The theists are on a crusade to deny a legitimately elected city council member in Asheville, NC, his office because he is an atheist. His policies don't matter, his competence doesn't matter, the only issue being used to prevent Cecil Bothwell from taking his position is his disbelief in god, and that just isn't right.
Fox News apparently think the rights of a minority should be determined by the prejudices of a majority, since they're running a poll on the issue. Given that it is Fox news, the results shouldn't be surprising…but they do need adjusting.
Should Atheist Councilman Step Aside?
Yes. The law may be inappropriate, but if it's in their constitution, it IS law. Step aside, councilman. 64%
Maybe. I can't say that religion - or lack of it - should deter fitness for public office because it opens the door to all sorts of beliefs. 4%
No. Look at the calendar - it's 2009! Religion - or lack of it - should never be a factor in qualifying someone for public office. 31%
I'm not sure. 1%
- Log in to post comments
Wonder what will happen when they get wind that Houston's recently elect mayor is openly lesbian...
Before this turns into one of those ignorance fueled "Well it's North Carolina what do you expect" threads, Ashevillle is one of the most progressive towns in the south. There are vocal morons everywhere. Just look at the guy heading up the campaign to unseat him.
He's vocal and clearly a moron.
32%?
C'mon, mob rule, keep it classy!
Errrr... how exactly is fox news defending bigotry? It's a poll.
The poll options read as follows:
I am a bigot: 62%
Mealy-mouthed hand-wringing: 4%
I am capable of critical thinking: 33%
Ticky box!: 1%
I love how the Fox poll sidesteps the fact that since the US Constitution forbids a religious requirement to hold public office, it renders the NC law null and void.
At least two of the 12 or so commenters are actually hip to that point. I get the feeling they're not regular Fox viewers, though.
I'm pretty sure that the US Constitution trumps their antediluvian local piddly little laws.
Article VI, Section 3:
Oh, dear. "yes" is still above 60 percent. Glenn Beck's minions must be voting. Either that, or someone is votebotting.
I was going to say. It's in the NC State Constitution that non-monotheists can't hold office. It's in the US Constitution that no public office can have a religious qualification. It's also in the US Constitution that states agree that the US Constitution trumps all state/federal laws and state constitutions.
Therefore, anyone who is 'but it's the law' should be gently corrected -- the supreme law of the land is that religion doesn't matter. If lesser laws contradict that, they are invalid.
(Fox News should get with the program...)
Ooopsie! They forgot the option:
No. Discrimination against someone for office or otherwise on the basis of religious belief violates the law. As much as some might not like it, the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law in the United States.
(And darn it if Fox News didn't actually misrepresent the law in the first option in their poll. No, Fox News, the North Carolina Constitution is not "the law" over the U.S. Constitution. Please see U.S. Const. Art. VI, Para. II.)
I would be happy if someone brought it up specifically to challenge the state law; really, it's the only way such laws will be overturned. Otherwise, they'll sit there forever because nobody wants to be the legislator who introduces a bill revoking that law. ("Whatsa matter, Joe, something you want to tell us?")
Hey, one "little-noticed quirk" can cancel out another one. Have they not noticed that, in order for someone to deny the being of Almighty God, they will first have to produce such a being, in order for it to subsequently be denied? They need to get on that, first thing, and then fetch it over to Mr. Bothwell, to see what he says.
Of course, a lot of people don't seem to have noticed the little quirky unconstitutional part of the law, so it's no wonder this little glitch was able to lurk beneath their radar.
You do realize that getting with the program would require them to think, right?
@ Carlie,
IANAL, but when this came up the other day, it's also came out that it's been done already. The NC law is completely null and void and this entire exercise is a sideshow.
I love that the US Constitution isn't mentioned in the article or the poll. Where's the NO option that says the US Constitution trumps your state's religious prejudice?
The irony of people saying he should leave because it's the law and not knowing that the Constitution nullifies that law is delicious.
Foxidiots are depressing. 35% when I voted, got a ways to go yet.
