Discremination against atheists

[Tatar Khan]

I recently found out that USA has laws discriminating against atheists, so I wanted to find out if there are such examples in other countries

Arkansas:

Atheists disqualified from holding office or testifying as witness. 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.

North Carolina:

Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

South Carolina:

Person denying existence of Supreme Being not to hold office. No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.

Tennessee:

No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

Texas:

The Bill of Rights (Article I, Section 4) last amended on September 13, 2003 states that an official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

[Caid Ivik]

Why atheism, even society or historical purpose of the state could be called "supreme being". One can consider himself a God (and still not be executed for it like al-Hallaj).

[Acriku]

For a second I thought you said The US Bill of Rights was amended in 2003... almost cringed at that thought. Luckily it's just backwater Texas  :P

Yeah, the law is a bit excluding. I'm sure Christians would cry to the moon if it was said that anybody following the teachings of Christ could not hold office. Oh well.

[Egeides]

Are these laws applied or just dead letters? I'm curious...

I would be less surprised to see that, say, atheist teachers, evolutionist scientists, and so on would be barred.

[Andrew]

There's no way that would hold up in the supreme court if someone challenged the law.

[Edric O]

Well, every country has its stack of unenforced laws that few people even remember any more. I doubt those laws against atheists actually get enforced anywhere in the US (well, maybe Texas :P).

Doesn't Britain still have anti-witchcraft laws on paper?

[Dante]

As well as various ones that allow people from other countries or counties to shoot each other at certain times of day. I think it's Newcastle that still allows people to shoot a Scotsman with a longbow on Sunday mornings...

But then I might just be making that up.

Also, all sturgeon in British waters belong to the Queen. As do whales and swans. And it's illegal for MPs to enter parliament in a suit of armour. We also have an Outer Space Act (1986), which is kind of dry really but sounds cool.

In short, the letter of the law matters little when faced with the practicalities of enforcing it. This can be both a good thing (I'd rather not be shot with a longbow in the unlikely event of ever visiting Newcastle) or a bad thing (corrupt law officials).

[Edric O]

We, in our modern constitutional states, often think and speak about the law (or "the Constitution," in the case of Americans) as if written words on a piece of paper carried power in and of themselves. It is useful to remember that they do not. Power always rests with a group of people. Different groups of people with different kinds of power often have competing interests, and laws are written to solve disputes between these groups without having them resort to force.

In most cases, the two powerful groups that the law is supposed to mediate between are (1) the ruling class and (2) the mass of the population. That is why many laws say something along the lines of "the agents of the government may only do X thing to Y persons under Z conditions."

A law only gets enforced as long as most people in all the involved interest groups agree that it is better to follow the law than not. If the mass of the population decides that a law is useless, they will start breaking it in such large numbers that the government will be forced to either let it slide (stop enforcing the law) or break out the big guns and take large-scale violent action against its own people. If the government decides to stop following a law, the people will have to either let them get away with it (thus, again, the law becomes irrelevant) or start some kind of revolt or uprising.

So laws are really just agreements - compromises made for the purpose of keeping the peace.

[nemafakei]

"I think it's Newcastle that still allows people to shoot a Scotsman with a longbow on Sunday mornings..."

No, you must practise your longbow skills every sunday after church and you can still be fined a certain quantity of wax for calling someone a Scot.

And yeah, Edric's right - in practice, the law - and whether it's followed or enforced - is largely a reflection of the balances of power. No law is guarantee against discrimination, only the circumstances in which it is applied - and if the circumstances are right, there's no need for the law.