Bothwell is a long-time environmentalist, resident, and author. He has been a syndicated coumnist, wrote a best-selling guidebook to Asheville, and in 2007 published a biography of evangelist Billy Graham, who lives in nearby Black Mountain. Bothwell belongs to the Unitarian Universalist Church, which is home to many folks who are skeptical about God's existence but still value spirituality, fellowship, and social justice. That's not enough to satisfy critics, including Mark Creech, who leads the North Carolina-based Christian Action League. I appreciate Mark, especially with regard to his opposition to alcohol and the lottery, but I have to disagree with him on this one.
It's true -- and a bit mind-boggling -- that the N.C. Constitution seems to think belief in God is an essential characteristic for all office holders. You can look it up: Article Six, Section 8 says
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.
It's interesting to note that atheists are disqualified even before would-be candidates who aren't qualified to vote or who have committed treason or other felonies.
Supporters of Bothwell note, and rightly so, that the N.C. Constitution's prohibition of atheists in office is trumped by the U.S. Constitution's Article Six, which declares “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
Relying heavily on David Barton's The Myth of Separation, which argues against church-state separation, Creech holds that "the founders" intended only that there should be no denominational test (Anglican, Presbyterian, etc.), assuming that all potential office holders would be Christian. In addition, he suggests (with the late D. James Kennedy) that those who don't believe in God have no external basis for life-affirming values and thus have no business serving the public.
But, belief in the prospect of divinely-meted eternal rewards or punishment is not the only potential motivation for developing positive values. Writing in his blog, Bothwell calmly defends his right to serve, points out examples of how Christians sometimes get it wrong, and offers at least one reason why non-theists can also have strong values:
They should also be free to serve in public office.
Period.
And, in regard to death, it is my conclusion that those of us who believe that this is our one and only life are much more likely to value and protect the lives of our brave soldiers and our citizens than those who believe that they will live again in heaven.It appears to me that the N.C. Constitution is in need of updating to bring it in line with the U.S. Constitution as well as with common sense. It is self-evident that true freedom of religion -- something most of us value -- means that citizens are free to believe, or free not to believe.
They should also be free to serve in public office.
Period.
8 comments:
Thank you for pointing out to us Mark Creech's late-coming opportunism in this part of the apparently now national silly season, which we mistakenly thought had passed when Cecil Bothwell took office without incident or legal challenge.
I understand the logic of not wanting unbelievers to be in the legislative business. But I'm going with the wisdom of the Framers on this one, if for no other reason than being able to foresee the day when a religious test would be used to exclude people of faith from public office.
In our system, of course, any test of religion is left in the hands of the media and the voters, as Mitt Romney discovered when his Mormonism became a defacto disqualification for office (employed largely by those in the opposition party to get him out of the way). The same happened to Sarah Palin as the perceived oddities of her church were trumpeted as evidence of her lack of fitness for office. And, undoubtedly, Mike Huckabee's sermons will be analyzed for similar oddities should he throw his hat into the ring again.
In terms of the media, all three have already failed the religious test. Their transcripts will be dusted off and their grades posted as soon as the 2012 campaign begins in earnest.
DC, Sarah Palin's "lack of fitness for office" has little to do with her choice of church. It has more to do with her lack of intelligence. As to the NC Constitution, I'm surprised it hasn't been challenged before now, being in direct conflict with the US Constitution. The Framers of the Constitution, being much closer to the days when persons were openly persecuted and killed in the Colonies for opposing the controlling religious ideologies, knew the dangers of religious tests for holding office.
Tony wrote” Supporters of Bothwell note, and rightly so, that the N.C. Constitution's prohibition of atheists in office is trumped by the U.S. Constitution's Article Six, which declares “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
Georgia Mountain Man wrote” As to the NC Constitution, I'm surprised it hasn't been challenged before now, being in direct conflict with the US Constitution.
As you read my comments, please note that I support the separation of church and state and absolutely believe that no government (federal, state, or local,)should ever have religious tests for office holders. There is, however, a historical flaw in the preceding statements. The U. S. Constitution was not originally conceived to usurp state constitutions. The First Amendment did not disestablish religion. It only prohibited the new federal government from establishing religion at the federal level. Churches remained established in several of the new states, even into the early nineteenth century. The process of disestablishing religion at the state level was in motion during this time (Constitutional period) as well, and there is still a remnant of established religion in the NC constitution. The people there should amend their constitution.
