Who writes this stuff?
John J. McKay is an underemployed, grumpy, and aging liberal who lives in a small house with his clever wife, two cats, and a couple thousand books. To comment on anything in archy, send him an e-mail.


Mammoth Tales progress





Who is archy?
I introduced the patron cockroach, his creator, and his definitive artist in these two early posts.
One. Two.


Other sources of archy information
John Batteiger's DonMarquis.com
Jim Ennes's DonMarquis.org








Blogs I'm reading this week
Ahistoricality
Alicublog
The American Street
Bad Tux the Snarky Penguin
Bartholomew's notes on religion
Cocktail Party Physics
Cosmic Variance
Daily Kos
Demisemiblog
Dum Luks
The Early Days of a Better Nation
Eschaton
Firedoglake
The Greenbelt
Hatewatch
Hulabaloo
John Hawk's Weblog
Michael Bérubé
Mudflats
MyDD
The Nattering Nabob
Orcinus
Pacific Views
Pam's House Blend
Pandagon
The Panda's Thumb
Paperwight's Fair Shot
Peevish...I'm Just Saying
Pharyngula
Political Animal
Progressive Alaska
Progressive Gold
Rev. BigDumbChimp
Roger Ailes
Sadly, No!
ScienceBlogs
Seeing the Forest
Shakesville
Skeptico
Skippy the Bush Kangaroo
Slacktivist
Talk to Action
Talking Points Memo
TBOGG
That Would Be Me
Thinking Meat
Why Now?
Witness for the Prosecution
World O' Crap

The Liberal Coalition
archy
Bark Bark Woof Woof
Blog Around the Clock
Bloggg
Collective Sigh
Corrente (new home)
Corrente (old haunted mansion)
Dohiyi Mir
Echidne of the Snakes
First Draft
Florida Progressive Coalition Blog
Grateful Dread Radio
Iddybud Journal
The Invisible Library
Left is Right
Lefty Side of the Dial
Musing's musings
Pen-Elayne
Rational Animal
Rick's Cafe Americain
Rook's Rant
Rubber Hose
Scrutiny Hooligans
SoonerThought
Speedkill
Stupid Enough Unexplanation
WTF Is It Now??
Yellow Doggerel Democrat
You Are a Tree







ip-location

This site is certified 69% GOOD by the Gematriculator



Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]







Archives

Thursday, July 09, 2009

Lost in translation

One of the great joys of the mammoth project has been going over the primary sources. Just a few years ago, I wouldn't have been able to research this topic without massive financial support. The seventeenth and eighteenth century sources are hard to find and the research would have involved traveling around to visit various rare book collections. Only a few have been reprinted in more recent times. Now, thanks to Project Gutenberg, Google Books, the Library of Congress, and others, I can look at digitalized versions of most of the sources I need by way of the internet. The digitalized versions preserve more than just the text, by presenting the appearance of the original--the fonts, the layout, and the illustrations--I can get a much better sense of how these ideas were communicated and experienced at the time. The only thing missing is the smell of old paper. The price I pay is in temptation. What started out as a popular history is slowly being transformed into the dissertation I never wrote. Why take anyone's word on anything when I can go hunting for the original source?

With the Teutobocus, the original sources are all in French, a language I do not read. Computers and the internet help here, but it's hard work. My process is something like this. When I find a French source, what I usually find are PDF or JPEG images of the pages. If I find them on Google Books or Internet Archive, I can use the Optical Character Recognition (OCR) scan that they provide to get a text that I can work on. If not, I have to download the PDF or JPEG images and run them through an OCR program on my computer to get a text file. Once I have a text file, I need to clean it up. OCR scans are always filled with mistakes and pre-nineteenth century printing is always messy and out of alignment. On top of that, OCR programs are completely stymied by older typographic conventions like ligatures and the long S. Of course, there are some images that the OCR programs can't read at all. In those cases I have to transcribe it by hand. Typing something in a language you don't understand amounts to pounding it out one letter at a time.

After creating an accurate text file, the translation begins. I need at least five browser tabs open to translate. I usually have two machine translation tools, a dictionary, a verb reference, and a search window in front of me. I copy a paragraph out of my text file and paste it into the first translation tool (Google Translate). The first translation is rarely usable. A little history is in order here.

The first Académie française dictionary was published in 1694, so when I work on any documents from prior to that date, I'm dealing with a melange of regionalisms, outdated traditional spelling, and personal preferences of the printers. My job might be easier if I had a translation tool that worked in Occitan (the southern french dialect), for comparison purposes, but I haven't been able to find a free one. The two dictionaries published in the eighteenth century made major spelling reformations. The dictionary of 1835 made a vowel change that affected the imperfect conjugation of every single verb in the language. So, my first machine translation only serves to identify the words I need to work on. I'm getting fairly adept at identifying the patterns of change and can correct a paragraph for a second pass through the translator in less than a minute.

If I can make out the sense of the author's meaning at this point, I paste the text into a new file and go on to the next paragraph. If I can't, I start using the other browswer windows to do some detective work. If the first translator produces English words, but nonsensical sentences, I try using the other translation program. I also go to the second translator for words that stump the first program. Sometimes breaking a sentence into phrases gives me a better result than attempting to translate full sentences. Splitting apart the contractions that appear in every sentence also helps.

If the second translator doesn't help, I move on to the dictionaries and verb references. I can usually recognize when a word is a verb and look for less common conjugations. I can also hunt for secondary meanings for words. If I can't find a meaning for a word, my final resort is to Google it and see what turns up. When looking at some letters of Nicolas-Claude Fabri de Peiresc, a savant who wrote in Aix-en-Provence in the first third of the seventeenth century, I found the solution to several problematic words in Catalan and Italian.

If none of that works, i call up someone who can read French and whine until they help me.

Labels:


posted by John at 11:39 PM |

We're about to invade Poland

Sen. Jim DeMint must be jealous of the attention his fellow South Carolina Republican, Governor Mark Sanford is getting. There's no other way to explain his run of contemptibly stupid public statements this week.

On Monday, he defended the overthrow of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya by saying it "was no more a coup than was Gerald Ford’s ascendance to the Oval Office or our newest colleague Al Franken’s election to the Senate.” Ah, yes. I remember watching with satisfaction as the army stormed the White House to drag Nixon from his bed and put him on a plane for Mexico City. And when the Minnesota National Guard physically booted Norm Coleman out of office--well, that was just the miracle of democracy in action.

