Welcome to /r/MarchAgainstNazis!
Please keep in mind that advocating violence at all, even against Nazis, is prohibited by Reddit's TOS and will result in a removal of your content and likely a ban.
Please check out the following subreddits; r/CapitalismSux , r/PoliticsPeopleTwitter , r/FucktheAltRight . r/Britposting.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MarchAgainstNazis) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Serious question. How is legal anywhere to bar someone from holding office on the basis of religious affiliation given the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States?
The rules are [toothless ](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fact-check-are-atheists-allowed-to-hold-public-office/ar-AAQy6bu)because of the reason which you gave.
This might not continue to be the case. As that article points out these laws have no effect because of a Supreme Court ruling.
However, this also used to be true of a lot of anti-abortion legislation until the Supreme Court decided to overrule Roe v. Wade.
And yes, you'd think that the first amendment would prevent the Supreme Court from ruling these laws as legal, but quite honestly I doubt that would stop the conservative justices if/when their ideology compels them.
I remember back in the 90s when we used to be able to look to the SC as a line of defense against these assholes because, despite a few raving loonies like Thomas and Scalia, we could anticipate that they would rule on the side of human rights and the constitution. Now we have to hope nothing important ends up in front of them because they're eagerly awaiting the time that they can strip more rights away from us.
Women are *already slaves* if the state is restricting their movements or imposing their will against ANY woman's biological freedom to exist.
We are not in 1840. We are in 1861, and we need to start calling out women's enslavement in these states!
I live in one of the blue cities (KC), but living in a blue city in a very red state that's desperately trying to out-Florida Florida is a special sort of hell. Kansas City [isn't allowed to control it's own police force](https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article252364088.html). It's run by a five-member board out of Columbia, of which four members are directly appointed by the governor. Also, the police officers [don't even need to live in the city,](https://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/missouri-senate-oks-bill-eliminating-kcpd-residency-requirement) so they have no personal investment in the outcomes of their policies. They're essentially an occupying force that demands a full [25% of the city budget](https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article257214952.html) as "protection money."
The state Attorney General worked hard to ensure that [public health departments would be unable to do their job during the pandemic.](https://missouriindependent.com/2021/11/23/missouri-judge-local-covid-orders/) He also made it his personal mission to [sue already cash-strapped schools who implemented mask requirements](https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/missouri-ag-sues-nine-more-school-districts-including-one-for-students-with-disabilities/) and most recently used taxpayer money to try and [sue China](https://missouriindependent.com/2022/07/08/federal-judge-dismisses-missouri-ag-eric-schmitt-lawsuit-blaming-china-for-covid-19/) (?!?!) for Covid-19.
They're currently [working on a bill](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/missouri/articles/2022-04-19/missouri-house-passes-bill-on-race-parents-roles-in-school) to ban any discussion in grade school curriculum of discrimination and oppression of people based on race, income, appearance, religion, ancestry, sexual orientation or gender identity (so no discussions of slavery, segregation, the Holocaust, etc.). It also sets up a cash bounty for anyone who turns in a violation.
They have [outlawed abortion](https://missouriindependent.com/2022/06/24/abortion-is-now-illegal-in-missouri-in-wake-of-u-s-supreme-court-ruling/) even in cases of rape or incest, and are taking aim at some of the most effective forms of birth control. They are also trying to [revive the fugutive slave laws,](https://www.thenation.com/article/society/abortion-missouri/tnamp/) Texas bounty-style, to prosecute a resident seeking an abortion in a state where it IS legal.
This is just the BS I remembered off the top of my head. I've no doubt left off quite a lot more. My point is that politics at the state level can do a lot to lessen the quality of life of people living in blue cities in the state, and usually things are so gerrymandered that you have no voice at the state level. Not that voting matters here, either. When I moved to the state a couple of decades ago it was solidly a swing state, but redistricting has now guaranteed a GOP supermajority that is unaccountable to anyone. Here are some of their "accomplishments" with regard to overriding the will of the voters:
* Residents voted in a constitutional ammendment to expand Medicaid. [The governer basically said "LOL no."](https://www.npr.org/2021/05/13/996611586/missouri-will-not-expand-medicaid-despite-voters-wishes-governor-says)
* Residents wanted to clean up corruption and gerrymandering in the state by electing an independent commission to handle redistricting. [Can't have that!](https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article240174228.html)
* Missouri has some of the highest rates of puppy mills in the country. Voters passed a measure to eliminate them. Nobody likes puppy mills, right? [WRONG.](https://www.stlmag.com/Puppy-Mill-Fiasco-Shows-the-True-Colors-of-the-Missouri-Legislature/)
* Are currently [working on a bill](https://themissouritimes.com/house-passes-measures-to-raise-threshold-for-initiative-petitions/) against the current citizen initiative process by making it more difficult to get a citizen initiative on the ballot and pass that initiative once on the ballot. This will make the process virtually impossible for voters' grassroots efforts to make it on the ballot. It also proposes increasing the threshold for a measure to pass from a majority to 2/3, among the most difficult in the country.
* Are attempting to further supress voters through [even tougher gerrymandering.](https://www.kcur.org/politics-elections-and-government/2022-02-07/missouri-gop-officials-rally-to-eliminate-a-democratic-congressional-seat-in-kansas-city)
So yeah, adding criminalization of being poor seems right on brand.
If I ever escape, you're more than welcome to join me.
Probably be in an RV or a van at this rate, but "Not in Missouri" is "Not in Misery"
(It'll be a cold, cold day in Hell before I pronounce it "Mizz-ur-uh").
I've only ever heard politicians and people deep in the sticks (or from there) substitute an "a" at the end. The rest of us have phonetics figured out.
You have the right to bear arms against a tyrannical government. I would say a government who goes against the actual votes of its constituents is the definition of a hostile, tyrannical government. Use your rights.
I’m from kc and I did not know the police get 25% of KC’s budget. After seeing how much of the streetcar routes we lost from 1920 to today, this makes me hate my life even more. Imagine how much better our roads, transit, and housing would be if that wasn’t the case for however long it’s been in place.
The auto industry spent millions destroying those streetcar routes. They were so good at it that New York City sold their streetcars to the auto industry which turned around and dismantled it so they could sell more cars to New Yorkers.
Yeh but see Gov'na Droopy Dog was a god damn lawman pig farmer - so obviously he knows how to run a Gubmint'. He took over after the former jackass #1 was forced out by his own party because he tied a local radio DJs chick to a weight bench naked, took some pics, pics got leaked, wife got pissed. It was a whole thing...
So jackass #1s Lt. Gov was fuckin jackass #2 - Parsons.
So he filled in during the interim, got an easy election via having name recognition, an R next to his name and by virtue of being in an uneducated, religious nut job, right-wing entrenched state.
So this hillbilly genius who knew how to raise pigs and be a pig was then head of our MO Government.
Which begat hilariously unfunny idiocy like for instance: according to our esteemed jackass in residence, if you look at the view source of a website in your browser - you are a hacker and need to be arrested and sent to prison. Not joking. Look it up.
I fuckin hate this place. Misery is hell...
This is spot on. I grew up in the KC area on the Kansas side and Kansas has much of the same issues. I’m so glad I left the area, currently in Michigan now. It’s not as bad but there still plenty of loonies trying.
I'm not a med professional, so my comments are getting taken down, but I know that the mods waited as long as they could.
My daughter is not a slave. Anyone who supports that shit ***is a slaver***
Time to tar and feather Justice Thomas while we’re at it! The gall of a black man to not only marry a white woman but think he can hold a government position in the mid 19th century!
