Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
An openly atheist candidate has actually been elected to office, and in Asheville, North Carolina of all places. Cecil Bothwell was elected a few weeks ago to the Asheville City Council. Unfortunately, some of his opponents are still stuck in the 18th century and think that he can't serve as a result.
North Carolina's constitution is clear: politicians who deny the existence of God are barred from holding office.Opponents of Cecil Bothwell are seizing on that law to argue he should not be seated as a City Council member today, even though federal courts have ruled religious tests for public office are unlawful under the U.S. Constitution.
Worse yet, the person arguing for such discrimination is a former NAACP official:
"I'm not saying that Cecil Bothwell is not a good man, but if he's an atheist, he's not eligible to serve in public office, according to the state constitution," said H.K. Edgerton, a former Asheville NAACP president.Article 6, section 8 of the state constitution says: "The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."..
Edgerton said City Council should hold off swearing Bothwell into office until a constitutional question can be resolved.
The constitutional question was already settled, nearly 50 years ago, in a Supreme Court case called Torcaso v Watkins. It was a unanimous decision, so it wasn't even close. Declaring that an atheist can't hold office is every bit as unconstitutional as declaring that a Christian can't hold office. It's that pesky First Amendment thing.
And this is where things get really weird:
"If they go ahead, then the city of Asheville and the board of elections could be liable for a lawsuit," said Edgerton, who is known for promoting "Southern heritage" by standing on streets decked out in a Confederate soldier's uniform and holding a Confederate flag.
The former president of the NAACP stands on street corners in a confederate soldier's uniform waving a confederate flag? Is he mentally ill?
Politics
Comments
It's not just a First Amendment issue, it's also the 'no religious test' issue.
Posted by: Dave | December 11, 2009 9:23 AM
Edgerton reminds me of a character from Mother Night. Or possibly a book about someone's uncle's cabin. I can't think of the name.
Posted by: Jonathan | December 11, 2009 9:24 AM
Some weird Die Hard 3 variant. With a twist.
Posted by: heddle | December 11, 2009 9:26 AM
I would have thought that the uniform would be intolerable as an NAACP member but it takes all kinds of weirdness to keep things interesting. Looking forward to see if Bothwell gets sworn in.
Posted by: MikeMa | December 11, 2009 9:35 AM
Ed stated:
I spent quite a bit time in Asheville in 2002 & 2003 and found it had a strong liberal presence. It seems to be a magnet for southern liberals. It is certainly surrounded by confederates but not exclusively so.
One evening Asheville hosted a street party in the public square where booze was sold on the street and there were no boundaries on where you could drink. The band was playing hard rock. Another time I was in a pizza joint with my wife where about five other males were in the room; what distinguished me from the rest of them was I was the only one not sporting dreadlocks.
I was spending time there because I was considering purchasing a business. The local bankers I was dealing with bent over backwards trying to sell this Californian (I was living in San Diego at the time) on how Asheville was a liberal bastion in spite of not bringing up politics and looking and dressing like a typical plutocratic Republican. However the outlying area was starkly Christianist. In fact the owner's of the business I was looking to purchase asked me if I had Jewish blood in my family and openly admitted they were uncomfortable selling their busines to a Yankee, partly because they were concerned their customers wouldn't support a Yankee owner. It was one of the strangest unsolicited questions I was ever asked, seconded only by a Conoco VP from Houston claiming he hired only devout Southern Baptists in a job interview I had there when I was a senior in college.
I tried to google political affiliations for Asheville but couldn't easily find that info.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 11, 2009 9:39 AM
"The former president of the NAACP stands on street corners in a confederate soldier's uniform waving a confederate flag? Is he mentally ill?"
Identification with the aggressor.
Posted by: Dr X | December 11, 2009 9:56 AM
The atheist representative was seated without incident a couple of days ago.
Posted by: Coturnix | December 11, 2009 9:57 AM
Asheville is a college town, sort of.
UNCA isn't truly a large state university as far as things go, but it's enough to give Asheville a liberal core.