As much as I generally disagree with jojame, and even less happy about defending anything Fox-news-related, he's got a point here. If you look at the actual article that the poll refers to, it is fairly balanced and pretty clearly states the case that the article in the state's constitution is unconstitutional and would likely never hold up under challenge in court.
The poll itself is poorly constructed, I think, in that none of the answers mention this critical point... but hey, it is Fox News after all.
Now, I have no idea what any of the propaganda opinionators like Glenn Dreck has to say about it, but that's a separate issue.
Been done. The law is null and void.
I hope this goes to court and the judge is the most right-wing, appointed by Dubya Bush, fundamentalist cracker they can find. When they were writing the Constitution the founding fathers knew what they were talking about. This isn't some arbitrary, arcane, open to interpretation thing like the Second Amendment. The Constitution says quite unequivocally "no religious test."
Has anyone else noticed that when Fox News makes a mistake or leaves something out, the result is always in their favor?
Lying by omission is still lying. I thought that Fux News instituted some kind of zero tolerance policy, recently. I guess it depends on what you mean by "zero".
Actually, they're just using the poll to boost interest in their reporting.
Whatever their failings, they don't fail to chase dollars.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
I wonder if the poll has been god-botted:
58%: Yes, he must go - we must uphold an unconstitutional law
38%: Hey, it's 2009 not 860.
The question on the poll is not just misleading, it's flat out wrong:
It has been decided. There is no issue. That some nutjobs aren't aware of it doesn't change that fact.
I'm still trying to find the article you are talking about. It isn't immediately obvious from the page I'm looking at.
In addition, it's well known that you can skew a perfectly fairly worded poll simply by selecting who you ask. I've a fair idea Fox News is aware of the prevailing sentiments among their readers.
Yes. 57% (7,412 votes)
Maybe. 4% (477 votes)
No. 39% (4,992 votes)
I'm not sure. 1% (82 votes)
Total Votes: 12,963
View Comments (2)
ok, a lot better but still not correct.
-t
I love the disparity in comments on the fox site. On one side you have people pointing out the unconstitutionality of the situation and on the other you have, well, people shouting "get off my lawn" whilst waving their fist in the air. I also like the guy who claims that many of the founding documents claim that a person requires a belief in god to be elected to office.
Ugh, had FuckedNews on my computer. It needs to be purged. Nothing but the strongest disinfectants will do!
Will take me days to get it back to its good old self (I think).
Or maybe it is tougher than I though. After all, the browser is Firefox.
Yes. 55%
Maybe. 4%
No. 41%
Not sure. 1%
Getting there.
I am a bigot: 55%
Mealy-mouthed hand-wringing: 4%
I am capable of critical thinking: 41%
Ticky box!: 1%
Total votes: 13,560
Still moving toward Critical Thought, but slowly.
I think I made the point that the poll was poorly constructed. I don't think I used the word "misleading". Not sure where you're getting that.
That's nice of you to say. Now tell that to Herb Silverman, who had to go through the legal process in the 90's despite the Torcaso case. Asking in the poll if he should step aside while the legal process takes its course may seem like a waste of time, but I'm not sure you can make the claim it's simply wrong.
The poll itself doesn't link to the story (this happens on many sites with polls, not just Faux news), but the story is available right on the "Politics" page without much effort... plus I linked to it in my comment.
No argument there... so let me qualify my earlier comment a bit. To jojame's point, I think a keen eye could see that the poll is poorly constructed and worded with an obvious eye towards their primary audience. But that's a stretch from calling it "defending bigotry", and as a supporting argument for that, I point to the only article I could find that refers to the elements in the poll in question, in which the reporting is fairly balanced and accurate.
HOWEVER: having said that, it looks like the story I linked to is actually an AP story... so really, Fox had nothing to do with it.
Meh... ok... so I'm wrong about it.
I had to leave Opera and use IE to vote - if this isn't "obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing devotion", I don't know what is.
"This isn't some arbitrary, arcane, open to interpretation thing like the Second Amendment."
Is it as arbitrary, arcane and open to interpretation as the "right to privacy" some people claim to find in the Constitution and common-law precedent?
(I'm one of them, actually. But let's give the 2nd Amend a break here - it's hardly a mystery.)
