Removing idiots from the constitution
Posted March 30, 2007
The Arkansas Constitution bars "idiots and insane persons" from voting. But in 2008, voters will have the opportunity to change the constitution to make the wording a wee bit more sensitive. (If the referendum passes, insane Arkansans still won't be able to vote.)
The state currently discriminates against idiots, insane persons and atheists, too. According to the Arkansas Constitution: "No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court."
Arkansas is reportedly one of a handful of states with laws specifically targeting non-believers. Texas is another.
The Lone Star constitution states: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."
Comments
How did Bill Clinton get elected there? They must have rescinded that statute.
Can we get a statute stopping "Insane Persons and Idiots" from RUNNING for office in Kentucky? That would pretty much give us a whole new general assembly.
Yeah buddy.
The logic on banning atheists from office works like this, and it goes all the way back in ecclesiastical law: If you don't believe in God, you can't take an oath, because an oath is a promise made not just to man, but to God.
So, if you can't take an oath, that is, either an oath of office, or an oath to tell the truth, you can't hold a public office, or even be a witness or a juror in a court. In states that required legal pleadings to be signed under oath, you couldn't even file a lawsuit.
Now, in this day and age, these laws are clearly unconstitutional, and I'm sure have been held so somewhere. More modern statutes, such as Kentucky's allow someone to take an oath by either swearing (indicating a belief in God) or "affirming," a term which is the civil equivalent of an oath: One affirms that the testimony will be truth, but without reference to God. Interestingly, many strong believers in christianity have religious reservations against taking an oath in a civil matter, and thus "affirm" rather than "swear" when they are required to take oaths.
As to the idiot part, in the 19th century, "idiot" was a legitimate medical term that ultimately fell into colloquial use and lost its medical meaning entirely.
This shows language that is merely outdated, not meant to be malicious. It should certainly be amended.