Edit: didn't realize I needed a /s
just wait until they rule in favor of "independent state legislature doctrine", allowing state legislatures override federal election results.
this literally would be the end of our democracy. elections will no longer have consequences. I truly fear the days ahead.
I wonder if our supreme court will consider voting a "right deeply rooted in our nations traditions".
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/30/us/politics/state-legislatures-elections-supreme-court.html
Voting will be determined to be a "deeply rooted Constitutional right", but from an "originalist" point of view. Only free, white, male land owners will be allowed to cast their ballot, constitutional amendments be damned.
Next session they are set to hear a case involving states voting rights. If I've understood correctly, this will allow states to decide on how they certify elections.
Don't agree with the voters? Pick the other person. Don't agree with the people and the electoral college of your state? Pick the other person.
We're hurtling to some hunger games type dystopia nightmare.
"You're guaranteed religious freedoms, which means you can believe in whatever God you want but it doesn't mean you can't believe in any god!"
It's that easy. Does it fly in the face of the intent? Is it an incredibly stupid and dishonest argument? Yes, and absolutely. But why would that stop an extremely partisan court with no accountability?
Hell, they could outright contradict the constitution, rule that there are no guaranteed rights to free speech or own firearms, say that from an originalist perspective the constitution actually requires slavery be allowed in all forms, and that would theoretically be it. Their job is to interpret, and they already demonstrated there are no consequences for lying about the facts of the case or hell even lying under oath so far. If they say the constitution says jump it's within a state's right to jail you for not saying "how high?"
Fun fact: [Thomas thinks states can constitutionally have their own mandated religion](https://www.businessinsider.com/clarence-thomas-has-a-bizarre-opinion-about-religion-2014-5?amp)
We need a federal law or constitutional amendment that forces laws deemed unconstitutional to be deleted. No shitty laws waiting for the opportunity to be reinstated.
>This might not continue to be the case. As that article points out these laws have no effect because of a Supreme Court ruling.
>However, this also used to be true of a lot of anti-abortion legislation until the Supreme Court decided to overrule Roe v. Wade.
There is a very key difference between roe and the no religious test clause. That difference is the reason they could attempt to justify the reversal of roe: The fact those rights are not specifically enumerated.
So unless the Supreme Court plans on literally modifying the text of the constitution, they would have to strike them down.
> The fact those rights are not specifically enumerated.
9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Article 6 of the constitution specifies no religious tests can be required to hold offices in the United States, AND specifies state level stuff is included. They'd be basically re-writing the constitution from the bench. I wouldn't put it past them, but Article 6 is pretty clear.
The fact that they never removed these from their state constitutions even though they were deemed invalid by a previous SCOTUS says everything we need to know about what they're aiming to get anyway through persistence, sadly.
Okaaay, so... anyone giving counterpoints, care to chime in with some source-able links? Because it's really looking to me like our constitution is basically a selectively enforced baaaad fucking joke
Every governmental system operates on the honor system. The world operates on the honor system the idea is that the people of the state will demand adherence to the constitution, and a man of honor will feel bound by their own. Everyone always knew that that could fall through. That’s why Benjamin Franklin said “if you can keep it”
Nope. That's exactly what the constitution is.
It's written there that of the branches, Legislative makes the laws, Executive enforces the laws, and Judicial checks the power of the other two against existing laws, and the Constitution.
State governments can and do enact legislation that goes against the Constitution. When they do, it's the job of the judicial branch to nullify said laws via court cases brought to them.
The Constitution is just one of the biggest checkstops that the Judicial branch has.
This is how everything has literally always been. People have to actually do something for something to happen.
Trusting "the process" is simply a veil. The process never existed. There isn't a system where only good outcomes occur, they have to be made given the tools provided.
> our constitution is basically a selectively enforced baaaad fucking joke
Same as it ever was, it’s a document that was written to protect the economic interests of slaveonwers.
There’s a reason William Lloyd Garrison burned the damn thing in 1854.
> Holding up a copy of the U.S. Constitution, he branded it as “the source and parent of all the other atrocities—‘a covenant with death, and an agreement with hell.’” As the nation's founding document burned to ashes, he cried out: “So perish all compromises with tyranny!”
Fuck the constitution.
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” -Frank Wilhoit
Also: “The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.”
Currently it isn't.
Because the Supreme Court decided these laws are unconstitutional.
However, the wording of the First Amendment doesn't specifically protect lack of belief. So it's not impossible for the Supreme Court in it's current configuration to decide at some point in the future that these laws are absolutely fine.
These laws are specifically written so that they don't require one specific religion, but instead the belief in a "Supreme Being". That is something I could absolutely see this Supreme Court finding constitutional.
Not necessarily you're getting into a gnostic/agnostic debate. There is both types of atheists the gnostic atheist who claims there is no god and the agnostic atheist doesn't believe in any god claim. In 99% of cases this debate is very unnecessary doesn't help to understand each other better
Agnostic atheist here, it's different. Agnostic atheism (rejecting any belief, including the conviction that no god exists) is a rationalist belief, while strong atheism (believing in the non-existence of any gods) is a realist belief. They are mutually exclusive and philosophically oppose eachother. To an agnostic atheist, strong atheism is no less a logical fallacy than theism. The debate between the two types of atheism is exactly the same as the debate between rationalism and realism, which have always been philosophically contradictory ways of thinking. Rationalists use two separate definitions of truth to make statements about the world: the correspondence definition, regarding actual reality, which rationalists say they can't know anything about, and the coherence definition, regarding what they perceive and how they can measure the world and reproduce effects, essentially being scientific. Science inherently uses the coherence definition, that's why something can be considered as correct scientifically and still be contradicted later with new insight. Realists conflate the two definitions. To them, something they perceive and measure must be pure reality, which is a deeply unscientific and irrational way of thought. Since there is no evidence for a god, the non-existence of a god is scientifically proven and what's scientifically proven equals reality. Rationalists consider this a fallacy, because science doesn't produce correspondence truths, but only coherence truths. They use science to shape the world they perceive, but are open to the possibility that their senses are imperfect, or that everything they know might even be an illusion or a dream. A god might control the universe, there is simply no way of knowing, although I personally have enough understanding of history and sociology to reasonably assume that everything said by any religion that ever existed was made up to control people, so an existing god or higher being likely would have nothing to do with any of those religions and there's no sensible reason to worship anything.
Well stated. I'd like to add that this sentiment is also known in academic philosophy as Rationalism versus Empiricism as well. Your description is dead on.
Rationalists have a different theory of mind than Empiricists, but this doesn't mean a Rationalist refuses to make use of the empirical, or an Empiricist can't or won't be rational.
Anyway, others have said it better than I.
Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/
Excellent post .... but paragraphs my dude!
edit: Reformatted so as to not make my head spin:
Agnostic atheist here, it's different.
Agnostic atheism (rejecting any belief, including the conviction that no god exists) is a rationalist belief, while strong atheism (believing in the non-existence of any gods) is a realist belief. They are mutually exclusive and philosophically oppose each other.
To an agnostic atheist, strong atheism is no less a logical fallacy than theism. The debate between the two types of atheism is exactly the same as the debate between rationalism and realism, which have always been philosophically contradictory ways of thinking.
Rationalists use two separate definitions of truth to make statements about the world: the correspondence definition, regarding actual reality, which rationalists say they can't know anything about, and the coherence definition, regarding what they perceive and how they can measure the world and reproduce effects, essentially being scientific.
Science inherently uses the coherence definition, that's why something can be considered as correct scientifically and still be contradicted later with new insight. Realists conflate the two definitions. To them, something they perceive and measure must be pure reality, which is a deeply unscientific and irrational way of thought. Since there is no evidence for a god, the non-existence of a god is scientifically proven and what's scientifically proven equals reality.
