Atheists, clergymen and duelists may not hold public office in Tennessee, at least according to the state’s constitution.
Adopted in 1796, Tennessee’s founding document is no stranger to outdated laws. Past provisions of the constitution outlawed both integrated schools and interracial marriages. Similarly, Article IX of the state constitution still prohibits atheists from holding office, despite a 1961 Supreme Court ruling that effectively rendered those provisions unconstitutional.
For atheists like Todd Stiefel, chair of the national atheist advocacy group Openly Secular, the present wording of the state’s constitution represents the larger problem of discrimination against atheists occurring across the country.
“I view it as a slap in the face for anybody in the state of Tennessee,” Stiefel said, noting that he feels the unconstitutionality of the provisions is largely beside the point. “Having provisions like this codified in the state constitution tells non-believers that your government thinks you’re a second-class citizen.”
Tennessee is one of seven states with a constitution specifically barring people without faith from holding public office. Openly Secular is currently lobbying the Tennessee state government to change the constitution’s wording, though such a measure would require a new amendment to the document — a lengthy process that can take up to five years if successful.
Despite their efforts to bring equality to atheists at a governmental level, Stiefel said he understands that much of the problem lies in society’s overwhelmingly negative view of people without religion. In America, 45 percent of people said they would vote for a qualified atheists running for office, according to Scientific American Magazine.
At a recent Christian event in Florida, Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson claimed atheists were incapable of morality, painting them as people unable to understand the concept of right and wrong.
Whether it’s condemnatory comments from a reality star or outdated wording in a government document, Stiefel said he views them as equally damaging to the well-being of atheists and agnostics across the country.
“This institutionalized form of discrimination built into the constitution perpetuates negativity that we need to educate about,” Stiefel said.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, Larry Rhodes, president of the non-secular group Atheists of Knoxville, said he sees no harm in the wording of the founding document.
With a difficult amendment process, which includes several votes in the legislature as well a referendum, Rhodes said he feels there is no pressing need to alter provisions already made powerless by federal rulings.
“We can make amendments all we want to and change the laws all we want to, but we cannot change the wording of the constitution itself because it’s a founding document,” Rhodes said.
Similarly viewing the provisions as “archaic,” Tennessee State Senator Richard Briggs said he also does not see the need for immediate change to state’s constitution. Voicing no support for the barring of either atheists or clergymen from holding public office, Briggs said he feels governmental action would largely be a waste of time.
“If the courts have already ruled on it and have said some of those laws are null and void, we can go through all the motions you can go through on it, but it’s really just a gesture now,” Briggs said.
Regardless of the issue’s outcome, Stiefel said he hopes his work to ensure equal protection and representation for those without religion will not go unnoticed.“Whether you’re Christian, Jew, atheist or other,” he said, “we can almost all agree that the government should treat us equally and that the government shouldn’t discriminate against us based on our religious beliefs.”