When I was in Asheville for an academic conference, it most reminded me of Austin and or Fayetteville, Arkansas. Both are town with liberal cores that exist in the middle of deep red country.
Posted by: Ben P | December 11, 2009 9:57 AM
Atheism is not a religion. Barring atheists from public office, therefore, does not violate the Constitutional proscription against religious tests. Torcaso v Watkins was wrongly decided, and I believe the majority on the Court today would vote to overrule it.
"Those who wrote the Constitution believed that morality was essential to the well-being of society and that encouragement of religion was the best way to foster morality. [...T]he Founding Fathers believed devotedly that there was a God and [...] the unalienable rights of man were rooted in Him [...] With all of this reality [demonstrating that the United States Government has consistently favored and promoted religion] staring it in the face, how can the Court possibly assert that “ ‘the First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between … religion and nonreligion,’ ” ante, at 11, and that “[m]anifesting a purpose to favor . . . adherence to religion generally,” ante, at 12, is unconstitutional? Who says so? Surely not the words of the Constitution. Surely not the history and traditions that reflect our society’s constant understanding of those words. Surely not even the current sense of our society [...]" A. Scalia, McCREARY COUNTY, KENTUCKY, et al., PETI-
TIONERS v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION OF KENTUCKY et al.
Posted by: Pat Domohue | December 11, 2009 9:59 AM
I gotta hand it to you, Pat. To claim that the majority of the Supreme Court would overturn Torcaso and then cite a dissenting opinion in a totally unrelated case is a special kind of stupid. You're wrong. If Torcaso was retried today you might get one vote to overturn it - and it wouldn't be Scalia's (it would be Thomas, who might argue against incorporation in that instance - though I wouldn't even bet on that outcome because even he would incorporate the free exercise clause, one of several bases for the ruling).
Whether atheism is a religion or not is irrelevant. The NC law violates the no religious test clause not because it forbids atheists from serving but because it requires that only theists serve. It also violates the establishment clause, the free exercise clause and the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 11, 2009 10:07 AM
By the way, I really should apologize to the people of Asheville for the title of this post. The problem here is obviously not with most of them - they voted for the guy, after all. The problem is with the idiot trying to keep him from being seated.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 11, 2009 10:09 AM
Don't forget that Asheville is a very liberal enclave of NC. Only in Asheville and Carrboro did Kucinich win primaries back in 2004. I guess this guy is a local confederate clown everyone laughs at. But he was "news-worthy" for the local paper, I guess...
Posted by: Coturnix | December 11, 2009 10:11 AM
Requiring someone to believe in an "Almighty God" is certainly a religious test. I'm actually somewhat disappointed that the guy was seated without incident, though. A highly visible and bound to fail court case would have been fun to watch and good for highlighting discrimination against atheists.
Posted by: penn | December 11, 2009 10:14 AM
Ed,
Looking for a dumbass quote? You need look no further than the first two sentences of #9 above.
BTW, H.K. Edgerton is a long time crank-about-town in Asheville. Nobody pays him any mind except the occasional local journalist on a very slow news day.
Posted by: Stan Polanski | December 11, 2009 10:20 AM
[...T]he Founding Fathers believed devotedly that there was a God and [...] the unalienable rights of man were rooted in Him [...]
...including the unalienable right to think for ourselves, speak our minds, and not be punished in any way for what our God-given minds lead us to think.
Once again, Pat Donohue proves himself so stupid I can't decide whether he's even serious.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 11, 2009 10:21 AM
Pat thanks for showing yey again that Scalia can say the dumbest things. To quote the first Admendment:
I could also quote Jefferson about the "wall of seperation" between Church and State. Or that most of founding fathers were diests etc. Scalia's ignorance is of course cultivated and deliberate.
It is fascinating that Pat believes in the right of governement to discriminate against the non-religious. I wonder if he also believes that private individuals also have the right to discriminate against the non-religious.
