News Discrimination in Texas Constitution?

[Drakkith]

According to the Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 4: http://www.constitution.legis.state.tx.us/

Sec. 4. RELIGIOUS TESTS. No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall anyone be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

Am I reading this correctly?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Futher on

Sec. 6. FREEDOM OF WORSHIP. All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.

Whilst the constitution is written in a tone that suggests freedom it clearly is written with the absolute conviction in mind that there is a god. The idea that one has to acknowledge god to work in public office is disgusting.

 

[russ_watters]

I think "disgusting" is a little harsh: "anachronism" is the word I would choose.

I can't imagine this isn't ignored today, especially since it violates the federal Constitution.

 

[BobG]

That section has to be ignored, because as soon as it ever becomes an issue, it would eventually wind its way up to the US Supreme Court and be struck down for violating the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution.

I don't know that it was ever applied to anyone (one would think they at least intended to apply it when their constitution was ratified in 1876, which was 4 years before the first 14th Amendment case reached the US Supreme Court), but it hasn't been applied in modern times.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I think "disgusting" is a little harsh: "anachronism" is the word I would choose.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Texas is not only state with a clause like that in their constitution

 

[russ_watters]

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Perhaps... but I just get concerned that when we use-up our harsh language on minor wrongs, we don't save any to use on major ones.

Just an opinion.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Perhaps... but I just get concerned that when we use-up our harsh language on minor wrongs, we don't save any to use on major ones.

Just an opinion.

I agree but I don't see this as a minor wrong, rather another symptom of a major one.

 

[ThinkToday]

I agree but I don't see this as a minor wrong, rather another symptom of a major one.

IMO, you are dead wrong. You have totally ignored the fact this document was written long before the modern purges of religion from public life. Additionally, if you read the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the US, it states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". The Congress refers to the federal congress and not the state. At the time of the constitution was written, approximately 6 states had "state religions". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion Note from the reference the following: [The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids the federal government from enacting any law respecting a religious establishment, and thus forbids either designating an official church for the United States, or interfering with State and local official churches — which were common when the First Amendment was enacted. It did not prevent state governments from establishing official churches. Connecticut continued to do so until it replaced its colonial Charter with the Connecticut Constitution of 1818; Massachusetts retained an establishment of religion in general until 1833.[4] As of 2010[update], Article III of the Massachusetts constitution still provided, "... 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."] Additionally, "The North Carolina Constitution of 1776 disestablished the Anglican Church, but until 1835 the NC Constitution allowed only Protestants to hold public office. From 1835–1876 it allowed only Christians (including Catholics) to hold public office. Article VI, Section 8 of the current NC Constitution forbids only atheists from holding public office.[52] Such clauses were held by the United States Supreme Court to be unenforceable in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, when the court ruled unanimously that such clauses constituted a religious test incompatible with First and Fourteenth Amendment protections." e.g The ruling was made in 1961, so to rail at the Texas legislature for something that was lawful at the time and only ruled unenforceable in 1961 is ridiculous, IMO.

 

[leroyjenkens]

There's still a blasphemy law in Massachusetts, among other places.

Section 36. Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.

Why they don't just have these removed, I have no idea.

Are there any laws against blacks on the books still? Like "No colored man shall ever drink from the whites only water fountain, lest he be smote by the belt of the nearest white man."

 

[Ryan_m_b]

IMO, you are dead wrong. You have totally ignored the fact this document was written long before the modern purges of religion from public life.

Your premise is flawed and thus the rest of your comment defunct. My statement was mainly regarding requiring religion for public office in general but aside from that my line of thinking was cultural rather than legal. When things like this are still enshrined in your culture and there hasn't been a concerted effort in recent history to move on from them then something isn't right.

When your document, even if it is no longer legally valid, says such things it indicates that the matter is not considered enough of an issue to pursue and that is not good.

 

[ThomasT]

Why they don't just have these removed, I have no idea.

My guess is that it might be because politicians are concerned about the possible political consequences of pushing for the removal of religion based laws.

