State Constitutions.

[id82]

So I got into an argument with a Christian recently. Basically the Christian brought up the bullshit with the founders intending this to be a Christian nation, and I brought up the fact that no where in the Constitution is the word God mentioned, and that the declaration of Independence is not a law document and only mentions a creator not a specific God. She then went on to state that the state constitutions mention God, so therefore we are a country founded on Christian and Religious principles.
I never read any of the state constitutions before so I was horrified to find out how nearly all of them mention God right off at the start:

Alaska: We the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land, in order to secure and transmit to succeeding generations our heritage of political, civil, and religious liberty within the Union of States, do ordain and establish this constitution for the State of Alaska.

Alabama: We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution.

California: We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.

Delaware: Through Divine goodness, all men have by nature the rights of worshiping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences, of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring and protecting reputation and property, and in general of obtaining objects suitable to their condition, without injury by one to another; and as these rights are essential to their welfare, for due exercise thereof, power is inherent in them; and therefore all just authority in the institutions of political society is derived from the people, and established with their consent, to advance their happiness; and they may for this end, as circumstances require, from time to time, alter their Constitution of government.

New York: We The People of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our Freedom, in order to secure its blessings, DO ESTABLISH THIS CONSTITUTION.

Washington: We, the people of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this constitution.

Just a few but they all name a God/Creator/Supreme Ruler of the Universe. I had no idea what to say after this. How was this allowed to be in the State constitutions. Has anyone seen an argument for and against this before?

Some states including Arkansas, Mississippi and Texas require that you at least acknowledge a Supreme Being to hold a public office in that state. It's like they took what the National Constitution said and completely reversed it.

[Wykked Wytch]

Regarding Washington (my state), "the Supreme Ruler of the Universe" thing could also be interpreted as Masonic. (freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/tablelodge.pdf)

"Supreme Ruler of the Universe, we reverently invoke thy blessing at this time, may we give thanks for the food before us and may our meeting thus begun in order be conducted in peace and closed in harmony."

Technically, it should never be allowed in state constitutions. Under the 14th amendment (which neo-cons hate), states have to submit to federal laws and restrictions, which includes the separation of church and state guaranteed in the First Amendment.

1. The Federal government cannot endorse or prohibit religion. (1st Amendment)
2. Referring to God in a religious manner in a legal state document is endorsing religion.
3. State governments are under the jurisdiction of the Federal government and must abide by the same laws they do. (14th Amendment)
4. Therefore, a state government that endorses religion in its constitution is breaking the law.

Some fundies might object to point 2, saying that because America is "a Christian nation" anyway, that they have the right to celebrate the majority's religious beliefs over all others. However...

[MaybeNever]

Hooray for Washington! I too am here.

[Thejebusfire]

Keep in mind that the founding fathers were long in the grave by the time all of the US became states.

[Old Viking]

This is true. It was also declared unconstitutional about the mid-1830s.

[Shano]

Oct 23, 2011 16:45:55 GMT -5 Old Viking said:

This is true. It was also declared unconstitutional about the mid-1830s.

I am confused. What was declared unconstitutional? Was it the Supreme Court that did?

[Random Guy]

Don't worry about state constitutions too much. Every state constitution is required to be subject to the United States Constitution, hence why amendments to them (e.g. Prop 8) can be challenged in federal courts.

[erictheblue]

Oct 23, 2011 14:58:36 GMT -5 id82 said:

Some states including Arkansas, Mississippi and Texas require that you at least acknowledge a Supreme Being to hold a public office in that state. It's like they took what the National Constitution said and completely reversed it.

If challenged, those clauses would be struck down. "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." U.S. Const, Art VI.

[Yaezakura]

Oct 23, 2011 20:45:14 GMT -5 erictheblue said:

Oct 23, 2011 14:58:36 GMT -5 id82 said:

Some states including Arkansas, Mississippi and Texas require that you at least acknowledge a Supreme Being to hold a public office in that state. It's like they took what the National Constitution said and completely reversed it.

If challenged, those clauses would be struck down. "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." U.S. Const, Art VI.

This, pretty much. No state constitution can contradict any article of the US constitution. Most of the time, things like this are left in simply because it is a hassle to change, and are simply left unenforced.

If someone did try to enforce a kind of religious test for someone to hold office, no matter how right-wing the Supreme Court is at the time, they'd laugh in their faces. There's no real weaseling around the fact the fact that it's illegal. The words are there in the constitution and as plain as can be, even for idiot fundies.

Not that it's likely to stop some from trying when an open atheist in one of those states does finally taken an important office.

[Undecided]

Oct 23, 2011 14:58:36 GMT -5 id82 said:

So I got into an argument with a Christian recently. Basically the Christian brought up the bullshit with the founders intending this to be a Christian nation, and I brought up the fact that no where in the Constitution is the word God mentioned, and that the declaration of Independence is not a law document and only mentions a creator not a specific God. She then went on to state that the state constitutions mention God, so therefore we are a country founded on Christian and Religious principles.

The secular attitude of the Framers (and in particular the strong secularism of Madison and Jefferson) was rare for their time and anachronistically farsighted. The majority of their contemporaries saw the United States as a Christian nation and would have had no reservations using federal resources for the furtherance of Christianity in general were it not for religious differences among the populations of the various States.

Oct 23, 2011 21:12:36 GMT -5 Yaezakura said:

Oct 23, 2011 20:45:14 GMT -5 erictheblue said:

If challenged, those clauses would be struck down. "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." U.S. Const, Art VI.

This, pretty much. No state constitution can contradict any article of the US constitution. Most of the time, things like this are left in simply because it is a hassle to change, and are simply left unenforced.

This is not true. To be precise, this is not the reason that religious tests are illegal at the state level. For most of Supreme Court history, the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted as restricting the federal government. The First Amendment's religious clauses were not applied to the States until Everson v. Board of Education (1947). Religious tests were not found to be unconstitutional until Torcaso v. Watkins (1961): in this case, the Supreme Court deliberately ignored Article VI and instead based their argument on incorporation of the First Amendment protections as described in Everson.

[cestlefun17]

Preambles to Constitutions are unenforceable provisions. If the state can't do something to you using that clause, then you don't have standing to sue against it. Judges cannot actually delete text from laws; they can only render them enforceable. These Preambles are already unenforceable, so the matter is moot.

the fact that no where in the Constitution is the word God mentioned

This is not true. There are a few instances where years are followed by "In the Year of Our Lord." This has never been interpreted to allow for government endorsement of religion, and in any event, does not appear past the original constitution (meaning, even if it did at some point allow for endorsement of Christianity, this would be superseded by the ratification of the 1st Amendment).