Texas State Consitution

**mongoose** · November 08, 2006, 03:14 PM

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.

Source

Didn't this get removed from the Maryland state constiution 40 years ago?

**Fenris** · November 08, 2006, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by mongoose

Source

Didn't this get removed from the Maryland state constiution 40 years ago?

Why does this do not surprise me?

**mongoose** · November 08, 2006, 03:41 PM

"No one shall be excluded from office because of his religious beliefs ... unless he's an atheist."

**RusskiSoldat** · November 08, 2006, 04:46 PM

I find this sickening due to the sheer hypocrisy.

**Farnan** · November 08, 2006, 05:20 PM

Its one of those old provisions that are not enforced, but people are just too lazy to remove...

**Sher Khan** · November 08, 2006, 05:30 PM

It was put in during the 1860s.

No one in Texas really cared to remove it, since the vast majority of the state is now all conservative.

Even the liberals.

It's also not a question of it being enforced. No athiest has yet to win office in Texas, I believe. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this.

**MadBurgerMaker** · November 08, 2006, 06:45 PM

:hmmm: So should we add a 440th amendment to the Constitution for this potentially massive issue?

Originally Posted by Sher Khan

No one in Texas really cared to remove it, since the vast majority of the state is now all conservative.

Even the liberals.

This is not a new thing.

It's also not a question of it being enforced. No athiest has yet to win office in Texas, I believe. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this.

Not that I am aware of, although it is possible, I suppose, with the number of elected positions throughout the state.

If anyone is interested, the actual Constitution can be viewed online:

http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/consti...ge/Ititle.html

**mongoose** · November 08, 2006, 07:24 PM

So it doesn't matter because no one in Texas would vote for an atheist anyway?

What if Texas were mostly atheist and it was "you must admit the non-existence of a supreme being"?

**Fenris** · November 08, 2006, 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by mongoose

What if Texas were mostly atheist and it was "you must admit the non-existence of a supreme being"?

It would not be. Or if it was it's be stupid.

**Kscott** · November 09, 2006, 09:38 PM

Originally Posted by mongoose

So it doesn't matter because no one in Texas would vote for an atheist anyway?

It doesnt matter because nobody would be excluded from office on the basis that they are atheist. Now, they may not get voted in because they are atheist, but that would be because of the will of the voters, not the old part of the constitution that is simply a relic of older times.

**mongoose** · November 10, 2006, 06:19 AM

Has anyone ever refused to say the oath?

**Tom Paine** · November 10, 2006, 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by MadBurgerMaker

:hmmm: So should we add a 440th amendment to the Constitution for this potentially massive issue?

Probably, in the end, because potentially it is truly massive, and undemocratic at that...

**MadBurgerMaker** · November 10, 2006, 07:45 PM

Originally Posted by the Grim Squeaker

Probably, in the end, because potentially it is truly massive, and undemocratic at that...

:yawn:

Probably, but not because it actually means anything.

Some guy will find it in there and will have enough time on his hands to ***** and whine about it, someone in the legislature will propose an amendment, the 2/3 majority will not be reached, and it will go up and up, until it is finally ordered removed by one group of judges or another.

Or perhaps in a couple hundred years, when Texas does not have a massive majority of people who worship some sort of supreme being, a politician somewhere will start pushing for its removal to make himself look good.

Or....:gasp!:....it could just be left in there and ignored like all the other old laws that have no relevence, but arent worth the time and cost needed for the house and senate to vote on an amendment. :gasp!gasp!: I mean...I know there is a law on the books saying it is illegal to take more than three sips of beer while standing, and thats really ****ing stupid, but do we really need to go in there and have a vote on whether or not it should be there? No.

Originally Posted by mongoose

What if Texas were mostly atheist and it was "you must admit the non-existence of a supreme being"?

Then it would be the same as this, I would imagine. Something that is in there and never gets used, because a non atheist would never get elected.

Originally Posted by Alcibiades

It doesnt matter because nobody would be excluded from office on the basis that they are atheist. Now, they may not get voted in because they are atheist, but that would be because of the will of the voters, not the old part of the constitution that is simply a relic of older times.

QFT.

Interestingly enough, the Constitution of the Republic of Texas (1836) says this (keywords are "God" and/or "office." "Supreme" only brought up things about the Supreme Court, and "supreme being" brought nothing.)

Ministers of the gospel being, by their profession, dedicated to God and the care of souls, ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their functions; therefore, no minister of the gospel, or any priest of any denomination whatever, shall be eligible to the office of the executive of the republic, nor to a seat in either branch of the congress of the same.

No preference shall be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship over another, but every person shall be permitted to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.

Those are the only entries I can find with the word "God" in them. This "newer" stuff about a supreme being was added in one of the constitutions that came later, when Texas was a state.

The oath for senators and representatives:

Each member of the senate and house of representatives shall, before they proceed to business, take an oath to support the constitution, as follows;

"I, A. B., do solemnly swear [or affirm, as the case may be] that, as a member of this general congress, I will support the constitution of the republic, and that I will not propose or assent to any bill, vote, or resolution which shall appear to me injurious to the people."

The president shall, at stated times, receive a compensation for his services, which shall not be increased or diminished during his continuance in office; and before entering upon the duties of his office, he shall take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:

"I, A. B., president of the republic of Texas, do solemnly and sincerely swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will faithfully execute the duties of my office, and to the best of my abilities preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the Republic."

No mention of God or a supreme being there. :shrug: Things changed after Texas became a state (unless, of course, that site I was using for the quotes sucks and left things out, etc).

**Tom Paine** · November 11, 2006, 06:30 AM

Wait, your Contitution is not always enforced? Okay, in that case you have a point. Also, why would it take much time? What, are there minimum times for debate of any such amendment?

**lawngnome** · November 13, 2006, 01:15 AM

I don't see why this is such a shocker. There are silly laws all over the place. Most are just left there because... who cares? It doesn't affect anyone. If it so happened that someone who 'denied the supreme being' was denied office because of his denial... then... uhh (recovers from denial overload)...

I'm sure the Texas Supreme Court would overturn the law and the elected official would be allowed to enter office. It would be silly if it were otherwise.

I think laws like this remain on the books just to amuse us, just like the ones where it is against the law to have 'sexual intercourse in a non-traditional fashion' (use your imagination).

Do you honestly think someone would be prosecuted for using an improper sexual position in America? It would make front page news in the New York Times for sure.

Oh, and I don't like it when people think of Texas as conservative. It's really a 50/50 split like 90% of the states in the union.