| About this site |
| About us |
| Our beliefs |
| Your first visit? |
| Contact us |
| External links |
| Good books |
| Visitor essays |
| Our forum |
| New essays |
| Other site features |
| Buy a CD |
| Vital notes |
| Spiritual/ethics |
| Spirituality |
| Morality/ethics |
| Absolute truth |
| Peace/conflict |
| Attaining peace |
| Religious tolerance |
| Religious hatred |
| Religious conflict |
| Religious violence |
| Laws and news |
| Religious laws |
| Religious news |
|
|
 | "...It is objected that the people of America may, perhaps, choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that Pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. But how is it possible to exclude any set of men, without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for?" James Iredell, during the debate on the adoption of the Federal Constitution by the North Carolina Convention. ["Mahometans" is an outdated term, now considered derogatory, for Muslims] |
Overview:
The Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution (Article I, Section 4) allows people to be excluded from holding office on religious grounds. An official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."
This would specifically exclude all Atheists and Agnostics from holding public office. It would also exclude:
| Most Buddhists, who do not believe in a personal deity. |
| Members of the Church of Satan; they are typically Agnostics. |
| Most Unitarian Universalists. |
| Some followers of the New Age who do not believe in the existence of a personal deity. |
However, Wiccans and Zoroastrians are acceptable, as they believe in two deities -- twice as many as the minimum that Section 4 requires. Hindus would also be good enough because they generally acknowledge the existence of millions of deities. The number, gender, shape, size and other attributes do not matter, as long as you believe that a Supreme Being of some sort exists.
This form of religious intolerance is not limited to Texas. Seven other states (AR, MA, MD, NC, PA, SC and TN) all have similar exclusionary language included in their Bill of Rights, Declaration of Rights, or in the body of their constitutions.
In a few states whose constitutions include the text of the oath of office, the candidate must swear an oath to God. Such an oath would prevent ethical non-theists from taking office. Of course, non-ethical non-theists would have no problems with such an oath.
However, now that these Constitutions include discriminatory and intolerant language, the states are probably stuck with it. The passages will forever affirm that people who follow some minority religions were considered unreliable second- class citizens of questionable morality -- at least at the time that the state constitutions were written. They could only be removed through constitutional change; this requires at least a majority vote of the citizens of the state. With the present political leadership and religious climate towards non-theists in many of these states, this is simply not going to happen.
Religious discrimination in state constitutions:
We have highlighted the most important sentences in the following articles and sections:
| Arkansas Constitution, Article 19 Section 1 of the 1874 constitution: "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." Comments: This clause denies human rights only to those who actively deny the existence of a God. This would appear to grant Agnostics and some Atheists full human rights, while excluding them from strong Atheists. | ||||
| Maryland's Bill of Rights:
|
| Massachusetts' Declaration of Rights:
| ||||
| North Carolina's Constitution, Article 6 Sec. 8: "Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God...." Comments: "Almighty God" apparently refers to the Judeo-Christian God. This Section would appear to disqualify anyone who is not a Christian or Jew from holding office in the State. | ||||
| Pennsylvania a Declaration of Rights: Article 1, Section 4: "No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth." Comments: Apparently anyone who denies the existence of God OR who denies the existence of heaven and hell can be held ineligible to hold office or be a member of the PA civil service. | ||||
| South Carolina's Constitution, Article 4 Section 2: "Person denying existence of Supreme Being not to hold office. No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution." Comments: "The Supreme Being" apparently refers specifically to the Judeo-Christian God. This Section would appear to disqualify anyone who is not a Christian or Jew from holding office in the State. | ||||
| Tennessee's Bill of Rights: Article 9:
Comments: Section 4 says that there is to be no religious test. Section 2 is that there is a religious test. Nobody who denies God or heaven or hell can hold office. | ||||
|
Texas' Bill of Rights Section 4: "RELIGIOUS TESTS: No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being." Comments: As noted above, only theists can hold office civil servant in Texas. |
Why these religious restrictions are no longer valid:
These phrases are historical relics, left over from earlier times. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution supersedes any applicable statutory laws and sections of state constitutions. It thus nullifies the effect of the above clauses. This was confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, as described below.
A U.S. Supreme Court case -- Torcaso v Watkins -- in 1961:
In the early 1960s, the Governor of Maryland appointed Roy Torcaso to be a Notary Public. According to Atheism.About.com:
"When the time came for him to actually assume his duties, he was denied his commission and had his appointment rescinded because he refused to declare his belief in God."