Scalia seems to implicitly believe thae same things that Pat does that the governement has the right to discriminate against the non-religious. Does he believe that there should be religious tests for things other than public office? How far can the governement oppress the non-religious? Does he for example believe that governement adoption agencies can refuse to allow the non-religious to be able to adopt children, get legally married etc? What about religious tests for voting? Just how far does the right to oppress the non-religious go?
But it is obvious that both Pat and Scalia desire to create second class citizenship for the non-religious and to give them fewer rights, all designed to punish the non-religious for being non-religious. There is a word for this its called bigotry.
I would like to know just what sort of religious tests both Scalia and Pat find acceptable. I further not that under the rule descussed here classic Buddhist of the "Lesser Vessel" tradition would be excluded from office because they tend to be agnostics or atheists. The Dalai Lama of Tibet for example as said he is a an agnostic. Nice to know that Pat thinks excluding him from political office in the USA is reasonable.
Posted by: Pacal | December 11, 2009 10:28 AM
I think that a guy with a foreign-sounding, sort or Muslim-y name would have a better chance of getting elected President than an avowed atheist.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | December 11, 2009 10:29 AM
re: @14 Stan:
Pat's first sentence is perfectly factual; it's the second sentence that lands him squarely in Stupidsville, USA.
Pat, are you really that tremendous a dumbass, or just an incorrigible masochist?
As to Asheville, NC: I'm a club sound engineer in NYC and we get about a band per month up from Asheville. They're uniformly excellent, and damn good folks as well.
Posted by: how | December 11, 2009 10:39 AM
Please correct the misspelling in the headline. Asheville..not Ashville.
And yes, there are plenty of freethinkers outside of Asheville — like in Boone, N.C.
Posted by: Mountain Humanist | December 11, 2009 10:47 AM
I was living in NC in 2000 when a school board fired a teacher for being Wiccan . She wasn't talking about it in school.. but had a blog ... Odd bible thumpers down there.
Posted by: Lise | December 11, 2009 10:51 AM
Its' funny because Asheville is actually a VERY progressive town in many aspects. Unfortunately you still have some backwards elements of country folk who haven't joined the 20th century that reside in and around the town.
Such is the case in many places though, and not just in the south.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 11, 2009 10:54 AM
I've lived in Asheville most of my life. Great place to live and work, vibrant downtown, lots of cultural events. The Asheville Art Museum is shockingly good, the Symphony ok (if a bit "Pops" oriented) and the Symphony Chorus has tolerated my membership in the past, so they must be okay. UNC-A leans heavily to the liberal arts side of things, but nonetheless has some distinguished alumni (cough).
The local NAACP had a money scandal a few years back when H.K. was President. They reincorporated and H.K. lost his position. He's been crazy ever since. [Full disclosure: I have worked on contract for the lawyer who succeeded H.K. as President. I am on good terms with both of them.]
Cecil Bothwell is a fine reporter and a truly nice guy. He was seated despite the challenge. I highly doubt there will be a lawsuit. There were three seats up in this year's primary, and they were won by the three most liberal candidates.
Outside of Asheville, Buncombe County is highly conservative. As bedroom communities mushroom overnight and farmland disappears, education becomes more of a priority and so we are seeing a lot less redneck conservatism and more of the "I've got mine" conservatism. We are a major retirement destination (check the Census Bureau and search for "median age" by County: four of the top ten are here in Western North Carolina). The local economy is based on medical services and tourism.
So, it's not as bad as it seems, Ed, notwithstanding this and the Bible-burning preacher. The inmates are not running the asylum, they just like to think they are. Like most places in America, the rich people run the asylum, in our case the Cecil family and the Biltmore Company. If anyone has questions about any of this, just holler.
ehrsamku@bellsouth.net
Posted by: kehrsam | December 11, 2009 10:57 AM
Pacal wrote:
Please don't. You'd be wrong. Most of them were not, in fact, deists. This is a myth.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 11, 2009 11:24 AM
So it's okay to discriminate against the non-religious? How far away is that from discriminating against the "wrong-religious?"
