Atheists can't hold office in the USA?

Now you're just being deliberately obtuse.My original questions have been answered, thank you.

One of the important bits of constitutional law is that someone has to demonstrate harm being done to them by the law before it can even be considered by the courts. A law that no one enforces does no harm, so there is no violation of constitutional rights."In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case."
Standing - Wikipedia(law)

The law isn't just instrumental, it also has a symbolic, signalling role. It says that this activity is something this society disapproves of to the extent that if you transgress it, the state will punish you. It creates our moral norms and signals an expectation of behaviour.So to have have it still on the statute books, not simply as a bygone relic of how things used to be, but to be pulled out when it suits regardless of it's ineffectiveness, is a signal of a different kind is it not? However, I have no idea whether the example quoted is just a one-off or not and whether people in those states are generally aware of it.

No it is not.But it is worth a chuckle or three on a really dull news day.But the answer to the topic is of course, "Nonsense, atheists can hold any political office in the US if they get elected."

Care to say why. Otherwise I'm just going to counter with "oh yes it is" Ok, we've had our little chuckle, perhaps you'd now care to explain your position. Yes, we've answered that - the constitution trumps state law. Gottit. It's posible for an atheist to hold public office in Mississippi if s/he can get enough votes. Fine.We've moved on from that. The question now is whether these redundant laws are still being waved around and having an effect. I've no idea, have you? Do you care?

More like, trying to remove them in those blood-red states would be like waving a cape in front of a bull. Why give the Christian right-wingers something to complain about? They already are convinced of their persecution.Let sleeping dogs lie.

Absolutely agree. My question though is 'are they sleeping?' Is that one example given unique or is the law actually in use, however inefectually

But that too has been answered. They cannot have any effect. The only possible value is it gives folk something to complain about and that in turn gives many of us something to laugh about.

You have no standing until the state does punish you. People wanting to violate your rights is not a violation of your rights. They have to actually do it. Our constitution is not about the Thought Police. I am unaware of anyone in recent history being forced out of public office or an election for being an atheist. People saying that you are unfit for office does not violate any constitutional rights.

There are some exceptions to this rule. In some cases laws affecting free speech can be challenged if the law is facially unconstitutional. It's conceivable that a court might extend this principle to a challenge to a law excluding an theist since this is also a first amendment matter.But what would be the point? Simply finding a law unconstitutional does not remove it from the books. The finding just means that the state cannot apply the law, and that we now have a specific ruling from a court establishing just such a thing. A ruling obtained at your own expense to enjoin a state official from doing something he had no intention of doing.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Tennessee's monkey law was repealed by the state legislature in 1967 prior to the Supreme Court decision in 1968.Here is a link to an article describing the house chambers vote.Error 404 (Not Found)!!1The senate required two votes in order to confirm the legislation but they got the job done.

Sure, but that is not what I'm trying to say. It's a point about the norm making role of laws. If an unlawful law is kept on the state books and used occasionally - although ineffectually, the state is signalling to its citizens that although it's been overruled, it still believes its law is legitimate. That's quite a strong signal to the populous and to an atheist applicant.Of course, if the law is truly defunct and never even thought about, then the above doesn't apply. Again, that's not the point - we all agree that the law could not stand. But it does seem that in at least one case, the law was attempted to be used. I'll try to find out the circumstances of that case.

ok, here's the story of the atheist that got elected in Carolina (that's amazing) and the subsequent hooha. Dunno what happened next, I expect he took up the role and left the wing nuts to wail.The Asheville Citizen TimesABE. There's a very thorough article here on it and the general principle here:Alternet.org - 404 Not FoundBothwell was threatened with legal action but it never happened. He seems like an interesting bloke. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

I tried to find details about his case too, and as far as I can tell no lawsuit was ever brought. Presumably because this was all just noise by people disgruntled about losing, and they never really intended to do anything; or because their lawyers advised them the case would be thrown out immediately, since this issue was settled by the Supreme Court already in Torasco v. Watkins (1961).Reading the new this morning reminded me of this thread. There's a public referendum coming up in February in Slovakia; on the subject of whether gay couples can adopt; whether marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman; and whether there should be sexual education in schools.The results of this referendum are unlikely to have any effect. Under Slovak law, there would need to be turnout of more than 50% for the result to be valid; and in seven previous referenda only one has made this target (on whether to join the EU). If this target was met, and the anti-gay organisers got the result they wanted, it is still doubtful whether the measures would get past the Constitutional Court.Those who arranged the referendum are aware of this, and are making essentially the same agrument as you (though from a different ideological standpoint). They say it's about the normative, moral impact of such a vote, and the attention it gives to the 'rights of the family'.This symbolic, moral vote will cost approximately $7 million of public money. In an age of austerity and public budget cuts, it's worth considering how much you're willing to spend to make a moral point.

I would argue that religious views are not by default primitive. Though I am religious, I agree that the laws should be stricken from the books. We should be all about freedom rather than mandatory conformity,IMHO.A question. Do you see yourself representing basic human rights or do you feel victimized as an atheist?