BS: Texas, in the land of the free

Subject: BS: Texas, in the land of the free
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 02 Apr 04 - 02:53 PM

Taken from the State of 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.

Do other states have this requirement?

Subject: RE: BS: Texas, in the land of the free
From: Amos
Date: 02 Apr 04 - 02:59 PM

Actually that is pretty close to being unconstitutional. A lot more serious encroachments against States' Rights have been made from the Federal level -- if someone wanted to make a Federal case out of it -- which won't happen under this Reich, anyway.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Texas, in the land of the free
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 02 Apr 04 - 05:39 PM

Not only that stupid law, you can't have sex toys in this state either! What kind of state is this, anyway?

Subject: RE: BS: Texas, in the land of the free
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 02 Apr 04 - 05:43 PM

But I've read in this very forum that George Bush is a dill ...

Subject: RE: BS: Texas, in the land of the free
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Apr 04 - 07:34 PM

seems to be several states which have similar ideas...including mine!
7 states

Subject: RE: BS: Texas, in the land of the free
From: Johnny in OKC
Date: 02 Apr 04 - 08:30 PM

"... provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

Would "The Supremes" be okay?

Johnny in OKC

Subject: RE: BS: Texas, in the land of the free
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Apr 04 - 08:42 PM

mostly southern states, as might be expected.....(Maryland is borderline).

Frankly, if these requirements are still current, I am appalled that it is still required anywhere to express such beliefs in order to hold office. Of course, the likelihood that any significant office will be contented for by any non-believer is still pretty low. In my opinion, candidates should not even be required to discuss the subject...but electibility dictates that they 'appear' religious.

Subject: RE: BS: Texas, in the land of the free
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 02 Apr 04 - 10:22 PM

I hope this sorry-ass law doesn't apply to state employees, just "office holders."

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Texas, in the land of the free
From: LadyJean
Date: 03 Apr 04 - 12:24 AM

I suppose Cuthulu would qualify as a supreme being, ditto Kali, Moloch, and of course Satan. I expect the good people of Texas would prefer a nice, benevolent atheist.

Sam Houston was baptized late in life. He was informed that the river had washed his sins away. His comment was, "God help the people downstream."

Subject: RE: BS: Texas, in the land of the free
From: Amos
Date: 03 Apr 04 - 09:55 AM

Lady Jean:

Oh, I hope that is truue!! I Love it!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Texas, in the land of the free
From: wysiwyg
Date: 03 Apr 04 - 12:19 PM

LJ-- bring mop, come at once, I peed the floor!

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Texas, in the land of the free
From: GUEST,a texan
Date: 03 Apr 04 - 01:37 PM

I Highly doubt when our officials are put in office they are asked if the acknowledge a supreme being. First of all, the constituancies are very unlikely to elect a open, pronounced atheist, however much good it would do us. And even if the candidates feel they are atheist or agnostic, they would not bring attention to the fact in their campaigns. It's too much trouble. They would not get elected. On top of that it seems like one of those minor rules that has far outlived its pourpose, and would never hold up when challenged. But it would only be challenged if somebody made a big deal of a canidate elect not doing this. Unlikely to say the least. I think that if sombody ever was elected and refused acknowledge the exsitance of a supreme being, it would pass with little comment.