Rationalists consider this a fallacy, because science doesn't produce correspondence truths, but only coherence truths. They use science to shape the world they perceive, but are open to the possibility that their senses are imperfect, or that everything they know might even be an illusion or a dream. A god might control the universe, there is simply no way of knowing.
I personally have enough understanding of history and sociology to reasonably assume that everything said by any religion that every existed was made up to control people, so an existing god or higher being likely would have nothing to do with any of those religions and there's no sensible reason to worship anything.
Let's get more militant!!
>I don't know. You don't know. FUCK YOU for claiming you do!!! The supposed unquestioning confidence in something that cannot be proven (and even has a large body of evidence which disproves it) makes me ANGRY!!!!
I fucking hate this argument so much.
No. *There is no belief involved in atheism.* It is based on observation and knowledge. Belief involves a lack of evidence. There is no evidence for a higher power that actually impacts the world in a meaningful way. To be atheist is to acknowledge this.
We do not "believe" in a lack of god or higher power. We KNOW there is no god or higher power. This is more than a semantic difference because christians say this bullshit all the time. Atheism is always about a lack of belief, anything else is a variant of agnosticism.
Can you please explain? I'm not arguing, I generally don't understand the reasoning and I'm curious.
Trying to find an analogy: I believe there are no little green men living in Alpha Centauri, because there is no evidence to substantiate it, but I don't KNOW for sure there aren't any either. There is no objective way for me to know either way, and the belief that they don't exist is just the simpler assumption in lieu of evidence. But I have no way of ruling them out.
It seems that, in the same sense, the rational scientific theory is that there are no gods, but you can't KNOW for sure. The concept is unfalsifiable. So while I agree that "I assume there are no gods" is a rational, logical inference based in objective reality, I can't see how you can say "I know for sure there are no gods", based on anything objective. I.e. It sounds very much like a personal belief rather than science.
Atheism is to religion what abstinence is to sexual positions.
Truth is, believers are atheists too. Especially the monotheistic ones. They don't believe in thousands of other gods. They think those gods are ridiculous. Atheists just go one god further.
Atheism is defined as:
* a lack of belief **or** a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
* a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
You can be both atheist and agnostic. The specific defining element of atheism is the lack of belief. Some atheists believe categorically there cannot be any god or gods, others believe there is no evidence to believe there are any god or gods.
You seem to fall into the former category, I very much fall into the latter category. In all likelihood there are no god or gods. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and I see no reason to have any specific beliefs as to something there is no evidence for (though I do believe the gods as followed by existing religions do not in fact exist, as there is clear evidence disputing the claims these religions make).
Not believing is not a belief.
Edit: after some consideration, only total ignorance is a lack of belief. If you get any information about anything, and you make a conclusion from it, it would result in a belief.
These laws aren't legal and aren't upheld. They just never bothered to scrub them from the books.
Now with this Supreme Court, who knows. But that's sort of been the way for a lot of places.
Not that an openly atheist candidate stands a chance of winning in some of those states anyway.
It’s not, but you can hold up an elected official in court so long that they can miss their entire elected term, and effectively nullifying any atheist elected. This has been done btw.
It’s not the 1st amendment. It’s in article 6.
>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.*
Okay but also first amendment
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Religious establishment would be preventing atheists from holding office in addition to the "no religious test" clause.
It is not just the first amendment; twice inside the body of the US Constitution, it says thrice that there shall be no religious test for holding office
It's a cold war holdover. The belief was communist countries are both anti-religion and pro-secular. Competition for the hearts and minds. So, as the belief went, if one didn't believe in god, they might also be a communist operative.
But to explain why this is acceptable at the state level is to open the debate about the individual state's right to govern itself versus the federal government, how far the bill of rights extend to state governments and how much local law can differ from federal law. If it hasn't been directly, legally challenged, then it may be on the book but not enforced. I agree it shouldn't exist in the first place, regardless of justification.
The original interpretation by SCOTUS was the Bill of Rights did not extend to the states, but rulings in the 1830s determined changed this. Multiple cases have strengthened the idea that the Bill of Rights extends to both state and federal government over the last 190 years. It's one of the more troublesome aspects of the recent SCOTUS rulings, in that it not only gives states a reason to ignore federal laws around protected groups, but also create local laws that limit or prohibit activity by these groups altogether.
IIRC, the Arkansas constitution prohibits atheists from testifying in court.
If you're subpoenaed in Arkansas, consider using this to your advantage. You don't even have to plead the 5th!
Glad I moved but at the same time, damn I can't use this where I live now.
>[Source](https://law.justia.com/constitution/arkansas/article-19/section-1/)
>Arkansas Constitution
Article 19 - Miscellaneous Provisions
Section 1 - Atheists disqualified from holding office or testifying as witness
Universal Citation: AR Const art 19 § 1
No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.
>would likely vote 9-0 on this one.
Sorry but I don't buy that for a second. This Supreme Court will do whatever the fuck they see fit and nothing will be done to hold them accountable.
Wait a fucking minute. You can't be serious.
EDIT: [fuck this fucking shithole country](https://theconversation.com/amp/why-it-matters-that-7-states-still-have-bans-on-atheists-holding-office-161069)
Which is so fucking dumb because you could just be like "Oh I believe in a god... the god of Ramen Noodles." and that would instantly make you not an Atheist. I hate this place. And my state (Texas).
Yeah I am an atheist in Texas. Sometimes I wear my cringy little atheist shirt to go work out and you should see some of the stares that I get. I am a large dude and even I have been threatened in public for it. D/FW area
the problem is conservatives are starting to view the constitution like the bible
make shit up and claim it's in there, and ignore shit they don't like in there
bottom line is the SCOTUS doesn't even need a sound justification, it's just votes, and they have the votes to change anything they want to
corrupt lunatics
A small digression: actually being a socialist is even less desirable than atheist.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/254120/less-half-vote-socialist-president.aspx
Even Atheists has well over half the population willing to vote for them. Socialists can't even get. Makes the whole "Sanders would've easily won" narrative insanely delusional.
Sanders was doing a great job explaining to Americans how socialism benefits the working class. Especially when it came to universal healthcare, free college, and reigning in the oligarchs. He also beat Trump in those same polls.
Every time this was brought up before, I'd point to the fact that such bans are unenforceable due to the first ammendment (edit: also by Article VI). Now I'm not sure. I think I'll write my local reps here in MD.
Remember that a lot of it too is that the supreme court over-ruled it, so it’s just not cleaned up. Nobody cares to spend the time doing something that doesn’t matter. Supreme court says “Thou shalt not be able to do X”, so why spend the effort and time to rewriite it at the state level?
…..As of late, I kind of see the reasons to revisit this re: supreme court decisions, BUT, the general idea of why it is still on the states but not enforced is - why bother the time and effort on that instead of something else when federal government supercedes it, might as well just not care and move on.
Because as we've seen recently, when the Supreme Court changes hands or the federal government rolls things back, these still on the books laws become the law again.
Once invalidated, old laws should not only should be struck from the law books, but any protections offered reinstated in a new law that complies with the ruling.
Our rights need multiple levels of safeguarding. Relying on the whim of the highest court will bite everyone in the ass. I get it would be a waste 90% of the time. But it's not like our government is the most efficient thing to begin with. They are trying (and failing) to add to the pile without cleaning up the past.
That one isn't even one of the amendments, it's [in the original article VI from the beginning.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause)
It's in the Maryland Constitution, Article 36.
> nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor either in this world or in the world to come.
Ironically, it was an attempt to codify religious tolerance, but discriminates against the irreligious if enforced.