 

[D H]

That section has to be ignored, because as soon as it ever becomes an issue, it would eventually wind its way up to the US Supreme Court and be struck down for violating the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution.

It became an issue with Torcaso v. Watkins, which was about a clause very similar to the cited one in Maryland's state constitution. Seven states have such clauses. They are all unconstitutional.

While the courts can declare a law or a part of a state constitution unconstitutional per the US constitution, the courts cannot rewrite laws or rewrite the constitution. That's the job of the legislature. I suspect that all seven of these states still have that clause in their constitutions. Put yourself in a legislator's shoes. Propose to remove that clause and you have just lost your seat. Your opponent in the next election will use that proposed amendment to prove that you are a godless commie and need to be tossed. The voters will comply. The end effect: Clauses such as this stay in the constitution but aren't applied or used.

 

[russ_watters]

Your premise is flawed and thus the rest of your comment defunct. My statement was mainly regarding requiring religion for public office in general but aside from that my line of thinking was cultural rather than legal. When things like this are still enshrined in your culture and there hasn't been a concerted effort in recent history to move on from them then something isn't right.

I think you are being overly dramatic, Ryan. If a bad law isn't being used, then no actual harm is resulting from not fixing it. Sure, it is a wrong, but an itty-bitty little one that isn't hurting anyone.

Now if you'll excuse me I need to go get a thesaurus to try to find a word to describe what I felt when looking at the pictures of dozens of hacked-to-death Syrian children last night. The word I was going to use has lost its punch.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I think you are being overly dramatic, Ryan. If a bad law isn't being used, then no actual harm is resulting from not fixing it. Sure, it is a wrong, but an itty-bitty little one that isn't hurting anyone.

As I've said, more than being enforced having such things in a political and legal document indicates a broader problem.

Now if you'll excuse me I need to go get a thesaurus to try to find a word to describe what I felt when looking at the pictures of dozens of hacked-to-death Syrian children last night. The word I was going to use has lost its punch.

You think there are words enough to describe these atrocities?

 

[Vanadium 50]

I don't know why you are picking on Texas. Look at Tennessee's Constitution. Article 1, Section 4 says there is to be no religion test. Article 9, Section 2 then describes the religion test.

(And, interestingly, Article 9, Section 1 prohibits Christian ministers from being elected state legislators, but not Rabbis, Imans, Druids, Jujumen...)

As pointed out, these were written ~130 years ago, and are not enforced because they have been declared unconstitutional. My reaction? "Move along...nothing to see here.."

 

[russ_watters]

As I've said, more than being enforced having such things in a political and legal document indicates a broader problem.

What disgusting problem does it indicate?

You think there are words enough to describe these atrocities?

No: partly because people overuse words that othetwise would have been appropriate, thereby stripping them of their descriptive value.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

What disgusting problem does it indicate?

A cultural acceptance of platitudes that do not support the principle of separation of religion and politics.

No: partly because people overuse words that othetwise would have been appropriate, thereby stripping them of their descriptive value.

I disagree that this applies in this case. Either way disgust is a subjective experience, you may not find something I find disgusting disgusting but me using the word conveys my experience of disgust.

Either way, this is off topic.

 

[D H]

As I've said, more than being enforced having such things in a political and legal document indicates a broader problem.

What is the problem?

As I've mentioned, it's not just Texas. There are six other states with nearly identical clauses. None of those seven clauses are used or are enforced because they are unconstitutional. There are lots of examples of state constitutional clauses and laws that are still on the books but are never enforced because they have been found unconstitutional.

There is no practical way to remove these obsolete clauses from these constitutions. A legislator would have to propose amending the constitution, a super-majority would have to pass that proposed amendment, and in Texas at least, the proposed amendment would have to be approved by the voters. There's little chance that a legislator in Texas would make such a proposal (it would be political suicide), even less chance that the legislature as a whole would approve it (this would be mass political suicide), and zero chance that it would pass that final test by the voters (we voters can be downright stupid and very bigoted.) There isn't a law that prohibits voters from being stupid or bigoted. Such a law would in fact be unconstitutional.

