Government post? Arkansas atheists need not apply
Okay, probably not in practice. But by the letter of the Arkansas constitution, any “person who denies the being of God” is not allowed to hold a position in any government office or testify in court.
Last week, state Rep. Richard Carroll, a Catholic and newly elected member of the Green Party, introduced a measure to eliminate this surprising constitutional holdover. In support of Carroll, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty wrote a letter to the Arkansas legislature objecting to the anti-atheist provision:
The history of the United States is replete with laws designed to keep persons of the “wrong faith” from participating in public life, said the Becket Fund letter. Many of the nation’s pilgrims and earliest immigrants came to the America to escape similar laws in Europe. They then wrote their own laws prohibiting other faiths, often directed at Catholics, Quakers or Jews. Most of those laws have been removed from state constitutions.
South Carolina removed similar laws discriminating against certain religions a few years ago, but such laws still exist in Texas and Tennessee.
“While it is unlikely that these laws will ever be enforced, removing them is more than symbolic,” said Eric Rassbach, national litigation director at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. “It signals to U.S. citizens and to the rest of the world, that the freedom and sanctity of conscience – including the right to believe there is no God at all – is a fundamental right for all people.”
This is, of course, true in its purest sense. But what are your thoughts on such provisions in terms of how the Founders and early citizens of this country viewed the link between just government and faith?













Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top35 Comments to “Government post? Arkansas atheists need not apply”
I understand the allowance in a sectarian society for both the belief in God and the conviction that there is no God. On the other hand, to exempt “any ‘person who denies the being of God’ is not allowed to hold a position in any government office or testify in court,’ is to acknowledge that there has to be a source for absolute truth and measurement. To deny God, is also to deny that there is any higher accountability and established source of justice, standards, morality, or ethics. This would be all the more important as a person is expected to enact laws and testify in a court of law.
Though I am not espousing the retention of these clauses, I can sure see the reasoning for their initiation.
Report comment to moderator
They probably should add “anyone who does not recognize a Final Judgment and the reality of Hell as a place of eternal punishment.”
If you don’t believe in ultimate consequences then there isn’t much hope you are going to tell the truth in a court proceeding. This isn’t to say that all atheists will lie and Christians won’t, but the belief in the God of Scripture offers some measure of comfort with respect to witnesses.
However, it is obvious Arkansas will throw it all out.
Mike
Report comment to moderator
An additional thought. It used to be that a person testifying in court, promised to do so honestly by placing their hand on a Bible. This, as with these constitutional phrases, is being stripped away. Again, so much for an acknowledged higher authority.
Report comment to moderator
The US Constitution specifies that there shall be NO religious test for political office, state or federal.
Article VI, Section 3:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Mike: Why don’t you move to a country that hates freedom of religion as much as you do?
Report comment to moderator
There’s a town somewhere in Idaho where it is illegal for a black man to be out of doors after sunset without a white man present. I doubt that’s enforced. I doubt there’s a black population in the town.
Report comment to moderator
4. Who’s Mike?
Report comment to moderator
The Becket Fund is right on to suggest to Arkansas that they toss this out. It’s not very biblical, much less loving. And since Arkansas is a state of America, and not ancient Israel, there’s no real reason for having the law on the books, since it doesn’t really do much for religious rights, and strips away the rights of a religious minority (the atheists).
It might be a good thing for atheists to see our love as believers by including them into our communities…especially in our law books!
SteveG…you’re an adorable troll and all, but if you’re going to accuse somebody of hating freedom of religion, you might want to actually talk about someone espousing that. Mike’s not espousing that, merely bringing up the unpleasant reality of why someone would tell the truth without something giving them purpose and meaning. I’d hate to see you become a Valeyard or something, right?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG: How about this test?
— And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”
The Arkansians were probably just trying to patch a hole in the dike that the founding fathers never saw coming — that their beloved new country, founded on self evident rights, would produce a population of fools.
Psalm 14:1 The fool says in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.
Report comment to moderator
Mike is NOPM.
