…and this is a 
Cecil Bothwell was elected to the city council of Asheville, NC. Cecil Bothwell is an atheist. Now some kooks want to deny Cecil Bothwell his seat on the council because the North Carolina constitution forbids atheists from taking public office.
Amazing. I know that several states have these laws on their books, but I thought they all avoided enforcing them, since they're clearly unconstitutional. In this case, it's one crazy right-winger, H.K. Edgerton, who wants to impose the law to selectively block someone he doesn't seem to like. We know he's crazy because he's threatening the city and…well, see for yourself.
"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.
Oh. One of those guys.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
December 9, 2009 11:26 AM
Asheville? The hippie haven of the Smokies?
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
December 9, 2009 11:29 AM
They say for some people, high school is the best time of their lives.
For others it seems they never leave it. The cliques, the bullying, the avoiding an education at all costs...You ride those glory days, Edgerton, ride 'em hard!
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
December 9, 2009 11:30 AM
I was gonna say: Asheville is about as non-stereotypically-South as it gets in the South.
Posted by: Rick @ shrimp and grits
|
December 9, 2009 11:33 AM
If it had been anywhere else in NC, the guy would not have been elected in the first place.
Posted by: firemancarl
|
December 9, 2009 11:34 AM
Here we go! Cannot wait to see all the looneys come out of the woodwork.
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
December 9, 2009 11:35 AM
This is an easy question. In Torcaso v Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled that religious tests for public office, including those requiring a statement of faith in God, are unconstitutional. Many states still have such laws, but they are void and of no effect.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
December 9, 2009 11:36 AM
Spent a lot of time in Asheville... reminds me much of Ithaca in its "enlightened, progressive" sense of self.
That being said, I am not surprised that an atheist was elected to office in this particular city, and I'm also not surprised that a guy who dresses up in confederate garb opposes it.
I doubt if this gets any real traction, personally. Everyone knows the law is not enforceable as it is as obviously unconstitutional as endorsing a state religion.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmqD_mcUIrSfOTlK3iGVsnEDcZmI43srbI
|
December 9, 2009 11:39 AM
Yes, we have hippies. We're also the gay capital of the Appalachias. We're also home to Billy Graham and some of the biggest whomping churches you've ever seen. Even the Baptists go door-to-door around here (I scored a free coffee mug!)
That HK Edgerton is a nut is evidenced by the fact that he indeed flies the Confederate Battle Flag - and he's black.
Yes, I'm sure he longs for the good old days of the massahs taking care of their darkies. Cuz they had it so good back then.
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
December 9, 2009 11:39 AM
One of those guys indeed!
H.K. Edgerton
Posted by: Kristine
|
December 9, 2009 11:40 AM
So what about Buddhists? They don't believe in a "god" either. What about Hindus? They're polytheistic (although monotheism lurks behind that.) This is clearly unconstitutional. I think this has traction. People are clamoring to prevent this guy's swearing-in. This will definitely be interesting.
Posted by: matthew.john.heath
|
December 9, 2009 11:44 AM
A question from a furriner: could the state level court decide on the basis of the US constitution than ban doesn't apply, or do they have to rule on what NC law says and trigger a federal level challenge? A godless politician being obviously in the right (as well as harrassed by fundie dickheads) in a national news story sounds like something with a substantial upside.
Posted by: Michelle R
|
December 9, 2009 11:45 AM
H.K. Edgerton... He was on P&T Bullshit! once. He goes around with his confederate flag and then hits on chicks.
...And he's black. Peculiar fellow.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
December 9, 2009 11:46 AM
#10
It may have a public following, but as Walton pointed out, there is legal precedence. The statute in the NC constitution would never hold up to legal challenge and could never be enforced... everyone who even works 50 feet from a legal firm knows this. This has no traction.
Posted by: Bobber
|
December 9, 2009 11:48 AM
Similar cases have come up before federal courts, and the states have had to bow before the First Amendment (as well as the "No religious test" clause) combined with the Fourteenth.
