Comments on: Which States Ban Atheists from Holding Public Office?

By: virginia shapiro

virginia shapiro — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 01:39:00 +0000

can unitarian universalists hold office in Pennsylvania?

By: Babbage

Babbage — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 04:29:00 +0000

Obviously YOU did not read them carefully. Texas – “No religious test . . . provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.”
Maryland – “That no religious test . . . other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God . . .”

By: Chiron8839

Chiron8839 — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 19:35:00 +0000

I agree. Scamming the society or the government ennobles no one.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:04:00 +0000

Doctrine of sovereign immunity would generally deny money damages in such a case. Under Ex Parte Young, you could get injunctive relief.

By: Ckborror

Ckborror — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 06:02:00 +0000

Except we haven’t done something so slimy yet…whereas someone else has already done something slimy in not allowing atheists to run for office. Why not remove the immediate slimyness of having an insulting…if unconstitutional law, and worry about the second slimyness later, as it may not come to pass.

By: Rennyrij

Rennyrij — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 14:22:00 +0000

Opportunity missed! – though perhaps just as well, since you didn’t need a food fight or a hissy-fit followed by a lawsuit - but wouldn’t it have been cool to wait for them to finish and then chime in, “In the name of Geppetto, Pinocchio and Jiminy Cricket, Amen”?

By: Mick

Mick — Tue, 31 May 2011 06:20:16 +0000

Okay all very nice…anyone fancy making some money from it?

Someone above suggested that there should be a ‘move’ to repeal all these laws and whatnot… I think theres a huge opportunity to do nothing of the sort.

I’m not from the US so I can’t obviously do this myself… but here goes.

An unsuspecting person run for and gains a public office job… they are an atheist and odds are nobody would even notice these laws BUT an atheist.

After a reasonable time they find another atheist who is NOT a public representative to complain that they are breaking the law and that they should be fired!

The two of them bring claims against the state for damages. The first because the law is unconstitutional… the second because he didn’t run for public office due to the law prohibiting him…but the other guy was allowed to!

Both wish of course that the state wins… cos if it does every atheist in the state can claim they were denied the right to run for public office too!… and they all immediately file a law suit! demanding damages… the state of course can only pay up… they can’t really just admit they are wrong by admitting they are wrong… that would result in another round of law suits.

Either way theres a few bucks a piece for everyone claiming to be an atheist that sues… that might be a lot of people!

By: Tomas

Tomas — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 16:16:03 +0000

All this is a moo point because the 14th amendment made the article 6 of the constitution “… no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States” binding to all states so religious requirement clauses in state constitutions are effectively void.

By: frank

frank — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 15:47:31 +0000

US Constitution overrules state law.

In 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that federal law prohibits states from requiring any kind of religious test to serve in office when it ruled in favor of a Maryland atheist seeking appointment as a notary public.

By: God in America | An American Atheist

God in America | An American Atheist — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:08:51 +0000

[...] You can see a longer discussion of this topic here. I think it is rather interesting that 9 states (Arkansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, North [...]