Anyway, as has been mentioned, this law was unconstitutional on its face and that's that.
I see lots of people have got in before me to point out that the law they are seeking to employ has already been implicitly shown to be unconstitutional.
A good news broadcaster might have had an option reflecting that.
David B
Voting is at about 50 per minute, so both sets of bots must be fully operational. Thus it will end soon, as godbot votes are worth slightly less in percentage terms than sensibot votes. Faux News will pull the plug to avoid offending their readers.
I wonder how many of them would be (and probably are) screaming exactly the opposite with the constitutional ban on marriage in Texas.
"The ban on marriage may be inappropriate (and hilarious), but if it's in their constitution, it IS law. Step away from the alter, redneck."
What a horrible poll.
Yes. The law may be inappropriate, but if it's in their constitution, it IS law. Step aside, councilman.
No, it is NOT law because the 14th Amendment allows the U.S. Constitution to supersede the state constitution's policy.
Even in an internet poll, Fox News is loading the questions like they're WND or CBN. They're almost indistinguishable.
So, most of "Fox News" readers don't know law. Why does this not surprise me?
In Delaware, our constitution grants freedom of religion (or non-religion), but not before slapping atheists in the face.
Also, section 2 guarantees no religious test for office. So, at least we get that, even though we are obviously immoral people who are not fulfilling our duty as citizens.
I doubt there would be, but if any of my fellow Texas atheists are in favor of a new Texas secession, remember that the Texas constitution has a similar clause like this one that would bite us atheists in the rear if not for the US Constitution trumping it.
Classical "push poll".
Also...
"I hope this goes to court and the judge is the most right-wing, appointed by Dubya Bush, fundamentalist cracker they can find."
You mean like John Jones III of Kitzmiller v Dover fame - a conservative Christian appointed to the federal bench by George W in 2002?
And...
"Cracker?"
Yeah, we must be careful around those types. Gotta keep an eye out for bigotry, right?
@ CelticEvolution #30
Let me clarify:
"Misleading" was my term. I did not intend the sentence to be attributing it to you. I meant it to read as "the question is misleading, but worse than that, wrong."
My point was not that Bothwell won't have to go through the legal process, only that he shouldn't have to because this issue has been decided. The law has already been declared null and void which the poll question clearly (and deliberately, I feel) fails to mention. There is no question about Bothwell's eligibility and to imply that there is is wrong.
My point was that someone going straight to the poll as I did wouldn't even be aware there was an accompanying article to read. Even if the article was written by Fox and 100% fair and accurate, unless someone responding to the poll had the foresight to look for it, they wouldn't know and wouldn't have read that the issue of a religious test for office had already been decided in contradiction of what the poll question implies.
The theists are on a crusade to deny a legitimately elected city council member in Asheville, NC, his office because he is an atheist.
This disrespect for human rights and our constitution is wonderful news because it gives me another excuse to relentlessly ridicule Christian assholes.
Yes. The law may be inappropriate, but if it’s in their constitution, it IS law. Step aside, councilman.
I find this option really insulting. You don't get to vote in an opinion poll on whether something is law or not. It's misleading to people who don't realize that this is actually NOT a law just because it's written down in their state constitution.
I also think it's very slanted by the fact that there is no direct opposite of this option. The only "Yes" option makes it sound as if we would rather it wasn't a law, rather than clarifying that it is not actually a legally binding requirement!
What, "It's 'Merry Christmas', not 'Happy Holidays'" isn't enough?
Only a Christian could find a way to be offended by someone saying "Happy Holidays" to them...
Another Faux News article on a related topic is linked on the side of that poll:
http://www.foxnewsradio.com/2009/12/14/public-schoo-kids-singing-to-all…
Classic push poll technique. They chose the weakest con argument to make it look like those who are opposed are suggesting ignoring a valid law rather than saying the law has already been declared invalid.
tsg, I find it ironic that many who take offence at "Happy Holidays" then seek to exert commerical pressure to reverse the trend. At that point you know that it's all about selfish feel-good factors and zero about community (and not much to do with religion, either).
