The American public fear atheists at a deep and profound level. This is why no one who is an atheist can publicly admit their beliefs and stand up proudly and expect to avoid derision. I applaud Stark and hope that the others will find the courage to do so too.
There are a number of states whose constitution prohibit an atheist from holding elected office. My state, Texas, is one of them.

That is an outrageous violation of the First Amendment. Why haven't such laws been overthrown by the Supreme Court? Neither promoting nor discouraging religion is moral or Constitutional. Some of the worst religious persecutions in history have been anti-religious repressions by Communist regimes, and the ability to persecute non-religious persons implies the ability to persecute religious persons should the beliefs of the majority change (and yes, arbitrary exclusion from government office is persecution). Such laws fit in Franco's Spain not in modern America.

__________________
"Some people complain about the system. The system is not good, so they can't do anything. It's an excuse. Freedom is in your heart." (Jin Xing)

[quote]I guess because no one will admit to being an atheist in the first place. The state laws prohibiting atheist office holders would have to be challenged by someone with standing to do so. It could be that, one day, someone already holding office would "come out" and then it would be up to the state to enforce its law. Then the plaintiff could kick the can to the SCOTUS.

The way they get away with it is to say people have the freedom of religion, not lackthereof... Also the far right is convinced that any seperation of Church and State is just "judicial activism". And a large percentage of the population is convinced you need adherence to a deity to be good and trustworthy... Despite the large number of untrustworthy people who admit to worshipping one, people still think professing belief in God is a prerequisite and a sign of being trustworthy. Then again, over 50% of the population seems to believe the world was created in seven days.

I'm glad to see at least one state has thrown aside prejudice and ignorance.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...
And I do not need to know.

Get your daily dose of truth*

* or something approximating it

I don't care if 99% of the people believe that the Earth is a giant turtle- this is what the Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

It doesn't state "of a particular religion"; it states "of religion". James Madison, who wrote the Bill of Rights, was himself a deist (essentially non-religious). The government may neither promote nor discourage any system of belief or non-belief and any law that does this is un-Constitutional and a slippery slope towards the religious strife that the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid.

__________________
"Some people complain about the system. The system is not good, so they can't do anything. It's an excuse. Freedom is in your heart." (Jin Xing)

This is the problematic wording. "Religion" or practice thereof. Atheism is not a religion. If anything it is the lackthereof. When interpreted absolutely literally, it can be read as saying no religion can be prohibited... but non-religion can. This is an actual argument that's fallen out of favor since the old days... but it did have an impact on some laws made in the past.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...
And I do not need to know.

Get your daily dose of truth*

* or something approximating it

Robert Owen's son, Robert Dale Owens, served in Congress before the Civil War. A number of sources refer to him as a "freethinker", "skeptic", "infidel" or "atheist". One source refers to him as "the Knight of Unbelief and Unreason."

And be one thing remembered, when men talk of the heartlessness and demoralizing tendency of skepticism; when they cry out about the licentious influence of unbelief; when, in sweeping phrase, they denounce all heretics as profligates, mischief-makers, disorganizers, and wicked men; then, then, in the hour of assault and abuse, be it boldly said, be it faithfully remembered, that Jefferson, that Franklin, that Adams, that Monroe, that Washington, were all skeptics, heretics, infidels, whichever of the meaningless terms Orthodoxy may be pleased to select; and that when honest dissenters from popular creeds are thus denounced as the children of the Devil, Americans, the Revolutionary Fathers! her best, her bravest, her noblest, are expressly included in the denunciation!'

--Robert Dale Owens (1833)

http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts...ews/LEWS14.HTM

The Texas Constitution may not prohibit an atheist from holding elected office.

• The Texas Constitution
  
  Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
  
  Section 4 - RELIGIOUS TESTS
  
  No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

The same section of the Texas Constitution - that appears to establish an acknowledgment of a Supreme Being as a qualification for office or public trust - also declares that "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office" and that no one shall "be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments." The section contradicts itself and sets up a reasonable argument that the "acknowledgment of a Supreme Being" provision, is an absurdity.

This argument is bolstered by the fact that there is no provision establishing how, when or where one must "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being." There is no establishment of an oath, affirmation, statement, act or other method to "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being." Thus, there is a requirement, but there is no way to enforce it. It is like the Texas law that prohibits peace officers from using racial profiling, but does not prescribe a punishment those that do.

Back in the day, when religious tests were the practice, there was always a prescribed way to meet the test. Witness the Massachusetts Constitution of 1870.

• Chapter VI. Article I. Any person chosen governor, lieutenant-governor, councillor, senator, or representative, and accepting the trust, shall, before he proceed to execute the duties of his place or office, make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:
  
  'I _______, do declare that I believe the Christian religion...'"

Perhaps the Texas Constitution was cleverly drafted to appease the Stupid Presbyterians, but not to actually infringe on the rights of skeptics and infidels.

[quote]To the contrary. The plain language of the Constitution makes explicit exception to the right to hold public office for those who do not acknowledge a supreme being.
The exception is triggered when an individual makes the acknowledgment howsoever it may come about.
Here you recognize that "there is a requirement."
A suit lodged against the official about to swear in the atheist or the atheist office holder based on the Constitutional prohibition of same could trigger enforcement.