Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

  • Shop
  • Subscribe to BMG
  • Contact
  • Log In
  • Front Page
  • All Posts
  • About
  • Rules
  • Events
  • Register on BMG

Want to get out of a subpoena in Arkansas?

February 18, 2009 By Mr. Lynne

Easy… just declare yourself an athiest.

You see, Article 19 Section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution says:

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.

Of course this probably fails the religious test clause in the US Constitution.  Turns out that Rep. Richard Carroll has submitted a bill to repeal the section.  Ed Brayton wonders how this will go down:

… But I’d be willing to wager that one of two things will happen: either the legislature will refuse to pass the bill and put it on the ballot, or it will go on the ballot and the voters of Arkansas will reject it.

Why? Because I bet there are enough people in that state who still favor such an idiotic law and want it to exist even if it can’t be enforced. It’s a symbol of their belief in their own superiority to those evil Godless heathens. This will be interesting to watch. Anyone wanna take that bet?

I’m probably not as pessimistic as he is about the probable outcome.  Then again, I’ve been disappointed by religious Americans before in their capacity to separate church from state.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0
0

Filed Under: User Tagged With: atheism, constitution, religion

Comments

  1. sabutai says

    February 18, 2009 at 12:49 pm

    More goodies from the same document:

    <

    p>Article 2. Declaration of Rights.
    § 25. Protection of religion.
    Religion, morality and knowledge being essential to good government, the General Assembly shall enact suitable laws to protect every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship.

    <

    p>Article 3. Franchise and Elections.
    § 5. Idiots and insane persons.
    No idiot or insane person shall be entitled to the privileges of an elector.

    <

    p>heh…

    • pablo says

      February 18, 2009 at 1:42 pm

      … the country would be in much better shape.

      <

      p>

    • tedf says

      February 18, 2009 at 1:55 pm

      Article 2, Section 25 seems to derive from the Northwest Ordinance which provides:

      <

      p>

      Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

      I believe that similar language appears in the Constitutions of some of the states carved out of the old Northwest Territory (e.g., Ohio), but I don’t have the links to prove it.

      <

      p>My view is that this kind of language is harmless and it’s a waste of money and political capital, and a needless provocation to culture warriors, to try to repeal it.

      <

      p>TedF  

      • mr-lynne says

        February 18, 2009 at 2:11 pm

        …that atheists have such a hard time in the culture already, I might agree.  But as is, I think that although it’s harm is negligible, its ensconced status in a constitution is reason enough for it’s repeal.  It’s harm is not absolute, certainly, but it is contributory and constant so as long as it is tolerated in a document that is supposed to be an embodiment of the culture’s legal ideals.  Put differently, how ‘abominable’ must an otherwise ‘harmless’ article’s values be before repeal is the right response?

  2. centralmassdad says

    February 18, 2009 at 9:43 pm

    Just to keep you guys in a lather.

    • kbusch says

      February 20, 2009 at 2:08 pm

      Even the Golden Rule loses value.

      • laurel says

        February 20, 2009 at 2:54 pm

        • kbusch says

          February 20, 2009 at 3:23 pm

          There’s a spelling error. “Its” for “It’s”. Disqualified!

          <

          p>I think you’re going to have to write the best comment of the day!

          • laurel says

            February 20, 2009 at 5:58 pm

            Now we know it’s a deflation.  Even the Golden Rule loses value.

            <

            p>god i’m brilliant! ;P

          • mr-lynne says

            February 20, 2009 at 8:29 pm

            … rule wrong.  Possessive uses ‘ but not for ‘it’?  Are there people who excel in illogical rules of English that also manage to write logical computer code, and if so what planet are they from?

            • kbusch says

              February 20, 2009 at 10:12 pm

              They write in Perl.

            • christopher says

              February 21, 2009 at 11:12 am

              …even if it is (it’s) an exception.  Except when used as a possessive an apostrophe means something has been left out and the apostrophe serves as substitute.  For a possessive the apostrophe helps with context, but does not independently stand for anything.

              • johnd says

                February 22, 2009 at 9:23 pm

            • lynne says

              February 23, 2009 at 11:30 am

              I am better at than you – grammar. And spelling, as pathetic as my spelling chops are. And handwriting.

              <

              p>Really, anything to do with writing. 😉

  3. christopher says

    February 19, 2009 at 11:50 am

    I can easily see a judge deciding the interest of justice for the party issuing the subpeona outweigh this provision.  All the judge would have to do is have the subpeoned party affirm rather than swear sans Bible.  After all, this was intended to be a prohibition on full participation not the protection of a right.

    • mr-lynne says

      February 19, 2009 at 12:03 pm

      … but that’s because the article is already unconstitutional.  It’d be nice to get a judge to rule it so on the record, however.

      <

      p>I’m not sure how you get a judge to interpret it your way however.  The terms of the article, “..denies the being of a God…”  and “…testify…”, are pretty clear in their meaning.  Having a judge affirm rather than swear doesn’t change one’s ‘category’ of being someone who ‘denies god’ and is ‘testifying’.

      <

      p>I would argue that the ‘intention’ was to legally establish the testimony of atheists as suspect, not because of a ‘rights’ issue or because of a ‘swearing on the bible issue’, but because they are atheists.  It is the criterion as stated, after all.

