Dispatches from the Creation Wars

1

The bet has to be between which of the options will happen, because it's basically 100% certain that one will. My money would be on not allowing it to the ballot in the first place.

Posted by: Odie | February 18, 2009 9:27 AM

3

Seeing as this is idiotic enough to begin with, my money would be on the full tilt stupid: they'll put it on a ballot and people will vote to retain the language. That way, should it ever be challenged in court and the correct ruling be made, the persecuted majority can rail on about activist judges, denied freedoms, majority rules and so on.

Posted by: Al Jeremy | February 18, 2009 9:43 AM

5

Philbert's got a point... if you want to get that part repealed, that's the way to do it. Refuse a subpoena on the grounds that you're an atheist. And if you could do it in a case where the Christians need your testimony, even better - it may still be unenforcable and you'll have to testify anyways, but at least then the Christians will have to do it.

Posted by: Eric | February 18, 2009 10:05 AM

7

I'm going to go with qetzal on this one. Same reason a similar provision has never been removed from the Texas State Constitution.

Posted by: Julian | February 18, 2009 10:45 AM

9

I live in Arkansas. I'd be surprised if this makes it on the ballot. Rep. Carroll is a Green Party member and my hat's off to him for trying, but it won't make it past committee. You can bet next election he will be attacked by both parties vigorously as an agent of Satan.

Even though I'm an atheist, I worry that if it did make it on the ballot (it won't) the Republicans would use it to drum up their base like they do ever 4 years. There's a habit of this here. Gay marriage ban when Bush was running for re-election, restricting adoption to married couples this last one. I don't want to add to it.

The only way this will get removed is via the courts, and you can bet the plaintiff will get harassed.

I don't advertise that I'm atheist (or even non-religious) but I get lectured if I refuse to tell people what church I go to. One local school in my county actually does morning prayer. Who's gonna stop that (if there were actually an atheist there) and risk getting run out of town?

In my area all of the of the activities for youth (except 4-H) are at a church. And that's seen as a benefit not a problem. I was in a local planning session for youth and young families and only one other person there was concerned that there were no non-church opportunities here. She was Catholic and concerned with having her kids be bothered by Baptists.

I like living here overall, but I worry about when my kids get older and start getting ostracized or singled out for evangelism by their peers because we're not religious.

All this to say: there's not much chance that this will be repealed any time soon.

Posted by: Dustin | February 18, 2009 11:26 AM

11

I guess they think we should all just ignore Article 6 of our constitution which says "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Or perhaps they forgot the first words of the first sentance of the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Notice how they limited religion and define secularism BEFORE they also state that each person has the right to worship for themselves?

Then perhaps they should read Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist where he says : "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

And just in case they still don't understand the true intentions of the founding fathers they could read article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli which was written by George Washington, signed by John Adams, and ratified unanimously.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Let's look at that first line again:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"

But then again, presenting arguments based on facts and evidence has so litle effect on the religious that even this won't keep them from proclaiming that we are a "Christian Nation".

Delusion: The act of believing something after being presented with evidence that it is not true.

Yep, That sounds about right.

Posted by: GregB | February 18, 2009 12:17 PM

13

The only way this will get removed is via the courts,

Pendant Point -- the courts cannot remove it. All the courts can do is make it unenforceable, and numerous cases, such as Torcaso mentioned by Ed above, have already done so.

If you want a law off the books, the legislature has to remove it. A court can render it just words on paper, but only the legislature can take the words off the paper.

Posted by: Dave | February 18, 2009 12:19 PM

15

I suspect that the main practical application of this particular dead letter is poisoning the well.

That is, one party to a case at law challenges a witness of the opposing side on the grounds that the witness is disqualified by this clause. The opposing party objects to the motion, the Court is forced to admit the witness, and the jury of God-fearing Christians all decide to ignore whatever that heathen says anyway regardless of what the judge has to say on the matter.

(Yeah, theoretically this would be a sanctionably frivolous motion. Remember that the judge is also a God-fearing Christian and probably would rather grant the motion if he could.)

Likewise for public office; challenge your opponent's qualification for office based on his lack of religion and he instantly drops 25 points in the polls. If he's a good Baptist, bring up his appointment of atheists or heathens in the previous term and he still drops at least ten points.

Posted by: D. C. Sessions | February 18, 2009 1:44 PM

17

I'll take your bet! If this makes to a popular vote it will be repealed. I'm an Arizonan, not an Arkansan (but as both begin with "A" I have a natural empathy with my southern brethren), and I have more faith (small "f") in the 21st century population over there.

Posted by: karl | February 18, 2009 3:39 PM

19

It's a basic fact which everyone agrees on -- and, without God, democracy and the constitution "make no sense." Heck, morals and meaning make no sense unless you believe in God.

