"Independent Courts Protect Our Liberties"

Should a secular humanist, that 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?

I believe that the secular humanist should appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction in this case, since Section 2 of Article III of the Constitution specifies that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction in cases involving the Constitution. The Supreme Court established the power of judicial review of laws in Marbury v.Madison, 5 U.S. 137(1803).

The Supreme Court case Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488(1961) sets a precedent for this case. Torcaso had been "appointed to the office of Notary Public" in Maryland, but he refused to declare a belief in God, and was denied his commission. He sued in a state court, seeking to be instated in his position, but the court ruled against him. The Maryland Court of Appeals upheld the lower courtÕs decision. The Supreme Court ruled, however, that the Maryland test for public office unconstitutionally truncated the appellant's freedom of religion.

The secular humanist must secure his freedom of religion by appealing to the United States Supreme Court. Freedom of religion, one of the most vital core democratic values, is protected in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law . . . respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Further, the Fourteenth Amendment prevents states from abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens, such as freedom of religion. In Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1,15(1947), the Supreme Court decided, "Neither a state nor the Federal Government . . . can force . . . [a person] to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." If Michigan's legislature had passed a law that required state officials to take a religious oath, it would violate the protections in the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Such an act would prohibit the free exercise of religion by those in the government, because it would confine them to practicing a religion, and further practicing one of the religions which professes faith in a God.

A case such as Torcaso v. Watkins seems less likely to occur in Michigan than in Maryland. From my prior knowledge of history, I am aware that Maryland was established as a Catholic colony; but when the Protestants William and Mary were given the throne in England, Maryland converted to Protestantism. Catholics in Maryland, such as Charles Carroll, who was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, were forced to pay extra taxes and were not allowed to vote. Michigan, however, was one of the territories originally governed under the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which guaranteed freedom of religion for all residents of the territory.

For the above-stated reasons, I am certain that the secular humanist should appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, which will reaffirm the necessity of freedom of religion.