State Law or Individual Right: Is There a Right to Not Declare Religious Belief?

Should a secular humanist who has been denied a state job due to a refusal to declare a belief in the existence of God, appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, if the Supreme Court of Michigan has denied him relief?

A secular humanist has been denied a state job in Michigan due to his refusal to declare a belief in God. The Michigan Supreme Court held the Michigan law to be valid and enforceable. Should he go to the Supreme Court of the United States if the Michigan Supreme Court has denied him relief? Yes, because his rights are constitutionally protected.

America is a diverse country. People come from different backgrounds, bringing different beliefs, both religious and cultural. The secular humanist in this case does not believe in God. If Michigan requires a belief in God to qualify for a state job, then the state is not taking into account the diversity of people who need jobs. The state should allow people who do not believe in God to have a fair and equal chance to apply for jobs.

Core democratic values that are most relevant to this case are those of equality, freedom of religion and separation of church and state. The Declaration of Independence states, "that all men are created equal." This means that all people have the same rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness" no matter what they believe. In the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment states that every person in the United States has freedom of religion. The Amendment clearly states that religion is no business of the government. This is the meaning of the separation of church and state; religious beliefs and government are two entirely separate things.

The question of a person's right to not have to declare religious beliefs was decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488(1961). In that case, the appellant was denied a commission because he would not declare his belief in God, as required by the Maryland constitution. The appellant claimed that this violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Supreme Court agreed with him, stating that even if a state has its own laws, it still has to follow federal laws of the U.S. Constitution, spelled out in the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that all laws must be equally applied to all U.S. citizens, as must the rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. In his opinion Justice Black stated, "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.'" Torcaso v. Watkins, supra at 495.

In conclusion, it is clear that our Constitution guarantees a secular humanist -or anyone- cannot be denied his rights, including the equal right to state employment, because of his beliefs. This means religious beliefs, and the right to not have such beliefs at all. What is clear is that no one can be forced by any branch of the government to swear or make an oath about what he or she does or does not believe. Therefore, the secular humanist is right to appeal his case, and he should not be denied the right to hold a state job