Mr. Torcaso, who said he was an atheist, was a bookkeeper by profession. He worked for a Bethesda construction company when his legal challenge started in 1959. He had been urged by his boss to become a notary public.In 1961's Torcaso v. Watkins, the Supreme Court held that the requirement that he swear an oath declaring his religious faith was un-constitutional. "Neither [state nor federal government] can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs," wrote Justice Black.
At the Montgomery County Circuit Court, he refused to swear to a state oath given to notaries public that made them profess the existence of God."The point at issue," he said at the time, "is not whether I believe in a Supreme Being, but whether the state has a right to inquire into my beliefs."
Thoughts from Kansas
You will notice that it lacks definiteness; that it lacks purpose; that it lacks coherence; that it lacks a subject to talk about; that it is loose and wabbly; that it wanders around; that it loses itself early and does not find itself any more. --Mark Twain
Search this blog
Profile
Joshua Rosenau spends his days defending the teaching of evolution at the National Center for Science Education. He is also a graduate student at the University of Kansas, completing a doctorate in the department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. When not modeling species distributions or battling creationists, he writes about developments in progressive politics and the sciences.
The opinions expressed here are his own, do not reflect the official position of the NCSE. Indeed, older posts may no longer reflect his own official position.
Sb/DonorsChoose Drive
Thanks!
Recent Posts
- Robert Reich: Bail out the education system
- On rating risk
- Science reporting takes a hit
- Moore not running for re-election?
- On Turkey
- Deep Thought
- On Food
- Mormon mother of a 9/11 hero works for marriage equality
- "Too big to fail" is too big to exist (or big enough to nationalize)
- The Oswald Band's last show
Recent Comments
- Timothy Driscoll on Science reporting takes a hit
- maddox22 on On rating risk
- Jacob Sherwood on Science reporting takes a hit
- Oldfart on On Turkey
- David C harmer on Disco. Inst. tries to hustle Texans
- ericnh on On Turkey
- JimFiore on On Turkey
- Roman Werpachowski on "Too big to fail" is too big to exist (or big enough to nationalize)
- Dean Christie on "Too big to fail" is too big to exist (or big enough to nationalize)
- Josh Rosenau on Correcting the record
Archives
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- August 2004
Subscribe to TfK:
Accolades
Good posts from history
The Birth of Intelligent Falling
A failure of Intelligent Design
Why it's called Intelligent Design Creationism
Support TfK
Affiliate programs: buy through the links, and TfK will get a percentage.Buying some music for your friends?
Or maybe some gift certificates?
Buy me things from my Amazon.com wishlist.
Buy yourself things!
Good government
Internet neighbors
Add yourself to the Frappr map!
Blogroll
Progressive Blogroll Alliance
Register here to join the PBA.
« T. H. White on Thinking | Main | Drug-free Tyson's chicken: Fowl or Foul? »
Roy Torcaso, "sort of difficult, very firm in his beliefs, or nonbeliefs," R.I.P.
Category: Culture Wars
Posted on: June 27, 2007 5:38 PM, by Josh Rosenau
Comments
Good thing this case wasn't brought before the current Supremes. Maybe someday we'll be back to normal. The American way. The way the Founders envisioned it. Not the way ideological wingnuts see it.
Posted by: Mousie Cat | June 27, 2007 9:43 PM
Although I'm not a big fan of the current SC, I doubt they would find differently. The constitution is pretty clear on no religious tests to hold public office.
Posted by: Sam Lewis | June 28, 2007 2:36 PM
True, we all have our own beliefs about the existence of God and each individual has the right to abide by what he believe is true and just. No other person can judge him for being different just because the other person thinks otherwise or has a different view about the existence of God.
Posted by: notaries | July 12, 2007 10:09 PM