Church and State
Great story, this one. It turns out that the North Carolina constitution (Article 6, section 8 ) prohibits anyone who denies the existence of god from serving in public office. The actual text reads:
The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.
This issue has arisen because atheist/ post-theist/ whatever-ist Cecil Bothwell has been popularly elected to the Asheville city council and his opponents, politicians being politicians, are seizing on his belief or non-belief to prevent him from taking office.
Now, one could obviously say that the losers should just shut up and admit political defeat gracefully, if the man won, fair and square. But that would be a mistake, because it ignores the deeper issue. The opponents in question most definitely have a point: legally, atheists should not be allowed to serve in North Carolina. So, assuming North Carolinians will not amend their constitution, the only way to resolve this is with a good old-fashioned Supreme Court case. The anticipation is killing me already.
This story absolutely screams flashpoint in the culture wars. Mark my words: we will soon enough hear conservative pundits talking about “the kind of society the citizens of North Carolina want” (to which the obvious rebuttal will be: we know what kind—they elected an atheist), and “the imposition, by activist judicial fiat, of secular big-government conformity on the states.” Indeed, this is the perfect hook for a religious conservative component to be latched onto the broader, tea-party antigovernment trend that has taken form in the age of Obama.
Finally, note that it is absolutely delicious that this has occurred at Christmastime. War on.
MORE ARTICLES:
Well, if the Second Amendment is incorporated against the States, wouldn’t the First be as well? The Article Six of the US Constitution provides that:
no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Goodbye state sovereignty!
On this issue, I would say that state sovereignty does not apply, for the constitutional reason you mentioned. But otherwise, it remains intact.