Democrat Smeared as Atheist

[Doug]

GOP Raises Religion in Court Race, Calling Democrat an Atheist
Mary Alice Robbin, Texas Lawyer 10-09-2006
Religion has entered the political fray in a race for an appellate court bench in east Texas. The Austin-based Republican Party of Texas played the religion card in a Sept. 21 online newsletter. As alleged in the newsletter, Texarkana solo E. Ben Franks, Democratic nominee for a seat on the 6th Court of Appeals, "is reported to be a professed atheist" and apparently believes the Bible is a "collection of myths.'"

But Franks says he has never professed to be an atheist and is not a member of any atheist organization. Franks says no one with the Republican Party ever asked him whether he professes to be an atheist. However, he says he's not surprised by the allegation.

"I'm not surprised at anything anybody says in politics anymore," Franks ays. Anthony Champagne, a political science professor at the University of Texas at Dallas, says he has watched judicial races in Texas and other parts of the country for 25 years and has never before seen a judicial candidate accused of being an atheist.

"I've never seen the religious issue pushed that hard," Champagne says. Champagne says the last time that religion was raised in a significant political race in Texas was the 1960 presidential election, in which the fact that then-Democratic nominee John F. Kennedy was a Catholic became an issue.

"It was a very detrimental issue against Kennedy until he spoke in Houston to the Baptist ministry," Champagne says.

In his address to Southern Baptist leaders, Kennedy spoke out against religious intolerance and told the audience, "I believe in an America tha is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish," The New York Times reported on Sept. 13, 1960.

The Republican Party notes in its recent newsletter that Article 16, §1(a) of the Texas Constitution prescribes the oath of office for all elected or appointed officials. The officeholder swears to faithfully execute the duties of the office and, to the best of his or her ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state "so help me God."

"I can take the oath," Franks says. However, the state Republican Party questions whether Franks will uphold the law, stating in the newsletter: "Should Franks be elected in November, one would have to conclude that he will hold true to his out of touch 'atheist' belief system and ignore the laws and Constitution of Texas." Marshall solo Bailey C. Moseley, Franks' Republican opponent for the seat being vacated by 6th Court Justice Donald Ross, a Democrat, says he thinks an atheist can take the oath and is bound to support the laws and Constitution of
Texas.

..."I'm very much an advocate for separation of church and state," Franks says. "In that context, it offends me when people wear their religion on their sleeves." But, Franks adds, "my religious preferences are my private business. That's not the business of anybody else."

NO RELIGIOUS TEST
The Republican Party's allegation that Franks is an atheist stems from a June 18, 2002, article published in the El Paso Times, after the Texas Democratic Party held its state convention in the far west Texas city. As noted in the article, Democrats on the party's platform committee debated whether to drop "God" from a sentence on the first page of the committee's platform report that read: "We want a Texas where all people can fulfill their dreams and achieve their God-given potential." The article quotes Franks, a member of the platform committee, as saying, "I'm an atheist, [and] this does not bother me. I'm a pragmatist." Franks says the article misquoted him and what he said was, "Let's say I'm an atheist. I still have no problem with this platform, because I'm a
pragmatist."

...Officially, however, there can be no religious test for holding office. Charles W. "Rocky" Rhodes, an associate professor at South Texas College of Law, says the U.S. Supreme Court has held that a state cannot exclude somebody from office for his or her religious beliefs or lack of religious beliefs. In 1961's Torcaso v. Watkins, a unanimous Supreme Court struck down a Maryland Declaration of Rights requirement that a person seeking to hold office in Maryland declare a belief in the existence of God. Rhodes, who teaches constitutional law, says Torcaso applies to Article 1, §4 of the Texas Constitution, which provides that no one can be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided that he or she acknowledges "the existence of a Supreme Being."

Even if Franks was a professed atheist -- and Franks says he has never professed to be an atheist -- that is not a valid disqualification from office in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, Rhodes says. Referring to the Republicans' allegation against Franks, Rhodes says, "What they're trying to do is smear him."

From here, but I'm pretty sure you have to subscribe to see it.

[Dardedar]

In 1961's Torcaso v. Watkins, a unanimous Supreme Court struck down a Maryland Declaration of Rights requirement that a person seeking to hold office in Maryland declare a belief in the existence of God. Rhodes, who teaches constitutional law, says Torcaso applies to Article 1, §4 of the Texas Constitution, which provides that no one can be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided that he or she acknowledges "the existence of a Supreme Being."

DAR
WTF? Can't be excluded on account of religious sentiments provided they acknowledge "the existence of a Supreme Being"? If that is the ruling, then atheism can be a disqualifier. This sentence seems to refute what is said elsewhere.

[Dardedar]

Just got this in the mail:

***

October 10, 2006
Know an elected official who is openly nontheistic?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dear Secular Coalition activist,

We are excited to announce that the Secular Coalition for America (SCA) will award one thousand dollars ($1,000) to the person who identifies the highest level atheist, humanist, freethinker or other nontheist currently holding elected public office in the U.S. (pursuant to the terms and conditions on our Web site).

Although our Constitution states, "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States," the religion of our elected officials figures prominently in America, and nontheists are invisible in the electoral arena.