 

[Oltz]

Umm Prohibition is still in the federal constitution it was an amendment. There is another amendment removing its effects but once somehting is passed you never just delete it. It happened it was the law it may be superceded or countmanded by later bills or amendments but you do not strike it from the books as if it never happened. That is revisionist history and honestly not the way I would want my children taught.

No matter what you do it will not remove anything from the old books unless you scrap the entire code and start over with a new constitution that is why "all these nonsense laws" are still on the books.

What do you want to wipe out of history next? How about old voting laws I bet you can find some about land owners or what race you need to be. Should we pretend women and minorities could always vote?

Like it or not its our history but that is the point its history and as has been pointed out has been resloved at the federal level years ago.

 

[russ_watters]

Ryan, you are of course completely free to feel whatever you want, particularly since feelings are somewhat involuntary. But I am similarly free to disagree with the basis for your feeling and argue against it. There is nothing off topic about that. Moreover, if I can convince you that your understanding of the issue is flawed, thereby removing the basis for your feeling, I may even be able to relieve you of this unpleasant sensation. But at the same time, if there is something truly sinister under the surface in the US, I'd like to know what it is, even if learning it causes me to feel a similar unpleasant feeling.

Now:

A cultural acceptance of platitudes that do not support the principle of separation of religion and politics.

You have an incorrect (but common) view of what "separation of church and state" means in the US and I daresay how the relationship works pretty much everywhere. There is no "separation of religion and politics" I am aware of in Western political thought, with the possible exception of in Marxism and is not what the First Amendment means, nor is it what is wrong with this line in the Texas Constitution. The First Amendment mandates:

1. Freedom to practice (exercise) your religion (or lack thereof).
2. Prohibition of establishing a state religion (even implicitly).

The Texas Constitution violates #2. Your framing of the issue is a violation of #1 -- as well as the speech clause of the First Amendment.

There can be no more basic/fundamental reasoning in a democracy for choosing an elected leader than picking someone who's belief structure - the concepts on which they will base their decision-making process - is similar to yours. Trying to "separate religion and politics" - as you would have us do - violates the fundamental right to freely decide - based on whatever criteria I wish (free speech), even religious ones (free excercise) - who to vote for.

The fact that this line in the Texas Constitution remains, at its core, has little to do with religion: it is an issue in how Democracy works that can be seen in other areas, such as the poorly-worded and out of date 2nd Amendment or the lack of reference to the Air Force in the Constitution (only Army and Navy). Broader, I'm sure every country's books are littered with silly or bigoted old laws that haven't been removed because no one in Congress has bothered to interrupt their golf game to do so, even without political capital being on the line.

But the fact that political capital would be on the line here? Yes, it tells us that Texans want Christian leaders and whether they would oppose removal of this for keen political strategem (no better way to support your side than to prevent the other from even running!) or just due to succeptibility to "godless commie" rhetoric (and chicks in bikinis in Bud Light commercials), this deep/serious flaw you see underlying the issue just plain isn't there.

 

[nitsuj]

Your premise is flawed and thus the rest of your comment defunct. My statement was mainly regarding requiring religion for public office in general but aside from that my line of thinking was cultural rather than legal. When things like this are still enshrined in your culture and there hasn't been a concerted effort in recent history to move on from them then something isn't right.

When your document, even if it is no longer legally valid, says such things it indicates that the matter is not considered enough of an issue to pursue and that is not good.

I am sure you would agree the culture is not driven by those between the lines type laws. I totally appreciate the concern regarding religion in the south-states, in particular it mixing with education.

That law is a reflection of a past culture. Not a reflection of the current culture (however similar). It is a record of the culture, not the driver of culture.

Lastly, birds of a feather flock together. Take a poll in Texas, it's not that crazy of a "law".

We're talking purely culture here, so easy on the personal opinion on what you think is "proper" culture...lest the tables turn.

