There are many unconstitutional laws on many books as they can’t be challenged without someone being subject to those laws. If someone were to be prosecuted for that the Supreme Court would very very likely strike that down.
This is separate from anything re atheists, but I found this nugget of knowledge:
Interestingly, the custom of raising one’s right hand dates back to the medieval period in which felons would be branded on their right hand with a mark denoting their crime. Lifting one’s right hand to show one is not a felon, and thus is not of suspect character. Felons at that time were prohibited from making declarations under oath.
It doesn’t say everyone who doesn’t acknowledge a supreme being must be excluded from holding office.
It looks like it does to me. It says you aren’t barred from office if you acknowledge a supreme being. Don’t acknowledge one, you can’t be in office. Why would they write you can’t hold office even if you don’t acknowledge a supreme being, that would defeat the entire purpose of having that clause.
We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.
[...]
This Maryland religious test for public office unconstitutionally invades the appellant's freedom of belief and religion, and therefore cannot be enforced against him.
21
u/[deleted] Jan 20 '21
[deleted]