I think Pat presents the hypocritical position of the religious conservative. They generally really want special benefits for their religion. For the first century or so of our history they were effectively able to ignore the religious oaths prohibition and the first amendment. Even after the 14th amendment was ratified, most communities simply ignored the fact that they were in violation of the rights of minority groups and, in reality, the minority groups were too small or too cowed to say anything. What conservatives are really upset about and complaining about is this loss of special treatment and "most favored" status that they never should have had in the first place.
There isn't anything that can be done when it comes to voting. If you want to be a bigot and vote against the best qualified candidate because they don't believe in your specific version of an invisible "sugar-daddy" in the sky, you're going to do so, but it is quite clearly and fundamentally illegal to try to block them from office once they've won because you want special treatment for your own psychosis and unwillingness to accept mortality.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 11, 2009 11:42 AM
Ed
What was the make up? Was it basically a mixed bag?
Posted by: Naughtius Maximus | December 11, 2009 11:45 AM
kehrsam,
Buncombe County? Oh, the delicious irony!
That said, I was in Asheville once, years ago, and I'd say it's a nearly ideal place to live. Beautiful location, wonderful climate, nice people.
Posted by: James Hanley | December 11, 2009 11:59 AM
Naughtius -
Of the founding fathers? They were mostly Christians to one degree or another. The leading lights were theistic rationalists. Very few were actually deists.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 11, 2009 12:00 PM
I know most considered themselves Christians, but I think the more interesting question would be "to what extent did they consider each other to be Christians?"
Posted by: DaveL | December 11, 2009 12:05 PM
Bunkum:
Americanism; after speech in 16th Congress, 1819–21, by F. Walker, who said he was bound to speak for Buncombe (N.C. county in district he represented).
This particular affair is most assuredly bunkum!
Posted by: yak | December 11, 2009 12:10 PM
Thanks Ed.
Posted by: Naughtius Maximus | December 11, 2009 12:17 PM
Re: The story... Stan@14 points out that this Edgerton guy is just a crank. That makes me feel better. This would be on par with trying to arrest someone for sodomy in a state where it is still illegal, completely ignoring that Lawrence v. Texas unambiguously nullified all such laws. It's not even the case of a bigot trying to enforce an outdated law, it's also stupid and ignorant to think you can enforce an explicitly nullified law.
Re: The Founding Fathers being Christians and not deists... quite true, as I learned fairly recently. There are two important caveats to point out though: 1) Many (probably not most, but many) of the FFs had a healthy contempt for organized religion, even though they literally believed many of the truth claims of Christianity, and 2) citing the religious beliefs of a famous person who lived prior to Darwin is not just an irrelevant argument from authority, it's also not even a fair comparison.
Without an explanation for the diversity of life, belief in a Creationist origin was not particularly irrational. It was still a god-of-the-gaps argument, of course, but that was one big honkin' gap, and one that was quite relevant to daily life. In fact, I would argue that ID with an unspecified designer would be a perfectly rational position to hold prior to Darwin. Tell me a better explanation other than descent with modification?
Going the extra leap, as most of the Founding Fathers did, to saying the designer/creator must be Yahweh is irrational, of course, but it's not as irrational as positing Yahweh in the modern world in which the remaining "gaps" don't have much relevance to day-to-day existence. So it's not at all a fair comparison to say, "Some great thinker of the 1700s believed in God!" Well, they didn't have enough information to make an informed decision, so who freakin' cares.
Posted by: James Sweet | December 11, 2009 12:25 PM
Don't private individuals have the right to discriminate on the basis of religion and/or non-religion? Not in certain ways, of course (say, making hiring decisions for a company), but in general.
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | December 11, 2009 12:40 PM
If any of you saw the Bullshit episode on reparations, its the same black confederate guy they interviewed for the episode as the guy in the article. Hes bananas.
Posted by: random guy | December 11, 2009 12:41 PM
#32 There actually are anti-discrimination laws for refusing business based solely on race, religion, age, and sexual orientation. However a business can make any number of justifications citing why they would not serve said person/group. Its on the would-be customer to prove that it was based only on discrimination which is very hard to prove unless the business owner ducks into the punch.
