To tell you the truth, it’s getting harder to deal with the horrible things said about us, though.  This is especially true as the attacks against us have been growing steadily in the past few years.  It’s frankly infuriating, but I will do my best to continue to monitor religious bigotry, especially against the nonreligious, and present it to you.  There is a bright side: the bigots are more vocal against us because we are being more vocal.  That is bound to happen.  Many nonreligious are no longer scared to speak out, nor are we scared to simply acknowledge that we exist.  In that sense, we are continuing to gain ground.

To those of you who have written to me during this absence, I have not ignored you.  Expect responses soon.

Now on to the promised links:

Christian Bus Ads Fire Back (KCCI.com)

Christian ministry “Covenant of Love” is has their own pro-Christian ads on buses on Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority buses this month.  It is reportedly in response to the recent atheist ads that have been on buses throughout the country.  From what I have seen, the article title seems misleading.  The ads don’t appear confrontational in any way; I would hardly say that they “fire back.”  They simply express their own positive view of Christianity, and that’s a great thing.  This is what we need, dialogue, which we have been essentially excluded from for too long.  We get our say and the religious get theirs.  Religious ads have existed since long before the atheist ads, though.  One could argue the religious already more than had their chance, and in fact dominated the discussion.  This is more confirmation that we are making headway.  We are a threat.  Despite the long history of unopposed religiosity, they feel that they need to respond to us.

Atheist group takes message to Lakeland via billboard (Tampa Bay Online – TBO.com)

Talking about ads, another atheist group has put up a billboard, this time by the Atheists of Florida.  As with the rest, there is nothing offensive unless one chooses to be offended.  It’s a message to other like-minded people that they are not alone, just as with other billboards that have gone up: “Don’t Believe in God?  You are not alone.”

Of course, the website’s comments display the same bigotry and irrational thought we have come to expect from bigots whenever atheists dare even display that we exist.  For example:

Posted by ( zgolf1 ) on 11/02/2009 at 01:53 pm.

I think that the people behind this billboard should stand on a street corner in Polk county and spread their word directly to the people. I am fairly certain that before the day was out that their beliefs would change once that were loaded onto bayflight.

Threatening members of the Atheists of Florida with physical violence because they state that atheists exist?  That’s not very Christian.

To say the premise of a freethinking group is “hopelessly illogical” is to undermine its importance in a democratic state, especially on a campus that has more than 30 religious groups. Individuals for Freethought is the only organized voice for non-theists on the K-State campus. I think students should value diversity and acceptance of new ideas that question dogma, and do not harm others. We should not have to live in fear of losing our free speech as we saw with the desecration of our chalking.

I’ve been a part of the nonreligious movement for a long time, and I have never seen anyone in our movement criticize a group in which like-minded theists congregate in such a way.  We criticize the beliefs and ideas, as the writer of the attack article can do with our views, but he goes too far, attacking the group for supposedly contradicting its own principals, principals of which Mr. Russell clearly doesn’t even understand.  We would never tell others that they are illogical for forming a group based around shared viewpoints.  That is an important part of an open society.

Ms. Ice’s continued response shows exactly why the article is bunk, and explains why we have every right to be open about our ideas, and will no longer be silence by religious bigots.  As is to be expected in such articles, Mr. Russell’s contains the same tired, flawed, and downright ridiculous arguments that tend to be so logically inconsistent as to need no opposition.

It is true that calling arguments “tired” can be a fallacy.  Theists use that argument against atheist’s arguments all the time.  The difference is that the arguments they target are repeated because they are supported by the facts.  Mr. Russell’s arguments are not just patently false, but ridiculous altogether.  They show themselves to be untrue on their face.  These are the type of arguments that I – even when I was a believer – would have been embarrassed to see another believer use.  Now, as a nonbeliever, I see it as another example of the fact that we are ultimately on our way to winning both the culture war, and winning our right to exist as opposition to the prevalent unsubstantiated superstitious beliefs.

