Lawsuit for atheists...

[GreatLife]

Just curious about every ones thoughts on this....

We have a provision in our constitution which stated that there can not be any religious tests for public office... Yet fox news and others typically and commonly ask all presidential candidates about their religion. 

Is this not a violation of our constitution? You know if someone says they don't believe in fairy tales that their political career is dead.

Just curious about your opinion...

[TomFoolery]

Is this not a violation of our constitution? You know if someone says they don't believe in fairy tales that their political career is dead.

I think at that point, it would be dead not because of their atheism but because they're making fun of other people's religions, and no one likes a dick.

Answering questions to the media isn't a required test, and any answer a candidate gives isn't going to deprive them of their rights. Also, when Kennedy ran in 1960, lots of people thought no one would vote for a Catholic.

And though Christianity still reigns supreme and a depressing amount of the populace wants us to be a "Christian nation," it hasn't stopped voters from electing 28 Jews, 2 Buddhists, 2 Muslims, and a Hindu to the current Congress. Also interesting to note, the current Congress has 10 members who are unaffiliated with a religion, agnostic, or refused to answer questions relating to their religion. I'm willing to bet at least ONE of those people is an atheist and was able to get elected.

[Baruch]

Well for broad opinion sake ... I would want at least some agnostics and atheists in Congress.  They can't do worse than the theists ;-(

The US Constitution limits what the government can do.  It doesn't limit what political parties, reporters or individual citizens can do.  If I ran for office, and was asked the question, I would tell them it was none of their business.  In fact, in polite society, you aren't supposed to get folks riled up by talking about religion, sex or politics in mixed company.  As a candidate who wouldn't talk politics in public, I would be a breath of fresh air as opposed to all the halitosis out there ;-)

[GreatLife]

I think at that point, it would be dead not because of their atheism but because they're making fun of other people's religions, and no one likes a dick.

So change my comment to a politically correct one by your definition. I don't think the form of the negative reply matters on this question.

Answering questions to the media isn't a required test, and any answer a candidate gives isn't going to deprive them of their rights. Also, when Kennedy ran in 1960, lots of people thought no one would vote for a Catholic.

I don't honestly know the accepted definition of required test is.

And I believe that it would be a civil suit, not criminal.  That distinction lowers the legal bar for evidentiary purposes... Let's change the game slightly and say that I sued Fix News for violation or my constitutional rights. Do I have a case then?

And though Christianity still reigns supreme and a depressing amount of the populace wants us to be a "Christian nation," it hasn't stopped voters from electing 28 Jews, 2 Buddhists, 2 Muslims, and a Hindu to the current Congress. Also interesting to note, the current Congress has 10 members who are unaffiliated with a religion, agnostic, or refused to answer questions relating to their religion. I'm willing to bet at least ONE of those people is an atheist and was able to get elected.

Awe.... So you agree that even for relatively minor offices, no one is willing to admit the truth. Sounds like a problem to me.

[Johan]

Just curious about every ones thoughts on this....

We have a provision in our constitution which stated that there can not be any religious tests for public office... Yet fox news and others typically and commonly ask all presidential candidates about their religion. 

Is this not a violation of our constitution? You know if someone says they don't believe in fairy tales that their political career is dead.

Just curious about your opinion...

Fox news asking a question of a candidate is not a test for public office. Saying something to the media which causes fewer people to vote for you is not at all the same thing as passing a law which prevents you from holding office based on your religion.

That being said, there are still places where you cannot legally hold office if you are atheist. So if you really want to sue over it, you don't need Fox news to do it.

http://www.alternet.org/belief/7-states-where-atheists-cant-legally-run-office

[GreatLife]

Well for broad opinion sake ... I would want at least some agnostics and atheists in Congress.  They can't do worse than the theists ;-(

I am in total agreement on these points. A more secular government would help.

The US Constitution limits what the government can do.  It doesn't limit what political parties, reporters or individual citizens can do.

That would be a novel interpretation of the US Constitution...