I think it even came up on this blog once before, a Christian print shop refused to print some posters for an atheist conference. I think they actually said they would fill the order. Then when the atheists came in to pick up the posters they were told by the owners that they would not be getting the posters. The atheists had to get the posters rushed through another printer greatly increasing the cost. I think this caused some legal troubles for the christian printer because not only did they blatantly and admittedly violate discrimination laws they also broke a contract.
Posted by: random guy | December 11, 2009 12:53 PM
Edgerton I think was on Penn & Tellers Bullshit in the season 4 show about reparations. He's pretty odd, fighting for what he thinks is his homeland, the Confederacy (though being fair not every black person in the Confederacy was a slave). He also makes passes at women all the time.
Posted by: Rahne | December 11, 2009 1:16 PM
That an 18th Century person of European origin in the Americas (e.g., a FF) was "Christian" in most beliefs about the deity is a big "like duh!". The thing that is important - the only thing - is this question: did they form the USA as a theocracy when they had the opportunity? (and the answer is a factual NO! - actually factual f'n NO way!)
They were progressive thinkers for the time and they'd be progressive thinkers relatively if they were in our time.
To wit their acceptance in 1700's of the status quo re: slavery: would they enshrine protection of that if they were doing their work in 21st Century? I think you'd have to be deluded if you think they would. They were not static status quo thinkers.
Bottom line is that no reading of their governing documents - any that really count and that somehow define us - demand allegiance to a Christian god or any god, or any King, or the Pope, or the Vicar of Canterbury, or any demigod, or.. , or.. .
We have codified explicit and implicit freedoms and rights. We have few obligations as defined and certainly none theistic. Opposite to that the Government has the obligation to protect and honor our rights and freedoms and a few limited powers to do that job and secure the common welfare.
Anything else that restricts our ability to live free is in law because the extremes of Left or Right (and sometimes both joined in force) have been improperly influential (anti-drug laws is a classic case of that).
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | December 11, 2009 1:30 PM
As has already been pointed out, Edgerton is a crank. But the degree of his crankiness is really amazing. Here's his view on slavery from article from the Southern Poverty Law Center:
Posted by: jpf | December 11, 2009 3:14 PM
Pat, to claim that there is no violation of the "no religious test" bit is insane.
Requiring that someone hold a religious belief to hold office is by definition requiring a religious test and therefor is a violation of that section of the US Constitution. It is also a violation of the US Constitution's 14th admendment. You know...the one that says everyone is equal under the law?
Saying that atheists can't hold office is stupid, insane, morally depraved and rapes the US Constitution up one side and down the other. Every time...every time religion and government have mixed in the course of human history the only thing that has resulted is discrimination, oppression and mass murder.
Posted by: James Kessler | December 11, 2009 3:18 PM
The argument for disqualifying Bothwell invokes the NC State constitution. Sounds to me like it's the NC legislature, and not Asheville, that needs to step into the 21st Century.
Posted by: Kacy Ray | December 11, 2009 5:12 PM
random guy #34 wrote:
Something similar happened to me: it may have come up on this blog (it came up on several others, incl. Pharyngula), so perhaps you're misremembering it a bit. I'd gone to a local print shop to have a poster and ballots made for an atheist convention (it wasn't an ad, it was a series of symbols to 'vote' for), and they originally accepted the work. I got a call about 2 hours later from the owner, who explained she was Christian, and couldn't do work for an atheist organization: she once turned down the KKK also, so it was the same principle. Another shop in the next town did the same thing, only right away, since I brought it up as a question. Finally, I managed to find an Office Max which had no problem, and thankfully got the work done in time, which was short.
