Opponents trying to bar atheist from Asheville council

Opponents trying to bar atheist from Asheville council

by

Published on December 8th, 2009, 10:20 am
Rift: Religion

We've been over this road before, theoretically: The NC constitution disqualifies the non-religious from office. But the US Constitution invalidates this part of the document. The message doesn't appear to have gotten through to some folks in Asheville. So after losing an election fair and square, these opponents are resorting to this to get their way.

Pathetic. And the NAACP is in the mix of folks who want this man to be tossed out. You'd expect a better attitude from a group that fights against discrimination... :roll:

Just wait till I run for office... This (expletive) will hit the crackin fan!

SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:We've been over this road before, theoretically: The NC constitution disqualifies the non-religious from office. But the US Constitution invalidates this part of the document. The message doesn't appear to have gotten through to some folks in Asheville. So after losing an election fair and square, these opponents are resorting to this to get their way.

Pathetic. And the NAACP is in the mix of folks who want this man to be tossed out. You'd expect a better attitude from a group that fights against discrimination...

It appears the man is speaking for himself... not the NAACP.

a former Asheville NAACP president.

BecauseHeLives wrote:
SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:We've been over this road before, theoretically: The NC constitution disqualifies the non-religious from office. But the US Constitution invalidates this part of the document. The message doesn't appear to have gotten through to some folks in Asheville. So after losing an election fair and square, these opponents are resorting to this to get their way.

Pathetic. And the NAACP is in the mix of folks who want this man to be tossed out. You'd expect a better attitude from a group that fights against discrimination...

It appears the man is speaking for himself... not the NAACP.
a former Asheville NAACP president.

Fair enough. Still this guy seems rather weird -- he used to head the local NAACP, and now he stands on a street corner, wearing a Confederate uniform? Only in the South....
:roll:

Being discriminated against has never prevented people from discriminating against others. No doubt ecofox, BHL and thesumofyourfears will be suitably outraged about this discrimination.

A Person wrote:Being discriminated against has never prevented people from discriminating against others. No doubt ecofox, BHL and thesumofyourfears will be suitably outraged about this discrimination.

Oh certainly. They'll be all about protecting this fellow's right to be installed in the office he was elected to, because we know THEY are all about following the truth of any matter, even if it means an atheist gets elected to government.
:banana-skier:

Even if these morons realize that they can't enforce an unconstitutional clause, Bothwell will still have to swear to uphold the North Carolina constitution - even though it bans him from holding office

Given that this was decided nearly half a century ago, you'd think they would have formally revoked that clause. But I'm sure that if they were forced to, they would claim that it would infringe on their religious freedom to discriminate :lol:

Oh, we'll have a constitutional re-write eventually. We're not like Alabama, after all.

SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:We've been over this road before, theoretically: The NC constitution disqualifies the non-religious from office. But the US Constitution invalidates this part of the document. The message doesn't appear to have gotten through to some folks in Asheville. So after losing an election fair and square, these opponents are resorting to this to get their way.

Pathetic. And the NAACP is in the mix of folks who want this man to be tossed out. You'd expect a better attitude from a group that fights against discrimination...

Evidently the idiots who prepared the constitution in NC couldn't read or something. The U.S. constitution clearly states that there may not be any religious test for candidates for public office. Amazing.

Kind of like the Sarah Palin numbskull who keeps on bringing up the lie that Obama was not born in America.

It's especially stupid considering that the NC constitution was almost completely rewritten in 1971 - ten years after the SCOTUS determined the invalidity of that clause. Yet they included it even though they knew it was invalid. It's not the only one:

Wikipedia At least two provisions, carried over from the 1868 Constitution, are not enforced either because they are known to be void or would almost certainly be struck down in court.

Article 6, section 8 disqualifies from office any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God. This article was carried over verbatim from the 1868 Constitution. However, in 1961, the federal Supreme Court, in Torcaso v. Watkins threw out a similar provision in the Maryland Constitution on the grounds that it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution. The First Amendment bars Congress from passing any law "respecting an establishment of religion," and this provision has long been considered binding on the states under the liberty clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As a result, it has never been enforced. This provision was explicitly challenged and overturned by Vosswinkel v. Hunt, 1979.

Article 6, section 4 requires that a person be literate in the English language before registering to vote. This provision was widely used to effectively disenfranchise African-American voters in the Jim Crow era. As such, it is widely held that this section violates the Voting Rights Act. However, several attempts to remove this provision have failed.

Questioner wrote:
SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:We've been over this road before, theoretically: The NC constitution disqualifies the non-religious from office. But the US Constitution invalidates this part of the document. The message doesn't appear to have gotten through to some folks in Asheville. So after losing an election fair and square, these opponents are resorting to this to get their way.

Pathetic. And the NAACP is in the mix of folks who want this man to be tossed out. You'd expect a better attitude from a group that fights against discrimination...

Evidently the idiots who prepared the constitution in NC couldn't read or something. The U.S. constitution clearly states that there may not be any religious test for candidates for public office. Amazing.

