This Councilman won an election for his seat, and now his opponents are telling him he must step down because he does not believe in God.
As absurd as this may sound, the State Constitution states that to hold a public office in the state they must acknowledge the "Almighty God".
I am a religious man but come on! This just seems ridiculous to me. Whether a person believes in God or not, that is their choice.
The question is do you stick to the constitution of the state or do you dismiss it?
I know that the separation of church and state was originally created to prevent Government from regulating the affairs of relgion, but this does not seem to even come close to falling into the same category. This is different than having God printed on money or in our Pledge of Allegiance. To me this is stating you are not qualified for a job based on your religious beliefs.
Does anyone have another take on this?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think this is a perfectly logical consequence of living in a very stupid state. He should move and try to be a councilman in a state that's not so stupid.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Bothwell can't be forced out of office over his atheist views because the North Carolina provision is unenforceable
As it should be. I think Blocher's point is great:
quote:"I mean there are state laws against spitting in the street," he said. "Why spend the time?"
What Edgerton is doing is just a pointless distraction from real problems.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I'd say voters are free to not vote for athiests if they consider that an important qualifier for elected office, but its clearly a violation of freedom of religion to require it by law for all officeholders. This seems pretty unambiguous.
Having said that, I'd suspect this is playing politics for future elections more than anyone actually thinking they'll win such a lawsuit.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I would have no objection to finding the constitution of North Carolina unconstitutional.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Actually, I think Edgerton is providing a worthwhile service: illustrating (hopefully) how caustic and damaging far-right social/religious conservatism is to American politics and civil rights.
--
Wow Tom, your patronizing sneer is really surprising! It does make one wonder, though, what kinds of ridiculous nonsense one could find if we took a close look at your local government and politics...
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I think the lead on the article says it well.
quote:Asheville City Councilman Cecil Bothwell's detractors are threatening to take the city to court for swearing him in, even though the state's antiquated requirement that officeholders believe in God is unenforceable because it violates the U.S. Consititution.
It violates the US constitution. I can't imagine any argument to the contrary.
If its true that conservative Christians want to try to enforce this, they are really shooting themselves in the foot. There is no way they can win such a battle and force the issue will pretty much inevitably result in striking the law from the NC constitution.
Maybe I'm naive, but I can't see how publicizing the issue will do anything but improve the stature of atheists in our society.
Most peoples opinion of atheists/atheism is unduly biased by a few loud mouth obnoxious and intolerant atheists. In my experience, those people are not representative of atheists as a whole. Like this councilman, most atheists/agnostics aren't particularly interested in God or religion. They rarely speak up on the issue because it simply isn't important to them. Most of their friends and associates probably don't even know they are atheists. A heavily publicized court case trying to ban an atheist from serving in public office, is likely to draw those people out of the closet.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Yeah, I'm hoping this turns out to be a good thing as well.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Rabbit, I too believe it is against the US Constitution, but that is how WE interpret it. The Constitution now days is like the Bible. People just interpret it in an attempt to prove their own view point.
For example, some people are saying that the Constitution does not give the Senate the right to mandate healthcare for everyone in the US, and some others say it falls into a basic human right, and as such the Senate does have the power. Again, its all in how you interpret it!
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
That provision of the North Carolina Constitution is unenforceable because it is blatantly unconstitutional. This is not gray area, this si a direct violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment and yes, the U.S. constitution trumps the states' constitutions.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It seems fairly clear-cut to me. The language of the Constitution goes thus:
quote: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.
I see two possible loopholes, though, through which a sufficiently friendly judge could at least tie the thing up at a higher level: First, city councilmen are not mentioned in the list of offices; second, in the clause beginning "no religious test", one could at least argue that this refers only to federal positions, and is separate from the oath-or-affirmation stuff which explicitly mentions the state legislature level.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: This Councilman won an election for his seat, and now his opponents are telling him he must step down because he does not believe in God.
This is what irritates me about news reporting today. The article starts with:
quote: Asheville City Councilman Cecil Bothwell's detractors are threatening to take the city to court for swearing him in,
and then later states:
quote: One foe, H.K. Edgerton, is threatening to file a lawsuit in state court against the city to challenge Bothwell's appointment.
"My father was a Baptist minister. I'm a Christian man. I have problems with people who don't believe in God," said Edgerton, a former local NAACP president and founder of Southern Heritage 411, an organization that promotes the interests of black southerners.