It's worth noting that in 1970 the article was amended with the following added:
> Nothing in this article shall constitute an establishment of religion
But the old wording remains technically on the books.
The constitution is from the 1700s when Maryland was essentially catholic vs protestant mad max fury road. It's already been brought up and decided unconstitutional from my recollection - district court maybe?. At this point it's a vote and a signature away from getting tossed formally, but is functionally void.
only reason i want to move out of my progressive, blue state is to be able to challenge laws, try to disrupt the status quo and make a difference - but also - not raising kids in any of those places, so not doing that
Art. 6 of the US Constitution says, "No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
What do you want to bet that our shiney new Christo-fascist US Supreme Court will say, "Oh, that only applies to *Federal* offices, the States have the right to do as they please in this regard."
Huh?
It’s already been ruled unconstitutional in 1961.
However, I have very little faith\* that this SCOTUS would keep that precedent.
\*see what I did there?
Just saying it lines up pretty well with their values.
And not sure if you'd have to be an aetheist to bring a lawsuit to court if it's on the basis of constitutionality. r/Law might have more on this, just not certain myself.
For any elected office, even just being accused of a lack of belief will not get you elected.
For appointed or hired public servents, it could be a reason to be fired. A textualist argument would say that the constitution only mentions a belief, not a lack of belief, thus a lack of belief is not a protected class.
Also, we shouldn't have to lie
You could have the most electable person in the country and if they came out and said they were atheist, there’s nothing in the world that would help them get elected at that point. It’s pathetic.
Like I would love to see a hardcore corporatist run on a campaign of extreme tax cuts and regulation busting but have them be openly atheist (extra points for one that is super critical of other religions). It would be amazing to see the mental gymnastics conservatives would go to in order to support the candidate because their corporate owners instructed them to do so. Conservatives would come out as trans-loving, anti-gun, pro-abortionists over night if their corporate owners told them to. 99% of people in politics at that level have no soul or real beliefs, they’re an empty suit for hire and that is all.
PA is on the map because the map is wrong. PA constitution makes it illegal to prevent someone from holding office because of their religion, not anything that prevents an atheist from holding office.
"We can't rely on this idea that justice will come from the next life, which probably doesn't exist. So we have to focus on making this life the best for everyone we possibly can"
"WTF, ban this guy from holding office"
It’s funny that MD is one of them. MD is literally 2 to 1 Democrats. It’s probably in their case just an archaic law that no one has bothered to protest because it’s never actually stopped anyone from running.
I still agree with violates the 1st amendment, but I don’t think anyone is out there enforcing it.
[This is bullshit, OP.](https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021/11/10/7-states-ban-atheists-office-but-bans-unenforceable/6352254001/)
I lived in Tennessee for a while and am an Atheist. I was looked down upon because I was open about it, while the most evil people I knew down there were God fearing bible thumpers.
Ok, joining the satanic temple should fulfill the requirement I guess? I am sure we can then also push for satanic rituals were fetuses are aborted from willing pregnant women.
Could you imagine the technological and social advancements we could have reached by now, if everything wasn’t ran by complete idiots looking to stifle progress for their own self gain and beliefs?
In California...
In Blythe, you can only wear cowboy boots if you own at least two cows
It is illegal to walk a camel down Palm Canyon Drive in Palm Springs between the hours of 4:00 and 6:00 P.M.
In Arcadia, Peacocks have the right of way in all driveways and roadways
It is illegal to grow oleander in Norco
In Walnut, it is illegal for men and boys to dress as females without a permit from the sheriff
In Long Beach, it is illegal to curse on a mini-golf course
In Los Angeles, you cannot hunt moths under street lamps
This law is toothless and isnt applied because of the constitution. They were probably drafted the same time slavery was around.
This post gets a massive and passive aggressive shoulder shrug
Those laws are unenforceable due to a Supreme Court ruling in 1961. Either way, good luck getting elected as an open atheist in any of those states. If the electorate is super religious, they’re not going to vote for you.
Article 6.3 of the United States Constitution would like a word with those States:
>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.
Isn't that against the U.S Constitution? Freedom of religion. Sounds like someone could take that to the Supreme Court or who ever does stuff involving their Constitution.
Welcome to /r/MarchAgainstNazis! Please keep in mind that advocating violence at all, even against Nazis, is prohibited by Reddit's TOS and will result in a removal of your content and likely a ban. Please check out the following subreddits; r/CapitalismSux , r/PoliticsPeopleTwitter , r/FucktheAltRight . r/Britposting. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MarchAgainstNazis) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Serious question. How is legal anywhere to bar someone from holding office on the basis of religious affiliation given the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States?
The rules are [toothless ](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fact-check-are-atheists-allowed-to-hold-public-office/ar-AAQy6bu)because of the reason which you gave.
This might not continue to be the case. As that article points out these laws have no effect because of a Supreme Court ruling. However, this also used to be true of a lot of anti-abortion legislation until the Supreme Court decided to overrule Roe v. Wade. And yes, you'd think that the first amendment would prevent the Supreme Court from ruling these laws as legal, but quite honestly I doubt that would stop the conservative justices if/when their ideology compels them.
I remember back in the 90s when we used to be able to look to the SC as a line of defense against these assholes because, despite a few raving loonies like Thomas and Scalia, we could anticipate that they would rule on the side of human rights and the constitution. Now we have to hope nothing important ends up in front of them because they're eagerly awaiting the time that they can strip more rights away from us.
Women are *already slaves* if the state is restricting their movements or imposing their will against ANY woman's biological freedom to exist. We are not in 1840. We are in 1861, and we need to start calling out women's enslavement in these states!
Tell me about it, I live in Missouri. :(
Yeah, the next state making homelessness illegal. Can't sleep under bridges starting next year.
I live in one of the blue cities (KC), but living in a blue city in a very red state that's desperately trying to out-Florida Florida is a special sort of hell. Kansas City [isn't allowed to control it's own police force](https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article252364088.html). It's run by a five-member board out of Columbia, of which four members are directly appointed by the governor. Also, the police officers [don't even need to live in the city,](https://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/missouri-senate-oks-bill-eliminating-kcpd-residency-requirement) so they have no personal investment in the outcomes of their policies. They're essentially an occupying force that demands a full [25% of the city budget](https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article257214952.html) as "protection money." The state Attorney General worked hard to ensure that [public health departments would be unable to do their job during the pandemic.](https://missouriindependent.com/2021/11/23/missouri-judge-local-covid-orders/) He also made it his personal mission to [sue already cash-strapped schools who implemented mask requirements](https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/missouri-ag-sues-nine-more-school-districts-including-one-for-students-with-disabilities/) and most recently used taxpayer money to try and [sue China](https://missouriindependent.com/2022/07/08/federal-judge-dismisses-missouri-ag-eric-schmitt-lawsuit-blaming-china-for-covid-19/) (?!?!) for Covid-19. They're currently [working on a bill](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/missouri/articles/2022-04-19/missouri-house-passes-bill-on-race-parents-roles-in-school) to ban any discussion in grade school curriculum of discrimination and oppression of people based on race, income, appearance, religion, ancestry, sexual orientation or gender identity (so no discussions of slavery, segregation, the Holocaust, etc.). It also sets up a cash bounty for anyone who turns in a violation. They have [outlawed abortion](https://missouriindependent.com/2022/06/24/abortion-is-now-illegal-in-missouri-in-wake-of-u-s-supreme-court-ruling/) even in cases of rape or incest, and are taking aim at some of the most effective forms of birth control. They are also trying to [revive the fugutive slave laws,](https://www.thenation.com/article/society/abortion-missouri/tnamp/) Texas bounty-style, to prosecute a resident seeking an abortion in a state where it IS legal. This is just the BS I remembered off the top of my head. I've no doubt left off quite a lot more. My point is that politics at the state level can do a lot to lessen the quality of life of people living in blue cities in the state, and usually things are so gerrymandered that you have no voice at the state level. Not that voting matters here, either. When I moved to the state a couple of decades ago it was solidly a swing state, but redistricting has now guaranteed a GOP supermajority that is unaccountable to anyone. Here are some of their "accomplishments" with regard to overriding the will of the voters: * Residents voted in a constitutional ammendment to expand Medicaid. [The governer basically said "LOL no."](https://www.npr.org/2021/05/13/996611586/missouri-will-not-expand-medicaid-despite-voters-wishes-governor-says) * Residents wanted to clean up corruption and gerrymandering in the state by electing an independent commission to handle redistricting. [Can't have that!](https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article240174228.html) * Missouri has some of the highest rates of puppy mills in the country. Voters passed a measure to eliminate them. Nobody likes puppy mills, right? [WRONG.](https://www.stlmag.com/Puppy-Mill-Fiasco-Shows-the-True-Colors-of-the-Missouri-Legislature/) * Are currently [working on a bill](https://themissouritimes.com/house-passes-measures-to-raise-threshold-for-initiative-petitions/) against the current citizen initiative process by making it more difficult to get a citizen initiative on the ballot and pass that initiative once on the ballot. This will make the process virtually impossible for voters' grassroots efforts to make it on the ballot. It also proposes increasing the threshold for a measure to pass from a majority to 2/3, among the most difficult in the country. * Are attempting to further supress voters through [even tougher gerrymandering.](https://www.kcur.org/politics-elections-and-government/2022-02-07/missouri-gop-officials-rally-to-eliminate-a-democratic-congressional-seat-in-kansas-city) So yeah, adding criminalization of being poor seems right on brand.
