The constitutions of several U.S. states includes passages in which among others atheists are treated, well, differently from theists:
The Texas Constitution, article 1, section 4 wrote: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.
Constitution of Tennessee, article IX, section 2 wrote:No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.
Maryland Constitution, article 37 wrote:That no 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; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.
Arkansas Constitution, article XIX, section 1 wrote: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.
Are these clauses actually enforced and don't they violate the First Amendment?
All are in direct contradiction of the 'No religious test' part of the US Constitution. But if you think they aren't enforced, you really aren't paying attention.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
I take it that, in Texas at least, if someone were to challenge this blatantly unconstitutional clause, he'd endanger his life, or at least live one that is, to put it mildly, much less enjoyable.
If The Infinity Program were not a forum, it would be a pie-in-the-sky project. “Faith is both the prison and the open hand.”— Vienna Teng, "Augustine."
In practice, you can't even get nominated -- much less elected -- if you don't fall over yourself proclaiming your faith in God. Absurd restrictions in state Constitutions are just the sweet, sweet icing of redundancy.
"This is supposed to be a happy occasion... Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who."
-- The King of Swamp Castle, Monty Python and the Holy Grail
"Nothing of consequence happened today. " -- Diary of King George III, July 4, 1776
"This is not bad; this is a conspiracy to remove happiness from existence. It seeks to wrap its hedgehog hand around the still beating heart of the personification of good and squeeze until it is stilled."
-- Chuck Sonnenburg on Voyager's "Elogium"
Those pieces cannot be actively enforced as they would be slapped down in court immediately. They are just enforced through a less visible means of simply not hiring, promoting, or not electing said people.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
What they are, most prominently, is a reflection of the society at large. When people say that America is a Christian Nation, this is what they're talking about. The laws may not strictly allow this, but the society is basically bigoted against atheists in particular, and other religions to a lesser extent.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
The really funny part is such blatant "forcing" is something Jesus actually said not to do. He said to walk among sinners and teach by example by being a good person, not rant at people and act like an asshole. I guess the real problem is most "Neo-Christians" don't abide by the teachings of Jesus they just act like holier-than-thou pompus dicks. Frankly I problably get anoyed with them more than Atheists do because it gives me a bad name and I will get caught in the enevitable back-lash against Christians. Then again I am probably one of the few Christians that regards the bible as primarily allegory and accepts the fact that scientific discoveries over-rule any biblical claim when applicable. I also sign petitions, vote accordingly, and/or whatever neccessary to delete such blatant disregard for freedom of religion from the US whenever I can.
-Lord Insanity
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men" -The Real Willy Wonka
Mange wrote:The constitutions of several U.S. states includes passages in which among others atheists are treated, well, differently from theists:
The Texas Constitution, article 1, section 4 wrote: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.
Constitution of Tennessee, article IX, section 2 wrote:No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.
Maryland Constitution, article 37 wrote:That no 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; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.
Arkansas Constitution, article XIX, section 1 wrote: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.
Are these clauses actually enforced and don't they violate the First Amendment?
While they're probably violations of Amendment I, and possibly the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they actually explicitly violate Article VI:
The US Constitution, in plain English so simple even a state legislator ought to be able to understand it wrote: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.
And if that weren't enough, you have Torasco v Watkins, where SCOTUS explicitly struck down the first part of Article 37 of Maryland's constitution (the full text of the decision is linked above). So, no, they're totally unenforceable and a state that attempted to do so could get its ass sued off. However, they are still on the books. Partly because it's a difficult process in most states to remove an amendment from the constitution, but partly also because nobody is much interested in actually doing it. It's a symbolic "fuck you" to atheists that no doubt is quietly turned into an actual "fuck you" by pissant county commissioners and the like whenever they get a chance (or serve to keep atheists silent about their beliefs in fear of pissant county commissioners, which from a smart Christian supremacist standpoint might be even better).
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963 X-Ray Blues
What is the status of the The Pledge Protection Act, which was passed by the House in July? That must surely be as unconstitutional as those examples from the various state constitutions above?