What rankles is that people still think it's okay to try to enforce this kind of law. They consider it perfectly fine to keep a significant percentage of U.S. citizens from holding public office.
That's really, really sick.
Posted by: Kausik Datta
|
December 9, 2009 11:49 AM
Combine the news of this bit of lunacy in the hick country with the surfeit of religious pareidolia suddenly flooding local news from the said country. Consider, along with that, the fact that Sarah Palin's "memoir" is selling [Just the fact it IS selling is remarkable, not to mention 300+ 5-star ratings and gushing reviews on Amazon and Barnes and Noble).
OH MY GAWD! THE ARMAGEDDON IS COMING!!!!111!!!
Where is brother Smoggy when we need him?
Posted by: davej
|
December 9, 2009 11:49 AM
A legal challenge would be a GOOD thing.
Posted by: curiosity
|
December 9, 2009 11:51 AM
#10 - To me, it seems like this would help atheists rather than hurt them - Edgerton is obviously very... eccentric, let's say, and so by association his challenge appears as crazy as it actually is.
Posted by: matthew.john.heath
|
December 9, 2009 11:53 AM
Kristine@10
Sort of. Sometimes. "Hinduism" was a name chucked on all Indian practices and thought relating the metaphysical and supernatural (except recognisable movements like Jainism, Buddhism or Sikhism and imported religions). Saying what Hindus beleive is about as easy as saying what ancient Greek pagans believed. Even atheist and materialist movements are considered part of Hinduism.Posted by: tsg
|
December 9, 2009 11:54 AM
@matthew.john.heath #11
If the state level court were stupid, they could decide based on the state consitution that is is allowable, but it will get overturned in federal court in a matter of seconds.
The relevent law in this case is Article VI Section 3 of the US Constitution (no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States) and the Fourteenth Amendment (No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States).
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
December 9, 2009 11:54 AM
Something clearly must be done, or soon the Constitution might take over in the United States.
Tell the DI about it if you care, since they're surely against ExpellingTM anybody.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: ChrisH
|
December 9, 2009 11:54 AM
Well if it does go to court:
1) (metaphorical) gun, meet foot
2) Bank balance meet lawyer
Could be quite entertaining.
Posted by: nmcvaugh
|
December 9, 2009 11:58 AM
Unfortunately, any legal challenge faces a significant problem in the supreme court in the form of Scalia and Thomas, who were joined by Rhenquist in the minority finding in McCreary County v. ACLU 2005 in which they said:
and further on:
Truly there are some scary people on the court.
Posted by: matthew.john.heath
|
December 9, 2009 11:59 AM
tsg @14: Thanks. You say that's if they were stupid, though. Does that imply that they are free to take the US constitutionality unto account at that level, and could avoid the national circus?
Posted by: Kristine
|
December 9, 2009 12:03 PM
@matthew.john.heath #18
Exactly. Many of the world's religions are too complex [snigger] to fall into the western, Judeo-Christian "do-you-believe-or-don't-you" paradigm. Many enfold Christianity, too, into their worldview and go on practicing their "religion" (or not).
I just thought of something else: observant Jews believe in God, but not necessarily Almighty" God. They reserve the right to question God, especially about the Holocaust.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
December 9, 2009 12:06 PM
Celtic_Evolution,
It really should be that simple. So what if atheism is not a religion? Forcing people to have a specific religion (it matters not which one) is unconstitutional.Posted by: el donaldo
|
December 9, 2009 12:09 PM
North Carolina is like that.
My wife and I wanted to get married on the Outer Banks where my parents live and we wanted a secular ceremony. Not possible, unless we wanted to get married by the judge.
We found a nondenominational minister who was cool with my requirement that "god" not be mentioned. She only said it at the end when she gave her legal pronouncement "by the powers invested in me by God and the State of N.C." etc.
