Atheists in Mississippi, WTF!?

Updated August 13, 2009:  I learned that my outrage was somewhat misplaced and addressed the new information in an update below the Original post.

I learned something shocking today.  A provision in Mississippi’s state constitution barring people involved in a duel from holding public office was repealed in 1978.  Prior to that, Article 3, the Bill of Rights, Section 19 read:

“Human life shall not be imperiled by the practice of dueling; and any citizen of this state who shall hereafter fight a duel, or assist in the same as second, or send, accept, or knowingly carry a challenge therefore, whether such an act be done in the state, or out of it, or who shall go out of the state to fight a duel, or to assist in the same as second, or to send, accept, or carry a challenge, shall be disqualified from holding any office under this Constitution, and shall be disfranchised.”

So I guess the dueling community got tired of not being able to be represented in the Mississippi Legislature and worked to get this constitutional hurdle out of the way.  (More likely is that this reference to dueling in the constitution was an embarrassment and the legislature decided they really didn’t need the provision anyhow.)

Whether or not Mississippi needs to keep duelists out of office is not the point.  I use it as a counter point to: Article 14, entitled General Provisions, Section 265 states, “No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.”  It’s not ambiguous.  It isn’t buried in legalize.  That is the entire section!

Are you telling me that not once, since 1890, has an atheist even tried to hold office in Mississippi and challenged this provision?  Is there really a constitutional argument that allows the state have this religious test that flies directly in the face of Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution?  That article states in part:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

I can’t think of a more basic religious test than the one that asks if you’re religious.  I’m tempted to move to Mississippi, run for dog catcher or something, just so I can publicly fail this test and bring this abomination out into the light of day (that and they have casinos).

I’m not typically an activist.  But this is something that really seems to need some activist activity devoted to it.  Bus campaigns and Out Campaigns are all well and good, but seeking elected office is fundamental participation in civic life that in which atheists should be allowed to engage.

I said in a previous post that atheists are not a suppressed minority and laws don’t need to be enacted or changed to protect my point of view.  I’m officially amending that.  I still don’t consider myself suppressed or oppressed, but obviously laws do need to be changed.

-Jay

August 13, 2009

Commenter Brian Westly pointed out that this question has been specifically addressed by the US Supreme Court in the 1961 decision Torasco v. Watkins.  I won’t go into the details of the case (follow the link to the Wikipedia entry) but the crux of the unanimous decision written by Hugo Black is this:

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 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. ... We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.

So the Mississippi Constitution’s provision is moot.  It still begs the question of why it hasn’t been removed, but I’m guessing that has more to do with politics than with equal protection and the law of the land.

-Jay