We all know that the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights, Amendment I. Moreover, Article VI specifies that "... no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." That being so, it remains that these provisions were not incorporated to the states. States could and did require a belief in God in order to hold office, to serve on a jury, and to vote.

Those were largely overturned in 1961 in the case of U.S. Supreme Court case of Torcaso v. Watkins (1961). However, in 1992, Herb Silverman of Charleston, South Carolina, had to bring a suit to his state's supreme court when he was denied a notary public office for his atheism. Even more recently, in Asheville, North Carolina, in 2009, City Councilman Cecil Bothwell was threatened with a suit that never materialized because that state's constitution also requires a belief in God in order to hold office. It is famous that in 2002, President George Bush said that atheists were not patriots and should not be considered citizens.

After the War of Secession, in order to be readmitted to the Union, the southern states wrote new constitutions. They modeled theirs after Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, both of which included religious tests for public office.

Arkansas State Constitution, Article 19 Section 1 ("Miscellaneous Provisions"): "No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court."

Maryland's Declaration of Rights, Article 36: "... 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."

Mississippi State Constitution. Article 14 ("General Provisions"), Section 265: "No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state."

North Carolina's State Constitution, Article 6 Section 8: "Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God." (This provision from the 1868 constitution was carried into the new constitution of 1971, despite the SCOTUS case of Torcaso v. Watkins cited above.)

Pennsylvania's State Constitution, Article 1 Section 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."

South Carolina's State Constitution, Article 4 Section 2: ""No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor who denies the existence of the Supreme Being; ..."

Tennessee's State Constitution, Article 9 Section 2: "No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."

Texas' State Constitution, Article 1 Section 4: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

Massachusetts is a special case in point. The original state constitution of 1780 and the new constitution of 1839 both contained numerous references to religion. Massachusetts collected taxes for the Congregational Church until 1839. After that, local governments were encouraged by the law to do so on their own.

Massachusetts Constitution of 1780
Article II. It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly 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.

Massachusetts Constitution of 1839
Article II. It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being...

Article III. As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.

Chapter VI.
OATHS AND SUBSCRIPTIONS; INCOMPATIBILITY OF AND EXCLUSION FROM OFFICES; PECUNIARY QUALIFICATIONS; COMMISSIONS; WRITS; CONFIRMATION OF LAWS; HABEAS CORPUS; THE ENACTING STYLE; CONTINUANCE OF OFFICERS; PROVISION FOR A FUTURE REVISAL OF THE CONSTITUTION, ETC.

Article I. [Any person chosen governor, lieutenant governor, councillor, senator or representative, and accepting the trust, shall before he proceed to execute the duties of his place or office, make and subscribe the following declaration, viz.--

"I, A. B., do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, ... "

It is important to trace the path Roy Torcaso took to get his case to the Supreme Court. After being appointed, he was disqualified for atheism. He took his suit to a circuit court which refused to hear it. The state supreme court held that he was not required to believe in God and that he also was not required to hold office, so, no rights were lost: "The petitioner is not compelled to believe or disbelieve, under threat of punishment or other compulsion. True, unless he makes the declaration of belief, he cannot hold public office in Maryland, but he is not compelled to hold office." The Supreme Court of the United States did not agree. But thirty years later, Herb Silverman was in front of the South Carolina supreme court on the same issue.