[GreatLife]

That being said, there are still places where you cannot legally hold office if you are atheist. So if you really want to sue over it, you don't need Fox news to do it.

http://www.alternet.org/belief/7-states-where-atheists-cant-legally-run-office

Wow, thanks for that link. I am surprised. Both that it is still true... And that Maryland would be on the list.

[Termin]

Fox news asking a question of a candidate is not a test for public office. Saying something to the media which causes fewer people to vote for you is not at all the same thing as passing a law which prevents you from holding office based on your religion.

That being said, there are still places where you cannot legally hold office if you are atheist. So if you really want to sue over it, you don't need Fox news to do it.

http://www.alternet.org/belief/7-states-where-atheists-cant-legally-run-office

  Not quite  , the laws are still on the books, buy they have no legal standing.

[TomFoolery]

So change my comment to a politically correct one by your definition. I don't think the form of the negative reply matters on this question.

I don't honestly know the accepted definition of required test is.

And I believe that it would be a civil suit, not criminal.  That distinction lowers the legal bar for evidentiary purposes... Let's change the game slightly and say that I sued Fix News for violation or my constitutional rights. Do I have a case then?

What about FOX New's first amendment right to freedom of the press?

You have the right to practice freedom of religion under the same amendment, and you have the right to be free from government intrusion in your life and basic protection for having those beliefs. But the court of public opinion is different than legal rights. I have the right to be an atheist, and someone else has the right to think I'm a bad person and not vote for me because of it.

[Baruch]

GreatLife ... "That would be a novel interpretation of the US Constitution..." ... the original interpretation.  It has been much abused since then, allowing all sorts of novel judicial legislation by both political parties.  For example, as pointed out in the recent Lincoln movie ... the Emancipation Proclamation only had legal standing during war time, and only in territory occupied by Union armies ... it had no other impact.  It was the subsequent amendments to the Constitution that brought about peacetime freedom and citizenship for former slaves.  But it was still fought judicially by Southern states, after Reconstruction (Union army occupation ended in 1875) .. by the institution of Jim Crow laws that were only valid within states and smaller jurisdictions.  The constitutional amendments were de jure in theory, but not de facto in many locations.

Not saying I have ever supported Jim Crow laws ... but the question of suppression of state and local law by Federal law, is was an open question, at least in practice.  That is why Federalized National Guard units were required to implement the Civil Rights revolution.  Had the National Guard units refused ... the Civil War would have resumed.  Under the law at that time, National Guard units in peacetime, reported to state governors, not to the President.

The US Constitution has been massively ignored, whenever it has suited factions, long before the Korean War ... which was "undeclared by Congress", and long after.  Often this is done on the sly by casuist judicial reasoning.

[SGOS]

Let's change the game slightly and say that I sued Fix News for violation or my constitutional rights. Do I have a case then?

Not a case you could win.  It's a highly important question to many people, even if it's important for stupid reasons.  But asking the question is not against a law, and there is no legal requirement that you must answer it. 

[GreatLife]

Lots of good points posted. Let me think for a while and I will respond again.

Thanks.

[doorknob]

Sorry but on this one I have to say no. There is no constitution violation in the question of one's religious beliefs or non beliefs. That is freedom of speech. The violation of constitutional rights is when atheists are denied the ability to run for office. That's what one should be suing for. But I doubt you'd win. Even if an atheist ran for office no religious person would vote for them so very little point in advertising that little fact.

[GreatLife]

  Not quite  , the laws are still on the books, buy they have no legal standing.

Just curious what you mean by this?

[GreatLife]

What about FOX New's first amendment right to freedom of the press?

You have the right to practice freedom of religion under the same amendment, and you have the right to be free from government intrusion in your life and basic protection for having those beliefs. But the court of public opinion is different than legal rights. I have the right to be an atheist, and someone else has the right to think I'm a bad person and not vote for me because of it.

All good points. I agree on every one of them.

Basically, only the government, at any level, can violate my constitutional right in this instance. And they can only do that by denying me an opportunity to hold office.

Or some such...