 6, section 8 of the state constitution says: “The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

...Additionally, Article VI of the U.S. Constitution says: “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.�

For debate:

Should religious tests for public office be actively stricken (rather than remain even if unenforced) in order to prevent abuse of such unconstitutional measures?
----------------------------------------------------
I say yes. To leave an unconstitutional law on the books is to invite the very sort of confusion/abuse this case represents.

The law should be taken off the books.


Of course, if the atheist is also a penguin, that is another matter.

[anotheratheisthere]

Disclaimer: This is purely for the purpose of debate. I'm aware what I'm about to say is unconstitutional, non applicable and wrong in a practical sense.

BUT

I think that anybody who believes in invisible men in the sky, elves, gnomes, angels, unicorns, ghosts, holy spirits, zombies, dragons, demigods, magic, miracles, tarot cards, voodoo sticks, tooth fairies, witchcraft, resurrection, reincarnation or santa should not be eligible for any kind of elected office.

Seriously man. One of the reasons Bush invaded Iraq was because he thought "God was on our side". He called it a "crusade".

Not to mention the idiots on the OTHER side, who attacked us on 9-11 for equally idiotic religious indoctrination.

I seriously believe that random superstitious beliefs, and making common sense rational decisions for the good of your constituency are two concepts that don't blend.