News-Record.com

I understand that North Carolina's constitutional ban on us in courts or public office was struck down by the state Supreme Court in 1979. Supposedly, the next time the state holds a Constitutional Convention, that language will be struck from the document officially.

Of course, another interesting issue is the de facto exclusion of atheists from public affairs. I know two atheists personally who refused to be sworn in for jury duty (they asked for and received the equally legal affirmation, sans Bible) and they were subsequently refused places on juries. And of course, there was recenty a study done regarding electability for various minorities, which showed that ONLY atheists would be kept out of office, regardless of their other qualifications, by even a majority of members of their own party.

Naturally, there's nothing illegal about these attitudes, but it's a crying shame, nonetheless.

It's outraegous that such blatently discriminatory language is permitted to remain in a state constitution in the 21st century. There are other problems also as this link will reveal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_Constitution

Look under Infeasible Provisions. It is indefensible that people can be discriminated against because of someone else's misguided beLIEfs.

As I recall off the top of my head, all or most of the original states, for many decades had religious standards for public office holders and for legal procedures as well. These remaining seven states are just nominal holdovers from those days. Too bad they discontinued them though. Those who deny the God whose Law is the supreme bulwark of true freedom and justice should indeed be barred from all offices and legal testimony sans bible. But this culture has lost all capacity to recognize the Living God, much less the awful consequences of departing from His Law and allowing God-deny-ers to lead it.

"Those who deny the God whose Law is the supreme bulwark of true freedom and justice should indeed be barred from all offices and legal testimony sans bible."

Wow. You know, there was a case a century ago in which an atheist woman was denied the opportunity to testify in the trial of a man she had accused of raping her. The man was set free because of insufficient evidence.

This is the result of the attitude you are praising here, Nikos. Rape or murder would go unpunished if an atheist was a witness that could provide testimony of facts in a case. Would you really want that to happen?

Also, would you honestly want to bar atheists from holding elected office, in spite of the fact that the Constitution of this nation, ever since it was established over 200 years ago, forbids the use of religious tests?

It seems that not only would you prefer to cripple our system of justice, but you have a blatantly un-American attitude. Perhaps you'd prefer to live in a country that is closer to your political beliefs... Saudi Arabia or Iran might be more comfortable for you, I believe.

"As I recall off the top of my head, all or most of the original states, for many decades had religious standards for public office holders and for legal procedures as well."

They also engaged in and approved of slavery backed up by biblical scripture. But that wasn't right either.

As long as anyone's rights are in danger of being denied like this, then everyone's rights are in danger.

The states were allowed to have any religious tests they deemed appropriate, and did; primarily because they considered themselves Christain states. As a consistent, biblical Christian there can be no other choice than to at least desire a Christain state; i.e. one that determines its laws by biblical standards and takes care of all its affairs from a true, biblical perspective - but not controled or unduly influenced by any particular denomination. I am just being consistent with my worldview, as you are yours.

For the cause of justice, I would have to agree with you that anyone who can serve that process should be alowed, under certain conditions, to testify. But the idea of standing before God and asserting the truth of His Law and Word by placing the hand upon it, serves a very important purpose in the justice system. I believe it should be maintained as standard procedure, but iwht allowances in important cases. The witness is basically saying that they not only will have to answer charges in man's court for bearing false witness, but before God as well.

"As a consistent, biblical Christian there can be no other choice than to at least desire a Christain state"

If that was the case, I would have thought that Jesus would have set up his own government. But what does the Bible say, Nikos? It says that Christians are to be subject to the state -- and that message was written to people living under a Pagan Roman government.

"But the idea of standing before God and asserting the truth of His Law and Word by placing the hand upon it, serves a very important purpose in the justice system."

You have a warped view of how the American jusitce system works. There is no real need to engage in this ritual before giving evidence in a court of law. The only function swearing on a Bible truly serves is to soothe the sensibilities of people who feel a need for reassurance that a witness shares their religion. Considering the number of people who have sworn on a Bible and proceeded to lie through their teeth with no ensuing lightening bolts, it should be obvious that it is no sort of insurance that a witness will be more reliable.

Also, if it was known that the only way to give evidence would be to go through a required ritual, how many people would you think would agree to it while not truly believing? Could you actually feel you could trust someone who was coerced into giving an oath that they didn't believe in?

"For the cause of justice, I would have to agree with you that anyone who can serve that process should be alowed, under certain conditions, to testify."

What "conditions" would you agree to? I'm curious.

Amazing how far we've come in 20-30 years. Those of us that do believe the Bible as the innerrant truth of the Living God are rather rapidly being driven out of our culture. Those that desire to believe in the self as their own God or another God not of the Bible have systematically driven us into obscurity. Problem is, they ultimately lose. Period, end of story if they choose to live out their rutile existence this way. Sad, but true it will be. But what really is amazing is how they utilize the same Bible we choose to believe, as the club to knock us over the head with when they are shown the truth which contradicts the fables they choose to adhere to. Guess I'll die with lots of bruises on my head!

"Those that desire to believe in the self as their own God or another God not of the Bible have systematically driven us into obscurity."

Um... what does this have to do with allowing atheists to participate in the government of this state? Or with the price of eggs in China, for that matter?

"Those of us that do believe the Bible as the innerrant truth of the Living God are rather rapidly being driven out of our culture."

You've definitely got a serious persecution complex going here.

Unfortunately, persecution is what makes religion worthwhile for some folks; either receiving it or dishing it out. :(

Did Nikos not respond to the last question put him because he is having trouble squaring Jesus' admonition to render unto Caesar with Nikos' claim that true Christians all should desire an official Christian state? Maybe a world-wide one? Pre-second-coming, even? Achieved how?

And John is correct in poitning to the provision of Article 6 of the US Constitution which specifically forbids any religious test or oath of office. What goes on in courtrooms and inaugurations is sheer tradition for tradition's sake (and politics for politicians' sakes). The same could be said for marriage as recognized by the state: just the notarized signatures and a paid license fee. That's the legal standing. The rest is fru-fru.