when in 7 states atheists are not allowed to hold public office nor be a witness in court.
Is it a case of freedom of religion as long as you have a religion
In the United States, some State Constitutions require a religious test as a qualification for holding public office. For instance The Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution provides that an official may be "excluded from holding office" if he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being." Similarly, North Carolina, South Carolina & Tennessee all have mandatory disqualifications in their State Constitutions from public office for those who deny God
2006-12-13 19:49:13 · 22 answers · asked by Life Rocks 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Actually, CM, it says it right there on the first page.
Sec. 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.
It's right there. That last line bars Atheists from holding public office in Texas. Sorry to burst your bubble, CM
2006-12-13 19:59:47 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
Sec. 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.
I see that as a requirement of belief in a supreme being.
Do you read something else into it?
I quote "provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."
I see where it would make being atheist an exclusion from public office.
It does not fit with the freedom of religion. As I understand it anyway.
2006-12-13 20:11:31 · answer #2 · answered by tian_mon 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Those parts of state constitutions are legally invalid as per article VI sec. 3 of the Constitution: "..no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States" and extended to the states via Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961).
2006-12-13 19:56:41 · answer #3 · answered by Zarathustra 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
We have religious freedom to a point, to the point where you go against the mainstream. In the south that mainstream would be any persuasion of Baptist, in the Northeast it would be Catholicism, and in the Southwest and West coast it would be Mormonism.
At least there haven't been any court sanctioned burnings yet. Here is my question, "Whatever happened to the separation of church and state?" I think I will open that as a question... hmmmm
2006-12-13 20:10:16 · answer #4 · answered by sarcasm_gurl 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am not an atheist, but since I am also not what is considered mainstream, or even acceptable by many religious fundamentalists, I can run into similar situations. In order to avoid conflict I just put down that I am episcopalian, because that was the church I grew up in. I no longer believe these things, but it helps me to keep from making waves, so to speak.
2006-12-13 20:06:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You have the freedom to be an Atheist and the government cannot touch you for this. But our government by and large is based upon Judeo Christian Philosophy and Values. An Atheist might have some problems operating under these laws.
I Cr 13;8a
12-14-6
2006-12-13 20:14:34 · answer #6 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
All such clauses are void under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment. If anyone tries to enforce such against you, sue his socks off.
Postscript: I note with approval previous responder's answer, giving the citation, and recommend it for Best Answer.
2006-12-13 19:56:41 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
There is indeed a fair freedom of religions in US(not my country). Atheists donot belong to 'any' religion. All Religions are scoffed at by Atheists. So there is no freedom to atheists, because they are not protected by 'Religion'. World-wide statistics, quoted recently by Clinton, reveal that Atheists are dwindling; the religious are growing. To be an atheist is freedom already availed, to allow atheist to abuse disparage scoff at a religion is not a freedom to be demanded so openly as in this Public Forum - our respected Yahoo/Answers. If they have a sober question, they are always answered.
2006-12-13 20:07:04 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yeah, but you have the choice not to live in those states. Freedom of religion is a Constitutional Right if these states do this and no one contests it then they feel why should they change it? NOT everyone believes including people who feel their religion is the only religion worth practicing. I claim religious freedom because I practice religious freedom and you can't say it doesn't exist.
2006-12-13 19:54:17 · answer #9 · answered by uknowme 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Are you sure about that???? Because that would seem to go against separation of church and state. Not calling you a liar, but I need to check the validity of that before answering.
Having said that ... if it *IS* true, it certainly is not religious freedom, and would seem unconstitutional.
2006-12-13 20:02:17 · answer #10 · answered by MyPreshus 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