I didn't sue or pursue the issue legally, because it was a bit of a gray area. If she had refused to do any work for me at all because I was an atheist, then she would probably have been in violation of discrimination laws. But businesses do have the legal right to turn down specific work they are uncomfortable with for ideological reasons -- an animal rights activist may not want to do work for a hunting seminar; someone one one side of the abortion issue might turn down work done to promote the other side. I don't see atheism as an inviolable matter of identity requiring protection; it's a rational conclusion, and thus open to dispute in a way race or sexual orientation isn't (I view religion the same way.)
I didn't think the print shop owners were in violation of legal rights: I thought their decision was immoral, unethical, and ignorant. Of course, things change when we're dealing with the government. The government isn't allowed to have a particular point of view on religion, so that its feelings are hurt if it has to recognize a different one.
You might be talking about a different case, though. This one was a few years ago, for the AAI convention in DC.
Posted by: Sastra | December 11, 2009 5:21 PM
Brayton obviously knows nothing about Asheville (doesn't even know how to spell it correctly). Fine reporting Brayton. Liberal city...no surprises there.
Posted by: yeahyeah | December 11, 2009 7:20 PM
Sastra I think your case is the one I'm misremembering. I recalled their being a greater blow out after the case was said and done. It may have been something different I don't really know, but thanks for clarifying what happened to you.
Personally I think a small business has every right to be just as bigoted as the person who runs it. But with government and large companies it becomes a different story.
#39 Kacy Ray, lets not pick on NC, many states have blatantly unconstitutional laws on their books. But if they are not enforced there is no major outcry to have them removed or changed. I've lived in NC my entire life and have never heard of this religious test until this article. This is all because some lone nut, not law enforcement, is trying to use it to justify his discrimination.
Posted by: random guy | December 11, 2009 8:22 PM
Pat,
They had this same debate in the NC ratifying convention about the 1st amendment. I suggest you read what the second guy has to say about the ridiculous fears about not having religious tests. The debate follows it is long but informative:
Amendment I (Religion)
Document 52
Debate in North Carolina Ratifying Convention
30 July 1788Elliot 4:191--200, 208--9
Mr. Henry Abbot, after a short exordium, which was not distinctly heard, proceeded thus: Some are afraid, Mr. Chairman, that, should the Constitution be received, they would be deprived of the privilege of worshipping God according to their consciences, which would be taking from them a benefit they enjoy under the present constitution. They wish to know if their religious and civil liberties be secured under this system, or whether the general government may not make laws infringing their religious liberties. The worthy member from Edenton mentioned sundry political reasons why treaties should be the supreme law of the land. It is feared, by some people, that, by the power of making treaties, they might make a treaty engaging with foreign powers to adopt the Roman Catholic religion in the United States, which would prevent the people from worshipping God according to their own consciences. The worthy member from Halifax has in some measure satisfied my mind on this subject. But others may be dissatisfied. Many wish to know what religion shall be established. I believe a majority of the community are Presbyterians. I am, for my part, against any exclusive establishment; but if there were any, I would prefer the Episcopal. The exclusion of religious tests is by many thought dangerous and impolitic. They suppose that if there be no religious test required, pagans, deists, and Mahometans might obtain offices among us, and that the senators and representatives might all be pagans. Every person employed by the general and state governments is to take an oath to support the former. Some are desirous to know how and by whom they are to swear, since no religious tests are required--whether they are to swear by Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, Proserpine, or Pluto. We ought to be suspicious of our liberties. We have felt the effects of oppressive measures, and know the happy consequences of being jealous of our rights. I would be glad some gentleman would endeavor to obviate these objections, in order to satisfy the religious part of the society. Could I be convinced that the objections were well founded, I would then declare my opinion against the Constitution. [Mr. Abbot added several other observations, but spoke too low to be heard.]
