"I'm not saying that Cecil Bothwell is not a good man, but if he's an atheist, he's not eligible to serve in public office, according to the state constitution"

That'll be interesting, if somebody decides to push it.

Article 6, section 8 of the state constitution says: “The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.”

I can hardly see this clause surviving a democratic scrutiny. It looks like a Trojan horse set to undermine the principle of the separation of Church and State.

Article Six of The US Constitution would take issue with those objecting based on their state consititution. From Wikipedia:

Article Six establishes the Constitution, and the laws and treaties of the United States made according to it, to be the supreme law of the land, and that "the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the laws or constitutions of any state notwithstanding."

Article Six also states "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

So... Do you think they'd invalidate the clause, or the whole state Constitution?

Our North Carolina state constitution is in need of some updates. I don't recall the details, but it seems there is still some language pertaining to women that is discriminatory as well.

So... Do you think they'd invalidate the clause, or the whole state Constitution?

I really don't know, but I think the courts would simply invalidate the clause. I wouldn't be surprised to find that many state constitutions have clauses that are at odds with the US Constitution.

And some, like California's, are at odds with themselves.

How has this law stood all these years?

How has this law stood all these years?

Laws stand until someone is hurt by them and then they are challenged. It sounds like this is the first time this has been challenged.

Settled Constitutional Law - Religious test for office void

It is settled Constitutional law that such a State Constitutional requirement is null and void under the United States Constitution.

However the Court has been divided in dealing with religiously-based conduct and governmental compulsion of action or nonaction, it was unanimous in voiding a state constitutional provision which required a notary public, as a condition of perfecting his appointment, to declare his belief in the existence of God. The First Amendment, considered with the religious oath provision of Article VI, makes it impossible "for government, state or federal, to restore the historically and constitutionally discredited policy of probing religious beliefs by test oaths or limiting public offices to persons who have, or perhaps more properly, profess to have, a belief in some particular kind of religious concept."

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)

The decision was based on the first and forteenth Amendments and NOT Article VI of the US Constituion - they did not reach the question as to whether that provision applies to States as well as Federal office.

So... Do you think they'd invalidate the clause, or the whole state Constitution?

ONLY the unconstitutional aspects are void. The issue of the validity of the state Constitution is a completely different issue.

It's a dumb old law that's unconstitutional. We have lots of old unenforced laws here in Mass. You're supposed to pay a fee if you grow a goatee, all men going to church are required to bring a rifle, women can't be on top durring sex, witches and Quakers are banned from the state, tomatoes can't be used in clam chowder, and gorillas are forbidding from riding in the backseat of cars (they have to ride shotgun).

gorillas are forbidding from riding in the backseat of cars (they have to ride shotgun)

That's a good one! I don't imagine there are many calls to enforce it; of course if there are there's good reason to be glad one isn't the officer on duty!!

In Alabama, it's illegal to spit on the sidewalk. But it is legal to go the wrong way down a one-way street as long as you have a lantern on your hood.

I love some of those silly old laws.

What Independent Ed, et al, said.

Anyone know if that was in the original NC const. or added, like so many other god references, during the Red Scare years? Most of the state constitutions reflected the federal document on this matter. Jefferson's for VA was exemplary in this regard, I believe being more explicit and emphatic on this issue.

I erred. Jefferson wrote the VA Statute for Religious Freedom, which was enacted as ordinary law, not as part of the state constitution. It's wording has never been improved upon.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are CREATED equal and ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR with certain INALIENABLE rights.

--Declaration of Independence

Our very individual rights and freedoms as are inalienable because they are assumed to extend from God. Our Creator is the source of our inalienable rights, not the government.

Without God, there is no reliable basis upon which our rights exist - only that which the ruling powers permit us. This is no arbitrary construct.

We should never trust the governance of our freedoms to those who deny the very foundational basis for our freedoms. To do so is not progressive, but rank foolishness.

Wrong. First of all, the Declaration isn't actually law.

