Atheism in America

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

So, I know, I know, atheism is just something that middle or upper-middle class white folks have the luxury of thinking about and it's really just a #firstworldproblem that we atheists should be all too happy to have, right?

Well, yes and no. There's still employment discrimination.
For example:

South Carolina's State Constitution, Article VI
Section 2:
"No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."

Tennessee's State 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."

Texas' State Constitution, Article 1 Section 4
"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."
(source)

I sure do love living in a country where I am free to believe what I want and nobody will hold it against me.

And since I'm sure a troll, devils advocate or honest believer will pop up out of the woodworks for this, who thinks that these sorts of laws are OK in the US? Or just in general.

Can we agree that religious discrimination for a secular govt position is unacceptable?

Comments

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

These provisions are there because of inertia.

They cannot be enforced because the Constitution permits no religious test for office and the Supremacy Clause basically means that under all standard interpretations since Reconstruction those provisions in the state constitutions cannot be enforced. It's like your uncle who refuses to throw away his old 8-track player even though nobody makes 8 track recordings anymore and all his old recordings have deteriorated beyond use and a family of mice chewed through all the internal wiring back in 1995 anyway. You smile, nod your head and ignore him when he goes on another rant about how Sony is conspiring to make him buy all of his BeeGees recordings again.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Yes, inertia. Nobody ever thought it was worthwhile to remove language from the state constitution which explicitly states the denial of the right to work in the govt to those who differ in belief.

Not an important matter.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

> These provisions are there because of inertia.

True.

> They cannot be enforced because ...

Also True. But if the modern South Corlinian constitution said something like "A black man has no rights that a white man is bound to respect", I think people would have a right to be pissed about it, and telling them "This is just historic, and remains because of inertia. And don't worry anyway, its unenforceable!" would only mollify them to a point.

I suspect they'd want that shit removed.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Meh, their only really good album was their first. Fortunately I still have the album since someone lost my CD. (for some reason I never had it on 4 0r 8 track, but I think I recorded the best songs onto a casette.

The nice thing about records is that you can buy albums for 50 cents and whole classical collections for a dollar, and since I don't listen to much of anything recorded after 1974 I'm good......what was the topic again?

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

As a pagan with agnostic tendencies I stubbornly believe everyone should be left to their own faiths or woldviews, because it's something very personal to each individual and I am in no position to tell anyone otherwise. This includes both Christians and Atheists. And with all the flak the latter receives from the former, I just don't understand because every atheist I have ever met hasn't been anything but a pleasant, decent human being.

In fact I really wish we had an openly Atheist president who can run this country without the question of faith getting in the way so much. I want one to prove once and for all that personal beliefs are irrelevant for running the American government.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

And you know what? Here's something to consider.

Who are we as humans compared to everything else out there? Does the universe really give a second thought about our very existence, let alone care about what we believe in?

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

You're aware that the reading of the 14th that you're advocating here is quite recent, yes? I believe that the first serious application of it was loving v. virginia in 1967

The recent 2nd amendment decision in chicago being a prime example. Quite frequently, laws are tested on the grounds of those readings, and get struck. So it's still quite possible that an elected official "coming out" as an athiest would have his/her position stripped pending the challenge.

It's also worth noting that the 14th has not been tested against state *constitutions*, which hold greater force than law. We'll probably see that challenge soon over the recent north carolina same sex marriage amendment.

[politikitty.livejournal.com]

But the laws don't exist. They can't be enforced. There is no employment discrimination.

Unless you count voters opinion on atheism employment discrimination. But I'm not sure how you handicap against that....

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Socially, do you think leaving them on the books sets a cultural enforcement that its actually ok to discriminate against atheists even if you can't leagally?

[malakh-abaddon.livejournal.com]

I know of three people who have been discriminated against because they are non-christian. I reside in By Gawd West F-ckin Virginia. One was fired solely because he was an atheist, another because he was Wiccan, and I was because I was Jewish and wanted Saturdays off. While this is not a government job, most people where I live refuse to vote for anyone who is not christian.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

We should all agree to this but I wager a number of people who want Iran for Jesus will say that this is perfectly hunky dory.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

The Manicheans could be seen as Iranians for Jesus.

[russj.livejournal.com]

Now there was no law against a man's belief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds.
For thus saith the scripture: Choose ye this day, whom ye will serve.
Now if a man desired to serve God, it was his privilege; or rather, if he believed in God it was his privilege to serve him; but if he did not believe in him there was no law to punish him.
But if he murdered he was punished unto death; and if he robbed he was also punished; and if he stole he was also punished; and if he committed adultery he was also punished; yea, for all this wickedness they were punished.
For there was a law that men should be judged according to their crimes. Nevertheless, there was no law against a man's belief; therefore, a man was punished only for the crimes which he had done; therefore all men were on equal grounds.

(Book of Mormon | Alma 30:7 - 11)
See: http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/30.7%20-%2011?lang=eng#6

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

Curse those crafty Mormons!

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

Nothing inspires institutionalized tolerance like being on the short end of the tolerance stick for a while.

The tricky part will be to see how long it lasts if/when Mormonism is mainstreamed.

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

These laws are definitely not OK, and that's coming from a believer.

[kayjayuu.livejournal.com]

I agree.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

The rationale that was given back in the nineteenth century was that an oath depends on the sanction of divine punishment in the after-death. It was feared that an atheist would not uphold their oath of office. The irony, of course, is that religious people are great oath violators.

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

citation needed.

[caerbannogbunny.livejournal.com]

I think the biggest issue is how much of moral values and the whole process of social values is predicated on a shared assumption of eventual, perfectly judged punishment by an external factor--i.e. "God"--in the minds of the religious. Basically, many of the rules they rely on tend to be based on somewhat irrational grounds that--without belief in such an external punishment tool--have problems being rationally enforced in reality.

So, someone who doesn't based decisions on a fear of eternal, irrational, unavoidable punishment would be able to ethically and comfortably violate the religious' institutions (rules, norms, etc.) in ways the religious would be ethically challenged to do so.

In other words: If you're not as afraid of me of violating these arcane rules I rely on, you have more power than me.

For other countries--especially those with a central or state-sponsored religion--there's probably no reason for these rules because the inference is the people in the institutions are already incorporating these beliefs internally as it is...

[jobey-in-error.livejournal.com]

Your post was interesting -- I didn't know about TN and TX -- though I'm not sure which question you actually want a response to. They skip around a lot of premises.

I sure do love living in a country where I am free to believe what I want and nobody will hold it against me.

Fantasyland?

People will always hold your beliefs against you. That's what it means to have a belief -- it can contradict yours, and sometimes it can hold the entire tenor of your belief system under judgment.

I don't think these laws are OK-in-the-USA, though the beauty of it is that they are fossils they will never stand a court challenge, which anyone is free to mount.

I'd refrain from saying they are unacceptable in general. Unacceptable implies that they could never be agreed to. If a hypothetical county had a choice between oligarchy and a democracy where no atheists could hold public positions, I would probably be for the latter. And I'd feel the same if the second choice was one in which, say, no Catholic Christians *waves tiny flag* could hold public positions.

These laws are a failing -- a flaw in a country that is comparatively perfect, really, given that broad global and historical view that you dismiss in your lead paragraph -- but, yes, ultimately, there's a reason the US has spent 200+ years attending first to other matters before taking a serious look at this (as quite a few folks seem to be doing the past few years).

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

We've got an atheist PM, and still no gay marriage. Go figure.

And yep, the laws are shit.