Help the Secular Coalition for America find the nontheist public servants who have been able to serve their communities in spite of the irrational bigotry against their religious perspective. For more information on the contest and its rules go to:

http://www.secular.org/contest/

We look forward to seeing your entry!

Best wishes,

Lori Lipman Brown, Director

The Secular Coalition for America
http://secular.org

[Doug]

DAR
WTF? Can't be excluded on account of religious sentiments provided they acknowledge "the existence of a Supreme Being"? If that is the ruling, then atheism can be a disqualifier. This sentence seems to refute what is said elsewhere.

DOUG
Yes, I have long thought this was a contradictory feature of TX law.

In effect, it is saying "As long as you believe in God, we won't test you for belief in God."

[Doug]

Just got this in the mail:

***

October 10, 2006
Know an elected official who is openly nontheistic?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dear Secular Coalition activist,

We are excited to announce that the Secular Coalition for America (SCA) will award one thousand dollars ($1,000) to the person who identifies the highest level atheist, humanist, freethinker or other nontheist currently holding elected public office in the U.S. (pursuant to the terms and conditions on our Web site).

DOUG
According to Arkansas law, no atheist can hold public office (or testify in court). So don't look to any locals as candidates to be submitted for the prize.

[Savonarola]

WTF? Can't be excluded on account of religious sentiments provided they acknowledge "the existence of a Supreme Being"? If that is the ruling, then atheism can be a disqualifier. This sentence seems to refute what is said elsewhere.

The ruling is that that section is unconstitutional. It's unconstitutional precisely for the reason you say: it's still a religious test. Maybe the idea was to assure that any Christian denomination was able to hold office...

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Lots of otherwise broad-minded people in Texas confuse atheism with 1) devil worship & 2) belief humans are the supreme authority. They were attempting in that section to say it's OK as long as you believe in a source of ethics that is higher than human beings (and you can understand why they'd want that, considering what human being do to each other, even though they've ignored the fact that the nastiest things human being do to each other is usually in the name of some god or another). Even broad-minded evangelicals have problems with connecting the dots when it comes to religion.

[Guest]

In 1961's Torcaso v. Watkins, a unanimous Supreme Court struck down a Maryland Declaration of Rights requirement that a person seeking to hold office in Maryland declare a belief in the existence of God. Rhodes, who teaches constitutional law, says Torcaso applies to Article 1, §4 of the Texas Constitution, which provides that no one can be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided that he or she acknowledges "the existence of a Supreme Being."

DAR
WTF? Can't be excluded on account of religious sentiments provided they acknowledge "the existence of a Supreme Being"? If that is the ruling, then atheism can be a disqualifier. This sentence seems to refute what is said elsewhere.

Many of the State Constitutions, ever since the Declaration of Independence from England, have contained provisions regarding religion and religious freedom, that are in clear contradiction with each other. I can provide numerous examples.

[Whammer Jammer]

WTF? Can't be excluded on account of religious sentiments provided they acknowledge "the existence of a Supreme Being"? If that is the ruling, then atheism can be a disqualifier. This sentence seems to refute what is said elsewhere.

The ruling is that that section is unconstitutional. It's unconstitutional precisely for the reason you say: it's still a religious test. Maybe the idea was to assure that any Christian denomination was able to hold office...

Adding "So help me God" to the end of the oath for members of the Texas legislature was passed with no debate and may have been done to mollify the foes of absolute religious liberty (such as the Reformed Presbyterians). It enabled those who supported the proposed Constitution and its spirit of "no human authority over religion", to argue that the proposed Constitution acknowledged God.

"So help me God” in the oath of office for legislators clearly violates, from the the Strict Separationist point of view at least, the "no religious test" provision in the Bill of Rights.

On the same day the oath for the legislators was passed by the Convention, a proposed provision was debated that read as follows:"No person who denies the being of a God or a future state of rewards and punishments shall hold any office in the civil department of the state." The provision was rejected. One delegate remarked that the provision was in conflict with the "no religious test" clause and that some Christians denied a future state of rewards and punishments.

"So help me God” in the oath of the legislators also violates the declaration in the Bill of Rights that, “no human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion.”

The provision regarding the legislator's oath is self-contradictory. It implies that a legislator may take an "oath or affirmation", but the required "oath or affirmation" appears to require an acknowledgment of the existence of God.

There are other religious provisions in the Texas Constitution that are contradictory. The declaration that, “no human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion” is in conflict with provision that makes “Ministers of the Gospel, or priest of any denominations whatever…[ineligible] to the Legislature.”

These contradictions appear to reflect the tension between the wish for a strict exemption of religion from the authority of civil government (as many believe was ordained by the Savior); and the insistence, by Catholics and a number of the Reformed Protestant sects, on a public acknowledgment of religion by government.

If a person elected to the Texas Legislature refused to add "so help me God" to his affirmation of office, and if there arose a legal dispute regarding his ability to hold office due to his refusal, one could reasonably contend that the "no human authority" provision of the Texas Bill of Rights trumped the provision regarding "so help me God" the oath or affirmation of the legislators.

Contradictions regarding religious liberty, in State Constitutions, were nothing new in 1845. The Constitutions adopted by the States at the commencement of the American Revolution were full of contradictions regarding the rights of conscience.