These same arguments are what practically all of those who wish to silence us use.  Anyone looking at them critically, religious or not, can see their untruth and contradictory nature.  Such arguments add to the vast collection that expose these bigots for what they are.  The biggest Achilles’ heel of these people is that they are consistently guilty of misrepresentation and projection.  In his attack article, Mr. Russell commits both crimes against truth at once:

The main premise of this group is hopelessly illogical. The group that claims to reject dogma, in fact, has a dogma of its own. The members declare that to be a Freethinker, one must subscribe to the idea that dogmas are merely a “restraint” on coming to “conclusions about morality and the nature of the universe.” What good, then, is the group? It depends on a dogma to restrain members, and then decries the restraint of dogmas.

Mr. Russell either didn’t make the effort to understand what freethinkers are, is lying to support his argument, or both.  He ridiculously claims that the rejection of dogma is in itself dogma.  I shouldn’t have to explain why this is ridiculous, but nevertheless Ms. Ice gives him a lesson on the definition of dogma:

Individuals for Freethought was recently accused of relying on dogma to restrain group members into believing that one should come to conclusions by using logic and reason. This is a fallacy. To say that the rejection of dogma is itself a dogma stretches the word to meaninglessness.

Dogma is an established system of beliefs that are not to be disputed, in which dissent is discouraged. It is an authoritative top-down way of thinking that does not allow for logical revision and rational discussion. In fact, to refute dogmatic beliefs is to take away their power over the individual and come to conclusions about the universe that must necessarily change with new discoveries. At one time, dogma allowed people to actually believe that enslaving fellow humans was acceptable. Thanks to those who questioned this dogmatic belief, our society has abolished slavery. No matter the religion these people had, they rejected dogma and “thought it through,” using reason and logic.

Rejection of dogma is by definition the opposite of dogma.  To claim otherwise is the height of intellectual dishonesty.  Furthermore, he is committing crime against truthful dialogue by projecting his own issues onto those he is criticizing, something all too common among those attacking the nonreligious.  In his own words:

I am a strict Catholic. I believe all dogmas held and taught by the Catholic Church.

I’m not sure which is more amusing, that he projects his own dogmatic beliefs onto those who hold no dogma, or that he is criticizing them for being dogmatic while admitted that he is himself.  The ridiculousness doesn’t end there:

I harbor no hatred toward the members of other religious sects or schools of thought. I might disagree with other people, but I defend their right to disagree

Any question about whether Mr. Russell is a liar goes out the window with that statement.  I see no other option, unless he is simply horribly deluded as to the consequences of the arguments he makes.  It may be true that he doesn’t hate people simply for disagreeing with him on theological or philosophical matters – I can’t see into another person’s mind.  He absolutely does not, though, defend others right to disagree.  Maybe he defends the right of other theists to disagree, but certainly not atheists.  His entire article shows that.  Denying the basic substance of one’s writing at the very end doesn’t cancel out all that came before it.

However, I am no philosophical relativist. I believe that there is an objective Truth.

Here is some common ground, we both believe in objective truth (what’s with the capitalization of “Truth” though?).  The difference is that by asserting complete acceptance of dogma he is claiming to have perfect knowledge of such truth, an arrogance inherent in dogma.  At least freethinkers don’t claim to know perfect objective truth, but only the historically and evidence supported assertion that critical thinking and scientific evidence rather than dogma is the only way to get as close as we can to truth.

I believe Catholic dogmas because they are firmly based on both faith and reason. I do not believe them because I have been told to or because I am incapable of understanding other views.

He may believe in objective truth, but he completely discounts the only effective way humanity has ever found to get close to objective truth, reason.  Sure, he claims that his views are based on reason, but it has already become clear that he doesn’t understand the terms he is using.  His reasoning is based on what he thinks sounds good, not what has or lacks objective evidence.  He is rationalizing, but anything can be rationalized.  Dogma by definition does not allow reason.  To paraphrase Ms. Ice, it is authoritative and discourages dissent.  There is no reasoning when one accepts dogma.  Without the possibility of dissent, reasoning – at least logical reasoning – is impossible.

Mr. Russell is also ignores the very dogma he claims to so vehemently believe.  His own faith tells him that belief is exactly that, faith, not evidence based reasoning.  He admits that faith is one part of why he believes.  The problem is he also claims that he came to accept the dogma based on faith and reason together.  This is impossible.  Faith by definition is belief without evidence, as even theologians will agree.  Logical reasoning, to have any veracity, requires evidence.  To two are mutually exclusive.  While he projects his dogmatism onto freethinkers, Mr. Russell disingenuously and incorrectly attributes reasoning to himself.

