Religion
Related: About this forumSouth Carolina State Senator Brought “Atheism” Rumor To Governor
South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley is in a fight on Facebook about the religious faith of an appointee.
posted on April 17, 2014 at 1:52pm EDT
Republican South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and a state senator from her own party are in an argument on Facebook over whether or not a state appointee is an atheist, something the state senator confirms she once raised with the governor.
The Facebook argument began with hearings over the states Department of Social Services, which has come under fire in recent months after repeated reports of child abuse and neglect, some of which resulted in high-profile deaths.
The agencys director, Lillian Koller, testified before the state legislature Wednesday amid calls for Kollers resignation. Haley appointed Koller in 2011.
Some of the governors allies argue that the hearings are being used as a weapon to damage Haley politically in an election year. Still, Haley has stood by Koller
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/south-carolina-state-senator-asked-governor-whether-appointe
elleng
(130,126 posts)or Hindu, or Sikh???
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Oddly enough.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)as a "raghead" during an election.
She really should be more sensitive to this whole issue.
elleng
(130,126 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)taking more of a stand in support of the director.
She is basically saying that it would be a problem if the secretary is, in fact, an atheist, when she should be saying that it doesn't make a bit of difference.
okasha
(11,573 posts)which is the quickest way to make enemies in politics.
stage left
(2,934 posts)South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution
okasha
(11,573 posts)Look it up.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)ever wonder how that makes atheists feel?
The only reason they don't remove it I'm guessing is because it would be unpopular to do so. But I feel leaving such explicitly bigoted law on the books is not good for society and is an implicit "fuck you" to whoever is being discriminated against.
stage left
(2,934 posts)And it was used against a man named Silverman who wanted to be a Notary. I think the year was about 1997, over 30 years after Torcaso. Silverman v Campbell. I have no doubt that it could come up again, forcing a person to go to court to get their Constitutional rights when they shouldn't have to do so. I should not have said that avowed atheists cannot be elected in SC, but that an avowed atheist will probably have to go to court to obtain the rights he should already have. Or, he can just not mention that he's an atheist and swear the oath while crossing his fingers.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Every rumor must be investigated!
Holy fuck, that this isn't bigger news and these bigots aren't resigning shows the power and privilege of religion in SC in full swing.