Atheist = Can't Hold Public Office

[rheno]

State constitution cited by critics of Asheville's Cecil Bothwell | citizen-times.com | Asheville Citizen-Times

“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.”

Now that's intresting, and retarded. At least there's no Mexican legislation that does this.

 

[Principessa]

State constitution cited by critics of Asheville's Cecil Bothwell | citizen-times.com | Asheville Citizen-Times

Now that's intresting, and retarded. At least there's no Mexican legislation that does this.

That's because the majority of Mexico is Catholic or Pentecostal. :lmao: :tongue:

 

[rheno]

The majority, yet we had real historical beefs with the church so our separation of church and state is quite strict.

 

[Zeuhl34]

State constitution cited by critics of Asheville's Cecil Bothwell | citizen-times.com | Asheville Citizen-Times

Now that's intresting, and retarded. At least there's no Mexican legislation that does this.

As non-religious myself, this kinda shit always disgusts me.

 

[Bbucko]

The important part of the linked article is quoted below:

But the federal courts have found that religious tests for public office are unlawful under the U.S. constitution.
A challenge based on the clause wouldn't hold up "since the U.S. Constitution trumps the North Carolina Constitution," said Bob Orr, executive director of the N.C. Institute for Constitutional Law.
"I think there’s any number of federal cases that would view this as an imposition of a religious qualification and violate separation of church and state," said Orr, a former state Supreme Court justice.

But I do find the fact that this has never been challenged to be mighty sad, indeed.

 

[2322]

But I do find the fact that this has never been challenged to be mighty sad, indeed.

Oh please! Look at the idiots down in Louisiana who were passing laws against showing underwear in public despite the fact that SCOTUS has ruled that underwear does not constitute indecent exposure unless the genitals are exposed. In fact, exposure of underwear is protected under the First Amendment. So all these idiot city councils are doing is opening their municipalities to civil rights law suits!

 

[Bbucko]

Oh please! Look at the idiots down in Louisiana who were passing laws against showing underwear in public despite the fact that SCOTUS has ruled that underwear does not constitute indecent exposure unless the genitals are exposed. In fact, exposure of underwear is protected under the First Amendment. So all these idiot city councils are doing is opening their municipalities to civil rights law suits!

What I find pathetic is the fact that somehow these "ordinances" have survived on the books for so long without civil rights suits. That's vaguely despicable.

 

[midlifebear]

Ya still can't dance in a public place on Sundays in SLC (supposedly), because the old law has never been repealed. This, however, does not mean that people don't dance in public places on Sunday in the City of Saints. Still, a law is a law.

 

[2322]

What I find pathetic is the fact that somehow these "ordinances" have survived on the books for so long without civil rights suits. That's vaguely despicable.

We're not a vigilant people.

 

[B_Nick8]

What I find pathetic is the fact that somehow these "ordinances" have survived on the books for so long without civil rights suits. That's vaguely despicable.

Not so vaguely when it violates the separation of church and state.

 

[kundalinikat]

It's not just federal court rulings that have decided there should be no religious test for public office. It's right there unambiguously in the Constitution, Article 6, Section 3.

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

It's great because in the same sentence we're told that not only is there no religious test, but also that members of the legislative, executive and judicial offices of the states have to affirm the Constitution. Take that, you, pro-religious-test, people, in state offices...

No religious test clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[HUNGHUGE11X7]

State constitution cited by critics of Asheville's Cecil Bothwell | citizen-times.com | Asheville Citizen-Times

Now that's intresting, and retarded. At least there's no Mexican legislation that does this.

:wtf:

That is complete BULLSHIT as well as spits in the face of our constitution which guarantees us FREEDOM OF RELIGION which also says we have FREEDOM FROM RELIGION!

ALMIGHTY GOD ? Leave it to NC to say let's just say FUCK that whole unimportant thing called "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" !

I do hope he fights this in court !



HH

 

[HazelGod]

What I find pathetic is the fact that somehow these "ordinances" have survived on the books for so long without civil rights suits. That's vaguely despicable.

We're not a vigilant people.

No, we're a lazy, apathetic people who can't be arsed to go out of our way to do anything.

 

[Bbucko]

Not so vaguely when it violates the separation of church and state.

The laws are clearly unconstitutional and need to repealed. What's despicable is that they are still on the books. It's vaguely despicable because, much as I find the law an effrontery, the communities who enacted it are responsible for the civil damages resulting from an inevitable finding against them: stupid costs money.

 

[Industrialsize]

Massachusetts is FAMOUS for its anachronistic, yet never repealed, BLUE LAWS.