If one is going to attack an entire group of people, at least get your facts straight.  As we see consistently, religious bigots have a problem with that.

Ms. Ice’s response also discusses the bigotry the nonreligious face, and many good reasons why nonreligious groups should not be simply dismissed as ridiculous, any more than groups of like-minded believers should be.  I only focused on a small aspect of her response, read the entire article.  It really is a fantastic explanation of the freethought movement and why we should have the same respect and place in the marketplace of ideas as anyone else.

I didn’t intend for this article to turn into a defense of nonreligious viewpoints or a criticism of religious beliefs specifically; that isn’t the purpose of this blog.  It is to report on bigotry such as this against the nonreligious.  Nevertheless, it was needed to show just how ridiculous Mr. Russell’s claims about freethinkers are in light of his own beliefs.

I almost forgot about Blog Against Theocracy!  This is the last day of it, so at least I noticed before it was too late.  From my earlier post announcing my participation:

“Blog Against Theocracy” is an event happening on blogs of those who understand the importance of defending our constitutionally required separation of church and state.  From April 10-12, look out for posts all over the blogosphere, including here on SDR, concerning varied issues relating to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  This is not an atheist blogswarm, per se, but is open all who support Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation.”

The Establishment Clause: It Applies to the Nonreligious Too!

There is a bigoted and invalid criticism some religious bigots levy against the nonreligious.  It isn’t a criticism of the lack of religion or belief in a god, which is, true or false, a completely valid intellectual argument to make in good faith.  No idea is beyond criticism.   This specific claim is different; it is not in good faith.  Some claim that the nonreligious are not protected under the United States Constitution’s freedom of religion as religious citizens are!  This is so unbelievably disgusting I must repeat it: they claim that atheists and others with no religion do not have one of the most basic rights that our country was founded upon.

Those who make such an argument aren’t basing it on anything legally and constitutionally factual.  They are expressing their absolute hate – not of atheism, but of atheists – by making a claim that they wish were true.  This is the definition of bigotry, disliking people simply for holding a view, not anyone’s actual actions.  Criticizing destructive actions if they are based on a specific viewpoint, and then pointing out the actions were due to the views the actors hold is acceptable.  Hating a whole group of people who have done nothing other than to hold specific views is the clearest expression of bigotry.  Attempting to remove civil rights protections from that group, or claim they never had them in the first place, is a another level of disgusting.

These bigots want it to be true so that they can persecute the nonreligious, or at the least so that we cannot complain when our civil rights are violated – we wouldn’t have them anymore.  Why otherwise would they make such a ridiculous, untrue claim?  They already believe the nonreligious are evil and therefore morally deserve anything we get.  If the nonreligious have no constitutional right to their views of religion, it breaks down the legal barrier to seeing them as American citizens like anyone else.  If we lack a constitutional right granted to others, we are lesser citizens.  Religious bigots love the thought of that.  If we are lesser people, as they believe, then why should we have the same rights as the religious?  Does this sound familiar?  It’s the same justification used when blacks had less rights than whites.

The First and Fourteenth Amendments

When debunking this claim, the scope of the First Amendment must first be established. The Establishment Clause states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  This clause has been clearly and repeatedly interpreted by the Supreme Court and constitutional scholars as barring government from establishing or discriminating against religious views.  One can argue that this discusses Congress, not other parts of government or state governments.  The prevailing interpretation is that no part of federal government can discriminate on religious grounds, and as per the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states cannot either:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.

The fact that the Establishment Clause is meant to keep religion out of government completely (and government out of religion) is reinforced by the fact that the First Amendment’s writer, Thomas Jefferson, described in his own words that it creates “a wall of separation between church and state.”  The Establishment Clause, therefore, must protect all of us, whether religious or nonreligious. As per the Equal Protection Clause, all of the Constitutional rights apply to all citizens of the United States.  The First Amendment does not specify that one must be religious to have religious rights.  There is no freedom to have religious belief if there is no freedom not to have religious belief (in recent popular parlance, “freedom of religion and freedom from religion”).  Otherwise, government would be promoting religion over non-religion, which would surely be no wall of separation.