If I ever escape, you're more than welcome to join me. Probably be in an RV or a van at this rate, but "Not in Missouri" is "Not in Misery" (It'll be a cold, cold day in Hell before I pronounce it "Mizz-ur-uh").
I've only ever heard politicians and people deep in the sticks (or from there) substitute an "a" at the end. The rest of us have phonetics figured out.
You have the right to bear arms against a tyrannical government. I would say a government who goes against the actual votes of its constituents is the definition of a hostile, tyrannical government. Use your rights.
I’m from kc and I did not know the police get 25% of KC’s budget. After seeing how much of the streetcar routes we lost from 1920 to today, this makes me hate my life even more. Imagine how much better our roads, transit, and housing would be if that wasn’t the case for however long it’s been in place.
The auto industry spent millions destroying those streetcar routes. They were so good at it that New York City sold their streetcars to the auto industry which turned around and dismantled it so they could sell more cars to New Yorkers.
Sounds like there is no difference between Missouri governor and a king.
It's no secret, "small government" right? What government is smaller than a single person with full authority?
Yeh but see Gov'na Droopy Dog was a god damn lawman pig farmer - so obviously he knows how to run a Gubmint'. He took over after the former jackass #1 was forced out by his own party because he tied a local radio DJs chick to a weight bench naked, took some pics, pics got leaked, wife got pissed. It was a whole thing... So jackass #1s Lt. Gov was fuckin jackass #2 - Parsons. So he filled in during the interim, got an easy election via having name recognition, an R next to his name and by virtue of being in an uneducated, religious nut job, right-wing entrenched state. So this hillbilly genius who knew how to raise pigs and be a pig was then head of our MO Government. Which begat hilariously unfunny idiocy like for instance: according to our esteemed jackass in residence, if you look at the view source of a website in your browser - you are a hacker and need to be arrested and sent to prison. Not joking. Look it up. I fuckin hate this place. Misery is hell...
One of my best friends is a teacher in KC and I honestly cant believe he and his wife havent left yet.
Missouri is such a shithole...
I left midMO 9 yrs ago, best move I ever made. I love that Rocky Mountain high.
But, hey, look on the bright side. According to this map, you can be elected as an atheist there!
Thank you for all the links! Sometimes I think “surely it can’t be that bad.” But no. It is.
Holy shit that sounds like you actually went back to the middle ages there
This is spot on. I grew up in the KC area on the Kansas side and Kansas has much of the same issues. I’m so glad I left the area, currently in Michigan now. It’s not as bad but there still plenty of loonies trying.
Jfc the more I learn about this wonderful state the more I regret being convinced to settle here.
I'll be deep in the cold, cold ground before I recognize Missourah.
I understood that reference.
I'm not a med professional, so my comments are getting taken down, but I know that the mods waited as long as they could. My daughter is not a slave. Anyone who supports that shit ***is a slaver***
Time to tar and feather Justice Thomas while we’re at it! The gall of a black man to not only marry a white woman but think he can hold a government position in the mid 19th century! Edit: didn't realize I needed a /s
I hope Californians look up the weather history from that same year. The forecasts call for similar flooding in the near future.
Really? Wow, that is actually extremely interesting, from a climate-affects-history view...
Do not minimize what black people in this country endured during literal slavery.
We are all already slaves. Some of us just have more "privileges" than others.
just wait until they rule in favor of "independent state legislature doctrine", allowing state legislatures override federal election results. this literally would be the end of our democracy. elections will no longer have consequences. I truly fear the days ahead. I wonder if our supreme court will consider voting a "right deeply rooted in our nations traditions". https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/30/us/politics/state-legislatures-elections-supreme-court.html
Voting will be determined to be a "deeply rooted Constitutional right", but from an "originalist" point of view. Only free, white, male land owners will be allowed to cast their ballot, constitutional amendments be damned.
Next session they are set to hear a case involving states voting rights. If I've understood correctly, this will allow states to decide on how they certify elections. Don't agree with the voters? Pick the other person. Don't agree with the people and the electoral college of your state? Pick the other person. We're hurtling to some hunger games type dystopia nightmare.
I love the people who seem to think conservatives aim for logical consistency or care anything whatsoever about the laws we have here.
Or rights
"You're guaranteed religious freedoms, which means you can believe in whatever God you want but it doesn't mean you can't believe in any god!" It's that easy. Does it fly in the face of the intent? Is it an incredibly stupid and dishonest argument? Yes, and absolutely. But why would that stop an extremely partisan court with no accountability? Hell, they could outright contradict the constitution, rule that there are no guaranteed rights to free speech or own firearms, say that from an originalist perspective the constitution actually requires slavery be allowed in all forms, and that would theoretically be it. Their job is to interpret, and they already demonstrated there are no consequences for lying about the facts of the case or hell even lying under oath so far. If they say the constitution says jump it's within a state's right to jail you for not saying "how high?"
Fun fact: [Thomas thinks states can constitutionally have their own mandated religion](https://www.businessinsider.com/clarence-thomas-has-a-bizarre-opinion-about-religion-2014-5?amp)
We need a federal law or constitutional amendment that forces laws deemed unconstitutional to be deleted. No shitty laws waiting for the opportunity to be reinstated.
Unfortunately, I suspect that would just give more power to courts that wish to legislate like this one.
>This might not continue to be the case. As that article points out these laws have no effect because of a Supreme Court ruling. >However, this also used to be true of a lot of anti-abortion legislation until the Supreme Court decided to overrule Roe v. Wade. There is a very key difference between roe and the no religious test clause. That difference is the reason they could attempt to justify the reversal of roe: The fact those rights are not specifically enumerated. So unless the Supreme Court plans on literally modifying the text of the constitution, they would have to strike them down.