Massachusetts

Most off-premises alcohol sales were not permitted on Sundays until 2004. Exceptions were made in 1990 for municipalities that fell within 10 miles of the New Hampshire or Vermont border. Since 1992 cities and towns statewide were able to sell on Sundays from the Sunday prior to Thanksgiving to New Years Day. In both exceptions sales were not allowed before noon. Since the law changed in 2004, off-premises sales are now allowed anywhere in the state, with local approval, after noon.[19] Retail alcohol sales remain barred on Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, and New Year's Day (or the Monday following Christmas or New Year's Day should either fall on a Sunday). Hunting on Sunday is prohibited.
Massachusetts also has a "Day of Rest" statute that provides that all employees are entitled to one day off from work in seven calendar days[20]. While this provision retains the blue-law enforcement of a religious practice (weekly rest) recast as a state-beneficial practice, it uncharacteristically neglects to specify any particular weekday.

 

[houtx48]

i thought he gets to serve in what ever position he was elected to. he took some kind of oath. too lazy to go look it up.

 

[Qua]

That's because the majority of Mexico is Catholic or Pentecostal. :lmao: :tongue:

And can't speak for the Pentacostals, but your laughter is incredibly ironic, since Catholic theology sees no reason why a public servant in a non-religious state must abide by a certain religion so long as he/she runs her office in a "just" manner. It's only when it comes to civil servants who claim to be Catholic but publicly speak in favor of policies that go against catholic teachings that they have a problem.

 

[Qua]

Not so vaguely when it violates the separation of church and state.

Not in the constitution. Necessary yes, but as I say till my throat is hoarse, the "establishment" of religion as defined when the constitution was written is the requirement that citizens pay taxes to it. Little to nothing more. The colonists simply didn't want to pay taxes to the church of England. Don't forget the Revolution was spawned almost purely on taxation issues.

Separation of Church and State exists because it's a tradition that we honor, with no explicit legal grounding, existing on precedent based on a history of interpreting the Establishment Clause. How very Catholic of us...

Not saying this is necessarily bad, but my concern is that the expansion of what constitutes "establishment" has severely impeded "free exercise." In the Christmas season, for example, there is no reason in hell why a person should have to take down a nativity scene on his own property, yet it has been done (usually though subjective interpretation of municipal ordinances). Those who call for excessive restriction of religion, even in the public sphere, are as woefully ignorant to this country's founding principles of liberty and equality as those who believe we should be a Christian nation.

It's not just federal court rulings that have decided there should be no religious test for public office. It's right there unambiguously in the Constitution, Article 6, Section 3."

That applies only to Federal officials. The court rulings remove municipal or state officials from religious testing requirements. Going back to the above, I fully agree that testing requirements violate the Establishment Clause

There really need to be a Constitutional Law requirement in American high schools. It's a crucial and vaguely understood subject.

 

[masked_marauder]

No, we're a lazy, apathetic people who can't be arsed to go out of our way to do anything.

Except to bring frivolous lawsuits against others for us acting far too stupid to be allowed out of the house, let alone look after our own well-being.

 

[masked_marauder]

Not in the constitution. Necessary yes, but as I say till my throat is hoarse, the "establishment" of religion as defined when the constitution was written is the requirement that citizens pay taxes to it. Little to nothing more. The colonists simply didn't want to pay taxes to the church of England. Don't forget the Revolution was spawned almost purely on taxation issues.

Separation of Church and State exists because it's a tradition that we honor, with no explicit legal grounding, existing on precedent based on a history of interpreting the Establishment Clause. How very Catholic of us...

Not saying this is necessarily bad, but my concern is that the expansion of what constitutes "establishment" has severely impeded "free exercise." In the Christmas season, for example, there is no reason in hell why a person should have to take down a nativity scene on his own property, yet it has been done (usually though subjective interpretation of municipal ordinances). Those who call for excessive restriction of religion, even in the public sphere, are as woefully ignorant to this country's founding principles of liberty and equality as those who believe we should be a Christian nation.



That applies only to Federal officials. The court rulings remove municipal or state officials from religious testing requirements. Going back to the above, I fully agree that testing requirements violate the Establishment Clause

There really need to be a Constitutional Law requirement in American high schools. It's a crucial and vaguely understood subject.

Yes, some people go overboard on religious restriction, but only to the extent that it violates freedom of expression, not to the extent that governments should be able to do anything that promotes a certain religion/denomination.

The North Carolina delgates to the Constitutional Convention would not sign the Constitution without assurances of personal rights and freedoms from governmental oppression... thus, the Bill or Rights was written. I find it supremely ironic that there are those in North Carolina who would now go against this tremendous historical fact and try to place restrictions based on a religious test, especially since the first of these ten amendments in the Bill of Rights prevents Congress from "establishment of religion".

Add to that the fact that most of the founding fathers were Deists and didn't believe that a higher power had any influence on their lives apart from being a creative being (in the beginning), and a religious test really has no place in government whatsoever.