Kind of like the Sarah Palin numbskull who keeps on bringing up the lie that Obama was not born in America.

Not necessarily so Q. Many interpret that clause of the constitution to refer to FEDERAL offices or employees.

BecauseHeLives wrote:Not necessarily so Q. Many interpret that clause of the constitution to refer to FEDERAL offices or employees

Many have been disabused of that fallacy by the SCOTUS.

This is recognised in Article 1 dection 5

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 the 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."

I.E. the Oath recognises the preeminence of the US Constitution, and only the constitution and laws of North Carolina that are not inconsistent with that are to be supported and maintained.

So yes it is silly to include clauses that have already been determined on several occasions to be in conflict with the COTUS and therefore invalid. But what the hell, waste some more money on lawyers to determine it all over again if you like.

Questioner wrote:Kind of like the Sarah Palin numbskull who keeps on bringing up the lie that Obama was not born in America.

Lies? No lies here you knucklehead. Here is the starting sentence from...

The Standard, Ltd
Nairobi, Kenya
Sunday, June 27, 2004

Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate ....

http://web.archive.org/web/200406271427 ... 060403.htm

His own people knows he was born there.

Summy is a birther? Quelle surprise.

Oh well, if the Nairobi Standard says something it must be true. After all, African newspaper reporters are so much more reliable than the Hawaii Department of Health and the US Department of State

How about dealing with the topic of the post, how Christians are being persecuted in North Carolina by being denied from taking public office.

A Person wrote:Even if these morons realize that they can't enforce an unconstitutional clause, Bothwell will still have to swear to uphold the North Carolina constitution - even though it bans him from holding office

Given that this was decided nearly half a century ago, you'd think they would have formally revoked that clause. But I'm sure that if they were forced to, they would claim that it would infringe on their religious freedom to discriminate

Reread the oath. It specifically requires the following:
I will endeavor to support, maintain and defend the Constitution of said State, not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States

He is quite able to take that oath.

Well I did point that out.

My point is that he would still have to swear to support and defend something with a objectionable clause that is intended to discriminate against him - even though it is ineffective. While he can honestly affirm the oath it is still remarkably insulting for him to have to.

Can you imagine the screams of 'persecution from ecofox, BHL and Summy if there was a clause that said

Sec. 8. Disqualifications for office.

The following persons shall be disqualified for office:

First, any person who shall deny the neccessity of performing good works for their eternal salvation

A Person wrote:Summy is a birther? Quelle surprise.

Oh well, if the Nairobi Standard says something it must be true. After all, African newspaper reporters are so much more reliable than the Hawaii Department of Health and the US Department of State

How about dealing with the topic of the post, how Christians are being persecuted in North Carolina by being denied from taking public office.

I know that...just responded to his post.

A Person wrote:Summy is a birther? Quelle surprise.

Oh well, if the Nairobi Standard says something it must be true. After all, African newspaper reporters are so much more reliable than the Hawaii Department of Health and the US Department of State

How about dealing with the topic of the post, how Christians are being persecuted in North Carolina by being denied from taking public office.

Well, you do suck up to the British newspapers as if they are gospel, do you not?

Still trying to avoid the subject? I understand.

BecauseHeLives wrote:Not necessarily so Q. Many interpret that clause of the constitution to refer to FEDERAL offices or employees.

Are you illiterate? The postings above specifically refer to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that found a similar clause in Maryland's constitution to be unconstitutional. Freedom of religion (meaning the right to believe in any or no religion) is part of the bill of rights, which binds all governmental bodies in the U.S. Or maybe you understand the Constitution better than the U.S. Supreme Court.

Questioner wrote:
BecauseHeLives wrote:Not necessarily so Q. Many interpret that clause of the constitution to refer to FEDERAL offices or employees.

Are you illiterate?

Only when it suits his purposes.

I think its awesome that his "proof" is an article from a 2004 "newspaper" that cant even spell Obama's name right. Just in case you are interested in the truth of the matter, Summy...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/ap.asp

Thanks for playing.. or as you would say "nice try".

Sanjuro wrote:I think its awesome that his "proof" is an article from a 2004 "newspaper" that cant even spell Obama's name right. Just in case you are interested in the truth of the matter, Summy...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/ap.asp

Thanks for playing.. or as you would say "nice try".

Maybe the Birther posts of this thread need to be moved to some other, less sane and stable thread....

A Person wrote:
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."

I find it interesting that the "oath" can be swearing or affirming... BUT you are required to say "swelp meh gawd"?

Sounds like another religion test trap to me. What if you prefer to ask Allah for help? Or Krishna? As for atheists... we would ask for help from our staff, friends and family. Bet THAT would go over real well.

I got a giggle out of this clause in the DECLARATION OF RIGHTS Article 1

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"

Anyway, I also noted that Article 1 has a "no taxation without representation" clause. Is any one thinking that they could challenge their state taxes while that clause limiting free representation is in place?