Hypocrisy

Let’s take those of the nonreligious who are atheist, for instance.  Atheism isn’t a religion and isn’t a religious belief, it’s the very lack of belief.  This doesn’t make atheists any less protected.  Atheism is not a religious belief, but it is certainly an idea about religion.  Freedom of religion has never been defined as protecting only “beliefs.”  One doesn’t need to be religious to have opinions about religion, and it is these opinions that freedom of religion protects.  Nowhere does it say that the nonreligious are exempt from such protection, no matter how badly the bigots would like to believe the contrary.  As an aside, this shows the hypocrisy of and how disingenuous many anti-atheist bigots are: they call atheism a religion that requires faith when it suits them, but then admit it isn’t a religion in order to claim we aren’t protected by the First Amendment.

In Praise of The Establishment Clause: For Us All

Separation of church and state is a great thing for all citizens, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, any other religion, or no religion.  All Americans should use this time to reflect and be thankful for the founding fathers’ gift to us, one important enough to be the first addition to the Bill of Rights along with freedom of speech.  We should be happy to live in a country where the religious can worship as they choose and the nonreligious can choose not to.  Freedom of religion that only protects the religious is not freedom at all.  Luckily, the bigots’ wet dream isn’t reality.

Canada gave a great response to the original nonbinding resolution (emphasis added):

“Canada rejects the basic premise that religions have rights; human rights belong to human beings,” said Catherine Loubier, spokeswoman for Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon.

“The focus (here) should not be on protecting religions, but rather on protecting the rights of the adherents of religions, including of people belonging to religious minorities, or people who may choose to change their religion, or not to practice religion at all.”

The recent CNN report quotes the U.S. government’s response to the proposed binding resolution:

While appearing in name to promote tolerance, the implementation of this concept actually fosters intolerance and has served to justify restrictions on human rights and fundamental freedoms.

There is no group whose rights would be more damaged by this than atheists, considering that the only reason one would reject a religion is that one has criticisms of it.  Therefore, atheists would be legally barred from expressing their views of religion.  Of course, this would not only violate the freedom of conscience (and if in the United States, freedom of speech rights) of atheists, but also any member of a religion who wishes to criticize another religion.  This resolution would also violate basic freedom of religion, since part of many religious dogmas is the criticism of other religions.

Of course, if a binding resolution is passed, there is no chance the United States would give in to it. This resolution goes directly against the most fundamental freedoms we have, both as to speech and religion. The Canadian response has categorically denied that religions themselves have rights, only the humans who are members of such religions. It couldn’t be clearer that Canada would no more roll over and accept such a disgusting, anti-freedom demand than the U.S. would. It will be interesting, though, to see exactly how the U.S. and Canada do react if this resolution is passed.

For the record, when I say atheist in this post I am for simplicity’s sake referring to the nonreligious as a whole, not necessarily only those who would self identify as atheists.  I know this isn’t very specific, but the community is not united in the way specific religious groups are because we don’t necessarily share any specific philosophy.  We simply (passive) lack belief in any supernatural deity, or (active) deny the existence of a supernatural deity.  With that said:

Clearly, the atheist civil rights movement is very much different from what is seen as the model of a civil rights movement in our country: the black civil rights movement.  Atheists are not segregated from the religious in public schools; we are not forced to sit at the back of buses; we are not barred from eating in the same restaurants as theists, using the same water fountains, etc.  This issue is used constantly to argue not so much that there is no atheist civil rights movement, but that we have no right to call it such.  This is patently ridiculous considering the plain definition of the words.  With the assumption the movement exists, is it concerned with “civil rights?”  Clearly, it is concerned with the legal and human rights of atheists.  I’m not a lawyer, or even a law student, but by what other reasonable way can we define civil rights?  Now, is it a movement?

This is a movement, but not in the same form as the black civil rights movement.  Although our goals are in essence the same, the situations, as I have discussed, are clearly not the same.  As a result, the forms the movement takes are not the same.  The same types of physical actions (civil disobedience for instance) are generally not possible.  Sitting in the front of a bus would have no meaning, nor would drinking at a water fountain a theist just drank at, and so on.  Atheists don’t march in the streets regularly, arguably because there isn’t enough bare-faced institutionalized discrimination of the same form that would push atheists to.  If we do, we certainly are not shot with fire hoses.