Georgia Mountain Man is correct by stating that “The Framers of the Constitution, being much closer to the days when persons were openly persecuted and killed in the Colonies for opposing the controlling religious ideologies, knew the dangers of religious tests for holding office.”
To his statement I will add that the Framers also understood the benefits to society of the practice of religion and thus constructed the “free exercise” clause. The Framers sought neutrality at the federal level. Subsequent events (Civil War, Reconstruction to name just two) influenced Supreme Court decisions that incorporated states under the Bill of Rights and brought states under federal control – another issue that is contrary to the Framer’s intent. Additionally, contemporary examples of public hostility toward religion are based on a flawed interpretation of the First Amendment.
GMM,
My comment had absolutely nothing to do with Sarah Palin's overall fitness for office. It was simply a comment on the media's misuse of her church ties to contribute to the perception that she was unfit for office. In effect, the message was: "because she's a member of a charismatic church, you should really think twice about voting for her." That ought to offend--and scare--us all.
Here is what God told David:
"The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue. The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. And he shall be as the light of the morning, when the sun riseth, even a morning without clouds; as the tender grass springing out of the earth by clear shining after rain.
Although my house be not so with God; yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure: for this is all my salvation, and all my desire, although he make it not to grow."
David himself didn't rule in the fear of God and freely confessed it. No man is qualified to rule over men. Therefore, our only hope is that Christ will come and rule over us. As it is written:
"And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever."
Even so come Lord Jesus!
Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
Having been an atheist before I was converted, I am inclined to take the view that they are equally qualified to be candidates for any public office. However, having taught American History for a few years in college and being aware of the founding fathers' views, as well as the militant views of our present day atheists, I have to say that the founding fathers had a point. While I don't think just being religious or believing is necessarily any guarantee of fidelity in political performance, I am not so sure we would appreciate the extreme hostility of the contemporary atheists who thinks all preachers, regardless of stripe, should be committed to mental institutions at the very least and exterminated or have their brains wiped and reprogrammed at the other extreme. It is interesting to study the Russians and the atheists of the old Soviet Union with reference to Solznytsyn (sp?). The US Constitution will likely trump the state, but down the road when the more aggressive unbelievers have the bit between their teeth, we might do some tall repenting of that kind of openness which decides that handling the more poisonous vipers is a benign exercise.It sort of reminds me of the mess in public education. Thirty years ago at a meeting of the NEA in San Deigo, the new president bragged, "Now that we have gotten the Presbyterians out of education, we can do what we want." When a really hostile atheist calls for our extermination at worst or having ou brain's wiped and reprogrammed, I really don't feel to comfortable about my old position. At least my atheism was in a more reasonable day - even though I felt inveterate opposition to any religion whatsoever As I said to my sister before I was converted, "Take your old namby pamby religion and go jump out the window." She burst int tears and mom, being a good Baptist mother, came right in and laid the law down to me. I had the good fortune,if you want to call it that, to be an atheist in the best of all places, a Baptist home. They never gave me a hard time over it; they just prayed for me, and one day the Lord Jesus himself showed up, knocking at my heart's door. And when I ran, He followed and opened the door for me. End of atheism. As a Baptist of the Roger William and Dr. John Clarke persuasion, I still believe in atheists having as much right as any one to run fo public office. But I also have the good sense to not vote for one who would do me in - at least I hope so.
Note this line penned in the early days of this nation:
“Religious tests, required by law, to qualify men for state offices, is a main pillar of state-established religion, and a curse to a nation.” (1801)
Or this one:
“I have no hesitancy in saying, that the Constitution has left religion infallibly where it should be left in all government, viz : in the hands of its author, as a matter between God and individuals; leaving an open door for Pagans, Turks, Jews or Christians, to fill any office in the government, without any religious test …” (1820)
These are the sentiments of probably the foremost Baptist leader of the United States of the late 1700’s and early 1800’s, John Leland, an ardent advocate of the separation of church and state as were all Baptists of that period. Indeed, only in recent decades have Baptists begun to abandon the biblically based notion of the separation of church and state.
So, Tony, your position on this matter is right in line with a bright spot from your Baptist heritage.
Post a Comment