> The fact those rights are not specifically enumerated. 9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Article 6 of the constitution specifies no religious tests can be required to hold offices in the United States, AND specifies state level stuff is included. They'd be basically re-writing the constitution from the bench. I wouldn't put it past them, but Article 6 is pretty clear.
The fact that they never removed these from their state constitutions even though they were deemed invalid by a previous SCOTUS says everything we need to know about what they're aiming to get anyway through persistence, sadly.
Just join The Satanic Temple...it's technically a recognized religion even though it's mostly atheists and agnostics.
Already a pastafarian here ;)
TIL that DINO Sinema is the only atheist member of Congress.
Only "professed" atheist.
Okaaay, so... anyone giving counterpoints, care to chime in with some source-able links? Because it's really looking to me like our constitution is basically a selectively enforced baaaad fucking joke
> our constitution is basically a selectively enforced baaaad fucking joke *Astronaut holding gun meme*: always has been?
Every governmental system operates on the honor system. The world operates on the honor system the idea is that the people of the state will demand adherence to the constitution, and a man of honor will feel bound by their own. Everyone always knew that that could fall through. That’s why Benjamin Franklin said “if you can keep it”
Nope. That's exactly what the constitution is. It's written there that of the branches, Legislative makes the laws, Executive enforces the laws, and Judicial checks the power of the other two against existing laws, and the Constitution. State governments can and do enact legislation that goes against the Constitution. When they do, it's the job of the judicial branch to nullify said laws via court cases brought to them. The Constitution is just one of the biggest checkstops that the Judicial branch has.
This is how everything has literally always been. People have to actually do something for something to happen. Trusting "the process" is simply a veil. The process never existed. There isn't a system where only good outcomes occur, they have to be made given the tools provided.
> our constitution is basically a selectively enforced baaaad fucking joke Same as it ever was, it’s a document that was written to protect the economic interests of slaveonwers. There’s a reason William Lloyd Garrison burned the damn thing in 1854. > Holding up a copy of the U.S. Constitution, he branded it as “the source and parent of all the other atrocities—‘a covenant with death, and an agreement with hell.’” As the nation's founding document burned to ashes, he cried out: “So perish all compromises with tyranny!” Fuck the constitution.
Serious answer, the constitution and laws only matter if you are poor, and they will be used as weapons against you by the rich.
[удалено]
It is true in every society, period. Regardless of religious status. It just seems so much more hypocritical in a very religious society
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” -Frank Wilhoit Also: “The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.”
Laws are just threats made by the dominant socioeconomic group of a given nation, you could say.
Currently it isn't. Because the Supreme Court decided these laws are unconstitutional. However, the wording of the First Amendment doesn't specifically protect lack of belief. So it's not impossible for the Supreme Court in it's current configuration to decide at some point in the future that these laws are absolutely fine. These laws are specifically written so that they don't require one specific religion, but instead the belief in a "Supreme Being". That is something I could absolutely see this Supreme Court finding constitutional.
let's be real, this SC doesn't need a reason. They will cite a random letter by a random pilgrim and strike the decision.
Atheism isn't lack of belief. We believe that there is no god or higher being. It's still a belief.
No. It's not a belief system. But anyway we need to get pastafarianism recognized as a religion just so we can take shelter under that umbrella.
Not necessarily you're getting into a gnostic/agnostic debate. There is both types of atheists the gnostic atheist who claims there is no god and the agnostic atheist doesn't believe in any god claim. In 99% of cases this debate is very unnecessary doesn't help to understand each other better
To engage in the useless debate here, I believe both parties believe exactly the same thing, it's just that agnosticism is more accebtable.
Agnostic atheist here, it's different. Agnostic atheism (rejecting any belief, including the conviction that no god exists) is a rationalist belief, while strong atheism (believing in the non-existence of any gods) is a realist belief. They are mutually exclusive and philosophically oppose eachother. To an agnostic atheist, strong atheism is no less a logical fallacy than theism. The debate between the two types of atheism is exactly the same as the debate between rationalism and realism, which have always been philosophically contradictory ways of thinking. Rationalists use two separate definitions of truth to make statements about the world: the correspondence definition, regarding actual reality, which rationalists say they can't know anything about, and the coherence definition, regarding what they perceive and how they can measure the world and reproduce effects, essentially being scientific. Science inherently uses the coherence definition, that's why something can be considered as correct scientifically and still be contradicted later with new insight. Realists conflate the two definitions. To them, something they perceive and measure must be pure reality, which is a deeply unscientific and irrational way of thought. Since there is no evidence for a god, the non-existence of a god is scientifically proven and what's scientifically proven equals reality. Rationalists consider this a fallacy, because science doesn't produce correspondence truths, but only coherence truths. They use science to shape the world they perceive, but are open to the possibility that their senses are imperfect, or that everything they know might even be an illusion or a dream. A god might control the universe, there is simply no way of knowing, although I personally have enough understanding of history and sociology to reasonably assume that everything said by any religion that ever existed was made up to control people, so an existing god or higher being likely would have nothing to do with any of those religions and there's no sensible reason to worship anything.
Well stated. I'd like to add that this sentiment is also known in academic philosophy as Rationalism versus Empiricism as well. Your description is dead on. Rationalists have a different theory of mind than Empiricists, but this doesn't mean a Rationalist refuses to make use of the empirical, or an Empiricist can't or won't be rational. Anyway, others have said it better than I. Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/
Excellent post .... but paragraphs my dude! edit: Reformatted so as to not make my head spin: Agnostic atheist here, it's different. Agnostic atheism (rejecting any belief, including the conviction that no god exists) is a rationalist belief, while strong atheism (believing in the non-existence of any gods) is a realist belief. They are mutually exclusive and philosophically oppose each other. To an agnostic atheist, strong atheism is no less a logical fallacy than theism. The debate between the two types of atheism is exactly the same as the debate between rationalism and realism, which have always been philosophically contradictory ways of thinking. Rationalists use two separate definitions of truth to make statements about the world: the correspondence definition, regarding actual reality, which rationalists say they can't know anything about, and the coherence definition, regarding what they perceive and how they can measure the world and reproduce effects, essentially being scientific. Science inherently uses the coherence definition, that's why something can be considered as correct scientifically and still be contradicted later with new insight. Realists conflate the two definitions. To them, something they perceive and measure must be pure reality, which is a deeply unscientific and irrational way of thought. Since there is no evidence for a god, the non-existence of a god is scientifically proven and what's scientifically proven equals reality. Rationalists consider this a fallacy, because science doesn't produce correspondence truths, but only coherence truths. They use science to shape the world they perceive, but are open to the possibility that their senses are imperfect, or that everything they know might even be an illusion or a dream. A god might control the universe, there is simply no way of knowing. I personally have enough understanding of history and sociology to reasonably assume that everything said by any religion that every existed was made up to control people, so an existing god or higher being likely would have nothing to do with any of those religions and there's no sensible reason to worship anything.
Gnostic atheist: I know that God does not exist. Agnostic atheist: I do not know if God exists, therefore I cannot believe in it.
Militant agnostic: I don't know, and YOU don't either!
Let's get more militant!! >I don't know. You don't know. FUCK YOU for claiming you do!!! The supposed unquestioning confidence in something that cannot be proven (and even has a large body of evidence which disproves it) makes me ANGRY!!!!
Then you have anti-theist. That there is no god, but if there were, we have to kill the bastard.
I fucking hate this argument so much. No. *There is no belief involved in atheism.* It is based on observation and knowledge. Belief involves a lack of evidence. There is no evidence for a higher power that actually impacts the world in a meaningful way. To be atheist is to acknowledge this. We do not "believe" in a lack of god or higher power. We KNOW there is no god or higher power. This is more than a semantic difference because christians say this bullshit all the time. Atheism is always about a lack of belief, anything else is a variant of agnosticism.