An argument can be made that this is simply due to the fact that, unless we all go around wearing shirts with the text “I AM AN ATHEIST” on them, it is virtually impossible to identify an atheist in this country unless you were to ask a person’s religious preference or get in a discussion on religion.  I can say that although I don’t know of any data or even an unscientific poll even designed to test this specifically, there are those who would be likely to attempt such discriminatory measures in American society if there was some way to identify all atheists quickly and easily.  This is simply anecdotal, and is not meant to suggest that all of the religious or a majority do think this way.  That would be the exact sort of bigotry I fight against.

Institutionalized discrimination against atheists does exist in this country, though, for example in state constitutions.  As I have wrote about in part 1, my most recent research shows that six states still include provisions barring atheists (and presumably some other non-Christians) from all public offices or specific public offices: Arkansas, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas.  But what is more insidious is the ingrained notion that is unfortunately instilled in many.  This is that atheists cannot be trusted, that we are not moral, and that we can therefore not be good people.  This is the big problem.  This is what makes open atheists feel like second-class citizens.  It is to the extent that the most passive expression of our views is considered an attack or arrogant.  While any religious person can generally expect not to be attacked for simply stating their beliefs, an atheist is expected to shut up – to not simply express that he lacks a belief.  Otherwise, we are arrogant “militant atheists.”

What form does our movement take?  We see this best through the many rights and special interest groups that exist.  Since discrimination and bigotry is not extremely obvious in every aspect of society and especially government as it was with the black civil rights movement, atheists are not generally stirred to march in protest, for instance.  Large marches also generally don’t happen because we don’t have any specific beliefs that would bind us together.  It has been said that attempting to gather atheists together is like herding cats.  Atheists fall along a large spectrum of different political and philosophical ideals.  We are simply grouped by something we lack, belief in a god.

This is not to say that we have never marched for our rights and the constitutionally mandated separation of state and church.  On November 2, 2002, the national group American Atheists rallied thousands of nonreligious on the D.C. mall, known as the “Godless Americans March on Washington“.  From this rally a new atheist rights group was formed, the “Godless Americans Political Action Committee (GAMPAC),” whose mission is stated as “Mobilizing America’s Nonbelievers for Political Activism.”

Other groups promote equal rights for atheists and the atheist viewpoint in all aspects of American life, from grass roots on the street activism to promoting the rights of the nonreligious in the military.  Many of these groups are not strictly made up of atheists, but include also theists who are concerned with the rights of both the religious and the nonreligious, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and the People For the American Way.

Groups that consist of mainly atheists and are concerned with mainly nonreligious rights include: Atheists For Human Rights, the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, the Secular Coalition for America, and The Richard Dawkins Foundation.  This is not a complete list, but gives you an idea of some of the groups out there.  You can learn more about how they support and protect the rights of atheists on their websites.

Religious bigots just don’t get it.  They don’t understand that others have the right to express their opinions publicly.  If one were to criticize them for promoting their religion in public they would cry “Religious intolerance!”  When atheists express themselves, though, we are suddenly “militant atheists” hell bent on eroding the religious foundations (that don’t really exist in the way they mean) of our country.  While atheists are persecuted, or at the least subject to constant bigotry for simply expressing ourselves, I continue to hear Christians in the United States claim that they face persecution.  Really, in a country with a vast majority of Christian citizens they are somehow persecuted?  Give me a break.  Even other Christians, such as Indianapolis Star religion blogger Robert King, understand [indystar.com] how ridiculous it is for Christians in the U.S. to claim persecution.

New Bus Ads … Now From the Christians

British Christians, in an attempt to counter the recent atheist bus ads, have raised money [washingtonpost.com] for their own ads in an attempt to counteract the atheist bus ads.  This is their right, but they miss the point.  The ads were not meant to de-convert anyone, although the religious are constantly attempting to convert nonbelievers, or those that believe the “wrong” thing.  Although many atheists do see religion as a dangerous thing and would love to have more people rely on evidence-based reasoning, the ads were not meant to do this.  They were simply to let the nonreligious who feel alone in a religious world know that there are other out there who share their disbelief – that they are not alone.  Christians are already well aware that they are not alone, so what good does this really do them?  It’s a mean-spirited attempt to drown out the atheist voice by those who can’t stand the fact that atheists will no longer be in the closet, we will no longer sit quietly and internalize the opposing view that they shouldn’t express themselves like the religious, lest they be labeled “arrogant.”

