Vestigial religious bigotry

Ever in search of renewal, we Americans delude ourselves into believing that our progress outstrips our history. But the past is a long time with us.

That’s nowhere more apparent than in our strongly felt prejudices. These linger deep in the nation’s ranks for generations after the parade begins to leave them behind. In 2008 as the country sizes up Barack Obama’s campaign, we’ll have to confront that uncomfortable truth yet again – both the continued grip of racism, and the familiar pretense that racism no longer matters. The very fact that we discuss how much it will influence his chances demonstrates that racism still haunts us.

But, we say, “It’s history,” as if that makes it less rather than more important.

Even the most attenuated bigotry is so disturbing that many of us will hope it fails on its own, and fade, rather than to tackle it directly and vanquish it.

Religious bigotry has perhaps a special place in American culture, going as far back as the founding of Massachusetts Bay Colony. More than other prejudices, it retains considerable respectability in wide swathes of the public. Hence a shocking 53% of Americans say they would not cast a vote for president under any circumstances for an atheist. It’s a mark of the resilience of religious prejudice that this standard of bigotry toward atheists, which had dropped in Gallup polls from 74% to 48% between 1959 and 1987, has bounced back up a full 5% since 1999. And this despite the fact that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution prohibits religious tests for office-holding.

Discrimination based upon creed, in general, remains acceptable in America to a shocking extent. It comes as no news to me, who bears this pagan pseudonym, that I cannot aspire to elected public office. And yet some information regarding religious discrimination, forwarded to me recently by Georgia10, came as something of a surprise. It turns out that eight states (AR, MA, MD, NC, PA, SC, TN, and TX) retain clauses in their constitutions that explicitly endorse or require discrimination based upon religious belief.

Why were these clauses not amended and expunged long ago?

A partial answer I suppose is that they are no longer legally enforceable. In 1961, SCOTUS ruled unanimously in Torcaso v. Watkins that the clauses in the Maryland constitution were invalid. There were two articles at issue from the Maryland Declaration of Rights (emphasis mine):

Art. 36. 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).

Art. 37. 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.

Roy Torcaso, whose appointment in MD as a Notary Public was blocked because he refused to declare his belief in God, took his case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Its finding was that the Articles violate the 1st and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Justice Hugo Black wrote:

“There is, and can be, no dispute about the purpose or effect of the Maryland Declaration of Rights requirement before us – it sets up a religious test which (it) was designed to and, if valid, does bar every person who refuses to declare a belief in God from holding a public ‘office of profit or trust’ in Maryland. The power and authority of the State of Maryland thus is put on the side of one particular sort of believers – those who are willing to say they believe in ‘the existence of God.’…

When our Constitution was adopted, the desire to put the people ’securely beyond the reach’ of religious test oaths brought about the inclusion in Article VI of that document of a provision that ‘no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States’…..”

Hence for nearly 50 years all eight states have been blocked from enforcing their constitutions’ religious tests. There is no doubt about the established law in this area. So why are these clauses still in existence? It ought to disturb you to see that Maryland Article 36 was amended in 1970, but without removing the unconstitutional language on religious tests. What in the world is that state waiting for, an engraved tablet from Mt. Sinai inviting them to put religious discrimination in the past?

Or consider Art. VI, Sect. 2 of the 2006 South Carolina Constitution:

No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.

Last amended in 2006, and yet this flagrantly unconstitutional provision remains in place. This despite the fact that the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that the clause violates the U.S. Constitution. This was a case brought in 1993 after Herb Silverman’s application to become a Notary Public was denied because he had crossed out the word “God” on the form.

The same can be said of the religious tests of Texas, overturned in O’Hair v. Hill (1978-84), and of North Carolina, overturned in Voswinkel v. Hunt (1979). Both constitutions retain their unconstitutional clauses to this day.

So in point of fact, these state religious tests are both vestiges of an earlier era, as well as living tokens of religious bigotry. There is no guarantee that, as long as they survive, the states will never again attempt to enforce them. The failure to eliminate provisions that are both unconstitutional and an affront to civil society reflects, at a minimum, a mindset that holds a significant segment of the public in disregard.

On the whole, these clauses present an ugly picture. Some, like the religious tests of Texas and Pennsylvania, play coy by protecting the rights of believers but not of non-believers:

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.

But several of these unrepentant religious tests boldly deny rights to non-believers, such as the constitution of Arkansas:

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.

I can testify to one fact, that this clause is repulsive and should have been expunged by the good people of Arkansas long ago.

Sphere: Related Content