When this argument is used, I like to point out that it, in itself, is a religious belief. It is not something derived from observation, but rather a teaching that is passed from believer to believer and accepted on faith.

Posted by: DaveL | February 18, 2009 4:19 PM

21

I seem to recall that Alabama was the last state (in 2001) to overturn its law against interracial marriage, a law that has been unenforceable since 1967. 40% of Alabama voters still voted in favor of keeping an unenforceable racist law on the books.

So it would not shock me at all if Arkansas voted to keep its unenforceable ban on atheists on the books. As Charles Barkley said of Alabama, "we're number 48 in everything and Arkansas and Mississippi aren't going anywhere."

Posted by: Sanjiv Sarwate | February 18, 2009 4:43 PM

23

"No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court."

This is without a doubt unenforceable and unconstitutonal, but it is as symbol, not of course of a superiority, but of an acknowledgment that civil society is grounded on religious principles. Atheists of course dislike this, because they want to change the moral foundations our rights stand on. The moral foundations of the United States, of course rest on religion. Our rights are derived from that moral foundation. So by acknowledging our rights, atheists are acknowledging religion and God. This is an inconvenience to atheists, so they seek to remove this moral foundation from our government and rights. The Jacobites of the French Revolution did this, and led to a period of terror the Western World had not seen up to that time. It seems to me that atheists do not seem to care of the chaos this would cause to our society when we stop acknowledging God.

Posted by: Ed Burke | February 18, 2009 6:07 PM

25

Jacobites of the French Revolution? James II is spinning in his grave.

Posted by: MAB | February 18, 2009 7:15 PM

27

civil society is grounded on religious principles.

The moral foundations of the United States, of course rest on religion. Our rights are derived from that moral foundation.

It seems to me that atheists do not seem to care of the chaos this would cause to our society when we stop acknowledging God.

Dude, did you just completely miss the rest of the thread, including my post where I address just this sort of claim?

Posted by: DaveL | February 18, 2009 7:33 PM

29

I am not sure if the Constitutional provisions quoted have been held to apply to the States -- the original provisions refer only to the Federal Government and, like the Bill of Rights, only were applied to the States -- in part -- through the 14th Amendment.

I have a vague memory of a similar provision being ruled Unconstitutional in the 70s or 60s (Maryland?) but am not sure my memory is accurate. Anyone?

Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 19, 2009 12:15 AM

31

The moral foundations of the United States, of course rest on religion.

So what's the problem? No atheist denies the existence of religion. Of course it's debatable to what extent your statement is true. Not to anywhere near the degree you'd like to believe, I imagine. But even if it was, so what? The concept of god has had a profound impact on history, both good and bad, but that's not evidence for his existence. People like you can't seem to separate the concept of god from god himself.

The Jacobites of the French Revolution did this

I forgot all about the alliance between Robespierre and Bonny Prince Charlie.

It seems to me that atheists do not seem to care of the chaos this would cause to our society when we stop acknowledging God.

The fact that you feel you can't be moral without the threat of everlasting punishment says more about you than the concept of religion.

Posted by: Taz | February 19, 2009 10:04 AM

33

I'm hoping that this at least goes far enough that the religious pressure groups and some politicians have to make statements explaining why they oppose it. The statements will make very entertaining reading.

I can see two ways such arguments may be made. The simplist, and most direct, is to support the constitutional words on their origional grounds: Argue that non-christians are not fit to hold office or testify in court. I'd expect to see that mostly from bloggers and commenters, because it's a bit too provokative for all but the most extreme of individuals or organisations to say so openly.

Instead, I would expect them to play the same game they have around gay marriage with language and keywords. Instead of addressing the issue directly, they'll talk about 'tradition' and 'history,' talk about how vital it is to 'acknowledge America's christian heritage,' and so on. They'll skirt around the actual issue of if non-christians should be able to hold office or testify, because that's a minefield, and instead try to make this look like another aspect of the culture wars - portrey it as the latest examples of those agressive god-hating liberals trying to deny the Christianity of the founders.

Posted by: Suricou Raven | February 19, 2009 12:37 PM

35

That is, one party to a case at law challenges a witness of the opposing side on the grounds that the witness is disqualified by this clause.

some years ago an atheist posted about a case he was involved in as a witness. He had credibility (including being a retired Navy officer) but when the attorneys found out at the last minute (apparently they hadn't thought to ask) that he would not swear on a Bible, they decided not to use him. Apparently they thought it would damage their caase.

Posted by: jay | February 19, 2009 1:06 PM

37

So can I use this to get out of testifying in court? Cool. How about getting out of jury duty?

Posted by: Matt | February 21, 2009 10:43 AM