 

[jtbell]

Umm Prohibition is still in the federal constitution it was an amendment. There is another amendment removing its effects but once somehting is passed you never just delete it.

Many states have re-written their constitutions. For example, Georgia is on its ninth constitution, which became effective in 1983 after being drawn up by a committee, approved by the state legislature, and finally ratified by a statewide vote. Only twenty of the fifty states are still using their original constitutions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_constitution_(United_States)

 

[Danger]

I think "disgusting" is a little harsh: "anachronism" is the word I would choose.

I can't imagine this isn't ignored today, especially since it violates the federal Constitution.

You are correct that "disgusting" isn't quite the proper term; I'd use "reprehensible".
You and some others (I can't remember who said what) are missing one important fact. As evidenced by the Texas rewriting of history in textbooks and Tennessee promoting Creationism, neither of those states gives a damn about the US constitution. They are blatantly defying it, and nobody is doing anything to stop them. Just because the state mandate that this thread is about isn't enforced doesn't mean that they won't enforce it if it suits their political agenda. Even if such enforcement is eventually overturned by the federal government, lives will have been ruined in the meantime.

 

[ThinkToday]

You are correct that "disgusting" isn't quite the proper term; I'd use "reprehensible".
You and some others (I can't remember who said what) are missing one important fact. As evidenced by the Texas rewriting of history in textbooks and Tennessee promoting Creationism, neither of those states gives a damn about the US constitution. They are blatantly defying it, and nobody is doing anything to stop them. Just because the state mandate that this thread is about isn't enforced doesn't mean that they won't enforce it if it suits their political agenda. Even if such enforcement is eventually overturned by the federal government, lives will have been ruined in the meantime.

Rewriting history eh?? As noted above in my previous post. The 1st Amendment, as originally interpreted, was written to prevent ONLY the Federal Congress from passing a LAW respecting establishment of religion , etc. It was the 14th Amendment that was written to "rewrite" history to change the 1st Amendment such that the Congress can now violate the words "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". And, take a look at the checkered past of the 14th Amendment, e.g. how it was passed. Even the SCOTUS via Congress created 40 U.S.C. §6135 to make it illegal to pray on the sidewalk outside their building! http://www.wnd.com/2010/07/179585/ How can 40 U.S.C. §6135 not be a law aimed squarely at free speech and free exercise? So much for free exercise. Maybe we should just strike the words "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" from the Constitution, since they have almost no practical application in public anymore.

That's the true rewriting of history. The rewrite is taking the Constitution and Bill of Rights out of the context in which they were written and applying a "new" interpretation to what the founders, framers, and ratifiers meant.

Fortunately, the people of the great state of Texas can still choose elected officials based on their personal beliefs…… at least for now. Perhaps someday the government will pass a law that prohibits citizens from voting against someone that doesn’t share their values.

One final thought, the Constitution still has discrimination in it, or did you forget about the age discrimination for holding some public offices or the discrimination against non-natural born Americans to become President?

 

[Jack21222]

It became an issue with Torcaso v. Watkins, which was about a clause very similar to the cited one in Maryland's state constitution. Seven states have such clauses. They are all unconstitutional.

While the courts can declare a law or a part of a state constitution unconstitutional per the US constitution, the courts cannot rewrite laws or rewrite the constitution. That's the job of the legislature. I suspect that all seven of these states still have that clause in their constitutions. Put yourself in a legislator's shoes. Propose to remove that clause and you have just lost your seat. Your opponent in the next election will use that proposed amendment to prove that you are a godless commie and need to be tossed. The voters will comply. The end effect: Clauses such as this stay in the constitution but aren't applied or used.

I came here to post about Torcaso v. Watkins, but it looks like I've been beaten to it.

A few semesters ago, I gave a presentation in my "teaching and learning in a diverse society" class about discrimination against atheists. My professor, who has been teaching diversity courses for a decade or more, said he had no idea that atheists see themselves as an oppressed group.

