Are holders of public office subject to Title VII and related laws that prohibit religious discrimination?
Eight state constitutions include restrictions on people who don’t believe in a supreme being. Their constitutions read:
Arkansas
Article 19, section 1: “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.”
Maryland
Article 37: “That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.”
Mississippi
Article 14, section 265: “No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this State.”
North Carolina
Article VI, section 8: “The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.”
Pennsylvania
Article 1, section 4: “No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth.”
Note: Pennsylvania differs from the other states in that it says believers cannot be disqualified from holding office for his or her religious sentiments, but that is not extended to atheists.
South Carolina
Article XVII, section 4: “No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.”
Tennessee
Article IX, section 2: “No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishment, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.”
Note: Ministers are also barred from holding office, because they “ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their functions; therefore, no minister of the Gospel, or priest of any denomination whatever, shall be eligible to a seat in either House of the Legislature,” according to article IX, section 1.
Texas
Article 1, section 4: “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.”
Obviously, atheists are discriminated by those Constitutions. Challenge came from a case that a Maryland man appointed as a notary public have to declare his belief in a supreme being to hold office. In this case, Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), the Supreme Court held that “this Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States.”
It is said that restrictions on atheist to hold public office haven’t been enforced since this Supreme Court ruling. In a post in Texas Monthly about the race for the Austin City Council seat in the newly-created District 4, the author commented on the action that circulated mailers with information about the religious beliefs of the two candidates. The author wrote:
Pressley (Candidate 1) is correct that the language is in the Texas Constitution, but that doesn’t mean that an atheist—which, it’s worth reiterating, Casar (Candidate 2) says he is not—is actually barred from holding office in Texas. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, in the No Religious Test Clause, makes clear that restrictions like the one in Texas are unconstitutional.
https://www.texasmonthly.com/the-daily-post/is-it-legal-for-an-atheist-to-hold-public-office-in-texas/
Here are the points for you to discuss:
- Are holders of public office subject to Title VII and related laws that prohibit religious discrimination?
- What will you say if someone assert discrimination against atheists for positions in public office based on those Constitutions since they are still not modified and literally effective?
- What will you say if an atheist claims disparate impact though you may tell him/her that the clauses in those constitutions would not be enforceable?