Posted by: Coturnix
|
December 9, 2009 12:09 PM
The guy was seating without incident. Archy blog has more.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage
|
December 9, 2009 12:14 PM
Hah! I saw this story yesterday, via a FaceBook friend's link to the Friendly Atheist blog, and it immediately went to the top of my Wonder How Soon We'll See That on Pharyngula? list!
Re...
...and other similar expressions of surprise: It's useful to remember that even when a population leans strongly in one direction, it doesn't mean a passionate minority (even when its passion is crazy and misguided) is without power (something to keep in mind when evaluating the sausage making in DC, BTW). This stupid provision is in the law, and all it takes is one nutjob to invoke it.
The hope is that, now that it's been invoked, this particular provision will be specifically repudiated by the federal courts in a way that will render it permanently moot. It strikes me that blandly neglecting to enforce such laws (i.e., rather than enforcing the law as written and then letting the courts have their say) may be a way of protecting them: of keeping them in the back pocket, available for use in a real emergency... like, for instance, if one 'a them godless commies ever manages to get elected! Some (hopefully small) fraction of people would simply accept the fact that the law makes them ineligible, and, sadly, some fraction would make a disingenuous profession of faith to meet the test; either is a W for the Bad Guys®.
Posted by: tsg
|
December 9, 2009 12:16 PM
@matthew #23
IANAL, but as far as I know, if there are existing precedents on the federal level, the State court must at least consider them when making a finding. They may not feel they are bound by them (and better have good reason to think so), but they would be foolish to think they could dismiss them outright.
The precedent in this case is Torasco v. Watkins and is pretty much identical to this one.
But, I will happily accept correction if I'm wrong.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
December 9, 2009 12:18 PM
@23:
Permitted to? Obligated to. A lot of constitutional edicts also exert effect at lower government levels. That's why you're /still/ not permitted to offer worship of god publicly at school, if you're a teacher (That ruling wasn't an indictment of the law, it merely reflected an inability to prove criminal intent on the part of the jackass). The Supreme Court has made it clear that that point of order applies to every court beneath it, not merely federal courts.
Actually, that's usually the case with the Supreme Court, or at least its published cases.
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
December 9, 2009 12:18 PM
Actually it is often a spur to that minority to seek positions of power.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
December 9, 2009 12:19 PM
But it'd be foolish to change the NC constitution!
Posted by: Kristine
|
December 9, 2009 12:24 PM
The guy was seating without incident.
And the hand-wringing comments are hilarious! At least someone is holding a Wiccan ceremony for him. Hey, nonny, nonny, I'm going to do a special shimmy-mony for him myself! Cue the "what is happening to our country" whining from the Hell-ul-gitcha Chorus in three, two...
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
December 9, 2009 12:24 PM
@32
I laughed, I cried, I cried tears of joy.
Posted by: matthew.john.heath
|
December 9, 2009 12:34 PM
Thanks tsg and Rutee
Posted by: shatfat
|
December 9, 2009 12:36 PM
@6
Well, I should bloody well hope so:
Article VI, Constitution of 1787
Sadly, I have yet to see the INS deport anyone for violating this clause:
Article I, Section 9
Although in a pinch it looks like you could seek Congressional approval. I wonder what that costs in today's dollars.
Posted by: Daiske
|
December 9, 2009 12:44 PM
Oh no! Crazy strikes my hometown! Well, I suppose it was always there; I've got some stories of crazies with godly signs and megaphones, telling the passing women that they must be more subservient to their men if they don't want to burn in hell. Either way, Asheville as a whole has enough sense to not let Bothwell be bullied by this kind of thing.
Posted by: Quidam
|
December 9, 2009 12:55 PM
The SCOTUS ruled on this in Torcaso v. Watkins 1961. Since then all such clauses are unenforceable.
What is appalling is that the NC constitution was extensively rewritten in 1971 AND THEY LEFT THE CLAUSE IN knowing it to be unenforceable. It's #1 in their list of unqualified persons
Sec. 8. Disqualifications for office.
The following persons shall be disqualified for office:
First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.
Second, with respect to any office that is filled by election by the people, any person who is not qualified to vote in an election for that office.