Last night, in a book tour event at the National Press Club event, he explained where Obama's "power grab" (by getting elected) has brought us:
Part of what we're trying to do in Saving Freedom is just show that where we are, we're about where Germany was before World War II...

DeMint is clearly a joke, but the increasingly irresponsible rhetoric coming from Republicans and right-wing pundits is no laughing matter. The cumulative effect of all their talk about secession, treasonous liberals, the need for revolution, and how Obama is leading us into communism/fascism/shariah law isn't merely polarizing, it's dangerously polarizing. If you combed through the last forty years, it wouldn't be difficult to find examples someone on the left making every one of those claims about the right. But the speakers you would find would almost always be fringe characters, with limited exposure in the national media, and no support among mainstream politicians. It's the right that has begun assassinating people in America, not the left. My friend David Niewert over at Crooks & Liars and in his new book, The Eliminationists, should be required reading for anyone who wants to understand the dynamic at work here.

Meanwhile, Poland and France had better start looking over their shoulders.

Labels: ,


posted by John at 10:29 AM |

Wednesday, July 08, 2009

Another mammoth case of plagiarism

Since dealing with my mother's estate, it's taken me a while to get started again working on the mammoth book and related topics. First on the list is finishing the Teutobocus story that I began over a month ago (part 1, part 2). Part three will be here next week and the conclusion soon after. Meanwhile, I'll give you this little tidbit to fill the time.

The original sources for the Teutobocus story are all in French, a language I do not read. My first priority in hunting for the sources has been to find English translations. When that fails, I hunt for French sources and translate them using brute force. (Explaining my method made this post too long, so I pulled that section out to use in another post. Tomorrow, I promise.)

The earliest of the Teutobocus sources was a pamphlet, credited to a monk named Jacques Tissot. This pamphlet was sold as a means of advertising the traveling show that took a set of bones, reputed to have been Teutobocus', on a tour of France in the years following 1613. Luckily for me, the complete pamphlet was republished in a volume of the anthology Variétés historiques et littéraires published in 1859. The editor of the series, Edward Fournier, also provided a commentary on the pamphlet. When I found this volume on line, I copied article and commentary, made a rough translation with Google Translate and set it aside for later polishing whil i looked for some other sources.

I considered myself extra lucky to find an English translation of Tissot's pamphlet in a 1912 volume of a journal I'd never heard of, The Post-Graduate. The translator was an American medical doctor named Charles Greene Cumston. I read over Cumston's introduction and saved it along with his introduction.

Last week I was spending some time on translations and started polishing Fournier's commentary. It looked familiar. A few minutes later, I had my crude translation of Fournier side by side with Cumston's introduction. This is what I found. I'm giving Fournier's french original and my translation, so readers who are comfortable in French can check my translation.

These are the first few sentences of each.
Fournier's commentary: Cette pièce se rapporte à un événement singulier qui intéresse, comme on le verra, plutôt la paléontologie que l’histoire: étrange problème, dont la solution s’est fait attendre plus de deux siècles, de 1613 à 1835, et qui aboutit, en fin de compte, à faire restituer à un mastodonte des ossements que pendant deux cents ans on avoit prêtés à un géant imaginaire!
My crappy translation: This piece refers to a singular event of interest, as will be seen, to paleontology rather than history: strange problem, whose solution has been waiting more than two centuries, from 1613 to 1835, which resulted, the restoration of a mastodon bones that for two hundred years had been attributed to an imaginary giant!
Cumston's introduction: The brochure which I will reproduce and translate, relates to a most singular occurrence and, as will be seen, is a most interesting document bearing on the history of osteology. The problem was very strange, the solution of which remained unsolved from 1615 to 1835, and in the end resulted in the reconstruction of a mastodon, whose bones for two centuries were supposed to be those of an imaginary giant.

Fournier's commentary: La découverte eut lieu le 11 janvier 1613, dans le Bas-Dauphiné, à quatre lieues de Romans. Des ouvriers qui travailloient dans une sablonnière voisine du château de Chaumont, propriété du marquis de Langon, y trouvèrent, à 17 ou 18 pieds de profondeur, un certain nombre d’ossements de grande dimension...
My crappy translation: The discovery took place on 11 January 1613, in the Bas-Dauphiné, four leagues from Romans. Workers who toiled in a sand pit near Castle Chaumont, the property of the Marquis de Langon, found at a depth of 17 or 18 feet, a number of large bones...
Cumston's introduction: The discovery took place on January 11, 1613, in Bas-Dauphiné, four leages from Romans. Some workmen who were digging in a sand pit near the Chateau of Chaumont, belonging to the Marquis de Langon, came upon a certain number of very large bones at the depth of some seventeen or eighteen feet...

A list of the actual bones found follows. The similarity of two lists of the same thing proves nothing. Skipping past the list we find.
Fournier's commentary: La découverte, déjà importante, l’eût été davantage si quelques ossements n’eussent été brisés par les ouvriers ou ne fussent tombés en poussière sitôt qu’ils avoient été exposés à l’air.
My crappy translation: The discovery, already important, would have been better if some of the bones had not been broken by the workers or fallen into dust as soon as they were exposed to air.
Cumston's introduction: The discovery, although important, would have been still more so, had not some of the bones been broken by the workmen or fallen to pieces when exposed to the air.

Fournier's commentary: Aujourd’hui la science ne tarderoit pas à s’emparer de pareilles dépouilles ; alors ce fut l’ignorance et le charlatanisme qui firent main-basse dessus.
My crappy translation: Today science would not delay to take such remains, but then it was ignorance and charlatanism that took over.
Cumston's introduction: Today science would not be long in seizing upon such findings, but at the time of which we speak ignorance and charlatinism (sic) held them in their grasp and soon fables commenced to be carried abroad.

Fournier's commentary: Les fables commencèrent à circuler; on parla d’un tombeau où les ossements auroient été découverts, mais dont on ne retrouva jamais la moindre trace; de médailles de Marius mêlées aux débris, et enfin d’une inscription sur pierre dure portant ces mots: Theutobochus rex.
My crappy translation: Stories began to circulate, they spoke of a tomb where the bones were found, but we never found the slightest trace; medals of Marius were mixed with debris, and an inscription on stone takes on these words: Theutobochus rex.
Cumston's introduction: A tomb in which the bones were found was talked of, but no trace of this was ever found; likewise medallions of Marius were said to have been unearthed with other debris, and lastly, it was rumored that an inscription had been found on stones, bearing the words: Theutobochus rex.

