Atheist Takes Office - Religionists Threaten Lawsuit

[Synnical]

http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=9019050

RALEIGH, N.C. — Asheville City Councilman Cecil Bothwell believes in ending the death penalty, conserving water and reforming government — but he doesn't believe in God. His political opponents say that's a sin that makes him unworthy of serving in office, and they've got the North Carolina Constitution on their side.

Bothwell's detractors are threatening to take the city to court for swearing him in, even though the state's requirement that officeholders believe in God is unenforceable because it violates the U.S. Constitution.

"The question of whether or not God exists is not particularly interesting to me, and it's certainly not relevant to public office," the recently elected 59-year-old said.

http://blog.stanfordreview.org/2010/01/11/asheville-agitators-aggravated-by-atheist-assemblyman/

Asheville Agitators Aggravated by Atheist Assemblyman

Bothwell’s opponents point out that the North Carolina Constitution prohibits public officials “who shall deny the being of Almighty God” from taking office. Regardless of this fact, the legal case (if it were ever to be heard) would seem to favor Mr. Bothwell. To quote constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley, “Article VI of the U.S. Constitution says: ‘no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.’ The Supreme Court clearly ruled that such requirements are unconstitutional in Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961).” Then why is this law on the books, if it is plainly contradictory of the Constitution? In the TimesNews article, another law professor gives the opinion that lawmakers would rather do other things with their time than purge outdated passages from the legal code.

Edit to add - Related:

Why do atheists face bias in office holding?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7426423&mesg_id=7426423

[vixengrl]

1. It's weirdly important to some people--but then again,

anything might be used for partisan purposes, from decades-old misdemeanors to bedroom gossip. So why wouldn't partisans put up religion, if they thought they would get mileage from it?

But the religious litmus test is something I've been thinking about myself for awhile-- I really noticed it when Liddy Dole made that anti-atheist ad about fellow-Christian Kay Hagan:

Now, I'd like to leave aside Kay Hagan's response, which includes a cease & desist letter, especially since I just linked to the ad. And let me point out, she most emphatically is not an atheist, being very active in her church as Think Progress points out. I just want to concentrate on why "godless" is being used as a slur, and why the word gets the traction it does, and to point out that Dole is a loser for using it.

Atheists--well, we aren't always a popular folk. Here's the Gallup info on us; it isn't great. We don't inspire angry villagers chasing us with pitchforks as much, but the "angry villager" demographic is definitely not feeling us. Part of the reason is because mentally, when people of a certain age play "fill-in the blank", after "godless ______", they often will think "Commie." Sinister, radical views are suspected. Moral relativity is assumed. But many atheists are just law-abiding capitalists. We've got more than a few libertarians. We throw out some of the more arbitrary-seeming moral views that are religion-based, but I would say we muddle through by trying not to do wrong as much as anyone else does.

"Atheist", or the more fearsome-sounding, "godless", shouldn't really be a smear. And there really shouldn't be a "religious litmus test" for office-holding.

Dare I say, the intimation of there being one is a little--"un-American"?

(That's from my own odd little atheist blog-- http://vixenstrangelymakesuncommonsense.blogspot.com/2008/10/elizabeth-dole-says-her-opponent-is.html )

I think we've got some bad press issues, and it's like there's this binary way of thinking some might have--God or Devil. If we deny God, we're "Devil" by default. But the meme that the religious have tried to spread about this being a "Christian nation" vs. the "Godless Commie" trope is probably the way it would be articulated by anyone trying to say why atheists shouldn't be office-holders.

(Say--this pulls up a thing I recall from way back--I remember that, I think it was Rob Sherman, someone reported a zillion years ago that GHWB said we weren't even good Americans? I don't think it's a new meme--it's just one that didn't come up as much since atheists used to be way less vocal. Now that atheists bother to out themselves, I guess this is going to come up more.)

[onager]

2. For future reference, from your local geezer...

The incident happened in 1987...

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm

[Jokerman]

3. Abundant Alliteration by Asheville Archivist

"Asheville Agitators Aggravated by Atheist Assemblyman"

[sakabatou]

4. Well there are several reasons

One being from the Bible that atheists (non-believers) are evil. Another being that belief in God is needed to hold office. Another one being that the US was founded by theists and therefore you have to be a theist to hold office.

And so on and so forth. Hopefully Bothwell's detractors' suit will be thrown out of court.