British Christian community, you can feel free to buy as many bus ads as you want.  It just shows how frightened you really are that you are losing ground.  Unlike some intolerant religious folk, we are not afraid of open dialogue, we have nothing to fear.  As the Washington Post article says:

More than three of four people in the world consider themselves religious, and those who say they belong to no faith are in the distinct minority.

As a minority, even in a more secular country such as Britain, we have nothing to lose.  Our ranks are growing faster than ever and religious leaders know it.  They are scared, so we can only expect the attacks to get stronger, in both the United States and Britain.  It means we’re doing something right.

Hanne Stinson, chief executive of the British Humanist Association, said the new religious ads proclaiming God are “really quite a compliment” and mean “our ads had an impact.”

The article includes an interesting interview with high-profile backer, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins.  If you have ever heard him speak or read his interviews before there will not be much new.  One question is interesting, though:

Were you surprised that so many individual donors responded to the campaign to mount bus advertisements?

I’m surprised and delighted but also somewhat embarrassed. The original target was 5,500 pounds [about $8,250], which I offered to match and we thought that we’d be lucky to get. . . . It would have been enough for buses for a brief period in London.

What happened was huge numbers of people gave small sums — 10 pounds, 15 pounds. . . . The final figure is something like 130,000. That’s why I said I was embarrassed, because that is too much money to spend on a bus campaign. That much money would have been better spent doing something else. . . .

I was actually in favor of diverting the money to something else, which I thought the donors would approve. But other members of the group felt that [as] the money had been given for the bus campaign they were legally obliged to spend it on that campaign.

1. Atheists do not experience major prejudice and discrimination in the United States.
2. Although atheists may experience some measure of prejudice and discrimination, it is not as extreme or openly codified into our government and culture, as it was against blacks, and therefore we have no right to call their fight a “civil rights movement” (a mostly emotional argument made by many African Americans, especially those who experienced the civil rights movement first hand).

The first argument, which this first of two posts is concerned with, has no truth whatsoever.  It is simply an attempt to whitewash the entire issue.  There have, throughout American history, and are still today many examples of discrimination, and most certainly bigotry against atheists.  Although it is not my purpose in this post to give a ton of examples (that’s this entire blog’s mission, isn’t it?), only one is needed to show that claim is patently false – that there is, in fact discrimination against the nonreligious codified into government.  Many states still technically require a religious test for public office, which is blatantly unconstitutional.  They don’t require any specific religious beliefs, only that one asserts a belief in some supernatural deity.  This clearly singles out only the nonreligious, barring them from state public office¹.  These states are:

• Arkansas²

“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.”
Constitution Of The State Of Arkansas Of 1874 (Article XIX, Section 1. Atheists disqualified from holding office or testifying as witness)

• Maryland³

“That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor either in this world or in the world to come.

Nothing shall prohibit or require the making reference to belief in, reliance upon, or invoking the aid of God or a Supreme Being in any governmental or public document, proceeding, activity, ceremony, school, institution, or place.

Nothing in this article shall constitute an establishment of religion (amended by Chapter 558, Acts of 1970, ratified Nov. 3, 1970).”
Declaration of Rights, Maryland Constitution (Article XXXVI) [emphasis added]

“That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.”
Declaration of Rights, Maryland Constitution (Article XXXVII) [emphasis added]

• North Carolina⁴

“The following persons shall be disqualified for office:

First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

Second, with respect to any office that is filled by election by the people, any person who is not qualified to vote in an election for that office.

Third, any person who has been adjudged guilty of treason or any other felony against this State or the United States, or any person who has been adjudged guilty of a felony in another state that also would be a felony if it had been committed in this State, or any person who has been adjudged guilty of corruption or malpractice in any office, or any person who has been removed by impeachment from any office, and who has not been restored to the rights of citizenship in the manner prescribed by law.”
The Constitution of North Carolina (Article VI, Section 8. Disqualifications for office.) [emphasis added]

• Pennsylvania⁵

“No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth.”
Declaration of Rights, Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Article I, Section 4. Religion)

[Ed. This isn't clear.  Is it implying that only those who acknowledge God are protected from disqualification due to their beliefs, therefore atheists are not?]