Fournier's commentary: Deux individus qui s’étoient tout d’abord donné un intérêt dans l’affaire: Mazuyer, chirurgien à Beaurepaire, ville des environs, et David Bertrand ou Chenevier, qui y exerçoit les fonctions de notaire.
My crappy translation: Two individuals who had first expressed an interest in the case: Mazuyer, a surgeon from Beaurepaire, and David Bertrand (or Chenevier), who exercised the functions of notary the area.
Cumston's introduction: Two individuals who were first to interest themselves in the affair, to wit, Mazuyer, a surgeon of Beaurepaire, a nearby town, and David Bertrand or Chenevier, a notary of the same place.

There should be no doubt in anyone's mind, at this point, that Cumston was a plagiarist. Was this a one time slip up or was Cumston a hardened serial plagiarist? I don't know. I'd never heard of Cumston before this, but a glance at Google Books reveals that he wrote dozens of books and articles on various aspects of medicine during the early twentieth century and that he was quite prominent in a number of learned medical societies. After WWI he quit practicing medicine and taught the history of medicine in Geneva.

Thomas Mallon's entertaining study of plagiarism, Stolen Words, points out that, counterintuitively, the great plagiarists are neither lazy nor unimaginative. They are often people who have already produced admired works. When exposed, their associates are baffled because they seemed the last people who would need to plagiarize. But it is their very success that makes them plagiarize. They feel pressure to keep producing in order to maintain their position of respect. Once they discover how satisfying it is, they act like a television serial killer, growing bolder and taking greater risks, daring the world to discover them. I don't know if that describes Cumston, but he leaves a tantalizing clue in this article.
Fournier's commentary: Tout cela, selon nous, impliquoit un doute indirect.
My crappy translation: All this, in our view, implied indirect doubt.
Cumston's introduction: To my mind, all this implies an indirect doubt.

Cumston has not only appropriated Fournier's work, he has attempted to absorb Fournier's person at the same time. He has taken taken the most personal part of Fournier's writing, a casual opinion delivered in the first person, and called it his own. This is the hubris of the plagiarist.

If there was any reason to doubt that Cumston was a plagiarist, and not simply sloppy with his attributions, this should settle matters. Cumston managed to repeat a semi-error of Fournier's.
Fournier's commentary: Ce détail, que nous trouvons dans la Vie de Peiresc, par Requier (1770, in-8, p. 144), n’a pas été connu de M. de Blainville.
My crappy translation: This detail, which we find in the Life of Peiresc by Requier (1770, in-8, p. 144), was not known to M. de Blainville.
Cumston's introduction: This detail, which was unknown to de Blainville, is to be found in Requier's Life of Piersec, published in 1770.

While Requier does indeed mention the detail that Fournier and Cumston say he does, but what neither mentions is that Requier's 1770 account of the Teutobocus story is drawn almost word for word from an account by Pierre Gassendi published in 1641. In the introduction to his book, Requier is very explicit in his indebtedness to Gassendi. In fact, parts Requier's book (including the Teutobocus story) so closely follow Gassendi's that I could make a strong case for calling Requier a plagiarist, except for the fact that he acknowledged Gassendi as his source. If Cumston had really done is own research, it's highly likely that he would have noticed Requier's bow to Gassendi and looked at that source. Gassendi's book was not obscure, after the 1641 Latin edition was published, it was translated and republished several times (including an English edition of 1657).

As I said, Cumston wrote many books and articles. I have no plans to pour over the rest of his oeuvre any time soon. If anyone has a free month or two to waste, I'll let them do it. For now, the lesson is simple: some crimes come and go and are forgotten, but plagiarism is forever.

Labels: , ,


posted by John at 11:10 PM |

Tuesday, July 07, 2009

Layers of idiocy

The big bloggers have all picked up on this bit from a Palin piece running on ABC News' site this morning.
As to whether another pursuit for national office, as when she joined Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in the race for the White House less than a year ago, would result in the same political blood sport [opposition research and accusations of ethics violations], Palin said there was a difference between the White House and what she had experienced in Alaska. If she were in the White House, she said, the "department of law" would protect her from baseless ethical allegations.

"I think on a national level, your department of law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out," she said.

There is no "Department of Law" at the White House.

There is more wrong with this that that there is no Department of Law in the federal government. There is in the Alaskan government, so it could be an honest slip on her part. As Steve Benen points out, the real problem with that statement is in what she thinks a federal "Department of Law" can do.
It's tempting to think Palin may have been referring to the Justice Department, but it's not "in the White House," and it doesn't have the authority to "throw out" charges against the president. Maybe she's thinking of the White House Counsel's Office, but again, it has the ability to defend against allegations, not "look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out."

She clearly shares the Bush/Cheney idea of a royal president who can do whatever he/she wants and who is above the law and constitution.

I see one more thing wrong with her statement. Unless the author of the piece (Kate Snow) is misreporting it, the discussion was about running for office, not holding office. Palin doesn't appear to understand the distinction. Even if there was an all powerful Department of Law in the White House that could stop investigations and prosecutions, it would not be at the beck and call of everyone running for office, it would not have the power to stop political campaigns from conducting opposition research, and it would not have the power to stop people from making accusations. On that last point, her recent ham-handed effort to silence Shannyn Moore is clear evidence that she does believe executives have the power to stop people from making accusations or even from reporting that someone made accusations.

Palin's ego, idiocy, and sense of martyrdom are like an onion; every time you peel away one layer, you find another layer of ego, idiocy, and sense of martyrdom underneath.

Labels: ,


posted by John at 10:43 AM |

Monday, July 06, 2009

She hides it so well

Alaska attorney Thomas Van Flein on his client Sarah Palin:
She's actually very articulate.

Does anyone remember the old Saturday Night Live skit where Phil Hartman played Ronald Reagan switching between his senile grandfather public persona and his evil mastermind private persona. I'm not sure why I thought of that.