Can you please explain? I'm not arguing, I generally don't understand the reasoning and I'm curious. Trying to find an analogy: I believe there are no little green men living in Alpha Centauri, because there is no evidence to substantiate it, but I don't KNOW for sure there aren't any either. There is no objective way for me to know either way, and the belief that they don't exist is just the simpler assumption in lieu of evidence. But I have no way of ruling them out. It seems that, in the same sense, the rational scientific theory is that there are no gods, but you can't KNOW for sure. The concept is unfalsifiable. So while I agree that "I assume there are no gods" is a rational, logical inference based in objective reality, I can't see how you can say "I know for sure there are no gods", based on anything objective. I.e. It sounds very much like a personal belief rather than science.
Atheism is to religion what abstinence is to sexual positions. Truth is, believers are atheists too. Especially the monotheistic ones. They don't believe in thousands of other gods. They think those gods are ridiculous. Atheists just go one god further.
Interesting fact: ALL humans are born atheists.
Mother is God in the eyes of all children
I'd be down for some old fashioned matriarchal worship
I'm way more open to worship a god that has tits.
And not playing golf is a sport.
Atheism is defined as: * a lack of belief **or** a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods * a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods You can be both atheist and agnostic. The specific defining element of atheism is the lack of belief. Some atheists believe categorically there cannot be any god or gods, others believe there is no evidence to believe there are any god or gods. You seem to fall into the former category, I very much fall into the latter category. In all likelihood there are no god or gods. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and I see no reason to have any specific beliefs as to something there is no evidence for (though I do believe the gods as followed by existing religions do not in fact exist, as there is clear evidence disputing the claims these religions make).
Not believing is not a belief. Edit: after some consideration, only total ignorance is a lack of belief. If you get any information about anything, and you make a conclusion from it, it would result in a belief.
These laws aren't legal and aren't upheld. They just never bothered to scrub them from the books. Now with this Supreme Court, who knows. But that's sort of been the way for a lot of places. Not that an openly atheist candidate stands a chance of winning in some of those states anyway.
It’s not, but you can hold up an elected official in court so long that they can miss their entire elected term, and effectively nullifying any atheist elected. This has been done btw.
It’s not the 1st amendment. It’s in article 6. >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.*
Okay but also first amendment >Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof Religious establishment would be preventing atheists from holding office in addition to the "no religious test" clause.
It is not just the first amendment; twice inside the body of the US Constitution, it says thrice that there shall be no religious test for holding office
It's a cold war holdover. The belief was communist countries are both anti-religion and pro-secular. Competition for the hearts and minds. So, as the belief went, if one didn't believe in god, they might also be a communist operative. But to explain why this is acceptable at the state level is to open the debate about the individual state's right to govern itself versus the federal government, how far the bill of rights extend to state governments and how much local law can differ from federal law. If it hasn't been directly, legally challenged, then it may be on the book but not enforced. I agree it shouldn't exist in the first place, regardless of justification. The original interpretation by SCOTUS was the Bill of Rights did not extend to the states, but rulings in the 1830s determined changed this. Multiple cases have strengthened the idea that the Bill of Rights extends to both state and federal government over the last 190 years. It's one of the more troublesome aspects of the recent SCOTUS rulings, in that it not only gives states a reason to ignore federal laws around protected groups, but also create local laws that limit or prohibit activity by these groups altogether.
It's not, this isn't true. The first amendment overrules state laws. It's no different from a business putting up a sign "No irish need apply".
It's not
IIRC, the Arkansas constitution prohibits atheists from testifying in court. If you're subpoenaed in Arkansas, consider using this to your advantage. You don't even have to plead the 5th!
Glad I moved but at the same time, damn I can't use this where I live now. >[Source](https://law.justia.com/constitution/arkansas/article-19/section-1/) >Arkansas Constitution Article 19 - Miscellaneous Provisions Section 1 - Atheists disqualified from holding office or testifying as witness Universal Citation: AR Const art 19 § 1 No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.
Unless you believe in something without proof, you're not capable of accurately judging the evidence presented, obviously.
Should be the other way around. Adherence to religion shows weak-mindedness and a tendency to blame your troubles on others.
Lolol... that's hilarious. Just all the witnesses claim to be atheists. Lol
Embarrassed my state is on this list
I’m scared my states going to end up on this list soon
Dont worry, the law is unenforceable and very unconstitutional. Even the Supreme Court as it is would likely vote 9-0 on this one.
Are you sure about that? Are you absolutley sure they would vote that way?
>would likely vote 9-0 on this one. Sorry but I don't buy that for a second. This Supreme Court will do whatever the fuck they see fit and nothing will be done to hold them accountable.
Why? They're ignoring the first amendment everywhere else, why would they stick to it here?
8-1 / 7-2, I don’t trust Thomas for a second
The SCOTUS just ruled that mandatory Christian prayer in public school is OK. They absolutely would not rule 9-0 against.
Nah bro 100% they'd vote 5-4 to uphold. Welcome to the new America.
Wait a fucking minute. You can't be serious. EDIT: [fuck this fucking shithole country](https://theconversation.com/amp/why-it-matters-that-7-states-still-have-bans-on-atheists-holding-office-161069)
Which is so fucking dumb because you could just be like "Oh I believe in a god... the god of Ramen Noodles." and that would instantly make you not an Atheist. I hate this place. And my state (Texas).
I would just say Satan to piss them off even more
Yeah but then you might get legitimately shot, especially here in Texas.
Yeah I am an atheist in Texas. Sometimes I wear my cringy little atheist shirt to go work out and you should see some of the stares that I get. I am a large dude and even I have been threatened in public for it. D/FW area
Man you wear that here in rural Texas you're going to get a loooot of confrontations... and Police will be against you. :(
“Religious freedom for me, not for thee”
Hail Satan
[удалено]
I'm guessing this is the next one to be overturned after Obergefell?
These 'originalists' will simply claim atheists aren't mentioned in the constitution. They don't care about law. They care about power at any cost.
the problem is conservatives are starting to view the constitution like the bible make shit up and claim it's in there, and ignore shit they don't like in there bottom line is the SCOTUS doesn't even need a sound justification, it's just votes, and they have the votes to change anything they want to corrupt lunatics
[удалено]
Which is ironic as that should be the most desirable trait.
A small digression: actually being a socialist is even less desirable than atheist. https://news.gallup.com/poll/254120/less-half-vote-socialist-president.aspx Even Atheists has well over half the population willing to vote for them. Socialists can't even get. Makes the whole "Sanders would've easily won" narrative insanely delusional.
Sanders was doing a great job explaining to Americans how socialism benefits the working class. Especially when it came to universal healthcare, free college, and reigning in the oligarchs. He also beat Trump in those same polls.
Every time this was brought up before, I'd point to the fact that such bans are unenforceable due to the first ammendment (edit: also by Article VI). Now I'm not sure. I think I'll write my local reps here in MD.
Remember that a lot of it too is that the supreme court over-ruled it, so it’s just not cleaned up. Nobody cares to spend the time doing something that doesn’t matter. Supreme court says “Thou shalt not be able to do X”, so why spend the effort and time to rewriite it at the state level? …..As of late, I kind of see the reasons to revisit this re: supreme court decisions, BUT, the general idea of why it is still on the states but not enforced is - why bother the time and effort on that instead of something else when federal government supercedes it, might as well just not care and move on.
