Comments on: Lawsuit threatened over atheist city council member

By: Edward R. Brandt

Edward R. Brandt — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 03:06:20 +0000

Better yet, solemnly affirm that you will uphold the one meaningful sentence (second paragraph) of the Declaration of Independence, the foundation of our nation.
The Constitution is only the basis of our present usually dysfunctional form of government, with its preamble negating “the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of,happiness,” substituting “property” instead. Whatever the “pursuit of happiness” may be interpreted to mean, at the minimum it requires universal access to the necessities of survival: permanent shelter, adequate food and adequate nourishment. Everything else is secondary. What happened to the “freedom from want,” promised to all humankind by FDR in 1941?
Don’t bother to read the entire Declaration of Independence, most of which is simply a list of complaints by wealthy and powerful businessmen and plantation owners, which can be boiled down to one sentence: We elitists in the colonies can’t sit beside our peers in London.
An oath is either a curse or taking God’s name in vain, which even an atheist who has values would object to as indefensible disrdespect for those who believe otherwise.

By: Hamza van Boom

Hamza van Boom — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:59:24 +0000

If a public official must swear on a book, I think it should be Euclid’s book on geometry or a logic textbook. The most important thing is to have public policy based on reason.

By: JustJack

JustJack — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:54:27 +0000

I’m just encouraged to see this on TikkunDaily. I sweat a lot amongst even the spiritual left ever since I finally just admitted I’m an atheist. I thought it was tough converting to Judaism fifteen years ago (my Fundie father gave me all manner of grief and harassment–so much so I joined several Ex-Xtian support groups to deal with the chaos all the shunning by family and friends). No where you identify, someone of very limited consciousness always figures to put one over on ya and deliver a beat-down. Ugh.

I hope Cecil wins and keeps his seat.

By: Be Scofield

Be Scofield — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:24:31 +0000

This is an excerpt from the Asheville Citizens Time story on the subject. You might find it interesting.

http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20091214/NEWS01/312140021

“Legal experts say a lawsuit would stand little chance because the state rule is trumped by the U.S. Constitution, whose Article VI disallows any religious test for political office.

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.

But the federal protections don’t necessarily spare atheist public officials from spending years defending themselves in court.

Avowed atheist Herb Silverman won an eight-year court battle in 1997, when South Carolina’s highest court granted him the right to be appointed as a notary despite the state’s law.”

By: Dave Belden

Dave Belden — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:19:52 +0000

Be, doesn’t banning atheists amount to a religious test for public office? The “no religious test” clause of the US Constitution says:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Do you know if any court case on behalf of an elected atheist has been fought on this basis, that it contradicts this clause?