# 46
I saw that article too. I agree that children shouldn't be mandated to sing about any religious figure in a public school. It is a secular institution. But I think that these fundies would be yelling persecution if they'd stop children from singing "Jesus is God."
48% Yes
49% No
Now marginally ahead;
good 50%
evil 46%
liberal democrats 4%
Good work in just a few hours.
Also, in the spirit of poll-crashing. Please help us get Rage to xmas number 1. see my comment in the GOATS ON FIRE thread.
Also, comment 44. Faux Noise is lying by omission. Yes, lying – if you want to play journalist, you can't not know basic facts about the constitution of your own country, so the omission is deliberate.
Oh, and, 16,292 votes so far, increasing fast.
I'm glad I wasn't the only one to notice the obscene wording of the answers to this poll (as someone who makes up funny polls for his fantasy football league, I'd think that I'd be able to spot a ridiculous poll when I see one). The question to me, is how long will it take for the people who honestly believe Fox News to stop smoking that opiate, and actually see what is occurring. Personally, I'm not very optimistic on that point.
I'm kind of surprised that a case hasn't made it to the Supreme Court for this one, or that the Supreme Court hasn't issued an injunction to the states to get those clauses out of their constitutions. If we're really lucky, we'll see someone petition the Supreme Court on that subject due to this case.
They have and it has. The law is null and void.
It being 2009 has nothing to do with it. The federal constitutional rights were definitively made binding on the states with the 14th amendment.
Look at the calendar -- it's after 1868!
On the null and void issue -- although the Supreme Court ruled in Torcaso that religious tests are unconstitutional, it ruled that in the specific context of striking down a Maryland law, not this one. That doesn't actually invalidate the NC law until a court applies Torcaso to it. The body's lying there, and everyone knows it's dead, but you still need the doctor to call it.
Usually, having your law declared unconstitutional in principle is enough to induce states to take them off the books. [Insert insult about southern intransigence here.]
What I don't get is how this even applies to atheists, since atheism is most definetely not a religion.And doesnt this law just say you cant hold office if you have the wrong(not one of the 30000 spin-offs of ours)religion?
As a Brit, my knowledge of US constitutional law is a little sketchy but I was under the impression that there was an amendment somwhere in the US constitution that specifically forbade any religious test in relation to the holding of public office. If this is so, surely this issue is, to borrow a transatlantic colloquialism, a 'no brainer'? The state authorities seem to be clearly acting in contravention of federal law.
Unless, of course, this provision has been interpreted to only apply to tests of which theism you subscribe to and so is considered not to extend to cover atheists. This would seem to be an odd position for a country whose constitution offers both freedom of religion and freedom from religion.
Would any chronic inhabitants of the sunny USA care to explain this to me? Preferably in suitably simple terminology given the fact that I am a begginer who comes from a country with its own completely seperate set of crazy (and in our case often really archaic)laws.
IANAL, but I don't know if we even need the 14th Amendment in this case. Here's the text of the No Religious Test Clause:
The text specifically and explicitly states the the clause applies to officials "of the several States", so states' rights aren't even a question there. The only issue I can think of is whether or not a city councilman could be considered as an official of the state. Since the states are internally unitary and not federal, I think it would apply.
At least the numbers add up to 100%
I'm going to be in Asheville next week. Maybe I can bring back some souvenirs of some kind.
Glad to have done my part! As of the current time, the numbers have officially flipped! Over 60% no, and only 35% yes. :D
@ #1
Someone already did...
From the poll website
"The way the question is given "may be" is vague. Thats why were in this trouble is because these laws were put there so we won't have faggots as mayor of Houston Tex or muslims in the W.H"
What--George? Something derogatory about "Cracker"? Yeah? What's it to ya? What do you have against Crackers? You got sumpin' against red hair and freckles? Eh? Eh, George?
Hilarious quote from the comments over at Faux News. One of you should be called Master Poe. This is a Poe, right?