Mr. Iredell. Mr. Chairman, nothing is more desirable than to remove the scruples of any gentleman on this interesting subject. Those concerning religion are entitled to particular respect. I did not expect any objection to this particular regulation, which, in my opinion, is calculated to prevent evils of the most pernicious consequences to society. Every person in the least conversant in the history of mankind, knows what dreadful mischiefs have been committed by religious persecutions. Under the color of religious tests, the utmost cruelties have been exercised. Those in power have generally considered all wisdom centred in themselves; that they alone had a right to dictate to the rest of mankind; and that all opposition to their tenets was profane and impious. The consequence of this intolerant spirit had been, that each church has in turn set itself up against every other; and persecutions and wars of the most implacable and bloody nature have taken place in every part of the world. America has set an example to mankind to think more modestly and reasonably--that a man may be of different religious sentiments from our own, without being a bad member of society. The principles of toleration, to the honor of this age, are doing away those errors and prejudices which have so long prevailed, even in the most intolerant countries. In the Roman Catholic countries, principles of moderation are adopted which would have been spurned at a century or two ago. I should be sorry to find, when examples of toleration are set even by arbitrary governments, that this country, so impressed with the highest sense of liberty, should adopt principles on this subject that were narrow and illiberal.
I consider the clause under consideration as one of the strongest proofs that could be adduced, that it was the intention of those who formed this system to establish a general religious liberty in America. Were we to judge from the examples of religious tests in other countries, we should be persuaded that they do not answer the purpose for which they are intended. What is the consequence of such in England? In that country no man can be a member in the House of Commons, or hold any office under the crown, without taking the sacrament according to the rites of the Church. This, in the first instance, must degrade and profane a rite which never ought to be taken but from a sincere principle of devotion. To a man of base principles, it is made a mere instrument of civil policy. The intention was, to exclude all persons from offices but the members of the Church of England. Yet it is notorious that dissenters qualify themselves for offices in this manner, though they never conform to the Church on any other occasion; and men of no religion at all have no scruple to make use of this qualification. It never was known that a man who had no principles of religion hesitated to perform any rite when it was convenient for his private interest. No test can bind such a one. I am therefore clearly of opinion that such a discrimination would neither be effectual for its own purposes, nor, if it could, ought it by any means to be made. Upon the principles I have stated, I confess the restriction on the power of Congress, in this particular, has my hearty approbation. They certainly have no authority to interfere in the establishment of any religion whatsoever; and I am astonished that any gentleman should conceive they have. Is there any power given to Congress in matters of religion? Can they pass a single act to impair our religious liberties? If they could, it would be a just cause of alarm. If they could, sir, no man would have more horror against it than myself. Happily, no sect here is superior to another. As long as this is the case, we shall be free from those persecutions and distractions with which other countries have been torn. If any future Congress should pass an act concerning the religion of the country, it would be an act which they are not authorized to pass, by the Constitution, and which the people would not obey. Every one would ask, "Who authorized the government to pass such an act? It is not warranted by the Constitution, and is barefaced usurpation." The power to make treaties can never be supposed to include a right to establish a foreign religion among ourselves, though it might authorize a toleration of others.
But it is objected that the people of America may, perhaps, choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. But how is it possible to exclude any set of men, without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for? This is the foundation on which persecution has been raised in every part of the world. The people in power were always right, and every body else wrong. If you admit the least difference, the door to persecution is opened. Nor would it answer the purpose, for the worst part of the excluded sects would comply with the test, and the best men only be kept out of our counsels. But it is never to be supposed that the people of America will trust their dearest rights to persons who have no religion at all, or a religion materially different from their own. It would be happy for mankind if religion was permitted to take its own course, and maintain itself by the excellence of its own doctrines. The divine Author of our religion never wished for its support by worldly authority. Has he not said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it? It made much greater progress for itself, than when supported by the greatest authority upon earth.