This makes it seem like one person, a detractor, not detractors. One nut complaining about something loudly really isn't news.
Interestingly I found this in another article:
quote: Bothwell critic and former NAACP President H.K. Edgerton, who is also known for promoting “Southern pride” by wearing a Confederate soldier's uniform and waving a Confederate flag near roadsides,...
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I don't know King. The last part seems to be the clincher for me:
"no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
The fact that it includes "states" earlier in the article seems pretty cut and dry. Like I said before though, you can interpret that as you like. Common sense doesn't always prevail.
Oh, and....what? He wears a confederate uniform around, flies the flag, and has an organization that helps black southerners?
Queue Seasame Street song (ahem): "One of these things is not like the others!"
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think this is a perfectly logical consequence of living in a very stupid state. He should move and try to be a councilman in a state that's not so stupid.
Maybe he is simply attempting to bring some sensibility to a simple and drastically unmodernized system. Certianly it should be worth his time and anguish to bring light to something so ridiculous and hopefully have it stricken from thier constitution.
Or he could laugh it all off by saying that he considers himself to be God, in a soplisistic kinda way. They dont exactly specify that it must be the Christian God do they?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
North Carolina also has Chapel Hill, so we don't totally suck.
Jesse Helms once said "If we ever need another zoo, we can just put a fence around Chapel Hill."
Which, to me, is a pretty good sign that it's a great town.
Edited to remove Asheville from my short list of good NC towns...seeing as how it's the city in question here. LOL
I swear, Asheville does have lots of very cool people. It also has a lot of Christian Conservatives. What can you do? LOL
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I swear, Asheville does have lots of very cool people. It also has a lot of Christian Conservatives. What can you do? LOL
Move to the People's Republic of Carrboro.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by ambyr:
quote:Originally posted by steven: I swear, Asheville does have lots of very cool people. It also has a lot of Christian Conservatives. What can you do? LOL
Move to the People's Republic of Carrboro.
The who?
That was hilarious. Have you lived in NC?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I think the lead on the article says it well.
quote:Asheville City Councilman Cecil Bothwell's detractors are threatening to take the city to court for swearing him in, even though the state's antiquated requirement that officeholders believe in God is unenforceable because it violates the U.S. Consititution.
It violates the US constitution. I can't imagine any argument to the contrary.
If its true that conservative Christians want to try to enforce this, they are really shooting themselves in the foot. There is no way they can win such a battle and force the issue will pretty much inevitably result in striking the law from the NC constitution.
Maybe I'm naive, but I can't see how publicizing the issue will do anything but improve the stature of atheists in our society.
Most peoples opinion of atheists/atheism is unduly biased by a few loud mouth obnoxious and intolerant atheists. In my experience, those people are not representative of atheists as a whole. Like this councilman, most atheists/agnostics aren't particularly interested in God or religion. They rarely speak up on the issue because it simply isn't important to them. Most of their friends and associates probably don't even know they are atheists. A heavily publicized court case trying to ban an atheist from serving in public office, is likely to draw those people out of the closet.
What worries me is that this can easily be characterized as a culture war gambit from the Left. Let me think how Kirk Cameron would put it...
"[Litany of talking points including 10 commandments in public and school prayer and the pledge of allegiance]...It doesn't end. Now, in North Carolina, elite liberal atheists are trying to strike any mention of God from the state constitution."
...and I'll lay ten bucks on something very, very much like that from at least one prominent right wing pundit.
Cultural warfare isn't entirely imagined by wingnuts, of course, but one of the ways that it is actually waged is by mischaracterizing issues rather similar to this as an effort to destroy Christian religions.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That sort of thing happens all the time, though: far-right/left politicians taking a given current event and manipulating it to the point where it's the end of the world by the other side.
Fortunately in this case it's a relatively easy 'OMGENDOFTHEWORLDDDDD!' argument to refute: it's unconstitutional, and besides, the mechanism by which we determine who is best fit to occupy a public office is supposed to be elections, not the state constitutions.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The councilman needs to take control of the issue quickly. "There's been a lot of talk about who believes what. Well, my opponents do not seem to believe in the Constitution."
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
quote: The councilman needs to take control of the issue quickly. "There's been a lot of talk about who believes what. Well, my opponents do not seem to believe in the Constitution."
