U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-19-2009, 07:46 PM
 
Location: Santa Monica
4,708 posts, read 7,560,289 times
Reputation: 1023

Advertisements

Arkansas
Maryland
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index...ection=library
//
Fortunately, clauses establishing second-class citizenship for nonbelievers are seldom enforced. In the eyes of the legal profession, they are unenforceable because they blatantly violate the separation of church and state. Yet that didn't keep South Carolina from struggling for years to deny atheist Herb Silverman a commission as a notary public. The Arkansas anti-atheist provision survived a federal court challenge as recently as 1982. Only Maryland's provision has been explicitly overturned by the Supreme Court, in the famous 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins decision.

These clauses continue to linger in state constitutions in part because they are considered unenforceable. Few reformers have felt strong need to press for their removal. Amending state constitutions is difficult and expensive; removing clauses, even unenforceable ones, that penalize unbelievers is bound to be unpopular. Why bother, one might argue, struggling toward a victory that would be at best symbolic?

The first answer is that symbolism matters. Constitutional clauses denying full political privileges to the nonreligious (and others) enshrine bigotry in an unwelcome historical reverence. They provide rhetorical ammunition for ideologues (including many on the religious Right) who wish explicitly to deny full citizenship to those they consider infidels. Perhaps worst of all, the clauses valorize a preference for Protestant Christianity over other religious and nonreligious lifestances that is increasingly odious in a society of rapidly increasing religious diversity.

The second answer is that, while these clauses may be unenforceable today, they may not always remain so. While they survive they are like cast-off weapons--weapons a future, more pious America might choose to recommission. Consider that the next U.S. president will probably appoint at least three Supreme Court justices. If all were strong conservatives, the result could be a high court capable of reconsidering Torcaso--and making open political discrimination against nonbelievers allowable again.
//

Also see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins

Last edited by ParkTwain; 02-19-2009 at 08:05 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-19-2009, 07:58 PM
 
Location: mass
2,905 posts, read 6,418,148 times
Reputation: 4967
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich View Post
boo hoo

which law does it violate? Can you name it?
Wow. Another wise post sir (or madame)

Anyway, this is utterly preposterous.

Cant hold a civil position or be a witness in court?????

Wow. What century and country are we living in anyway?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2009, 08:14 PM
 
Location: Mississippi
6,715 posts, read 12,036,959 times
Reputation: 4273
Well, look at the bright side, if you live in any of these states, feel free to explain your non-belief when you are called for jury duty.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2009, 08:27 PM
 
170 posts, read 283,481 times
Reputation: 139
Default It Should Be Equal Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by GCSTroop View Post
Well, look at the bright side, if you live in any of these states, feel free to explain your non-belief when you are called for jury duty.
I don't think anyone should have to explain their religious/non-religious stance if called upon to be on a jury. That's NOT a choice.

It seems just a few short years ago that the women in Oklahoma got together and raised a stink about being considered an "asset" to their husbands. (Same as a horse or buggy). Women had to pay estate tax on their husband when they died, but the husband did not.

Things were not left to "chance" here. Made me feel better!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2009, 08:33 PM
 
Location: Mississippi
6,715 posts, read 12,036,959 times
Reputation: 4273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Hippie Lady View Post
I don't think anyone should have to explain their religious/non-religious stance if called upon to be on a jury. That's NOT a choice.
I wholeheartedly agree but if one doesn't want to perform jury duty and is looking for a good excuse... That would be a good one to not only raise attention to the situation but also motion for it to be changed. I'm surprised my state isn't on the list.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2009, 08:42 PM
 
3,628 posts, read 9,023,374 times
Reputation: 2013
Tennessee is one of them?

Not surprised at all.

So glad i left.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2009, 12:48 AM
 
354 posts, read 475,188 times
Reputation: 160
Did anybody actually read what the article said?
Quote:
Hard to say what was more remarkable about the resolution that was read into the record and referred to committee Wednesday by a member of the 87th Arkansas General Assembly.
The resolution itself: HJR 1009: AMENDING THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO REPEAL THE PROHIBITION AGAINST AN ATHEIST HOLDING ANY OFFICE IN THE CIVIL DEPARTMENTS OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS OR TESTIFYING AS A WITNESS IN ANY COURT.
Or the fact that it was submitted by the Green Party's highest-ranking elected official in America, state Rep. Richard Carroll of North Little Rock, who was elected in November winning more than 80 percent of the vote in his district.
Arkansas is one of half a dozen states that still exclude non-believers from public office.
They repealed a law that was 150 years old.
Are all you atheists that think its ridiculous opposed to it being repealed. I'm confused. I thought getting rid of a law banning atheists from public service would be a good thing..Maybe I missed something.


Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2009, 01:00 AM
 
985 posts, read 2,300,348 times
Reputation: 722
Quote:
Originally Posted by offthefence View Post
Did anybody actually read what the article said?
They repealed a law that was 150 years old.
Are all you atheists that think its ridiculous opposed to it being repealed. I'm confused. I thought getting rid of a law banning atheists from public service would be a good thing..Maybe I missed something.


Did you read the original article? The proposal died in committee, unless I'm the one missing something I may have, since I just skimmed it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2009, 01:10 AM
 
2,255 posts, read 4,794,911 times
Reputation: 771
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Unbelievable! Talk about a giant step back. Not only can atheists not hold public office they cannot testify as a witness in any court....I'm sure this one will be thrown out, but if not freedom of choice is going down the tubes in the US.
Give it time. Your team is up at bat and about ready to hit a game ending home run!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2009, 06:36 AM
 
3,628 posts, read 9,023,374 times
Reputation: 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaye02 View Post
Did you read the original article? The proposal died in committee, unless I'm the one missing something I may have, since I just skimmed it.
Plus, there's apparently still 4 other states with such ignorant laws.... so i'm sure we're just as disgusted at the others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top