Kennethos: The suggestion that a political office holder should believe not only in God, but in a specific religion’s view of God and even hell is precisely the kind of religious test the Founders prohibited.
If Mike really thinks the government should be made up only of people who believe exactly as he does about such things, he’s expressing a profoundly un-American belief.
No trolling necessary to see that.
Report comment to moderator
Awstar: “Divine Providence,” as has often been pointed out, != Christianity.
Jews believe in Divine Providence. So do Muslims, Unitarians, deists, Baha’i, pagans and Hindus.
Further, the Declaration is not the legal framework for the workings of government. The Constitution is. And the Constitution demands no religious test for office and no infringing on freedom of religion.
Report comment to moderator
#6 Kbells
#2 is signed, Mike.
Report comment to moderator
It is my understanding that when the MayFlower Compact was written, that there were both Christians and Non-Christians who agreed to the Compact. It is my understanding that the Mayflower Compact was one of the sources from which our laws were derived.
“”In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620.”
There followed the signatures of 41 of the 102 passengers, 37 of whom were Separatists fleeing religious persecution in Europe. This compact established the first basis in the new world for written laws. Half of the colony failed to survive the first winter, but the remainder lived on and prospered.
Link: http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/revolution/mayflower.htm
With that thought in mind.
Atheists have every right to serve in public office.
Laws enacted by elected officials should be for “The Common Good” Not for the Good of the Elite. Not for the Good of Some. Not for the Good of the Rich. But for the COMMON GOOD!
Report comment to moderator
Yeah, but you can be a sexual predator with cigars used as Marital Aids and go on to be president. At least Clinton was first president to come from real Hope instead of a faking it.
Report comment to moderator
Bush 41 would agree. He doesn’t think atheists should be citizens.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Report comment to moderator
While most of the FFs did have a problem with state sectarian religious tests, they had less of a problem with tests that required simple God belief and a future state of rewards and punishments.
Ben Franklin as acting Gov. of PA railed against and got PA’s sectarian religious test that required belief in the Bible removed. Yet it was replaced with one that required simple God belief and future state of rewards and punishments.
And by the way, those punishments needed not be eternal. Most key FFs believed in a place of temporary, not eternal punishment.
As you know I’ve done lots of research on this and can point you to a vast amount of primary sources.
Report comment to moderator
Mike,
While I agree to some extent with your comment, I do not think someone has to believe “in the Final judgment and in an eternal Hell” in order to tell the truth.
There are many Christians who believe in annihilation at the end, either with or without a period of punishment beforehand. (i.e. all the damned will be destroyed when Hell is thrown into the Lake of Fire.) And, there are Universalists who still believe in the punishment of Hell, just not eternally (i.e. sort of like purgatory…punishment until repentance.)
I think any of those options would be sufficient for telling the truth, if one thought that not telling the truth would incur punishment.
However, I do think there are lots of reasons for telling the truth other than threat of punishment (eternal or not). In fact, I think that it is really scary that some people would only tell the truth with threat of eternal punishment behind it.
I think it is even sadder that some people get saved only because they fear punishment (eternal or otherwise.)
And, after all, there are a lot of Christians who would think it okay to lie, so long as they had time later to repent and be forgiven. (I know that is not what is supposed to happen. I’m just saying there are an awful lot of Christians who seem to believe that.)
Report comment to moderator
No Joe B. There were no “non-Christians” (in the professing sense) that had ANY rights under the Mayflower Compact. The MC was not done for religious liberty but so the Puritans could worship God as they saw fit and exclude others, mainly folks who were not the right kinds of “Christians,” from their society.
Report comment to moderator
Here is John Adams on both Hell and atheists.
On Hell (probably more properly termed “purgatory”):
“I believe too in a future state of rewards and punishments too; but not eternal.”
– To Francis van der Kemp, July 13, 1815.
And on atheists:
“Government has no Right to hurt a hair of the head of an Atheist for his Opinions. Let him have a care of his Practices.”
– John Adams to John Quincy Adams, June 16, 1816.
Report comment to moderator
TRS, 16:
George Washington would agree. He wrote to the Universalists that whatever it was he admired about “religion” or “Christians” that supported republican government, they, the Universalists, had it.