Second of all, just because you say our rights can only extend from "God" doesn't mean it's true. The government, at this moment, is the thing that allows us our rights. And beyond that, we are, since the government serves the people. We give ourselves our rights. Why do you need to bring "God" into everything?

Anyone who recognizes no ultimate source of moral authority above man's opinion, no ultimate source or purpose for human life nor ultimate source of accountability should ever be trusted to govern a nation predicated on the assumption that our rights and lives are an inalienable endowment from God. This should be obvious.

Actually, the exact opposite is true. Anyone who believes in God and that he is performing God's will should never be trusted. Atheists at least know that they are accountable here in reality, and the fear of prosecution is enough to deter them in most cases. On the other hand, someone who believes that there is an after life in which he will be rewarded eternally for his actions on Earth can do anything and feel no remorse. After all, he believes he is doing God's will, and no punishment here on Earth can possibly outweigh the rewards he can get in Heaven.

Lest anyone forget, Hitler claimed in Mein Kampf that he was doing God's will. George W. Bush claimed the same. Many political leaders throughout history have justified their actions the same way. It is those people who should never be trusted, and no one should be trusted with absolute power.

Atheists must never be trusted with power.......Facts matter.

I'm guessing the irony of that rant escapes you. How sad.

For anyone wanting to read about silly laws still on the books, you should read "The Trenton Pickle Ordinance and Other Bonehead Legislation." It will give you a chuckle to read what laws various states still have on their books from days gone by.

In Alabama, it's illegal to spit on the sidewalk.

But apparently it's perfectly legal to date your sister...Sorry, just had to say it. I lived there for about 2 years and I still have nightmares :)

Lest anyone forget, Hitler claimed in Mein Kampf that he was doing God's will

And let's not forget bin Laden, al Sadr, and those 19 terrorists on 9/11/2001.

Anyone who recognizes no ultimate source of moral authority above man's opinion, no ultimate source or purpose for human life nor ultimate source of accountability should ever be trusted to govern a nation predicated on the assumption that our rights and lives are an inalienable endowment from God. This should be obvious.

Yeah, not so much. This nation is not predicated on any particular "God." This nation was predicated on the fact that you can worship who you want, I can worship someone else or nothing at all. Religion has no place in government, and belief in a particular god is not a prerequisite for holding office. This point has been settled for decades.

Furthermore, the DoI makes no reference whatsoever to a Christian god. Anyone of nearly any faith could read that document and adopt the general term "Creator" to be the god he/she worships. For Christians to take it for granted that it refers only to their god just tells us why we need that tall and thick wall between church and state.

Well in that case, I disagree with Thomas Jefferson.

He holds no power in government any more. He's dead. What matters is what the people want today, not what we wanted yesterday.

And anyway, you can't deny the obvious fact the the highest law in the land renders this part of the NC Constitution void, no matter what your "God" says.

our founding document's author (Thomas Jefferson) declared it in the Declaration of Independence.

You do know that the basis of our government is in the Constitution, correct?

That "thick wall" of separation is actually nothing more than a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote

I'm not one to promoter anothe newsvine column, but go to this column(http://jeffreynowak.newsvine.com/_news/2009/12/06/3597711-the-founding-fathers-never-intended-for-a-separation-of-church-and-state ) and read the many posts that refute this assertion(with cited facts), Elwood.

The Declaration of Independence says that all men are endowed by "their creator" with certain inalienable rights...it doesn't say which creator, which god, which deity. The Founders intended the People to be able to worship any deity or none at all...they did not found this country based upon any particular religion. See above post re: Treaty of Tripoli for more info. Here are some other things our founding fathers have said about religion:

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind." - Thomas Paine

Every man "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience." - George Washington

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson

During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." - James Madison

The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.'' - James Madison

As you can see, the Founders did not have any particular religion close at heart when they founded this country.

All of the first ten amendments in the Bill of Rights protect private interests from government, not the other way around.

Indeed. And this includes the private interests of atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Hindu, and, in my case, pantheists and Buddhists (among others).

This modernist fabrication that the first amendment is to protect the government from Christianity is just that - a fabrication.

I've certainly never figured that the government required our protection from anything. Rather, the establishment cause prohibits any one private religious entity or group from using the government as a tool for advancing its own interests and/or imposing rules solely derived from religious doctrine on those who are not voluntarily practicing that doctrine.

I don't see how Jefferson's references to a creator (leaving aside for the moment that Jefferson was a deist at best, so his "creator" bears little resemblance to the anthropomorphised finger-wagger that modern evangelicals worship) negate the plain fact that the Constitution forbids religious tests for office.

Elwood;

Our constitutional principles are not some arbitrary constructs for sloppy thinking conservatives to reinvent as they wish.

(sarcasm): If you hate America so much perhaps you should move to a country where the clerics rule. Like Iran.

Here's a great classic essay by Robert Ingersoll on this subject...

God In the Constitution

He makes every point I'd like to make, except much better! (Read it. It's good).

No, the foundational documents and priciples do matter, whether you disagree or not.

You may dismiss the foundations in favor of some fast and loose modernist notion, but our constitutional principles are not some arbitrary constructs for sloppy thinking liberals to reinvent as they wish.

You're right. The Constitution isn't for anyone to reinvent as they wish. Meaning that the NC Constitution is void, since it goes against the US Constitution, meaning that Bothwell should have gotten the office.

Every one of those statements supports the assertion that this country was founded in part on the idea of religious freedom...it does not logically follow from that principle that this was founded as a christian nation.

It's not that the Establishment Clause is meant to "protect" the government from Christianity. The government doesn't need protection. No, that clause is meant to protect everyone from a government which plays favorites. Madison explained this quite clearly:

...I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.

...

I cannot speak particularly of any of the cases excepting that of Virginia, where it is impossible to deny that religion prevails with more zeal and a more exemplary priesthood than it ever did when established and patronized by public authority. We are teaching the world the great truth, that Governments do better without kings and nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson: the Religion flourishes in greater purity without, than with the aid of Government (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

(Source)

The founders recognized that freedom of religion required a secular government. That's why they created one. That is what the Establishment Clause is all about.

one of the rights that the bible tells us comes directly from the creator is the divine right of kings to rule over all other mortals.

you cannot pick & choose which divine rights to believe in they are either all part of god;s ineffable plan or they are nonsense.

Certainly, the founders wanted tolerance among differing religious perspectives, but the modernist notion of the first Amendment to mean protecting the State from Christianity or Christian influence is simply false.

I already refuted this straw man above in #1.42. The First Amendment doesn't protect the state from religion. It protects religious freedom from the dangers of a government which plays favorites. A government which places one religion above others cannot be trusted to protect religious freedoms, so the government must be forced to stay neutral. It is not for the state's protection. It's for our protection.

I don't believe the Constitution or Declaration narrowly defined the Creator as the "Christian" God, but the Judeo-Christian Bible was most certainly what informed their understanding of the Creator.

And if I were writing the philosophical/poetic verses in support of my new nation, my writing would be peppered with a pantheistic understanding of creation and Buddhist notions regarding compassion, civility, and civic duty. I'm still not sure that would make any nation formed by myself and my compatriots a "Buddhist" nation.

Our founders were also white people influenced by European values; that doesn't make us a white nation . . . does it?

Certainly, the founders wanted tolerance among differing religious perspectives, but the modernist notion of the first Amendment to mean protecting the State from Christianity or Christian influence is simply false. Every one of the Bill of rights (first ten amendments) were conceived as protections of private interests from the state - not the other way around.

Exactly. And can we not assume that the private interests of the atheist, the agnostic, or the pantheist (or the polytheist, or the animist, and so on) is also to be protected from the state? What is the functional difference, so far as religious freedom is concerned, between the state pursuing the moral vision of any one religion at the expense of all others and the state pursuing a mandate of irreligion at the expense of all?

In other words, if the state should refrain from stifling Christian practice and expression--and I believe it should so refrain--should it not also refrain from stifling other religious practice (including, by implication, irreligious practice) in the name of, say, Christianity?

Further, massive irrefutable evidence exists to support the fact Christianity informed the conscience of our founders and public policy throughout history.

Of course; our philosophical frameworks tend to reflect the culture in which we come to maturity (assuming we ever do ;)). That doesn't mean, however, that one must believe in deity in order to function within our society either morally or politically. As has been noted, the Constitution specifically forbids religious tests for office (in case everyone's forgotten what we're discussing).

We might, by incident, be a Christian nation, but we are, by mandate, a pluralistic one.

This stuff is inscribed in marble and granite all over Washington DC. The supreme court even has the Ten Commandments inscribed prominently in the wall behind the benches. The Congress appointed Chaplains to official office.

I, personally, object to none of that.

The Bible was the primary text in public schools for years.

This matter is a little more complex. I grew up Catholic (and thus am nominally familiar with the Bible). I'm a tremendous fan of Herman Melville, whose writing requires some further Biblical study to untangle; I've also read a good bit of C.S. Lewis's theological work, which required yet more study in order to gain familiarity with his points of reference.

All in all, I think that any study of the Western canon should include the Bible . . . so long as it's presented as a book, and no assertions are made with regards to its veracity as a historical document or its efficacy as a moral guide. And, to be fair, study of Melville is equally deficient without knowledge of some Vedic Scripture (the Bhagavad Gita, at least), and study of the Transcendentalists (Emerson, Thoreau) or "American Romantics" like Whitman or Dickinson would be incomplete without some study of Western pantheists like Bruno or Spinoza, or even anti-religious figures like the Marquis de Sade. Perhaps a comparative religion or philosophy course would be in order, or, better yet, a class on world religious thought and its influence(s) on Western literature and culture.

Naturalists, who demand science only entertain Naturalistic conclusions in science, are scrambling to explain around the theistic implications of a Universe that began, because rationality demands that anything finite has to ultimately be caused by an Infinite cause.

Science is, by definition, methodologically naturalistic, as it's designed solely for the observation of natural phenomena. One needn't be a philosophical naturalist to insist that science limit itself to its proper sphere of inquiry. Theistic implications and infinite causes are, by definition, not testable or even theoretically reproduceable (though they are ultimately falsifiable, in the sense that we will all objectively find out, one way or another, what's up).

Naturalist speculations about metaverses and such are nothing but raw speculation that have no basis in anything observable, testable, actual or real. Further, they really don't answer anything, but simply attempt to push back the question into obscurity.

That's partially correct. They are speculative sciences, but they're based on testable theoretical models; in other words, they can be supported or falsified as information is gathered regarding other, more observable phenomena (wave/particle interactions, relativity, etc.).

Again, a Universe with a beginning needs a cause.

I've always found this assertion sophistic. All phenomena we observe have predecessors, but in almost every case, that predecessor is another natural phenomenon. The preceding phenomenon for the known universe might be "supernatural" in the sense that we don't understand its nature, "transcendent" in the sense that it transcends what we currently know and understand about phenomena, but that doesn't mean that it's supernatural in the way that deity is supernatural.

It also doesn't mean it's not. I'm not arguing that there isn't or can't be [a] [G/g]od(s); I'm only suggesting that nothing in our observation necessitates it.

In Darwin's day. the steady state (Infinite) Universe gave credance to the Infinite timelines needed for life to self-organize and evolve by naturalistic processes.

A lot of what you're talking about here speaks to the matter of abiogenesis, not to evolution.

Further, the steady state Universe gave Atheism a foothold by claiming matter is all that is, ever was or ever will be.

Not necessarily what atheists claim. The only common thread among atheists is non-belief in deity; that doesn't necessarily translate to non-belief in any and all metaphysical function. Furthermore, non-belief is not synonymous with belief in the absence or impossibility of either deity or other metaphysical construct.

Now, modern science has dicovered in fact that the Universe is not Infinite.

Well, at least that the laws and phenomena we associate with this universe appear to have had a starting point. If there's one thing that all theories about what preceded this have in common, it's that they're fundamentally speculative by nature, since the laws and phenomena of this universe are all we're equipped to study via any epistemology.

Not when each component or fact is considered in vacuum, but when you consider the facts and components requirement in aggregate (rather than attempting to isolate and explain around each component) most rational people conclude that something with the capacity and attributes normally attributed to God, must be behind it.

First of all, the words "most rational people" are three words that don't go all that well together. :)

But let's look at those attributes:

The attribute of Infinite existence

In what way is this more likely than an infinite regression of finite phenomena? And even granting it such likelihood, why is A being (like deity) any more likely than an ongoing phenomenon of being like the Tao or Bruno's "eternal incorporeal"?

The capacity of bringing into being

Or of "causing" being, or of BEING in and of itself. An interesting point to play with semantics, but how rhetorically useful is this attribute?

A Will (Mind)

In what way is this likely to precede the known universe?

An Infinite potential transcending our Universe (omnipotence)

This makes some sense, but again, could be just as attributable to an unconscious phenomenon as to a transcendent being.

Capacity within itself to impart Universal Laws and order

Except that there's still considerable chaos. I think order might well be an eddy in the universal tide.

I certainly don't see how DNA supports evolution. DNA is tantamount to dramatically complex sophisticatedly designed software code written on a level we can barely understand, let alone design with the full benefit of our intelligent being - formed by that very DNA 'software'.

Irreducible complexity--not all that scientific, though I grant it might be a useful beginning for the argument against abiogenesis, which means that the earliest life forms might require explanation. But the case for DNA and its role in evolution is pretty much settled. Microevolution has been observed and experimentally reproduced; even speciation events, wherein alleles change to such a degree that a new species can be named, have been produced. It's not the occurrence of evolution, but its extent and its trajectory that remain in doubt.

DNA is simply another powerful evidence that a dramatically intelligent mind is behind all of life.

Why? The problem with argument from irreducible complexity and/or design is that design is, itself, already man's attempt to replicate natural forms. To say that nature's forms must have been designed because they resemble this (ostensibly) intelligent species' attempts to replicate nature's forms strikes me as circular reasoning at best.

In fact, the logical reductionism necessary to rationalize existence in strictly material terms necessitates that even your very thoughts and words be reduced to nothing more than the byproduct of meaningless biochemical activity.

Presumes facts not in evidence, most pointedly that biochemical activity is intrinsically meaningless. I happen to believe is IS meaningless, but that's because, as a pantheist and an ethical nihilist, I don't believe meaning (or essence) precedes existence; rather, I think that meaning is a useful construct that emerges from intersubjective, phenomenal relations.

What would be our point of debating if all of our thoughts and actions are reducable to biochemical predestination?

Because different thoughts can lead to different actions, and different actions can lead (or show a likelihood to lead) to different, somewhat predictable sets of consequences.

What happens to accountability if no free will actually exists - if in reality we are nothing more than biochemical machines?

Because we have, at least, the appearance of free will. Even if any situation finds us faced with a reduced set of choices, we are nonetheless granted an apparent, if not real, choice between facing that set actively or passively, going along with nature (all of nature or just our own individual nature[s]) or fighting it, etc.

Accountability can grow just as readily from cause and effect as anything else. Understanding the systems in and through which life occurs is an important step toward predicting the effects of various perceived choices within that system.

Science is a methodology, it is not possible to answer some questions or validate certain realities using science. Science assumes a coherent rational order exists but cannot possibly answer why that order came into existence.

Personally, I think the assumption of order is a useful presupposition, a foundational belief for which there is no real proof (see Descartes for the dry argument to that effect, and Hume for the more interesting take). We trust the senses more or less because to do so has proven functionally useful more than demonstrably true.

You cannot prove the existence of love or beauty or artistic genius or even the principles of rationality assumed to undergird the scientific method.

You seem to assume that those of us who aren't theists even believe these things exist. Love doesn't "exist," necessarily; to assert that it does is a Platonic affirmation, not a description of anything concrete. Love is either a neuro-electric impulse or a set of behaviors derived from that impulse; creative expression is an act or series of acts that results in a product either ephemeral or somehow preservable, and "genius" is a half-useless label we apply to art which either best flatters or most effectively challenges our sensibilities.

It's a shame you've limited your responses to jedipunk. I'm not sure if it's because I'm talking over your head or because you've decided, for some arbitrary reason, to put me on ignore (I don't remember ever having a disagreement with you worth noting).

In any case, this sub-thread has been interesting.

My time is limited and it seems you deny just about everything rational thought is based upon in favor of some weird eastern New Age stew of pantheistic mysticism mixed with Naturalistic reductionism which you simply assert without evidence or compelling reason.

Primarily because any presupposition about what is real is going to be without evidence; this, in fact, is the foundation of rational theism as well as the foundation of rational atheism. Descartes (a theist) and Hume (an atheist) both acknowledge that any "evidence" that the senses are reliable is suspect, because the data is, itself, derived from said senses. To Descartes, that meant that the presumption that the senses were created by a benevolent deity was required in order to grant credence to sensory information; to Hume, that meant that all acknowledgment of predictable pattern was folly.

The atheist will accept the veracity of the senses arguendo; I, for one, am not comfortable with that, largely because Hume's argument appears to carry some weight (after all, devices that evolved naturalistically to enable survival might do as well to deceive or distort truth; even the notion that truth best serves survivability might be an erroneous assumption based on erroneous notions as to what is true).

You're right, I suppose, that I've gravitated toward some Eastern notions, as well as the writings of Western pantheists like Spinoza and Giordano Bruno (by way of William Blake), both because my temperament as an artist better assimilates ideas poetically and because all of the above seem to offer a reasonable template for doubting that what we can apprise through the senses AND for accepting that systems of rationality derived by way of the senses provide the only method we have for reaching functional conclusions about the universe.

As such, I'm a functional empiricist. Which is exactly as much of a rational empiricist as you claim to be, because you assert the existence of a deity for which not a shred of empirical evidence exists, and the veracity of a religious text which no empirical test can show to be any more historically accurate or true than any of dozens, perhaps hundreds, of similar texts.

I see a lot of assertions without evidence, begging the question on evolution, strange esoteric ideas about the nature of existence and meaning.

The assertion that a cell is so complex it had to have been designed is an assertion without evidence, and even, to a degree, question begging (as it presumes that design is something other than an anthropogenic construct by which we replicate natural forms).

This is how debate works--if you feel the assertion is without evidence, point it out. If I illustrate that other assertions on the matter are equally presuppositional, you may feel free to show me evidence otherwise. We trade off, and the readers learn something.

Quite honestly, I don't see much use in debating someone who accepts ideas that undermine the foundations of objective rational thought. You seem to believe you are at liberty to create your own reality choosing from a cafeteria of strange ideas.

In a nutshell, I think you have swallowed a confused hodge-podge of eastern mystic anti-rational quackery and are trying to peddle it as some enlightened sophisticated esoteric worldview.

If you're too intellectually lazy to debate me, just say so. Childishly tossing off insults and excuses for why you're not even going to engage my points does little in your favor.

Lest anyone forget, Hitler claimed in Mein Kampf that he was doing God's will. George W. Bush claimed the same. Many political leaders throughout history have justified their actions the same way. It is those people who should never be trusted, and no one should be trusted with absolute power.

I belive it is worth underling that the suicide bombers and those who struck on 9/11 believed they were doing their God's will as well. Religious fundamentalism is the biggest resource for those extremists.

Story is now on FoxNews with a Poll.

That's pretty funny. When I looked at the Fox poll 76% of their viewers claimed that the state law is unconstitutional. That's 76% of FOX NEWS viewers think the atheist should be able to retain his position. Cited on the site was article 6 of the US constitution: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

This is not a scientific poll.

That is essentially another way of saying its for entertainment purposes only - it has no statistical or predictive value that is applicable to the world.

for entertainment purposes only-

That would be a good discription of Fox News in general.