Happy Atheist Forum

Whether this is true or not, I'm hoping it is.  Although I'm wondering if this information will lose votes for Labor, I'm sure many Christians will not vote for an Atheist.

http://www.samesame.com.au/news/local/5566/Jesus-Our-PMs-an-atheist.htm

I feel like we are on the edge of a new era!

Only hard line Christians won't vote for an atheist in the UK, and by hard line I mean those that take a person's religious alignment into consideration when voting for them. Politicians standing on a religious ticket in the UK get laughed out of the polling station, I'm sure this is why Tony Blair kept his theistic leanings under wraps for all those years. Religion and politics make very poor bed fellows in the UK. Apparently the exact antithesis of the USA. I don't know how it comes into play in Australia.

I think our prime minister is a de-facto atheist (Or apatheist, if you prefer) but one thing I like about our government - religion is never the number one issue when it comes to elections.

One day this will happen in America too.

Reminds me of Nick Clegg some weeks ago.

Quote from: "Tank"Only hard line Christians won't vote for an atheist in the UK, and by hard line I mean those that take a person's religious alignment into consideration when voting for them. Politicians standing on a religious ticket in the UK get laughed out of the polling station, I'm sure this is why Tony Blair kept his theistic leanings under wraps for all those years. Religion and politics make very poor bed fellows in the UK. Apparently the exact antithesis of the USA. I don't know how it comes into play in Australia.

In the US, being a Christian is the first thing most people look for in voting. In a few states, being Christian is required to be elected.

Quote from: "Ellainix"

Quote from: "Tank"Only hard line Christians won't vote for an atheist in the UK, and by hard line I mean those that take a person's religious alignment into consideration when voting for them. Politicians standing on a religious ticket in the UK get laughed out of the polling station, I'm sure this is why Tony Blair kept his theistic leanings under wraps for all those years. Religion and politics make very poor bed fellows in the UK. Apparently the exact antithesis of the USA. I don't know how it comes into play in Australia.

In the US, being a Christian is the first thing most people look for in voting. In a few states, being Christian is required to be elected.

Does your constitution overdrive State law? (Forgive me if I have not managed to get the terminology correct)

Quote from: "Ellainix"

Quote from: "Tank"Only hard line Christians won't vote for an atheist in the UK, and by hard line I mean those that take a person's religious alignment into consideration when voting for them. Politicians standing on a religious ticket in the UK get laughed out of the polling station, I'm sure this is why Tony Blair kept his theistic leanings under wraps for all those years. Religion and politics make very poor bed fellows in the UK. Apparently the exact antithesis of the USA. I don't know how it comes into play in Australia.

In the US, being a Christian is the first thing most people look for in voting. In a few states, being Christian is required to be elected.

This is what I figured the case to be.

Quote from: "Asmodean"I think our prime minister is a de-facto atheist (Or apatheist, if you prefer) but one thing I like about our government - religion is never the number one issue when it comes to elections.

Very true.

Quote from: "Cecilie"Very true.

Even our Christian party accepts anybody as long as they are members of the state church, or so I hear... You only need to be a practicing Christian to hold a higher position within its ranks... But whoever votes for those loonies anyways...

Quote from: "Dretlin"

Quote from: "Ellainix"

Quote from: "Tank"Only hard line Christians won't vote for an atheist in the UK, and by hard line I mean those that take a person's religious alignment into consideration when voting for them. Politicians standing on a religious ticket in the UK get laughed out of the polling station, I'm sure this is why Tony Blair kept his theistic leanings under wraps for all those years. Religion and politics make very poor bed fellows in the UK. Apparently the exact antithesis of the USA. I don't know how it comes into play in Australia.

In the US, being a Christian is the first thing most people look for in voting. In a few states, being Christian is required to be elected.

Does your constitution overdrive State law? (Forgive me if I have not managed to get the terminology correct)

I think it would if the state constitutions were challenged in the supreme court.  We were just talking about that the other day....
I know here in TX it's a requirement for any elected office to believe in a supreme being/higher power.

Quote from: "KDbeads"I think it would if the state constitutions were challenged in the supreme court.  We were just talking about that the other day....
I know here in TX it's a requirement for any elected office to believe in a supreme being/higher power.

WTF!!! An atheist can't stand for office in Texas? You're kidding me!

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "KDbeads"I think it would if the state constitutions were challenged in the supreme court.  We were just talking about that the other day....
I know here in TX it's a requirement for any elected office to believe in a supreme being/higher power.

WTF!!! An atheist can't stand for office in Texas? You're kidding me!

Before i became a member here i was oblivious to that fact as well. It's a very crazy situation.