Labels: ,


posted by John at 8:36 PM |

Friday, July 03, 2009

Sarah gets bored

Sarah Palin had a press conference earlier today to announce that she is retiring as governor of Alaska in three weeks. Like her fellow Republican governor, Mark Sanford, she managed to babble her way through more than half of her time before finally getting to the point. It was vintage Palin, a mixture of faux folksiness, self-congratulation (look at all the stuff I did and how I stood up to all those people who were mean to me) and whining (you won't hear any of that in yer mainstream media, also). She managed to wrap herself in her children and whine once more about the people who picked on them. She said the best way she can end the same old politics and help hardworking, average Joe Sixpacks, sittin' around their kitchen tables, in this great land of ours, supportin' the troops and worryin' about the liberal media and activist judges and special interests who think they know better that real Americans how to protect our amazing freedoms, is by bein' a maverick and rejectin' politics as usual by workin' outside big government, by golly, 'cause she's not a quitter and that's why she's quittin' the same old politics as usual, also. She didn't say what she's going to do outside the government and how that's going to support freedom.

This fits in perfectly with her high-school princess personality. She got the title and the attention she wanted, but now it's hard work and not as fun as she thought it would be, so she's going to leave and chase after the next shiny thing. No doubt, she'll show us what a good mother she is and how much she supports family values by pulling the kids out of school and having Willow look after Trig while she races around the country performing her populist act before rabid crowds of teabaggers. Winking at resentful, but adoring libertarians gets her much more of the kind of attention she so pathetically craves. Maybe she can have feud with Paris Hilton. If we're lucky, maybe this flakiness will come back to haunt her in the 2012 primaries.

I have have to agree with her on one thing, though: this is what's best for Alaska. I wish I could be sure that having her down here was good for America.

Also.

Labels: , ,


posted by John at 4:50 PM |

Thursday, July 02, 2009

This just in...

Michael Jackson is still dead. We take you now to our live coverage of the street in front of some building where he no longer is. And be sure to tune in at seven for our exclusive interview with Generalissimo Francisco Franco who will give his perspective on being still dead.

Labels:


posted by John at 6:52 PM |

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Religion in the states

The Constitution of the United States makes no mention of God and only two references to religion. The first reference is in the body: Article VI "[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The second reference is the first line of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." The state constitutions are far less restrained. While looking for voting rights in the state constitutions, I began to collect some interesting trivia from the freedom of religion clauses. The topic was interesting enough that I went back and collected the freedom of religion clauses from all fifty of the state constitutions (all fifty do include it in their enumeration of rights). This task was made easier by stumbling across Know Your Rights!, a site by Ken Lombardi where he has gathered all of the states' bills of rights.

At first I thought it would be interesting to look not just at the texts of the freedom of religion clauses in the various bills of rights, but at the position of that clause. My thinking was that how high or low they placed religious freedom in the enumeration of rights might be an indication of how much importance the authors of the constitutions placed on religious freedom. In the table below, I have included the section or article number for religion in each bill of rights. I don't think the results showed what I had hoped, but the results were nevertheless interesting.

A quick glance at the religion clauses shows that most states have used a limited number of standardized forms for the clause. The similarities are even more obvious when you look at the complete bills of rights. What they reveal, is that writing a constitution isn't as hard as it sounds. It appears that most constitutions were not so much written from scratch, as copied and modified using the constitution of another state. The placement of the religious clause is only a safe indication of the priority of the state that wrote the original version. Tracing the lineage of the various state constitutions would be an interesting project for another day.

Another detail revealed by skimming over the full bills of rights is that most of them have rather self-consciously copied the US Bill of Rights. Most of us should find that predictable. In some ways it's also a bit silly. Is it really necessary for every state to repeat that, in peacetime, troops cannot be quartered in homes without the consent of the owner? In a way, repeating such rights, religious freedom included, undermines the idea that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If a right is already guaranteed by one authority, what is the point of another authority also guaranteeing it, unless that second authority claims the power to override the first authority? I suppose that's a question for legal scholars*.

Noticing that the state bills of rights copy the US Bill of Rights brings us back to the placement of religious freedom. Freedom of religion is the first right named in the First Amendment, yet many states have moved it lower in their bills of rights, in some cases much lower. In Arkansas it follows a clause on eminent domain. In Maryland it comes right after a prohibition on holding two offices at once and twenty-five places down from a clause making Annapolis the capital (that's a right?). Why the reordering of the rights? That's another question for legal scholars.

Looking at the question of religion, we can't ignore the preambles. The US constitution makes no mention of God in its preamble. Forty-five state constitutions invoke God, or some euphemism for God's name, in their preamble. Only Oregon and Tennessee have constitutions that do not mention God in some form in their preambles. The constitutions of New Hampshire, Vermont, and Virginia do not have preambles at all, as far as I can tell. For the record, the Constitution of the Confederate States, a quick rewrite of the US Constitution, did invoke "the favor and guidance of Almighty God." I have included all of these invocations in the table below.

A common claim made by the religious right when arguing against the concept of separation of church and state is that freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution or in or in the present interpretation of the first amendment offered by recent supreme courts. Those who make that claim will find comfort in reading reading state constitutions. Half of the constitutions frame the right in some form similar to Kentucky's: "The right of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience." These states include nine of the original thirteen colonies and six of the eleven Confederate states. Four states--Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Virginia--refer to a duty to worship God. The religious right, besides taking comfort in the idea that freedom of religion means only freedom of form, would be quick to point out the monotheistic language. These state constitutions could be read to mean only believers in the Abrahamic form of religion are entitled to freedom of conscience. Not only could the concerns of atheists be ignored by the state, so too could the concerns of Hindus, Buddhists, animists, and Wiccans be ignored. Ironically, Satanists would be covered by that interpretation. They acknowledge the monotheistic god; they just don't like him. Fortunately, no higher court (outside Alabama) is going to go along with that interpretation.

The ugliest bit of hypocrisy is that, in four states, the above interpretation is supported by other language in the constitutions. In Maryland, North Carolina, Oregon, and Texas, atheists are specifically forbidden to hold public office. In those states, freedom of religion really does not include freedom from religion.

A few other odds and ends:
  • Most states make a point of adding to their religion clause text that says religious belief does not entitle a person to break the law. Idaho makes that point and very specifically names bigamy and polygamy as two crimes not excused by religion. This is aimed at Idaho's large Mormon population and at the tendency of Mormon polygamists to locate their compounds in peripheral areas like the Idaho mountains.
  • In Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Hampshire, and Ohio, religion is named as being "essential" to good government and public order.
  • Vermont advises "every sect or denomination of Christians ought to observe the Sabbath or Lord's day, and keep up some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed will of God."
  • Virginia says "...it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other."
  • Mississippi allows Christian churches to keep a foot in the schoolhouse door: "The rights hereby secured shall not be construed ... to exclude the Holy Bible from use in any public school of this state."


