holy shittah, texans!! wtf!!1

imind · 09-25-2006, 09:29 PM

The Texas Constitution
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 4 - RELIGIOUS TESTS
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.

link

i knew that ones religious beliefs (or lack of) could not prevent one from holding a federal office, and always assumed that states would have to follow suit.

someone explain to me how this is possible, and why its acceptable.

Sheana · 09-25-2006, 09:36 PM

The Texas Constitution hasn't been rewritten since the 1870s, that's how.

--Publius

imind · 09-25-2006, 10:00 PM

Originally Posted by Sheana

The Texas Constitution hasn't been rewritten since the 1870s, that's how.

oh. well, you may want to get on that.

lew · 09-25-2006, 10:04 PM

That must be a lie. I've had several atheists tell me that no reference to any divine being is in any American document.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 09-25-2006, 10:45 PM

that could probably be found unconstitutional if anyone could ever get standing to sue, but that'll never happen because an atheist would never be elected in texas long before this law doesn't allow him to take office.

Publius · 09-25-2006, 11:28 PM

Originally Posted by imind

oh. well, you may want to get on that.

There have been several constitutional conventions in Texas, but the public never voted for the new constitutions.

Last major attempt was in the mid-70s ... in 69 a lot of sections were struck from the constitution.

Texas Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Publius · 09-25-2006, 11:33 PM

One thing the Texas LP wants to do is rewrite the state Constitution.

ballz2wallz · 09-26-2006, 07:25 AM

Originally Posted by lew

That must be a lie. I've had several atheists tell me that no reference to any divine being is in any American document.

It's totally fake.

imind · 09-26-2006, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by lew

That must be a lie. I've had several atheists tell me that no reference to any divine being is in any American document.

sorry i missed this the first time. but to those newcomers who are unaware, and would like the truth, the statement was 'in any federal document', and it is not atheists exclusively saying this.

but i'd hate to let teh truth ruin a good arguement.

lew · 09-26-2006, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by imind

sorry i missed this the first time. but to those newcomers who are unaware, and would like the truth, the statement was 'in any federal document', and it is not atheists exclusively saying this.

but i'd hate to let teh truth ruin a good arguement.

You're right again! No divine being is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence! None at all!

Publius · 09-26-2006, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by lew

You're right again! No divine being is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence! None at all!

The D.o.I. isn't a Federal governmental document.

lew · 09-26-2006, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by Publius

The D.o.I. isn't a Federal governmental document.

Some believe it to be.

WickedLou9 · 09-26-2006, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

The D.o.I. isn't a Federal governmental document.

Woudln't that be the very first federal document?

lew · 09-26-2006, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Woudln't that be the very first federal document?

I believe it is.

But it depends on what your definition of federal document is.

Some people say that the Constitution is the first federal document and anything before that isn't. (such as Declaration, Articles of Confed., etc)

Thorgrim · 09-26-2006, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by lew

That must be a lie. I've had several atheists tell me that no reference to any divine being is in any American document.

As someone from PA, that document means nothing to me

Thorgrim · 09-26-2006, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

The D.o.I. isn't a Federal governmental document.

not in anyway what so ever

Publius · 09-26-2006, 12:21 PM

I believe that it should be regarded as part of our heritage and certainly worthwhile, but to call it a Federal document of our government is a bit of a stretch.

It was created by the government before the government that came before the government we have now (i.e., Continental Congress -> A.o.C -> Constitution) ... That would be like saying the laws and edicts of the Nazi German government are Federal documents of the modern German state.

Thorgrim · 09-26-2006, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

I believe that it should be regarded as part of our heritage and certainly worthwhile, but to call it a Federal document of our government is a bit of a stretch.

It was created by the government before the government that came before the government we have now (i.e., Continental Congress -> A.o.C -> Constitution) ... That would be like saying the laws and edicts of the Nazi German government are Federal documents of the modern German state.

the smiley threw me off I thought you were being sarcastic

motivez · 09-26-2006, 12:53 PM

Being a former Texan myself, (do you ever become a former Texan?) I think I'll write the ACLU about this and see what they have to say

Publius · 09-26-2006, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

the smiley threw me off I thought you were being sarcastic

I wasn't. I love the Declaration of Independence, but it isn't a document of our federal government. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it is as much a document of our federal government as John Locke's Second Treatise on Government is... They are the theoretical framework that support our Constitution, but they are not in and of themselves documents of and created by our federal government.