Quote from: "KDbeads"I think it would if the state constitutions were challenged in the supreme court.  We were just talking about that the other day....
I know here in TX it's a requirement for any elected office to believe in a supreme being/higher power.

Wit!?

Quote from: "Dretlin"Does your constitution overdrive State law? (Forgive me if I have not managed to get the terminology correct)

[apologies to Tank for the misattribution]

Quote from: "KDbeads"I think it would if the state constitutions were challenged in the supreme court.  We were just talking about that the other day....
I know here in TX it's a requirement for any elected office to believe in a supreme being/higher power.

The 14th amendment applies the Federal Constitution to the states.  Article Six forbids a religious test for office:

Quote... but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The Supreme Court in 1961's Torasco v Watkins explicitly upheld the ban on religious tests (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=367&invol=488):

QuoteThe fact, however, that a person is not compelled to hold public office cannot possibly be an excuse for barring him [367 U.S. 488, 496]    from office by state-imposed criteria forbidden by the Constitution. This was settled by our holding in Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183 . We there pointed out that whether or not "an abstract right to public employment exists," Congress could not pass a law providing "`. . . that no federal employee shall attend Mass or take any active part in missionary work.'"

This Maryland religious test for public office unconstitutionally invades the appellant's freedom of belief and religion and therefore cannot be enforced against him.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals of Maryland is accordingly reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

Therefore, any atheist wishing to hold office and denied for irreligion need only point this ruling out to the Attorney General of the state in question.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Tank"Does your constitution overdrive State law? (Forgive me if I have not managed to get the terminology correct)

Quote from: "KDbeads"I think it would if the state constitutions were challenged in the supreme court.  We were just talking about that the other day....
I know here in TX it's a requirement for any elected office to believe in a supreme being/higher power.

The 14th amendment applies the Federal Constitution to the states.  Article Six forbids a religious test for office:

Quote... but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The Supreme Court in 1961's Torasco v Watkins explicitly upheld the ban on religious tests (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=367&invol=488):

QuoteThe fact, however, that a person is not compelled to hold public office cannot possibly be an excuse for barring him [367 U.S. 488, 496]    from office by state-imposed criteria forbidden by the Constitution. This was settled by our holding in Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183 . We there pointed out that whether or not "an abstract right to public employment exists," Congress could not pass a law providing "`. . . that no federal employee shall attend Mass or take any active part in missionary work.'"

This Maryland religious test for public office unconstitutionally invades the appellant's freedom of belief and religion and therefore cannot be enforced against him.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals of Maryland is accordingly reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

Therefore, any atheist wishing to hold office and denied for irreligion need only point this ruling out to the Attorney General of the state in question.

Yes but the laws still technically exist and are used in a very clever way.  In South Carolina, no one ever actually tries to utilize the law to ban someone from running because they know it's a bad law, they just start talking about how the law exists and if it may be applied if a candidate pops up who is suspiciously secular.  Because South Carolina is a very religious right kind of place, just mentioning the law in relation to a political candidate is enough to potentially kill his or her political career.  I saw this happen in Texas a few times as well, in less populated areas.  It's pretty sneaky, almost shockingly so.

Coincidentally for those outside the US, did you know that there are lots of crazy laws in places that are still technically laws but are just ignored?  Here is a link to the plethora of strange Texas laws for instance - though keep in mind that not all of these listed are still laws.  Once people started finding these, many states began removing the more ridiculous ones (It is illegal for a married woman to go fishing alone on Sundays, etc.) because they were...well, ridiculous.  =D

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/texas

Yeah, I'm not saying they're not extant.  And I agree that they exert a damping influence.

I just think that there has to be a first wave.  The big problem seems to be that political instincts govern against one being a groundbreaker, most of the time.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Yeah, I'm not saying they're not extant.  And I agree that they exert a damping influence.

I just think that there has to be a first wave.  The big problem seems to be that political instincts govern against one being a groundbreaker, most of the time.

You're totally right about that.  It boggles the mind that these laws do still exist, but I think a big part of the problem is it takes time and resources and unfortunately, there are too many issues and not enough groups with the capacity to deal with those issues yet, so things like antiquated laws take a backseat to more pressing matters.  That's one of the things I mention when people ask me why being vocal about atheism matters at all - why I feel it's necessary to speak up, even if it's just self identifying as an atheist.

I suppose the US as a whole has a lot of odd laws as it's had a lot of parallel independent law makers. However the UK as thousands of odd laws that are hang overs from the long history of law making but not removing laws from the books. The laws simply don't get used anymore and it costs money and effort to remove them so they just hang around. Sometimes somebody will try to resurrect an old law to use it and a judge will rule it to be inappropriate based on later law and precedent so it becomes impotent and unusable but it remains on the books as it'll take work to remove it completely.