It has been asked by that respectable gentleman (Mr. Abbot) what is the meaning of that part, where it is said that the United States shall guaranty to every state in the Union a republican form of government, and why a guaranty of religious freedom was not included. The meaning of the guaranty provided was this: There being thirteen governments confederated upon a republican principle, it was essential to the existence and harmony of the confederacy that each should be a republican government, and that no state should have a right to establish an aristocracy or monarchy. That clause was therefore inserted to prevent any state from establishing any government but a republican one. Every one must be convinced of the mischief that would ensue, if any state had a right to change its government to a monarchy. If a monarchy was established in any one state, it would endeavor to subvert the freedom of the others, and would, probably, by degrees succeed in it. This must strike the mind of every person here, who recollects the history of Greece, when she had confederated governments. The king of Macedon, by his arts and intrigues, got himself admitted a member of the Amphictyonic council, which was the superintending government of the Grecian republics; and in a short time he became master of them all. It is, then, necessary that the members of a confederacy should have similar governments. But consistently with this restriction, the states may make what change in their own governments they think proper. Had Congress undertaken to guaranty religious freedom, or any particular species of it, they would then have had a pretence to interfere in a subject they have nothing to do with. Each state, so far as the clause in question does not interfere, must be left to the operation of its own principles.
There is a degree of jealousy which it is impossible to satisfy. Jealousy in a free government ought to be respected; but it may be carried to too great an extent. It is impracticable to guard against all possible danger of people's choosing their officers indiscreetly. If they have a right to choose, they may make a bad choice"
I do not think any of us could have put this any better.
Posted by: King of Ireland | December 12, 2009 1:43 AM
Re: No. 23. Ed I did some checking and your absolutely right. Most of the founding fathers, did in fact think of themselves as Christians. Thank you for the correction. I guess I accepted a hoary myth.
Re: No. 32. Mr. Suttkus, I did in fact mean such things as employment, accomodations, (renting hotel rooms etc.) voting rights and such like.
Posted by: Pacal | December 12, 2009 1:44 AM
I was driving through Asheville about ten years ago and saw Mr.Edgerton standing in front of the Asheville School (a private boarding school) in Confederate uniform and holding his flag. I stopped and visited with him for half of an hour. He is a pleasant engaging fellow if unorthodox in outlook. He explained to me that some of the boys in the school had been required to take down confederate flags from their dorm rooms and he was just defending their freedom of speech!
Posted by: harry | December 12, 2009 11:41 AM
I applaud and support H.K. for standing for his heritage and all those who share a common ancestry with those who fought for Southern independence.
Posted by: Paul Wilson | December 12, 2009 4:00 PM
Paul Wilson - So southern slaves had no justification to expect federal protections from those that held them as slaves? How so? Why was it OK for the confederate states to deny those held in slavery the very constitutionally protected rights non-slaves enjoyed and also demanded be protected by the very same government?
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 12, 2009 7:55 PM
Mr. Heath: Exactly. I take affront to all this childish "heritage" noise from types like Wilson. Their "heritage" is hate, and there is no way to view their heritage and avoid thinking at least two things: racism and treason.
Posted by: jws | December 13, 2009 2:06 AM
I didn't sue or pursue the issue legally, because it was a bit of a gray area. If she had refused to do any work for me at all because I was an atheist, then she would probably have been in violation of discrimination laws. But businesses do have the legal right to turn down specific work they are uncomfortable with for ideological reasons -- an animal rights activist may not want to do work for a hunting seminar; someone one one side of the abortion issue might turn down work done to promote the other side. I don't see atheism as an inviolable matter of identity requiring protection; it's a rational conclusion, and thus open to dispute in a way race or sexual orientation isn't (I view religion the same way.)
And to take one step further. They did not turn you down because *you* are an atheist, they turned down a job supporting atheism, in the sense that if you had come in with a birthday party announcement there is no evidence they would have refused you just because you happen to be an atheist.
I do have a certain sympathy toward people who may not want to directly support something they have a problem with (just as I would). It would be wrong for a restaurant to turn you down for a meal, but would it be equally wrong for them to decline catering an atheist meeting? I would hope the law stops short of being that intrusive.
Posted by: jay | December 14, 2009 1:30 PM
This Christian would love to cater that event and make sure every item on the menu was taboo to some religion. It would be a lot of fun just researching the menu!
Posted by: kehrsam | December 14, 2009 1:56 PM
What is URL ??
Posted by: Sam Runge | February 2, 2010 12:07 PM