Discrimination against atheists is so pervasive, that nobody seems to notice it, much like fish don't notice the ocean they're swimming in. These clauses in the state constitutions are just another few drops of the ocean of discrimination, and it's hard for me to be outraged over this over the fact that family members of mine tell me I'm going to hell.

 

[D H]

neither of those states gives a damn about the US constitution.

Oh, please. Both states specifically have clauses in their constitutions that explicitly state that the US constitution overrides the state constitutions.

They are blatantly defying it, and nobody is doing anything to stop them.

Oh please, again. The US Supreme Court stopped them with Torcaso v. Watkins.

Just because the state mandate that this thread is about isn't enforced doesn't mean that they won't enforce it if it suits their political agenda. Even if such enforcement is eventually overturned by the federal government, lives will have been ruined in the meantime.

Oh please, one last time. The state of Texas does not apply this clause.


To all of you who say this clause should be removed: How? Courts cannot remove it. What courts can do is to say that it can't be used. They cannot rewrite the constitution. The governor cannot remote it; rewriting the constitution is not his job. In Texas, even the legislators cannot remove it without the final consent of the people of the state.

The constitutions of most states are a lot harder to change than are the laws of that state. This is in general a good thing in that it makes for greater legal stability. Constitutions takes the difference between English law and European continental law one step further. (The United Kingdom does not have a constitution.) There are cases such as these clauses where this built-in immutability is a bad thing. Fortunately we have the US constitution and the courts that can keep the somewhat unwieldy states in line.

 

[Danger]

Rewriting history eh?? As noted above in my previous post. The 1st Amendment, as originally interpreted, was written to prevent ONLY the Federal Congress from passing a LAW respecting establishment of religion , etc.

Did I say anything about rewriting the history of the constitution?
I was referring to their rewriting of the history of the world to suit their religious/political agenda.
By the way, I probably know more about your political system than you know about mine, so forgive me if I make an occasional mistake in details.

edit: DH, you sneaked in while I was composing. In response to your statements, I repeat: no one is stopping them, constitution notwithstanding. How can you explain the rewriting of history in Texas or the Tennessee Idiot Bill in terms of constitutional observance?

 

[Ophiolite]

I've read the entire thread. I don't recall who precisely said what, but one view was that it was wrong to use the word atrocity when referring to archaic laws. It should be reserved for events such as the butchering of children in Syria.

My view: it is the complacency of accepting that archaic laws remain on the books, that it is OK because they are not enforced, it is that indifference that leads to atrocities such as those in Syria. Ignore the little things and one day they will be big things.

 

[Danger]

Ignore the little things and one day they will be big things.

Thank you. That was pretty much my point in my first post.

 

[Whovian]

Rewriting history eh??

I'll ignore the rest of your post, though the bit about praying surprised me.

Aren't they teaching in Texas that the Civil War was about "states' rights?" While it technically was, it was primarily about slavery, and I don't think that's referenced once in the books.

Fortunately, the people of the great state of Texas can still choose elected officials based on their personal beliefs…… at least for now. Perhaps someday the government will pass a law that prohibits citizens from voting against someone that doesn’t share their values.

And I can tell you're overreacting. I see no reason religion has anything to do with anything, other than that of course some people are more likely to vote for people with the same religious beliefs as themselves. The voting system does not take religion into account, it's the voters that do. So any state could, in theory, choose elected officials based on their personal beliefs.

One final thought, the Constitution still has discrimination in it, or did you forget about the age discrimination for holding some public offices or the discrimination against non-natural born Americans to become President?

Don't know about the age discrimination, but of course any constitution's going to have at least some discrimination.

 

[phoenix:\\]

Seems like the country is becoming more progressively (I guess how you view the term "progressive") religious. I actually giggled when reading the article.

 

[Danger]

I actually giggled when reading the article.

As an outside observer, I am both amused and appalled.

 

[D H]

Umm Prohibition is still in the federal constitution it was an amendment. There is another amendment removing its effects but once somehting is passed you never just delete it.

