05.04.06

It seems that discrimination against rational atheists is legal. Several states in the union -- all of them unsurprisingly Southern -- have sanctioned provisions in their state constutitions specifically barring any person who is rationally skeptical of supernatural claims from holding public office. Five such offending states include:

North Carolina: "the following persons shall be disqualified from office: first, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."
South Carolina: "no person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."
Tennessee: 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."
Mississippi: "no person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state."
Texas: "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 seems odd that the most rational among us should be banished from the jobs in which we might do the most good for our floundering species; especially considering the profound damage already wreaked by the irrationally religious individuals bogarting these offices. The vast majority of atheists are concerned with the morality and ethics that pertain to man; we reject the immorality of religion, which uses its utterly unsubstantiated myths and superstitions to justify unethical atrocities including war, murder, slavery, torture, and oppression.

The most offensive state legislation discriminating against atheists is held by the state of Arkansas, which declares that "no person who denies the being of God shall hold any office in the civil department of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court." Not only will the state of Arkansas not allow atheists to testify, it has deemed that we are not even competent to testify. Which is ultimately ironic, considering that we atheists have the highest standards of evidence, while theists accept utterly unsubstantiated claims that lack any evidenciary support whatsoever.

Most importantly, all of these strictures are in direct violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution because these state laws specifically place the Judeo-Christian god-concept above other theistic god-concept as if the Abrahamic deity is deserving of special consideration. It is not, because it is equally as unsubstantiated as every other religious concept of a supernatural deity, including Islam, Wicca, Zoroastrianism, Greek pantheism, Hinduism, Scientology, and the countless other world religions.

Moreover, these discriminatory state laws fail all three prongs of the Lemon test employed in First Amendment Establishment Clause cases:

1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose.
       The banishment of atheists from holding political office serves no demonstrable legitimate secular purpose.
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion.
       The banishment of atheists from holding political office serves the primary effect of advancing religion.
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.
       The banishment of atheists from holding political office serves only one result; the "excessive entaglement" of the government and religion.

These state legislations maintain a policy of exclusion that intentionally discriminates against perfectly qualified individuals -- perhaps some of the most qualified individuals -- simply because those individuals refuse to accept claims that are demonstrably lacking in reliable supporting evidence. Such discrimination is unconstitutional, and must be made illegal.


Back