GENTLEMEN,
I thank you cordially for the congratulations, which you offer on my appointment to the office I have the honor to hold in the government of the United States.
It gives me the most sensible pleasure to find, that, in our nation, however different are the sentiments of citizens on religious doctrines, they generally concur in one thing; for their political professions and practices are almost universally friendly to the order and happiness of our civil institutions. I am also happy in finding this disposition particularly evinced by your society. It is, moreover, my earnest desire, that all the members of every association or community, throughout the United States, may make such use of the auspicious years of peace, liberty, and free inquiry, with which they are now favored, as they shall hereafter find occasion to rejoice for having done.
With great satisfaction I embrace this opportunity to express my acknowledgments for the interest my affectionate fellow-citizens have taken in my recovery from a late dangerous indisposition; and I assure you, Gentlemen, that, in mentioning my obligations for the effusions of your benevolent wishes in my behalf, I feel animated with new zeal, that my conduct may ever be worthy of your favorable opinion, as well as such as shall, in every respect, best comport with the character of an intelligent and accountable being.
http://tinyurl.com/akhwp4
Report comment to moderator
Mike,
It may make sense to you that people who don’t believe in hell would be more likely to lie, but I see little evidence that that is the case. Whether or not it makes sense from a philosophical perspective to link moral behavior to a belief in absolute moral law, whether someone believes in a God or not doesn’t seem to do much to predict whether or not they live by a moral code.
Also, most people I know believe in a God of some sort (which is all that the Arkansas constitution seems to require, not specifically “the God of Scripture”), and a lot of them do not believe in hell.
If the point is to have people of integrity holding government posts, look at their lives rather than what they say they believe.
Report comment to moderator
TRS,
Annihilation isn’t much of a threat. Atheists believe in annihilation.
No one gets saved because they they fear eternal punishment. Faith doesn’t find its root in brutish fear, but rather in a (true) fear of God. And a true fear of God must have the elemnt of love at its core.
SteveG,
Mike would love it if the government were made up of only Christians. One can always hope. Of course Reformed Christians would be best if we are going to be picky.
As I stated in my first post: Atheists do not always lie and Christians do not always tell the truth. If we truly followed through on our worldviews Christians would always tell the truth and atheists would always do whatever is in their best self-interest.
Mike
Report comment to moderator
As SteveG points out the Constitution says what it says, and that was available in Arkansas when its Constitution was enacted. So, one wonders just what was going on in Arkansas that they still put that clause in their Constitution. Why did they feel it was necessary?
Report comment to moderator
21:
Annihilation, it seems to me, is a big threat if the difference is between being annihilated and getting into Heaven.
And by the way, orthodox Christianity isn’t, as far as I can tell, the best religion for supporting civil government precisely because it is so non-works oriented. Evangelicals don’t believe folks go to Hell for lying, but for not accepting Jesus.
The key Founding Fathers, on the other hand, believed men were justified through works, that good people go to Heaven for their virtue and the bad are temporarily punished eventually saved.
THAT kind of “works” oriented theology it seems to me provides far more “civil utility” to republican government.
Report comment to moderator
Where is “Yeah” to come along and say how dare Random speak strongly about “Right and Wrong” when he has no basis for so doing?
It’s wrong to prohibit atheists from holding public office. Absolutely.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG said: *** “Divine Providence,” as has often been pointed out, != Christianity.
Jews believe in Divine Providence. So do Muslims, Unitarians, deists, Baha’i, pagans and Hindus. ***
But the point is Atheists don’t trust in Divine Providence; and therefore disqualify themselves from being suitable representatives in government because in the end, they’ll take the freedom of religion rights we have and pervert them into a club to enforce their belief that the government should be free from religious beliefs.
And since the US Constitution allows the states to govern themselves in these matters, Arkansas is just exercising its right to legislate laws that its population thinks is for their best welfare. — you know, like a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
Actually some of my thinking has much more to do with church trials than civil trials although there is likely to be some carry-over. In a church trial (at least now-a-days in the U.S.) the church doesn’t inflict any kind of physical punishment. Its primary censure is spiritual. Thus an atheist in general should not act as a witness because he supposedly rejects all things spiritual and therefore can’t be trusted to tell the truth.
