The New York Times reports:
A bookkeeper named Roy Torcaso, who happened to be an atheist, refused to declare that he believed in God in order to serve as a notary public in Maryland. His case went all the way to the Supreme Court, and in 1961 the court ruled unanimously for Mr. Torcaso, saying states could not have a “religious test” for public office.
But 53 years later, Maryland and six other states still have articles in their constitutions saying people who do not believe in God are not eligible to hold public office. Maryland’s Constitution still says belief in God is a requirement even for jurors and witnesses.
Now a coalition of nonbelievers says it is time to get rid of the atheist bans because they are discriminatory, offensive and unconstitutional. The bans are unenforceable dead letters, legal experts say, and state and local governments have rarely invoked them in recent years. But for some secular Americans, who are increasingly visible and organized, removing the bans is not only a just cause, but a test of their growing movement’s political clout.
Todd Stiefel, the chairman and primary funder of the Openly Secular coalition, said: “If it was on the books that Jews couldn’t hold public office, or that African-Americans or women couldn’t vote, that would be a no-brainer. You’d have politicians falling all over themselves to try to get it repealed. Even if it was still unenforceable, it would still be disgraceful and be removed. So why are we different?”
I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, there is no justification whatsoever for any of these laws, which are offensive to freedom of conscience and to the First Amendment. On the other hand, because the Supreme Court has now ruled such tests to be flatly illegal, they aren’t actually “laws” any more. (Before the First Amendment was “incorporated,” the states could legally do as they wished in this. Now they cannot.)
The question, then, is how much of a priority is repeal? The tidy side of me says that it would be nice to clear the documents of their redundant features. The practical side of me says that prioritizing this is a massive waste of time, and that removal can wait until the charters are next amended. And, as an atheist myself, I wonder this: Have Todd Stiefel and his friend not got better things to do?