"Article 37 of Maryland's Declaration of Rights stated: '[N]o religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God'." 3
Torcaso filed suit in state court because he felt the test unfairly penalized him for his lack of belief in God. He argued that the religious test had violated his rights under U.S. Constitution -- both:
| The 1st Amendment (which guarantees freedom of religion) and |
| The 14th Amendment (which makes certain provisions of the Federal Constitution binding on the individual states). |
He lost. 4 He appealed to the State Court of Appeals 5 and lost again. Finally, he won before the U.S. Supreme Court. He had the support of the American Ethical Union and the American Jewish Committee, who filed amici curiae ("friends of the court" briefs).
The court ruled unanimously in Torcaso's favor. Justice Black, writing for the justices stated:
"This Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States."
This ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court presumably makes all of the religious tests for office in the various states listed above to be unconstitutional.
During the hearing before the Supreme Court, the state tried to make the case that the religious test did not impinge on Torcaso's religious freedom. They stated:
"The petitioner is not compelled to believe or disbelieve, under threat of punishment or other compulsion. True, unless he makes the declaration of belief he cannot hold public office in Maryland, but he is not compelled to hold office."
However, Mr. Justice Black ruled:
"There is, and can be, no dispute about the purpose or effect of the Maryland Declaration of Rights requirement before us - it sets up a religious test which [it] was designed to and, if valid, does bar every person who refuses to declare a belief in God from holding a public 'office of profit or trust' in Maryland. The power and authority of the State of Maryland thus is put on the side of one particular sort of believers - those who are willing to say they believe in 'the existence of God.' It is true that there is much historical precedent for such laws. Indeed, it was largely to escape religious test oaths and declarations that a great many of the early colonists left Europe and came here hoping to worship in their own way. It soon developed, however, that many of those who had fled to escape religious test oaths turned out to be perfectly willing, when they had the power to do so, to force dissenters from their faith to take test oaths in conformity with that faith. This brought on a host of laws in the new Colonies imposing burdens and disabilities of various kinds upon varied beliefs depending largely upon what group happened to be politically strong enough to legislate in favor of its own beliefs. The effect of all this was the formal or practical 'establishment' of particular religious faiths in most of the Colonies, with consequent burdens imposed on the free exercise of the faiths of nonfavored believers....."
When our Constitution was adopted, the desire to put the people 'securely beyond the reach' of religious test oaths brought about the inclusion in Article VI of that document of a provision that 'no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States'....."
In Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 -304, we said:
"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. . . . Thus the Amendment embraces two concepts, - freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be.""The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State.'....."
"We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person 'to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.' Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs." 4
The full ruling is well worth reading, It describes the religiously oppressive culture in some of the early colonies, and the vital importance of the separation of church and state in a religiously diverse country. The U.S. may well be soon reverting back to a culture of religious oppression similar to that found in the early colonies.
A footnote about a footnote:
Footnote 11 in Justice Black's ruling states:
"Among the religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others." 4
This footnote is often quoted by religious conservatives to prove that the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes Secular Humanism as a religion. Some then interpret this to mean that any teaching of Humanism in the school violates the principle of separation of church and state. Since the vast majority of Humanists believe in the theory of evolution of the species, many religious conservatives conclude that the teaching of evolution also violates this principle.
They appear to be unaware that footnotes in a court ruling have no force in law. They are merely additional comments added by the author of the ruling.
Sponsored links:
Related essays on this web site:
| Christian's beliefs about non-Christian religions. |
| American adult's beliefs about non-Christian religions. |
| Religious tolerance and intolerance. |
| Recent news items exhibiting intolerance |
References:
- "U.S. State constitutions and web sites," (except for Alabama) at: http://www.constitution.org/
- "Google Web Directory: State constitutions," at: http://directory.google.com/
- Austin Cline, "Torcaso v. Watking (1961): Supreme Court decisions on religious liberty," About.com, at: http://atheism.about.com/
- "U.S. Supreme Court, TORCASO v. WATKINS, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), 367 U.S. 488," FindLaw, at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/
- 223 Md. 49, 162 A. 2d 438 http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/43const/html/00dec.html
- "Arkansas Constitution," Wikipedia, at: http://en.wikipedia.org/
- "Constitution of Maryland," at: http://www.msa.md.gov/
Copyright © 2000 to 2007 by Ontario Consultants on Religious
Tolerance
Last update: 2007-MAR-02
Editor: B.A. Robinson.
This essay was partly based on a data file volunteered by visitors to this web site,
of which we are very appreciative.
|
|
