A poll worker in South Carolina says he’s being barred from doing his job unless he takes an oath to God. The only problem? He doesn’t believe in one.
In 2023, South Carolina resident James Reel completed all the required training to serve as a poll worker for the 2024 election. But state law mandates that he swear an oath ending with “so help me God” – a line that Reel refused to say, because he’s an atheist.
The state’s response? No oath, no job. Officials refused to swear him in unless he repeated the entire phrase, God included.
Now, he’s filing a lawsuit against the state, alleging religious discrimination and a violation of his First Amendment rights.
The Christian Oath
The oath reads:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I am duly qualified, according to the Constitution of this State, to exercise the duties of the office to which I have been appointed, and that I will, to the best of my ability, discharge the duties thereof, and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of this State and of the United States. So help me God.
According to Reel, he called the Greenville County voter registration and elections office to inquire if there was a way he could say the whole oath, minus the last four words. They informed him that the oath cannot be changed, and he would have to recite the entire oath to serve as a poll worker. Reel refused, citing his deeply held atheist beliefs.
A Religious Freedom Violation?
Is that legal? The Freedom From Religion Foundation – which is representing Reel in his lawsuit – argues that public officials were “coercing a statement of belief in a monotheistic deity by requiring nontheists or those worshiping more than one deity to swear ‘so help me God’ in order to serve as poll workers.”
“Jim Reel, a veteran who wants to continue serving his community as a poll worker, should be congratulated, not barred simply because he is an atheist,” said Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “This legal challenge seeks to put an end to this discriminatory and blatantly unconstitutional practice.”
They point to Supreme Court precedent, which they believe is on their side. In Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), the Court ruled that religious tests cannot be required to hold public office. Although that case dealt with a notary, it’s been interpreted broadly to cover all levels of public service.
Yet when confronted by the FFRF, the South Carolina Election Commission director simply responded, “the County Boards must require [the oath] be signed before trained candidates are appointed poll workers.”
That response may as well read: “See you in court.”
“So Help Me God” Still on the Books
Religious requirements for public servants remain technically on the books in several states, though they’re rarely enforced. South Carolina appears to be testing that boundary, forcing a nonbeliever to violate his conscience simply to serve his community.
Some could argue it’s just four words, what’s the harm? Yet critics say it’s easy to imagine the outrage if the roles were reversed, and a devout Christian hoping to serve the public during election season were forced to declare another four word sentence, “there is no God.”
What is your response? Should freedom of religion also mean freedom from religion?
3 comments
-
Reverend Paula Copp
As a pagan, and just to mess with them, I’d have to say, “which one”? Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion, as well… I have to agree with lion heart on this one. Wow!
-
Lionheart
Yes, freedom of religion should also mean freedom from religion.
Do Islamists say, So help me Allah? And if they did would that disqualify them? 🤷
🦁❤️
When doing a solemn affirmation, which this is, the last sentence is changed to “So help me upon the pains and penalties of perjury and false statement.”
See those words in parentheses, (or affirm) changes it from a solemn oath to a solemn affirmation.
Any basic Notary Public, let alone state officials, should know this.