• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Calling Texas agnostics and athiests

scotth

Graduate Poster
S
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
1,800
You can find the Texas Constitution at: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/txconst/toc.html

If you select Article 1 - Bill of Rights, and then Sec. 4 - Religion Tests you will find this:
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.
Click to expand...

Does this appear to be a contradiction to anyone besides me?

It is my opinion that we need to find an agnostic or athiest willing to run for some/any minor public office in the state. Then we need to bring this to court and get it amended (at least).

It should be an easy legal slam dunk. Compare to Article VI of US Constitution:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Click to expand...

It may be that someone only has to have the intent to run for office before this could be brought to court. If you're a lawyer, feel free to chime in here. I am unclear on if it would be consider mute until someone had actually won an office or not.
 
zakur said:
It's not just Texas. Check out: Religious Discrimination in State Constitutions

Regardless, I believe the 1st Amendment supersedes any of this discriminatory language in the state constitutions.
Click to expand...

I was aware of the others as well, but... as I don't live in any of those states, I only brought up Texas for action.

I would agree that it would be a good idea to do the same in those states as well.
 
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

( my bold...)


I would think the -- "he" , might be a problem?
 
Diogenes said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

( my bold...)


I would think the -- "he" , might be a problem?
Click to expand...

Not really. In this context he means a person,without regard to gender.

It's only the politically correct idiots that have a problem with usage like this.

Congressperson? :mad: Chairperson? :mad:
 
fishbob said:
It does not say which one. And they can't ask. So you could acknowledge Diana Ross or a Taco Bell burrito.
Click to expand...
The Great Pumpkin...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom