|
|
|
|
Roddy
New Member
Panama
48 Posts |
 Posted - 02/19/2009 : 23:01:04
|
http://current.com/items/89829467/atheist_outrage_in_arkansas.htm
The page is about a bill in Arkansas that prohibits atheists from testifying in court and from holding any political office.
Here it is (most of it):
Rep. Richard Carroll has introduced a bill to repeal Article 19, Section 1 of the Arkansas state constitution, which says:
"No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court."
In Arkansas an atheist is not allowed to hold office or testify in court! And to think, some people deny that atheists are discriminated against. How is it that such a blatant form of discrimination has been allowed to remain in the Arkansas constitution? Where is the outrage? |
Well, it seems atheists do suffer discrimination despite Christians claim to the contrary.
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2009 : 23:13:46 [Permalink]
|
No, the page is about a bill in Arkansas which seeks to repeal the Arkansas Constitutional article which prohibits atheists from testifying or holding political office.
That article has been around since 1836, and is clearly unenforcable given the 1st and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Six other states have similar articles, but they were all ruled unconstitutional in 1961.
My guess is that the current Arkansas bill will die a quiet death, so that the religious don't get all hot and bothered about "special rights" for atheists. But nothing will actually change with the success or failure of the bill. Success would be purely symbolic. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2009 : 09:13:58 [Permalink]
|
| The bill might not make it through elections, but I'd be reasonably certain that it would only take an atheist to challenge the law for it to be ruled unconstitutional. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2009 : 10:02:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
The bill might not make it through elections, but I'd be reasonably certain that it would only take an atheist to challenge the law for it to be ruled unconstitutional.
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
....but they were all ruled unconstitutional in 1961.
|
|
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2009 : 10:41:37 [Permalink]
|
Yes; but don't they need an order from the SCOTUS before removing it?
Apparently, the law is still in the books... |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2009 : 11:45:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
Yes; but don't they need an order from the SCOTUS before removing it?
Apparently, the law is still in the books...
|
I really don't know....I'm not a lawyer. It just stood out to me when I read those.  |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2009 : 11:52:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
Yes; but don't they need an order from the SCOTUS before removing it?
Apparently, the law is still in the books... |
Doesn't matter whether it's on the books (or in their Constitution), the SCOTUS ruling ensured that the law is unenforcable. With the SCOTUS ruling in hand, any attempt to enforce the bad law could be met with a countersuit of Biblical proportions, so that only the congenitally stupid would try it.
Prohibition is still "on the books," as the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The 21st Amendment repealed the 18th, but that doesn't mean it gets erased from all legal tomes (how could it?). This Arkansas bill, if passed, would simply mean that a footnote about the repeal of Article 19, Section 1 gets printed with every new copy of their Constitution, but the full text will remain. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2009 : 21:54:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
Yes; but don't they need an order from the SCOTUS before removing it?
Apparently, the law is still in the books...
|
Evidentially it hasn't been revised (as several state costitutions were after the Torasco ruling). It being on the books is irrelevant due to the SCOTUS ruling making it unenforcable. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Atheist outrage in Arkansas