"@venomspit Separation of church and state was never intended to mandate that elected officials shouldn't believe in God. It was written so that the church tyranny that was taking place in Europe at the time wouldn't get a foothold here in the U.S. They didn't want the Anglican, Catholic, etc. church making policy! They did however want elected officials to believe in God and have a foundation in biblical truth. The founding documents show that in many places. @maaxflux as for mythology, believing that there is no God relies on even more faith once one takes into consideration all of the evidence at hand. You should stop equivalencing atheism and intelligence. The former never means the latter, it usually means that somebody's mommy and daddy didn't love them enough as a little boy. That's not God's fault."
I like how, instead of a simple yes and no, they accompany choices with silly little arguments:
“No. Look at the calendar - it's 2009! Religion - or lack of it - should never be a factor in qualifying someone for public office.”
Fox News imagines that its readers would not be able to think without this handy bit of assistance.
Atheism is not a religion, but the courts have held that it is covered under freedom of religion. The law applies to atheists and "any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."
That isn't quite correct. In Torcaso v. Watkins, the Supreme Court affirmed that the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit states (all of them, not just Maryland) from requiring a religious test for public office. That makes all religious tests null and void. In effect, it puts the onus on North Carolina to show why their law prohibiting "any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God" from holding office does not qualify as a religious test and, unless they have good reason to believe so, no judge in his right mind is going to find otherwise with the Torcaso precedent on the books. Judges can be removed from office for ethics violations for refusing to abide by the Consitution. See Judge Roy Moore.
From reading the comments here and elsewhere, I get the idea that Asheville is a bit of a blue spot in the south, but I'm still surprised that they wanted to elect, or were even able to elect, an open non-believer to any office. Even in so-called "liberal" areas, minorities (including non-believers) have it rough in politics. That we are even hearing about this ridiculous bigotry is already a triumph for free speech and perhaps another blow in the battle for true religious freedom in America.
Despite the inconvenience to Bothwell, and the slight to the voters and all of us other non-believers, maybe this will work out to be a good thing. Let the whackadoos scream bloody murder and show their bigotry. If the guy could get elected in the first place, then maybe there are many other reasonable people who will fail to admire the bigotry and obstructionism. Bothwell shouldn't have to deal with this, but the problem won't go away until people do deal with it. If the whackadoos do actually manage to make a case out of this and delay his taking office, I hope he has the will and resources to stick it out. Good luck and best wishes!
Also, I would like to note the inherent silliness of the wording of the poll answers. There could be some bias there(as is usual with a Fox poll), but it also looks to me like the writer was trying to tailor the answers to his/her own perception of the attitudes involved. And doing a damned shitty job of it!
The first one was written so as to shield the bigotry. We don't hate you, it's just these outdated laws are so hard to change(even though it's already known to be mostly unenforceable and totally unconstitutional) and of course, WE MUST OBEY THE LAW! We're not bigots, we just value the rule of law which upholds our very civilization! So sorry! No offense! RIIIIGHT!
Notice the use of the word "inappropriate". Not "unconstitutional". Not "wrong". Nice to know that enshrined bigotry that cuts to the deepest level of freedom we have in this country is only "inappropriate". I'd hate for anyone to be made uncomfortable by being forced to abide by the constitution, after all.
Also, I notice that it is the only one with a call to action..."Step aside, Councilman." Nice play to the authoritarian fantasies of their readers.
The second one is incomprehensible to me. It seems to be saying that they aren't sure that religious tests should be allowed, but what does the end mean? "...because it opens the door to all kinds of beliefs..." are they saying that allowing religious tests might possibly eliminate certain desirable believers from holding office, or that it might possibly favor a Muslim or a witch (shriek) over a white non-believer? And what the hell does "deter fitness for public office mean"? Illiterate, incoherent mish-mash with no real position. It's sad yet funny that it got four times as many votes as the briefer and more honest option, "I'm not sure". People would rather have an ignorant opinion than simply admit their ignorance. I wonder if anybody who voted for the second answer could actually tell me in plain English what that option actually means, even if only to them.
And then the third. It seems like an appeal to tolerance, and that's good (and surprising, for Fox) yet compared to the first question, there is a hint of flippancy. While it's not obviously the "wrong" answer, it doesn't say anything about real tolerance or the constitutional issues( the real issues at hand), and I'm sure that some older conservatives would read that response as "Hey, it's 2009, screw the law, we can do what we want! Let's illegally elect an atheist so we can eat babies and turn everyone's kids gay!"