One way of looking at the the religious language, invocations to the Christian God, and indications that freedom of religion means nothing more than being free to decide which Protestant church you're going to attend, is to say it's no more meaningful than "In God We Trust" on a coin or "under God" inserted into the pledge. It is a violation of separation and shouldn't be there, but it's far from the most dangerous violation of separation going on. Another way of looking at it is to say it is serious. These little violations help create an atmosphere that makes the bigger violations more likely. While a few big cases get the most visible news coverage, the struggle to maintain the wall of separation is almost entirely fought in small local skirmishes. Documents like state constitutions carry a great deal of weight in these skirmishes. The sloppy and indefensible way in which the topic is dealt with in many constitutions creates cracks and loopholes that the opponents of separation will find and will exploit to the best of their ability.

Two years ago, someone in Ohio noticed that their constitution and law code still used the terms "idiots," "lunatics," and "insane" to designate any and all kinds of limitations on mental ability. Their response was to make a purely cosmetic change to the law code to use kinder and gentler terms. They decided it was too much of a bother to change the constitution, so that document still says, "No idiot, or insane person, shall be entitled to the privileges of an elector." The law might reflect a more nuanced attitude about who can exercise the full rights of an adult, but as long as the constitution says something different, there will always be a danger that those rights will be removed. Most states have that same casual attitude about religious rights. They have left the old language, privileging monotheism (specifically Christianity), in place because they don't intend to do anything about it. But as long as the language is there, it's like leaving a vial of nitro in your medicine cabinet. There will always be a possibility that it will explode.

Today there are hundreds of religious extremists looking for an opening to impose their religion on others. The Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches, which provided endorsement for nearly ten percent of the chaplains in the US military, regularly violates the codes that govern chaplaincies, using their positions of authority to proselytize the troops and carry their missions overseas. Their actions are illegal and unconstitutional but flourish anyway because of the unwillingness of federal authorities to confront violations of the wall of separation. The US constitution provides far fewer openings for such abuse that do most state constitutions, yet the abuse is rampant. Your state might not be acting on constitutional language that says religion is necessary for good order or that bans atheists from public office, but as long as that language is there, it presents a threat. Like the nitro in the medicine cabinet, it's best to get rid of the language before it causes an explosion.

For all you rights and constitution buffs, here's the state of your state:

Alabama
We, the people of the State of Alabama ... invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God...
Sec. 3 That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles.

Alaska
We the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land...
Sec. 4 No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Arizona
We the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties...
Sec. 12. The liberty of conscience secured by the provisions of this Constitution shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the State. No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise, or instruction, or to the support of any religious establishment. No religious qualification shall be required for any public office or employment, nor shall any person be incompetent as a witness or juror in consequence of his opinion on matters of religion, nor be questioned touching his religious belief in any court of justice to affect the weight of his testimony.

Arkansas
We, the People of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government; for our civil and religious liberty...
Sec. 24. All men have a natural and indefeasible** right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can, of right, be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship; or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority can, in any case or manner whatsoever, control or interfere with the right of conscience; and no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment, denomination or mode of worship, above any other.

California
WE, the People of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom: in order to secure its blessings, do establish this Constitution...
Sec. 4. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed in this State; and no person shall be rendered incompetent to be a witness on account of his opinions on matters of religious belief; but the liberty of conscience, hereby secured, shall not be so construed as to acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this State.

Colorado
We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe...
Sec. 4. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever hereafter be guaranteed; and no person shall be denied any civil or political right, privilege or capacity, on account of his opinions concerning religion; but the liberty of conscience here by secured shall not be construed to dispense with oaths or affirmations, excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the good order, peace or safety of the state.

Connecticut
The people of the State of Connecticut acknowledging with gratitude, the good providence of God...
Sec. 3. The exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever be free to all persons in the state; provided, that the right hereby declared and established, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or to justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state.

Delaware
Through Divine goodness, all men have by nature the rights of worshiping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences...
Sec. 1. Although it is the duty of all men frequently to assemble together for the public worship of Almighty God; and piety and morality, on which the prosperity of communities depends are hereby promoted; yet no man shall or ought to be compelled to attend any religious worship, to contribute to the erection or support of any place of worship, or to the maintenance of any ministry, against his own free will and consent; and no power shall or ought to be vested in or assumed by any magistrate that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner control the rights of conscience, in the free exercise or religious worship, nor a preference given by law to any religious societies, denominations, or modes of worship.
Sec. 2. No religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, under this State.

Florida
We, the people of the State of Florida, being grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty...
Sec. 3. There shall be no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting or penalizing the free exercise thereof. Religious freedom shall not justify practices inconsistent with public morals, peace or safety. No revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution.

Georgia
[W]e, the people of Georgia, relying upon the protection and guidance of Almighty God...
Part 12. All men have the natural and inalienable right to worship God, each according to the dictates of his own conscience, and no human authority should, in any case, control or interfere with such right of conscience.

Hawaii
We, the people of the State of Hawaii, grateful for Divine Guidance...
Sec. 3. No law shall be enacted respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Idaho
We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom...
Sec. 4. The exercise and enjoyment of religious faith and worship shall forever be guaranteed; and no person shall be denied any civil or political right, privilege, or capacity on account of his religious opinions; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be construed to dispense with oaths or affirmations, or excuse acts of licentiousness or justify polygamous or other pernicious practices, inconsistent with morality or the peace or safety of the state; nor to permit any person, organization, or association to directly or indirectly aid or abet, counsel or advise any person to commit the crime of bigamy or polygamy, or any other crime. No person shall be required to attend or support any ministry or place of worship, religious sect or denomination, or pay tithes against his consent; nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship. Bigamy and polygamy are forever prohibited in the state, and the legislature shall provide by law for the punishment of such crimes.

Illinois
We, the people of the State of Illinois - grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He has permitted us to enjoy and seeking His blessing upon our endeavors...
Sec. 3. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever be guaranteed, and no person shall be denied any civil or political right, privilege or capacity, on account of his religious opinions; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be construed to dispense with oaths or affirmations, excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the State. No person shall be required to attend or support any ministry or place of worship against his consent, nor shall any preference be] given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.

Indiana
WE, the people of the State of Indiana, grateful to ALMIGHTY GOD...
Sec. 2. All men shall be secured in their natural right to worship Almighty God, according to the dictates of their own consciences.