QFT
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: The who?
That was hilarious. Have you lived in NC?
What gave it away?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: The question is do you stick to the constitution of the state or do you dismiss it?
Considering that this particular state constitution violates the establishment clause of the first ammendment, as well as the 14th ammendment of the federal constitution... that's an easy one. You dismiss it.
[ December 16, 2009, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: The question is do you stick to the constitution of the state or do you dismiss it?
Considering that this particular state constitution violates the establishment clause of the first ammendment, as well as the 14th ammendment of the federal constitution... that's an easy one. You dismiss it.
Actually, it doesn't have anything to do with the First Amendment, which only limits what the US Congress may do.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: The councilman needs to take control of the issue quickly. "There's been a lot of talk about who believes what. Well, my opponents do not seem to believe in the Constitution."
Well said.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: The question is do you stick to the constitution of the state or do you dismiss it?
Considering that this particular state constitution violates the establishment clause of the first ammendment, as well as the 14th ammendment of the federal constitution... that's an easy one. You dismiss it.
Actually, it doesn't have anything to do with the First Amendment, which only limits what the US Congress may do.
Ah yes, good call. 14th then:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
This being, by the way, the portion of the 14th amendment which will eventually be used to enforce the right to gay marriage. Gotta love the constitution- they thought of everything.
ETA: of course I realize the problem here is that the first ammendment bars the existence of any laws regarding this situation, while the 10th ammendment cedes this authority to the states or the people, however I think the equal protection clause is sufficient to overcome any obstacle here. I don't know the NC constitution at all, so who knows?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
By that logic, having age requirements on offices is a violation of the Constitution. Why don't you use the much more directly-applicable "no religious test" clause I quoted above?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Because, KoM, I am an idiot. Just as you have always suspected.
Also because it doesn't clearly apply to offices within states, but only "under the United States," which could mean only federal offices.
In regards to your other comment:
Voting in a particular state is not protected by the federal constitution except where amended in regards to sex, color, race, and age, and the age specified for protection is 18. So the only issue in terms of voting is that the minimum age be 18- the states are then free to allow voting at lower ages. The 14th amendment only provides equal protection under the law- it doesn't guarantee equal rights to all citizens.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: This Councilman won an election for his seat, and now his opponents are telling him he must step down because he does not believe in God.
This is what irritates me about news reporting today. The article starts with:
quote: Asheville City Councilman Cecil Bothwell's detractors are threatening to take the city to court for swearing him in,
and then later states:
quote: One foe, H.K. Edgerton, is threatening to file a lawsuit in state court against the city to challenge Bothwell's appointment.
"My father was a Baptist minister. I'm a Christian man. I have problems with people who don't believe in God," said Edgerton, a former local NAACP president and founder of Southern Heritage 411, an organization that promotes the interests of black southerners.
This makes it seem like one person, a detractor, not detractors. One nut complaining about something loudly really isn't news.
Interestingly I found this in another article:
quote: Bothwell critic and former NAACP President H.K. Edgerton, who is also known for promoting “Southern pride” by wearing a Confederate soldier's uniform and waving a Confederate flag near roadsides,...
I saw him on Penn and Teller, he really does dress up in Confederate Uniform and march around downtown. I believe he does it in part to promote the idea of reparations, not for African Americans, but for the southern states.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: The question is do you stick to the constitution of the state or do you dismiss it?
Considering that this particular state constitution violates the establishment clause of the first ammendment, as well as the 14th ammendment of the federal constitution... that's an easy one. You dismiss it.
Actually, it doesn't have anything to do with the First Amendment, which only limits what the US Congress may do.
That might have been a valid argument in 1840, but it is widely accepted that the 14th amendment extends that to include all state laws as well.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Actually, it doesn't have anything to do with the First Amendment, which only limits what the US Congress may do.
That is an extremely dated interpretation of the law that bears no resemblance to modern precedent.
/edit yeahhhh or what she said
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Interestingly I found this in another article:
quote: Bothwell critic and former NAACP President H.K. Edgerton, who is also known for promoting “Southern pride” by wearing a Confederate soldier's uniform and waving a Confederate flag near roadsides,...
Does anyone else find this deeply, deeply ironic? A former president of the NAACP promoting "south pride" using Confederate paraphernalia? People who do that usually don't get along very well with Presidents (or members for that matter) of the NAACP...