Third, any person who has been adjudged guilty of treason or any other felony against this State or the United States
Their constitution recognises that it's subordinate to the US Constitution
Sec. 5. Allegiance to the United States.
Every citizen of this State owes paramount allegiance to the Constitution and government of the United States, and no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or subversion thereof can have any binding force.
and in their required Oath of Office
Sec. 7. Oath.
Before entering upon the duties of an office, a person elected or appointed to the office shall take and subscribe the following oath:
"I, ..........................., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and maintain the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the Constitution and laws of North Carolina not inconsistent therewith, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of my office as ............................................., so help me God."
They permit the Oath maker to 'affirm' but still require him to swelpmeGod.
Posted by: John J. McKay
|
December 9, 2009 12:57 PM
I'm with tsg #19.
The fact that the law is clearly illegal and unconstitutional doesn't mean it's harmless. The Supreme Court has ruled again and again for the last fifty years that prayer in schools is unconstitutional, but that doesn't stop people from trying to do it and drawing lawsuits on their towns.
If this loon Edgerton wants to force the issue, he might be able to push the city into some very expensive procedures. All he needs is for one of the religious right legal groups, say the Thomas Moore foundation, to decide to back him and they could run this up the whole ladder of appeals to the Supreme Court. Of course, they would lose, but they could use it as a fund-raising tool every step of the way.
Four states still have these no atheists need apply clauses in their state constitutions, a couple more are unclear, and who knows what's hidden in the various law codes. As long as things like this are left uncorrected, the states are at risk of some Orly Taiz coming along and forcing them into expensive litigation.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
December 9, 2009 12:57 PM
They put atheism higher up then Treason? Ouch.
Posted by: MetzO'Magic
|
December 9, 2009 1:10 PM
This is a batsh#t crazy situation, alright. But as TFA and several other posters have already said, the federal constitution trumps any state one.
People should be vocal in pointing out that this sort of theistic behaviour is unacceptable. I'm going to post a comment over there at TFA.
As Phil Plait often quips: "Eternal vigilance - for both democracies and squirrels, it is the price of freedom."
(it makes more sense with the accompanying image, but I didn't want to get in trouble for spamming PZ's blog)
Posted by: tokenadult
|
December 9, 2009 1:32 PM
All the above comments that say that the North Carolina law could not be enforced are correct. The Supremacy Clause rules once federal law is applied to the issue--state courts have to follow federal law that applies to state actions. It is regrettable that backward states keep on their statute books or in their constitutions, even after revision, laws that are plainly unconstitutional after Supreme Court decisions, but it happens. (I notice that some states still have laws against "miscegenation," which I am happy to report Minnesota NEVER had, but that too is an issue of settled under the Loving v. Virginia holding of the Supreme Court.) No competent lawyer in any jurisdiction would try to keep this elected official out of office on the ground of the invalid state law.
Posted by: Electric Monk's Horse
|
December 9, 2009 1:47 PM
I saw this at AU yesterday. An interesting note- in Torcaso v. Watkins, SCOTUS didn't even mention Article VI. They based the decision on the Establishment Clause. Apparently, there has never been a case that ruled whether under the 14th Amendment Article VI is applicable to the states. One would think it would be a no-brainer, but I'm not a lawyer. Maybe a test case would be a good thing to have. (Torcaso v. Watkins was a unanimous decision.)
Posted by: sqlrob
|
December 9, 2009 1:57 PM
Hmm, I just thought of something that would be fun to try if you had the money to blow.
This country is founded upon the basis of "No Taxation without Representation". Apparently, atheists can't be represented in NC, so why should they pay any taxes?
Posted by: Aaron Baker
|
December 9, 2009 2:46 PM
A black Confederate? It's a weird, weird world.
Posted by: jpf
|
December 9, 2009 3:09 PM
Edgerton is not just a black Confederate, he thinks that slavery was a good thing:
Posted by: MetzO'Magic
|
December 9, 2009 3:55 PM
Among other things, I had this to say over on the comments page at TFA:
"I am now convinced that Deliverance was set in the wrong place."