Iowa
WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF IOWA, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuance of those blessings...
Sec. 3. The General Assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; nor shall any person be compelled to attend any place of worship, pay tithes, taxes, or other rates for building or repairing places of worship, or the maintenance of any minister, or ministry.

Kansas
We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges...
Sec. 7. The right to worship God according to the dictates of conscience shall never be infringed; nor shall any person be compelled to attend or support any form of worship, nor shall any control of or interference with the rights of conscience be permitted, nor any preference be given by law to any religious establishment or mode of worship. No religious test or property qualification shall be required for any office of public trust, nor for any vote at any election, nor shall any person be incompetent to testify on account of religious belief.

Kentucky
We, the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy, and invoking the continuance of these blessings...
Sec. 1. All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned:
Second: The right of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience.
Sec. 5. Right of religious freedom. No preference shall ever be given by law to any religious sect, society or denomination; nor to any particular creed, mode of worship or system of ecclesiastical polity; nor shall any person be compelled to attend any place of worship, to contribute to the erection or maintenance of any such place, or to the salary or support of any minister or religion; nor shall any man be compelled to send his child to any school to which he may be conscientiously opposed; and the civil rights, privileges or capacities of no person shall be taken away, or in anywise diminished or enlarged, on account of his belief or disbelief of any religious tenet, dogma or teaching. No human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.

Louisiana
We, the people of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, economic, and religious liberties we enjoy...
Sec. 8. No law shall be enacted respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Maine
We the people of Maine ... acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity, so favorable to the design; and, imploring His aid and direction in its accomplishment...
Sec. 3. All men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences, and no one shall be hurt, molested or restrained in his person, liberty or estate for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience, nor for his religious professions or sentiments, provided he does not disturb the public peace, nor obstruct others in their religious worship; - And all persons demeaning themselves peaceably, as good members of the state, shall be equally under the protection of the laws, and no subordination nor preference of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law, nor shall any religious test be required as a qualification for any office or trust, under this State; and all religious societies in this State, whether incorporate or unincorporate, shall at all times have the exclusive right of electing their public teachers, and contracting with them for their support and maintenance.

Maryland
We the people of the State of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty...
Art. 36. That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefore either in this world or in the world to come.
Art. 37. That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.
Art. 38. That every gift, sale or devise of land to any Minister, Public Teacher, or Preacher of the Gospel, as such, or to any Religious Sect, Order or Denomination, or to, or for the support, use or benefit of, or in trust for, any Minister, Public Teacher, or Preacher of the Gospel, as such, or any Religious Sect, Order or Denomination; and every gift or sale of goods, or chattels to go in succession, or to take place after the death of the Sellor [sic] or Donor, to or for such support, use or benefit; and also every devise of goods or chattels to or for the support, use or benefit of any Minister, Public Teacher, or Preacher of the Gospel, as such, or any Religious Sect, Order or Denomination, without the prior or subsequent sanction of the Legislature, shall be void, except always, any sale, gift, or lease or devise of any quantity of land, not exceeding five acres, for a church, meeting house, or other house of worship, or parsonage, or for a burying ground, which shall be improved, enjoyed or used only for such purpose; or such sale, gift, or lease or devise shall be void. Provided, however, that except in so far as the General Assembly shall hereafter by law otherwise enact, the consent of the Legislature shall not be required to any gift, grant, deed, or conveyance executed after the 2nd day of November, 1948, or to any devise or bequest contained in the will of any person dying after said 2nd day of November, 1948, for any of the purposes here in above in this Art. mentioned.

Massachusetts
[We] the people of Massachusettes [sic], acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe, in affording us, in the course of his Providence, an opportunity ... of forming a New Constitution of Civil Government, for Ourselves and Posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a Design...
Art. II. It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publickly [sic], and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and preserver of the Universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, Liberty, or Estate, for worshipping GOD in the manner and season most agreeable to the Dictates of his own conscience, or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious Worship.
Art. XI. As the public worship of God and instructions in piety, religion and morality, promote the happiness and prosperity of a people and the security of a republican government; -- therefore, the several religious societies of this commonwealth, whether corporate or unincorporate, at any meeting legally warned and holden for that purpose, shall ever have the right to elect their pastors or religious teachers, to contract with them for their support, to raise money for erecting and repairing houses for public worship, for the maintenance of religious instruction, and for the payment of necessary expenses: and all persons belonging to any religious society shall be taken and held to be members, until they shall file with the clerk of such society, a written notice, declaring the dissolution of their membership, and thenceforth shall not be liable for any grant or contract which may be thereafter made, or entered into by such society: -- and all religious sects and denominations, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good citizens of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.

Michigan
We, the people of the state of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God...
Sec. 4. Every person shall be at liberty to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. No person shall be compelled to attend, or, against his consent, to contribute to the erection or support of any place of religious worship, or to pay tithes, taxes or other rates for the support of any minister of the gospel or teacher of religion. No money shall be appropriated or drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious sect or society, theological or religious seminary; nor shall property belonging to the state be appropriated for any such purpose. The civil and political rights, privileges and capacities of no person shall be diminished or enlarged on account of his religious belief.

Minnesota
We, the people of the state of Minnesota, grateful to God...
Sec. 16. FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE; NO PREFERENCE TO BE GIVEN TO ANY RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENT OR MODE OF WORSHIP. The enumeration of rights in this constitution shall not deny or impair others retained by and inherent in the people. The right of every man to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience shall never be infringed; nor shall any man be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any religious or ecclesiastical ministry, against his consent; nor shall any control of or interference with the rights of conscience be permitted, or any preference be given by law to any religious establishment or mode of worship; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of the state, nor shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious societies or religious or theological seminaries.
Sec. 17. RELIGIOUS TESTS AND PROPERTY QUALIFICATIONS PROHIBITED. No religious test or amount of property shall be required as a qualification for any office of public trust in the state. No religious test or amount of property shall be required as a qualification of any voter at any election in this state; nor shall any person be rendered incompetent to give evidence in any court of law or equity in consequence of his opinion upon the subject of religion.

Mississippi
We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and involving his blessing on our work...
Sec. 18. No religious test as a qualification for office shall be required; and no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect or mode of worship; but the free enjoyment of all religious sentiments and the different modes of worship shall be held sacred. The rights hereby secured shall not be construed to justify acts of licentiousness injurious to morals or dangerous to the peace and safety of the state, or to exclude the Holy Bible from use in any public school of this state.