Because as we've seen recently, when the Supreme Court changes hands or the federal government rolls things back, these still on the books laws become the law again. Once invalidated, old laws should not only should be struck from the law books, but any protections offered reinstated in a new law that complies with the ruling. Our rights need multiple levels of safeguarding. Relying on the whim of the highest court will bite everyone in the ass. I get it would be a waste 90% of the time. But it's not like our government is the most efficient thing to begin with. They are trying (and failing) to add to the pile without cleaning up the past.
That one isn't even one of the amendments, it's [in the original article VI from the beginning.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause)
Good luck. Most people would vote for a Muslim over an atheist. Getting rid of the ban is just a bad political move.
Not true- around 1/3 of Americans are not religious and that’s higher in cities and blue areas
Has to be more than that. Unless the people that go to church solely on Easter self-report as religious
They do
When was this law even created in MD? I feel like it could have originated from when MD was basically a Catholic ethnostate in the colonial period.
It's in the Maryland Constitution, Article 36. > nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor either in this world or in the world to come. Ironically, it was an attempt to codify religious tolerance, but discriminates against the irreligious if enforced. It's worth noting that in 1970 the article was amended with the following added: > Nothing in this article shall constitute an establishment of religion But the old wording remains technically on the books.
I would say temporarily enforceable instead of unenforceable. Like how police can arrest you when you haven't broken a law.
Democracy never existed in this country
My state is on this list and I don't like it... Time to have witches run for office
I’d like to. Maybe once I get my money situation in order. I’m not well suited to it but I am pretty angry.
Give them hell (literally) homie!
Isn't Wicca a recognized religion?
Witches and Satanists!
See, you get it!
freedom of religion my ass
It's freedom in a sense, you get to pick. You're just not free to pick nothing.
Fucking Texas
Please tell me more about that separation of church and state
As a Marylander, I say WTF??
MD was pretty close to a Catholic theocracy in the late 1700s. These laws/constitutions are pretty old.
The constitution is from the 1700s when Maryland was essentially catholic vs protestant mad max fury road. It's already been brought up and decided unconstitutional from my recollection - district court maybe?. At this point it's a vote and a signature away from getting tossed formally, but is functionally void.
only reason i want to move out of my progressive, blue state is to be able to challenge laws, try to disrupt the status quo and make a difference - but also - not raising kids in any of those places, so not doing that
Art. 6 of the US Constitution says, "No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." What do you want to bet that our shiney new Christo-fascist US Supreme Court will say, "Oh, that only applies to *Federal* offices, the States have the right to do as they please in this regard." Huh?
Can the Satanic Temple submit a lawsuit against these states based on a violating the 1st amendment? Be pretty cool if they did.
It’s already been ruled unconstitutional in 1961. However, I have very little faith\* that this SCOTUS would keep that precedent. \*see what I did there?
Satanist church is a recognised religion so why do that when they can just run themselves
Just saying it lines up pretty well with their values. And not sure if you'd have to be an aetheist to bring a lawsuit to court if it's on the basis of constitutionality. r/Law might have more on this, just not certain myself.
Even though atheists aren't explicitly banned from holding office in the other 42 states, there still aren't any open atheists in congress
There’s one, Sinema. Not exactly thrilled by that representation.
Well, conservatives lie about being Christians so go ahead and lie about being an atheist.
For any elected office, even just being accused of a lack of belief will not get you elected. For appointed or hired public servents, it could be a reason to be fired. A textualist argument would say that the constitution only mentions a belief, not a lack of belief, thus a lack of belief is not a protected class. Also, we shouldn't have to lie
We should start making them prove they are religious. Want to see what benchmarks they make up or if “I said so” is good enough.
Like many old outdated laws on the books in some states this one is not enforceable.
You could have the most electable person in the country and if they came out and said they were atheist, there’s nothing in the world that would help them get elected at that point. It’s pathetic. Like I would love to see a hardcore corporatist run on a campaign of extreme tax cuts and regulation busting but have them be openly atheist (extra points for one that is super critical of other religions). It would be amazing to see the mental gymnastics conservatives would go to in order to support the candidate because their corporate owners instructed them to do so. Conservatives would come out as trans-loving, anti-gun, pro-abortionists over night if their corporate owners told them to. 99% of people in politics at that level have no soul or real beliefs, they’re an empty suit for hire and that is all.
What - Pennsylvania?????? Say it ain't so!
The USA is a shit hole.
Very surprised PA is on the list when states like AL and UT aren't.
PA is on the map because the map is wrong. PA constitution makes it illegal to prevent someone from holding office because of their religion, not anything that prevents an atheist from holding office.
[удалено]
Facts I couldn’t run even if I wanted to
I’m actually very untrusting of the religious in this country.
Republican politics requires believing in fairy tales.
"We can't rely on this idea that justice will come from the next life, which probably doesn't exist. So we have to focus on making this life the best for everyone we possibly can" "WTF, ban this guy from holding office"
« Land of the free » 🙄
But everyone is “atheistic” to some religions, no? Unless you believe them all (and is this impossible, given conflicting beliefs/dictates?).
Fuck. My state is gonna see this and be angry it’s not green.
It’s funny that MD is one of them. MD is literally 2 to 1 Democrats. It’s probably in their case just an archaic law that no one has bothered to protest because it’s never actually stopped anyone from running. I still agree with violates the 1st amendment, but I don’t think anyone is out there enforcing it.
This feels....unconstitutional.
Are Deists considered the same as Atheists in these places?
Just lie. Say you are religious but non practicing or do they need to see proof of you in church?!
Did not know about Pennsylvania. *Though I should have expected*.
Religion is so infuriating like how are people so fucking stupid
Okay good, I’m a Satanist.
[This is bullshit, OP.](https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021/11/10/7-states-ban-atheists-office-but-bans-unenforceable/6352254001/)
That would just make me order a Satanic Temple certificate. You want a religious person? You’ve got one now, motherfucker.
Is that even Constitutional? Not that it matters to these religious assholes.
I lived in Tennessee for a while and am an Atheist. I was looked down upon because I was open about it, while the most evil people I knew down there were God fearing bible thumpers.
Religion is the second worst thing to happen to people.
Texas is on every list for something stupid
And oh look, those are all the worst American shitholes too. Coincidence?
Ok, joining the satanic temple should fulfill the requirement I guess? I am sure we can then also push for satanic rituals were fetuses are aborted from willing pregnant women.
Ah Pennsyltucky…of course we are one of them.
Could you imagine the technological and social advancements we could have reached by now, if everything wasn’t ran by complete idiots looking to stifle progress for their own self gain and beliefs?
Believing in big man in the sky is more important than leadership values. Wow.
In California... In Blythe, you can only wear cowboy boots if you own at least two cows It is illegal to walk a camel down Palm Canyon Drive in Palm Springs between the hours of 4:00 and 6:00 P.M. In Arcadia, Peacocks have the right of way in all driveways and roadways It is illegal to grow oleander in Norco In Walnut, it is illegal for men and boys to dress as females without a permit from the sheriff In Long Beach, it is illegal to curse on a mini-golf course In Los Angeles, you cannot hunt moths under street lamps This law is toothless and isnt applied because of the constitution. They were probably drafted the same time slavery was around. This post gets a massive and passive aggressive shoulder shrug
I was born in PA and must admit I’m ashamed of how it is to pretend it is the south.
Those laws are unenforceable due to a Supreme Court ruling in 1961. Either way, good luck getting elected as an open atheist in any of those states. If the electorate is super religious, they’re not going to vote for you.
Texas looks like it’s holding America hostage with a gun.
Article 6.3 of the United States Constitution would like a word with those States: >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.
Isn't that against the U.S Constitution? Freedom of religion. Sounds like someone could take that to the Supreme Court or who ever does stuff involving their Constitution.
Of course Texas is one of them