But that and the rest of my comment will probably go WHOOSH straight over their heads. I used words containing more than two syllables.
Posted by: justagreenie
|
December 9, 2009 3:56 PM
Here was a proposal to keep the godfull out of office http://bit.ly/7tfpr1
David Horton
Posted by: Wayne Aiken
|
December 9, 2009 4:21 PM
Actually, there has already been a NC case which has overturned that religious test: Voswinkel v. Hunt, 1979. So, this provision fails on both levels- Federal as well as State.
It's a confusing issue because the NC Constitution still has that now-invalid phrase in it's text. And, that text can only be changed during a Constitutional Convention. There may be any number of subsequent rulings which change the actual legal effect of the Constitution, and this is one of them. But, the simple fact that it still occurs in the "official" text, means that yahoos are continually reading it, researching no further, and trying to use it one way or another.
As for Edgerton, you would think that a person of a minority that had been cruelly mistreated by the law, might have at least some ethical qualms about doing the same to some other minority...
Posted by: Eidolon
|
December 9, 2009 4:55 PM
I don't think you can underestimate the depths of distrust if not outright hatred that is focused on atheists. There will be a black lesbian president before there is an atheist. There is such a widespread belief that Gawd has chosen the US and the Babblin' Bible is the only source of morality that for all intents and purposes, some sort of religion (Xian, some Jews, Muslims need not apply) is required to hold public office.
Posted by: tsg
|
December 9, 2009 6:44 PM
Like when Vijay Singh said Annika Sorenstam shouldn't be playing in a men's golf tournament when there were still golf courses in the US where he wasn't allowed to play.
Posted by: Quidam
|
December 9, 2009 7:57 PM
How about this gem in the "Declaration of Rights"
Sec. 13. Religious liberty.
All persons have a natural and inalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences
They should extend that to political parties "All persons have a natural and inalienable right to vote for the Republican candidate of their choice"
Posted by: Copyleft
|
December 9, 2009 8:32 PM
This is why the states'-rights nutters get such a bad reputation. Because every time someone starts howling about "states' rights," what they're REALLY wishing for is the ability to discriminate against people they hate and deny their Constitutional rights.
Posted by: Velox | December 16, 2009 3:22 PM
I just wanted to point out that there is nothing wrong with the Confederate flag. Like it or not, it IS a part of history, and there is a culture and a heritage that goes along with that history. Yes, I know evil and backwards people try to use it to symbolize "white supremacy" and stuff like that, but does that take away from it's original meaning, of a flag representing a coalition of states that wanted to succeed, peacefully if possible, since it was within their right to do so. Remember also their were black men that fought against Union soldiers.
As an example, look at the swastika. I know a lot of people associate it with Nazis and Hitler, but originally it was a symbol of power for many different cultures, embedded deeply as a part of their heritage. Should they now deny their heritage because someone decided to used their symbol to represent their twisted, extremists views, or reclaim it as a symbol of good as it was originally intended to be? An uphill battle either way.
That said, I've often known their were laws on the books that denied atheists a government seat, but I think this is the first I've heard of someone actually challenging it. It will be interesting to see the intolerant up in arms over this, but seeing as the law in unconstitutional and a precedent has been set, I don't think there is much that they can do about this particular case. I do see them campaigning hard to prevent any other atheist or agnostic from being electing: "oh noes, don't vote for him, he's an ebil amoral atheist!!!! Nevermind all his qualifications or years of good public service!" The question is, how effective will this be? I have to believe that the public, at large, is a bunch of sheep and will buy into this crapola.
On a sidenote, I'm for State's rights, I do believe they are important and when the USA was founded a great deal of effort was put into protecting a State's right to govern itself so the Federal government wouldn't become all-powerful (it's gotten too power anyways, but that's another story). This particular case, however, is a question of basic human rights and tolerance that should apply to all people.