Missouri
We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness...
Sec. 5. That all men have a natural and indefeasible** right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; that no human authority can control or interfere with the rights of conscience; that no person shall, on account of his religious persuasion or belief, be rendered ineligible to any public office of trust or profit in this state, be disqualified from testifying or serving as a juror, or be molested in his person or estate; but this section shall not be construed to excuse acts of licentiousness, nor to justify practices inconsistent with the good order, peace or safety of the state, or with the rights of others.
Sec. 6. That no person can be compelled to erect, support or attend any place or system of worship, or to maintain or support any priest, minister, preacher or teacher of any sect, church, creed or denomination of religion; but if any person shall voluntarily make a contract for any such object, he shall be held to the performance of the same.
Sec. 7. That no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect, or denomination of religion, or in aid of any priest, preacher, minister or teacher thereof, as such; and that no preference shall be given to nor any discrimination made against any church, sect or creed of religion, or any form of religious faith or worship.

Montana
We the people of Montana grateful to God for the quiet beauty of our state...
Sec. 5. The state shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Nebraska
We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom...
Sec. 4. All persons have a natural and indefeasible** right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No person shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship against his consent, and no preference shall be given by law to any religious society, nor shall any interference with the rights of conscience be permitted. No religious test shall be required as a qualification for office, nor shall any person be incompetent to be a witness on account of his religious beliefs; but nothing herein shall be construed to dispense with oaths and affirmations. Religion, morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the legislature to pass suitable laws to protect every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship, and to encourage schools and the means of instruction.

Nevada
We the people of the State of Nevada Grateful to Almighty God for our freedom...
Sec: 4. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference shall forever be allowed in this State, and no person shall be rendered incompetent to be a witness on account of his opinions on matters of his religious belief, but the liberty of conscience hereby secured, shall not be so construed, as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace, or safety of this State.

New Hampshire
Art. 5. Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and reason; and no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his peers on, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession, sentiments, or persuasion; provided he doth not disturb the public peace or disturb others in their religious worship.
Art. 6. As morality and piety, rightly grounded on high principles, will give the best and greatest security to government, and will lay, in the hearts of men, the strongest obligations to due subjection; and as the knowledge of these is most likely to be propagated through a society, therefore, the several parishes, bodies, corporate, or religious societies shall at all times have the right of electing their own teachers, and of contracting with them for their support or maintenance, or both. But no person shall ever be compelled to pay towards the support of the schools of any sect or denomination. And every person, denomination or sect shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any one sect, denomination or persuasion to another shall ever be established.

New Jersey
We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors
Sec. 3. No person shall be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshiping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; nor under any pretense whatever be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his faith and judgment; nor shall any person be obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or other rates for building or repairing any church or churches, place or places of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes to be right or has deliberately and voluntarily engaged to perform.
Sec. 4. There shall be no establishment of one religious sect in preference to another; no religious or racial test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust.

New Mexico
We, the people of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty...
Sec. 11. Every man shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and no person shall ever be molested or denied any civil or political right or privilege on account of his religious opinion or mode of religious worship. No person shall be required to attend any place of worship or support any religious sect or denomination; nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.

New York
WE, THE PEOPLE of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God...
Sec. 3. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed in this state to all mankind; and no person shall be rendered incompetent to be a witness on account of his opinions on matters of religious belief; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this state.

North Carolina
We, the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for the preservation of the American Union and the existence of our civil, political and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those blessings to us and our posterity...
ARTICLE I DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
Sec. 13. All persons have a natural and inalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the desires of their own consciences, and no human authority shall, in any case whatever control or interfere with the rights of conscience.
ARTICLE VI SUFFRAGE AND ELIGIBILITY TO OFFICE
Sec. 8. Disqualifications for office.
The following persons shall be disqualified for office:
First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

North Dakota
We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty,
Sec. 4. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall be forever guaranteed in this state, and no person shall be rendered incompetent to be a witness or juror on account of his opinion on matters of religious belief; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of this state.

Ohio
We, the people of the State of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God...
Sec. 7. All men have a natural and indefeasible** right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience. No person shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or maintain any form of worship, against his consent; and no preference shall be given, by law, to any religious society; nor shall any interference with the rights of conscience be permitted. No religious test shall be required, as a qualification for office, nor shall any person be incompetent to be a witness on account of his religious belief; but nothing herein shall be construed to dispense with oaths and affirmations. Religion, morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to pass suitable laws, to protect every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship, and to encourage schools and the means of instruction.

Oklahoma
Invoking the guidance of Almighty God…
Sec. 5. No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such.

Oregon
Section 2. Freedom of worship. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.
Section 3. Freedom of religious opinion. No law shall in any case whatever control the free exercise, and enjoyment of religeous [sic] opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.
Section 4. No religious qualification for office. No religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office of trust or profit.
Section
5. No money to be appropriated for religion. No money shall be drawn from the Treasury for the benefit of any religeous [sic], or theological institution, nor shall any money be appropriated for the payment of any religeous [sic] services in either house of the Legislative Assembly.
Section 6. No religious test for witnesses or jurors. No person shall be rendered incompetent as a witness, or juror in consequence of his opinions on matters of religeon [sic]; nor be questioned in any Court of Justice touching his religeous [sic] belief to affect the weight of his testimony.

Pennsylvania
WE, the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God...
Sec. 3. All men have a natural and indefeasible** right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishment or modes of worship.
Sec. 4. No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth.

Rhode Island
We, the people of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors...
Sec. 3. Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; and all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness; and whereas a principal object of our venerable ancestors, in the migration to this country and their settlement of this state, was, as they expressed it, to hold forth a lively experiment that a flourishing civil state may stand and be best maintained with the full liberty in religious concernments: We, therefore, declare that no man shall be compelled to frequent or to support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatever, except in fulfillment of his own voluntary contract; nor enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods; nor disqualified from holding any office; nor otherwise suffer on account of his religious belief; and that every man shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and to profess and by argument to maintain his opinion in matters of religion; and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or effect his civil capacity.

South Carolina
We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, grateful to God for our liberties...
Sec. 2. The General Assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble and petition the government or any department thereof for a redress of grievances.

South Dakota
We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties...
Sec. 3. The right to worship God according to the dictates of conscience shall never be infringed. No person shall be denied any civil or political right, privilege or position on account of his religious opinions; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse licentiousness, the invasion of the rights of others, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state.
No person shall be compelled to attend or support any ministry or place of worship against his consent nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious establishment or mode of worship. No money or property of the state shall be given or appropriated for the benefit of any sectarian or religious society or institution.