  4. laurel says

    February 20, 2009 at 3:00 pm

    i just re-read the law, and something i missed the first time is that the law is concerned with people denying “a” god.  so for example, if a christian denies “the being” of baal, who is a god by some peoples’ reckoning, is that person also forbidden from holding public office or testifying?  i’m starting to like this law more and more, and only wish that i live in arkansas to see that it was applied with vigor.

    • mr-lynne says

      February 20, 2009 at 3:02 pm

      … the testimony on that court challenge. 😉

      <

      p>Better yet, you can make a convincing case that the trinity isn’t “a” god either. 😉

      • christopher says

        February 21, 2009 at 11:19 am

        Otherwise they would have to say “all” gods.  What struck me is capitalizing God because it seems they meant the term genericly.  Negative wording (denies) does cause confusion at times, but I think we all know what they meant.  Anyone who believes in a god (including multiple, once you believe in one you’ve fulfilled the requirement) is able to testify.  As for the Trinity, that is considered by Christians to be three manifestations, but still one God.

    • johnt001 says

      February 20, 2009 at 11:21 pm

      They really boxed themselves in with that one – after all, every theist is an atheist about everyone else’s religion, and the atheist just carries that one step further in rejecting all belief systems.

Recommended Posts

  • No posts liked yet.

Recent User Posts

Predictions Open Thread

December 22, 2022 By jconway

This is why I love Joe Biden

December 21, 2022 By fredrichlariccia

Garland’s Word

December 19, 2022 By terrymcginty

Some Parting Thoughts

December 19, 2022 By jconway

Beware the latest grift

December 16, 2022 By fredrichlariccia

Thank you, Blue Mass Group!

December 15, 2022 By methuenprogressive

Recent Comments

  • blueeyes on Beware the latest griftSo where to, then??
  • Christopher on Some Parting ThoughtsI've enjoyed our discussions as well (but we have yet to…
  • Christopher on Beware the latest griftI can't imagine anyone of our ilk not already on Twitter…
  • blueeyes on Beware the latest griftI will miss this site. Where are people going? Twitter?…
  • chrismatth on This site (will be disabled on) December 31, 2022I joined BMG late - 13 years ago next month and three da…
  • SomervilleTom on Geopolitics of FusionEVERY un-designed, un-built, and un-tested technology is…
  • Charley on the MTA on This site (will be disabled on) December 31, 2022That’s a great idea, and I’ll be there on Sunday. It’s a…

Archive

@bluemassgroup on Twitter

#mapoli

wtfdic_hour Brian Riccio @wtfdic_hour ·
18m

It's hilarious watching #mapoli #MAGA Trumpies that support @JimLyonsMA calling Trump lover @CarnevaleMHD a "DC swamp creature" as the fate of the beleaguered @massgop Chairman Lyons is about to be decided Tuesday night.

Reply on Twitter 1619720696971796480 Retweet on Twitter 1619720696971796480 Like on Twitter 1619720696971796480 1 Twitter 1619720696971796480
wtfdic_hour Brian Riccio @wtfdic_hour ·
19m

It's hilarious watching #mapoli #MAGA Trumpies that support @JimLyonsMA calling Trump lover @CarnevaleMHD a "DC swamp creature" as the fate of the beleaguered @massgop Chairman Lyons is decided Tuesday night.

Reply on Twitter 1619720398710673410 Retweet on Twitter 1619720398710673410 Like on Twitter 1619720398710673410 Twitter 1619720398710673410
wtfdic_hour Brian Riccio @wtfdic_hour ·
20m

It's hilarious watching #mapoli #MAGA Trumpies that support @JimLyonsMA calling Trump lover @CranevaleMHD a "DC swamp creature" as the fate of the beleaguered @massgop Chairman Lyons is decided Tuesday night.

Reply on Twitter 1619720223241932800 Retweet on Twitter 1619720223241932800 Like on Twitter 1619720223241932800 Twitter 1619720223241932800
rwwatchma Trump's election fraud hoax undermines democracy @rwwatchma ·
23m

Anti-Vax Conspiracists Angrily Attack Damar Hamlin -- For Recovering https://www.nationalmemo.com/anti-vax-republicans-2659325049 #mapoli

Reply on Twitter 1619719392132210692 Retweet on Twitter 1619719392132210692 Like on Twitter 1619719392132210692 Twitter 1619719392132210692
mayoungdems The Young Democrats of Massachusetts | YDMA @mayoungdems ·
35m

We are thrilled to have our presence in the North Shore restored! Sharing Dominick’s excitement for what’s in store. #mapoli #northshore

Dominick Pangallo @dspangallo

Many thanks to the North Shore @MAYoungDems chapter for the engaging discussions at your meeting yesterday! As Vice Chair of the @salemdemcc I’m grateful for the work the Young Democrats do to help elect candidates who share our values, here in #SalemMA and across #mapoli.

Reply on Twitter 1619716251986849793 Retweet on Twitter 1619716251986849793 1 Like on Twitter 1619716251986849793 3 Twitter 1619716251986849793
jeffsemonma Jeff Semon @jeffsemonma ·
36m

RINO Podcast E81: Jim Lyons must GO! #mapoli w @thefactualprep https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1ypKddAyMPnKW

Reply on Twitter 1619716113545441283 Retweet on Twitter 1619716113545441283 1 Like on Twitter 1619716113545441283 2 Twitter 1619716113545441283
Load More

From our sponsors




Google Calendar







Search

Archives

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter




Copyright © 2023 Owned and operated by BMG Media Empire LLC. Read the terms of use. Some rights reserved.