All in all, it's not nearly as biased as many of the polls I've seen on Fox or other right-wing sources, but the stupid is still very strong.
Anyone feel dirty after visiting "foxnews".com?
It was especially revulsive telling Firefox No Script to "Allow foxnews.com" however temporarily.
Successfully pharyngulated - currently 68 to 29 against!
Yup, still 29%, which is about 29 too high.
Rachel Maddow showed the video of Mr. Bothwell and the other electees swearing in today. After reciting the oath of office, the judge asked Mr. Bothwell, "Is that your solid affirmation?". He replied, "It is.". I was beaming with pride! Rachel had good comments as always. I'm aNC native and Asheville is one of our most progressive towns. But the fundies won't let this go unchallenged and they are throwing tantrums. I'm sure they will drag it thru our courts without a care of the cost to taxpayers. Hopefully, this case will be a precedent that removes this unconstitutional law from NC lawbooks.
I like the disclaimer at the bottom of the poll:
"This is not a scientific poll"
@ 13
Oh Fox thinks, that's what makes them truly evil. A horde of unquestioning bigoted minions is an abuntant source of income and must be carefully cultivated. Keeping them that stupid is quite an art.
Which'll be their excuse now that the poll has been thoroughly swamped (25/2/73/<1 at current count)!
Oh balls. Didn't like the less than symbol!
74%!
What I find most distressing about all this is the fact that to this point (to my knowledge) no one has asked what sort of response they'd expect if this sort of 'poll' were applied to, say, a 1900 statute forbidding women from holding office, or an 1850 statute forbidding persons of 'color' from holding office?
Would the same jackholes who voted "I am a bigot" raise their voices in the same manner?
--
Stan
A somewhat unique aspect of this is that H.K. Edgerton, who is bringing the complaint, is an African-American,former president of the NAACP,"..who is known for promoting 'Southern heritage' by standing on streets decked out in a Confederate soldier's uniform and holding a Confederate flag". I want to add some smart-ass comment but...WTF?!
The funny thing about the poll is the explanation for the no vote. Instead of citing the Constitution as the reason for a person voting no to have, they make some ridiculous appeal to times changing. The reason they give should be translated as such, In our benevolence and 'progressive outlook' we allow these subhuman atheists the right to hold office. Are we not merciful?
This law is unconstitutional no matter what the year is. These Fox people are clueless.
Marcus,
This guy H.K. Edgerton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._K._Edgerton, is a southern heritage apologist. I have seen him on some documentary that escapes my memory at the moment. I remember him marching around town in a confederate uniform.
Unfortunately, yeah Stan, they would. They'd just be less obvious about it. Probably try to claim he's ineligible because he's secretly foreign-born, or some such nonsense.
He does not need to resign. If the law was enforceable he would not have been sworn in. This is a non-issue The supremacy clause in the U.S. Constitution disallows any other government from enforcing a law which conflicts with the Constitution.
As for it being on the books. There are laws on the books in every government entity which are unenforceable. It's easier to leave them on the books and ignore them than to take the time to remove them.
He can't be forced to resign. Not only does the Constitution prohibit religious tests it also prohibits any government entity from extablishing a law which limits the rights of citizens under the Constitution and Federal law.
But it is an interesting test of the public knowledge of how the government works.
How about "No, look at the US Constitution that says there shall be no religious test for holding public office. The US Constitution has supremecy over state constitutions. Where there is contradiction, the Federal document trumps the state document.
I just realized that the second option might be in code:
Could they perhaps have been trying to blow a dog-whistle about Muslims, and a certain presidential guy? If so, it was probably too subtle for the readers, but it seems a plausible interpretation of their usual fact-mangling.
Yes. 23% (8,013 votes)
Maybe. 2% (533 votes)
No. 76% (26,846 votes)
Where's the option for "NC's constitution is a violation of the federal constitution therefore they should be expelled from the Union"?