Dec 13 2009
Constitutional Challenge Threatened Against Asheville Councilman Over Atheist Belief
There was a bit of suspense in Asheville, N.C., Tuesday morning about whether newly-elected city council member Cecil Bothwell should or would be sworn into office. Bothwell, who was elected last month, is an atheist. The North Carolina constitution still bars atheists from holding elected office.
“I’m not saying that Cecil Bothwell is not a good man, but if he’s an atheist, he’s not eligible to serve in public office, according to the state constitution,” said H.K. Edgerton, a former Asheville NAACP president told the Asheville Citizen-Times.
Article 6, section 8 of the North Carolina constitution states: “The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.”
These threats against Bothwell are completely unacceptable. This is precisely what the Establishment Clause was placed in the Constitution to prevent. Neither the Federal nor any state government has the legal authority to apply a religious litmus test to any public office holder. In a free society we do not bully other people based on their religious beliefs or lack thereof.
Article VI Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution reads: ” The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
That’s pretty cut and dry and trumps whatever language still survives in the North Carolina State Constitution. Mr. Edgerton certainly has the right to be upset about Councilman Bothwell’s beliefs, but he does not have the right to have him expelled from office based on those beliefs. That’s an issue to be settled in the future between Bothwell and God.
Why would the article mention the ‘former’ affiliation of the speaker with NAACP? Especially in the way it is done? Is the writer trying to manipulate (sex-up or inflame) this into something more than it is? And discredit Edgerton’s position to question the legality of the matter in some minds, perhaps, due to his NAACP background (and he was PRESIDENT, too!)? Hmm.
Or is it that Edgerton’s trying to make something for himself out of an issue of an antiquated state constitutional law.
Isn’t there a war going on somewhere . . . . ?
Without knowing anything about a possible relationship or history between the parties, I think the article was just attempting to give some type of background on the person quoted. Otherwise, it just looks like a random person commenting on the situation.