• South Carolina⁶
  

“No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor who denies the existence of the Supreme Being; and who on the date of such election has not attained the age of thirty years; and who shall not have been a citizen of the United States and a citizen and resident of this State for five years next preceding the day of election. No person while Governor shall hold any office or other commission (except in the militia) under the authority of this State, or of any other power. (1972 (57) 3171; 1973 (58) 48.)”
South Carolina Constitution (Article IV, Section 2. Qualifications of Governor.) [emphasis added]

• Texas⁷
  

“No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.”
Bill of Rights, Texas Constitution (Article I, Section 4)  [emphasis added]

Although only one example would have been needed to invalidate the first criticism, I have shown that atheists are subject to institutionalized discrimination in many states.  In these six states, the nonreligious are denied a right that the religious are given.  Specifically, no atheist, agnostic, etc. may hold either any public office, or, such as in the case of South Carolina, a specific public office.  This is one of the most important facets of representative democracy, which in these states the nonreligious cannot participate.

I don’t claim this list to be exhaustive.  It’s simply what I have found in my research.  Do you know of more?  Am I mistaken and has one of these changed to include those of all faiths and no faith?  Let me know: sdreport [at] bunda.org

In my next post, I will respond to the second criticism (that atheists have no right to call their fight a “civil rights movement”).

Edit: I think it is important to point out that the U.S. Constitution trumps these discriminatory parts of state constitutions, and the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed this (Torcaso v. Watkins)⁸.  The point is that these provisions still exist in these constitutions, something no one felt was important enough to remove.  Furthermore, I wouldn’t put it past some ideologues to at least try to enforce it, even though precedent suggests the Supreme Court would most definitely overturn these provisions if challenged.  Presumably, these have not been challenged because the bigotry that exists, or at the least the fact that polls suggest atheists are the least trusted citizens, has not allowed openly atheist politicians to run.

References:

It also mentions anti-theist bigotry among atheists, which will tend to grow especially as we become the majority (and we are growing fast enough that this may be a possibility in the near future).  The fact is religious people do turn off their logical reasoning skills when they focus on a religious issue.  We can see this as a flaw, though, without being bigoted and without hating.  There are times when we all aren’t as logical or rational as we should be, it’s part of being human.

For better or worse, evolution made us all that way, religious or not.  It’s something to think about over the continuing holiday season.  We should be just as critical of ourselves, if not more so, than of others.

In other news, the ridiculous controversy over the fact that atheists dared assert their First Amendment rights by installing their own holiday display.  Charles C. Haynes, writing for theithicajournal.com “Inside the First Amendment,” explains as the Governor herself has repeatedly, that religions don’t get special treatment in this country.

If a religious group is allowed to put a display on public land funded by atheists and theists alike, then they all must be allowed the same right.  It’s simple, but the bigots would rather be the only ones with rights.

Judy Rooze, administrator of First Baptist Church of Rancho Cucamonga, which is two blocks from the billboard, was relieved it was coming down.

Rooze said it was unsettling.

“I understand people have freedom of speech, but this is taking it too far,” she said. “It’s very jarring.”

Despite her claim, Rooze clearly does not understand the concept of freedom of speech.  Simply because a religious person is “unsettled” by an opinion on religion in Ontario their rights trump those of atheists?  Does this extend to all of Canada?

From the FFRF’s response:

Foundation co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor called such censorship “unprofessional and cavalier.”

“Are religionists so thin-skinned they must squelch free debate? One small freethought billboard in the immense state of California is such a threat to insecure religious egos that it must be censored?”

[sic]

“There is nothing insulting in our message. We simply invite the public to think, to imagine a world free from religion. Think of the history of believers warring over their imaginary gods, the fact that more people have been killed in the name of religion than for any other reason! The human race needs to grow up. We should concentrate on improving this world, and stop worrying about the next,” Gaylor added.

Are you from Ontario or any other part of Canada and have you been discriminated against for your lack of religion?  Comment here or, if you want to share a longer story for me to post, email me sdreport [at] bunda.org.