Tennessee
Sec. 3. That all men have a natural and indefeasible** right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience; that no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any minister against his consent; that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given, by law to any religious establishment or mode of worship.
Sec. 4. That no political or religious test, other than an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and of this State, shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state.

Texas
Humbly invoking the blessings of Almighty God...
Sec. 4. No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust in this State; Nor shall anyone be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledges the existence of a Supreme Being.
Sec. 5. No person shall be disqualified to give evidence in any of the courts of this state on account of his religious opinions, or for want of any religious belief, but all oaths or affirmations shall be administered in the mode most binding upon the conscience, and shall be taken subject to the pains and penalties of perjury.
Sec. 6. All men have a natural and indefeasible** right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place or worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship. But it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect equally every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship.
Sec. 7. No money shall be appropriated or drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any sect, or religious society, theological or religious seminary, nor shall property belonging to the State be appropriated for any such purposes.

Utah
Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty...
Sec. 4. The rights of conscience shall never be infringed. The State shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office of public trust or for any vote at any election; nor shall any person be incompetent as a witness or juror on account of religious belief or the absence thereof. There shall be no union of Church and State, nor shall any church dominate the State or interfere with its functions. No public money or property shall be apportioned for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or for the support of any ecclesiastical establishment. No property qualification shall be required of any person to vote, or hold office, except as provided in this Constitution.

Vermont
Art. 3rd. That all men have a natural and unalienable right, to worship Almighty God, according to the dictates of their own consciences and understandings, as in their opinion shall be regulated by the word of God: and that no man ought to, or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any minister, contrary to the dictates of his conscience, nor can any man be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of his religious sentiments, or peculiar mode of religious worship; and that no authority can, or ought to be vested in, or assumed by, any power whatever, that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner control the rights of conscience, in the free exercise of religious worship. Nevertheless, every sect or denomination of Christians ought to observe the Sabbath or Lord's day, and keep up some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed will of God.

Virginia
Sec. 16. Free exercise of religion; no establishment of religion.
That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other. No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened*** in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. And the General Assembly shall not prescribe any religious test whatever, or confer any peculiar privileges or advantages on any sect or denomination, or pass any law requiring or authorizing any religious society, or the people of any district within this Commonwealth, to levy on themselves or others, any tax for the erection or repair of any house of public worship, or for the support of any church or ministry; but it shall be left free to every person to select his religious instructor, and to make for his support such private contract as he shall please.

Washington
We, the people of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties...
Sec. 11. Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state. No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment: Provided, however, That this article shall not be so construed as to forbid the employment by the state of a chaplain for such of the state custodial, correctional and mental institutions as in the discretion of the Legislature may seem justified. No religious qualification shall be required for any public office or employment, nor shall any person be incompetent as a witness or juror, in consequence of his opinion on matters of religion, nor be questioned in any court of justice touching his religious belief to affect the weight of his testimony.

West Virginia
Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia, in and through the provisions of this Constitution, reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God and seek diligently to promote, preserve and perpetuate good government in the state of West Virginia for the common welfare, freedom and security of ourselves and our posterity.
Sec. 11. .... No religious or Political test oath shall be required as a prerequisite or qualification to vote, serve as a juror, sue, plead, appeal, or pursue any profession or employment...
Sec. 15. No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever; nor shall any man be enforced, restrained, molested or burthened***, in his body or goods, or otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess, and by argument, to maintain their opinions in matters of religion; and the same shall, in no wise, affect, diminish or enlarge their civil capacities; and the Legislature shall not prescribe any religious test whatever, or confer any peculiar privileges or advantages on any sect or denomination, or pass any law requiring or authorizing any religious society, or the people of any district within this State, to levy on themselves, or others, any tax for the erection or repair of any house for public worship, or for the support of any church or ministry, but it shall be left free for every person to select his religious instructor, and to make for his support, such private contract as he shall please.

Wisconsin
We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom...
Sec. 18. The right of every man to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of his own conscience shall never be infringed; nor shall any man be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry, against his consent; nor shall any control of, or interference with, the rights of conscience be permitted, or any preference be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship; nor shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of religious societies, or religious or theological seminaries.

Wyoming
We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political and religious liberties...
Sec. 18. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference shall be forever guaranteed in this state, and no person shall be rendered incompetent to hold any office of trust or profit, or to serve as a witness or juror, because of his opinion on any matter of religious belief whatsoever; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state.
Sec. 19. No money of the state shall ever be given or appropriated to any sectarian or religious society or institution.

* While they are explaining that, they should also explain why state constitutions prohibit treason. Treason is only a crime against the United States and is enforced by federal authority. You cannot commit treason against a state. And why is the treason clause put in the bill of rights in most states? Are they saying our creator has endowed us with an inalienable right to be executed for treason? That's just creepy.

** Indefeasible is roughly a synonym for inalienable.

*** Burthen is an obsolete variant spelling of burden. I had to look it up. Now that I think about it, "The Burthening" sounds like a horror movie.

Labels: , ,


posted by John at 11:49 PM |

Beck fails history

Glenn Beck, 30 June 2009.
How can the world not be laughing at us? We have all these resources. Why did we buy Alaska in the 1950s? We bought Alaska for the resources. And now we say no!

I don't even know where to start. He makes Sarah Palin look like a mental giant.

Labels: , ,


posted by John at 9:22 PM |

Voting rights

A Mark (I'm not sure which one) pointed out in the comments to my post on mental health and voting rights, that Georgia has limitations that are not mentioned in their constitution. I should have pointed out that I only looked at constitutions. I'm sure trawling through the law codes would find lots of other restrictions and interesting trivia. But a project that time-consuming would be more suitable to dissertation or book than to a couple of blog posts. Then again, it's in the nature of blogging that someone obsessive enough could produce an entire blog or carnival dedicated exclusively looking at constitutions. It would certainly produce some interesting discussions. They might already exist, for all I know. As for me, I'm going to do one more post on the subject of state constitutions and then lay off for a while. That's not to say I might not be lured back someday.

Labels: ,


posted by John at 12:32 PM |

Copyright 2003-2009 John J. McKay. Use what you want, but give credit where credit is due.
Powered by Blogger Pro™ Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com