But those who believe in a final judgement and an eternal punishment for sin are qualified to testify. Even Calvinists believe it will be worse for those who know the truth and yet still sin intentionally.
Mike
Report comment to moderator
Mike,
Thanks. I’ve read some of those church trials from the Founding era, and they can be quite interesting. There’s one notable one where a Presbyterian minister named Hemphill who in all likelihood was a secret unitarian teaching a theology of salvation thru works, was in the process of being defrocked.
Ben Franklin came to his defense basically saying that we should accept Hemphill’s theology as authentically Christian.
The Hemphill affair sheds much light into founding era political theology that some folks mistakenly believe to be either “Deism” or “Christianity.” Rather it was a works oriented unitarianism that presented itself as “Christianity.”
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer/franklin/
Report comment to moderator
Awstar: But the point is Atheists don’t trust in Divine Providence; and therefore disqualify themselves from being suitable representatives in government because in the end, they’ll take the freedom of religion rights we have and pervert them into a club to enforce their belief that the government should be free from religious beliefs.
And since the US Constitution allows the states to govern themselves in these matters, Arkansas is just exercising its right to legislate laws that its population thinks is for their best welfare. — you know, like a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
What part of ” no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States” is confusing you?
Report comment to moderator
I believe intentions were noble. However, from my age and experience, I would rather have a non-Christian that knew what they were doing than a Christian who didn’t.
There are few things worse than professing believers who are inept.
Report comment to moderator
It seems a lot of atheists are gay, poor, stupid, uneducated whacked out extremists who are so insane they think they are rich, smart, normal, intellectual scholars who think they are little messiahs themselves
_
Report comment to moderator
It seems a lot of Christians are gay-bashing, racist hatemongers who are so mentally unhinged that they think God called them to denigrate and persecute anyone who isn’t white, wealthy, and a fundamentalist who think God died an appointed them judge, jury and executioner
Report comment to moderator
Here I am, Random! But wouldn’t it be cooler if you’d just provide your rationale voluntarily? What, we’re just s’posed to agree with you for no reason?
Report comment to moderator
The constitution of Arkansas obviously passed muster when Arkansas became a state; therefore it must not have been thought unconstitutional to demand a belief in God.
I may be all wet, but I believe that the “relgious test” of the Constitution referred to a test to make sure that one’s doctrinal positions were in keeping with a particular denomination. In other words, it was okay for a state to require a generic belief in God but not an adherence to particular doctrines about God.
—–
Jon Rowe, I believe that you are mistaken in calling the signers of the Mayflower Compact “Puritans.” They were Separatists who founded the Plymouth Colony and who had many significant differences with the Puritans. Overall they had better relations with Indians and other non-Christians and even with heterodox Christans than their Puritan neighbors in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG said: What part of ” no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States” is confusing you?
According to the Word of God “The fool says in his heart, There is no God.”, the Arkansas law is an intelligence test not a religious test. If a person doesn’t have enough common sense to recognize that laws of nature and laws that are self evident like a peoples’ right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness come from a law maker who is greater than a mere human being, then they are lacking enough sense to be trusted with writing laws that build on that foundation.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle A: The constitution of Arkansas obviously passed muster when Arkansas became a state; therefore it must not have been thought unconstitutional to demand a belief in God.
I may be all wet, but I believe that the “relgious test” of the Constitution referred to a test to make sure that one’s doctrinal positions were in keeping with a particular denomination. In other words, it was okay for a state to require a generic belief in God but not an adherence to particular doctrines about God.
Maybe, but the US Supreme Court doesn’t go around patrolling for laws to declare unconstitutional. They only do that when there’s a case before them, and until an Arkansas atheist is disqualified from running for office based on this, there will be no case to bring.
Given that there probably are not that many atheists in Arkansas, and that the state may well decide not to enforce the provision if one ever did run for office, it’s likely that this won’t be tested.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!