atheist_in_foxhole

From the Declaration of Rights:

From Article 36:

Then it goes on to say:

From article 37 (my favorite):

Constitution

These are only a few of the references to "god" in the state constitution. Why hasn't this stuff been removed?!

Feather

Um, er, because according to your own quote nothing therein shall be construed as an "establishment of religion."

Yeah, that's it. So they avoid the whole CSS thing by simply stating that requiring a belief in God to serve the public interest in official capacity is not the same as establishing religion.

Which, in the most technical sense, is probably true.

There. How'd I do?

nogods4me

Yeah, ain't it grand. And we are supposed to be a liberal state.
The reason it hasn't been removed is twofold:

1) No one has challenged it in court, so the courts have not ordered it removed.

2) No politician is dumb enough, or brave enough, to stand up and point out the obvious unfairness and hypocrisy of those sections and introduce a bill to remove them.

atheist_in_foxhole

For some reason I doubt that your delightful new governor will do anything about this.

Jack

The whole thing about state constitutions and religious tests is rendered meaningless by the US Constitution's absolute ban on "religious tests" for holding office or positions of trust anywhere in the USA.

This is one US prohibition that does not depend on the 14th Amendment to apply to subordinate branches of Government, since it is in the original Constitution and does NOT use the words "Congress shall make no law". Religious tests are just banned outright.

Since the Maryland clause is made null and void by the US Constitution, there is little to be gained by getting it removed. There are plenty of battles to be fought against religion's functional intrusion into government without taking on those that, like this Maryland clause, have no practical effect.

We should pick our battles more judiciously. When the battle against creationism, school prayer, government-sponsored invocations, etc. are won, then we can go after things that have only symbolic effect, as does this Maryland clause.

Jack

braces_for_impact

There are 11 states with simular constitutional references. A fat rubber stogie to the first to list them all!

nogods4me

Of course the new governor won't change it, but neither did the old and equally delightful ex-governor.

Stephen Maturin

The U.S. Supreme Court shot down the Article 37 provision on First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds in Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961). Of course, a finding of unconstitutionality doesn't require that the offending language be excised; it only means that the language is unenforceable.

As for why the language is still there, I think nogods4me hit the nail on the head. Removing the language would require amending the state constitution. That in turn would require a 3/5 vote of both legislative houses plus a majority vote of the citizenry in an election. Md. Const. art. XIV, sec. 1. Politically, there's no way to jump through the first hoop. I can see the headlines now: "Devil-Worshipping Commie Vermin Legislators Vote to Banish God from Maryland".

Shake

Yeah, no practical effect, but if it's no big deal, then why keep it? As you said, it's null and void by the US Constitution. Shouldn't there be some consistency between federal and state law? Oh yeah, 'cause it's going to easier to stop those things than change an illegal document! C'mon, I think it's the other way around. Use these "little" battles that are more easily won as stepping stones towards the "bigger fish" like Congressional chaplains, getting God off our money, etc.

Jack

Since the "law" is what is enforced and enforceable, not just what is written, there IS consistency. Federal law is supreme in all instances where there is a conflict, and the "religious test" clauses are far from the only point of conflict. There are literally thousands of state/federal legal mismatches and none of them are any less deserving of rectification than any others. But, since there is no practical benefit to be gained from changing them, no one bothers about them.

However, if you like to spend effort to no practical effect, be my guest. The true art of political action, however, is to know how to fight battles that 1) you can win and 2) have some practical meaning.

For instance, the Civil Rights movement went after restoring the voting rights of blacks long ago with, at first, limited success. But they persevered and won that battle.

Only recently have they gone after annoying things that had no practical effect, such as the Confederate flag issue. Then, BECAUSE of their earlier success with voting rights, they were partially successful (the pols couldn't completely ignore all those black voters).

Revising a state constitution is not an easy task, and once this process is started, it is impossible to predict what undesirable changes the reactionaries might try to insert in an effort to curry favor with the redneck vote.

The other things you list (Congressional chaplains and "God" on the money) also have no practical effect. I have never seen or heard a Congressional chaplain speak and the office has had no discernable effect on my life. The cost of the office, when spread over the US population, is infinitesimal. "God" on the money costs nothing and affects the value of the dollar not at all.

Yes, I would like to see our the original US motto returned to its place of honor and see "In God We Trust" relegated to the obscurity it so well deserves off of our money, but I would much rather see church tax exempt status removed from the tax code. Or, once and for all, boot the creationists out of the schools. And those are issues where skillful political action could provide some allies: Libertarians and sectarian Christians fearful of of "incorrect" sectarian influence.

Show Christians how separation of church and state is a BENEFIT to their sect (which is not really hard to do) and we may get them on our side in this initial battle. Then, when the "practical" changes are seen to have had good effects for religion (I am confident this will be so) as well as atheists, we might get them as allies (or at least not as enemies) in the battle for the symbolic issues.

These are political goals, all of them, and politics is the art of the possible (or at least the probable).

Jack