That's a bit irrelevant because this thread is about state constitutions rather than the federal constitution. In many states, amendments do modify the text of the constitution. Texas is one of them. All that's left after an amendment repeals some section is a placeholder to keep the numbering consistent.

No matter what you do it will not remove anything from the old books unless you scrap the entire code and start over with a new constitution that is why "all these nonsense laws" are still on the books.

Contrary to what you wrote, changes to federal law do modify the text of the law, and laws that are repealed are removed in their entirety except for a placeholder to keep the numbering consistent. In the federal system, it is only the US constitution where history is not rewritten.

I am sure you would agree the culture is not driven by those between the lines type laws.

A number of the commenters here (not just picking on you, nitsuj) are from outside the US. You perhaps don't understand the distinction between constitutions and laws. There's a huge difference between the two in the US. Laws are ephemeral and mutable. Constitutions are much harder to change by design.

Many states have re-written their constitutions. For example, Georgia is on its ninth constitution, which became effective in 1983 after being drawn up by a committee, approved by the state legislature, and finally ratified by a statewide vote. Only twenty of the fifty states are still using their original constitutions.

Of the seven states with this objectionable clause in their constitutions, all but one were last rewritten in the 1870s or earlier. The one exception is Tennessee, which rewrote part of their constitution in 1971. That 1971 rewrite left this objectionable clause because it was limited to rewriting that part of the constitution that specified how property taxes are assessed. In other words, the objectionable clause stayed in because the committee wasn't authorized to touch it.

 

[russ_watters]

The prohibition comment is more incorrect than irrelevant. Amendments make actual changes. Keeping records of changes and old wordings is just that: record keeping. Prohibition is not "on the books" anymore, but this line in the Texas Constitution is.

 

[Danger]

A number of the commenters here (not just picking on you, nitsuj) are from outside the US. You perhaps don't understand the distinction between constitutions and laws. There's a huge difference between the two in the US. Laws are ephemeral and mutable. Constitutions are much harder to change by design.

Fair enough. That is one aspect of your government that I wasn't familiar with. Here in Canada, we originally had the Articles of Confederation, which united everyone under English law as a side-effect of forming a nation from a bunch of different areas. Now, we have our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is our equivalent of your constitution. No law can supersede that, although some have tried. Laws are passed on every level from municipal to federal, but if anyone of them is in violation of the Charter it's toast.

 

[russ_watters]

You are correct that "disgusting" isn't quite the proper term; I'd use "reprehensible".
You and some others (I can't remember who said what) are missing one important fact. As evidenced by the Texas rewriting of history in textbooks and Tennessee promoting Creationism, neither of those states gives a damn about the US constitution. They are blatantly defying it, and nobody is doing anything to stop them. Just because the state mandate that this thread is about isn't enforced doesn't mean that they won't enforce it if it suits their political agenda. Even if such enforcement is eventually overturned by the federal government, lives will have been ruined in the meantime.

Not all Texans are bigoted idiots, Danger. I see no value in your assumption that sooner or later someone will try to enforce this and it will be a serious issue. I do see prejudice in the assumption though: this wasn't written by modern-day Texans, but you are assuming they are cut from the same cloth.

Since we're making speculative assumptions, mine is that this would never be bigger than the birther conspiracy theories.

 

[D H]

The prohibition comment is more incorrect than irrelevant. Amendments make actual changes. Keeping records of changes and old wordings is just that: record keeping. Prohibition is not "on the books" anymore, but this line in the Texas Constitution is.

I disagree. The US Constitution lists amendments separately. If some new amendment were passed that overturned the 14th you would still see the 14th amendment. The Texas State Constitution operates differently. Amendments are not kept as a separate list. They instead modify the text of the constitution. Search for article 13 of the Texas constitution, or section 2 of article 17. All you will find are placeholders.

The US constitution has some clauses that tell the US government what it must do, others that tell the US government what it cannot do. The only clause that tells the US government what it can do are the necessary and sufficient clause and the general welfare clause. The US Constitution is a very open document. In contrast, the Texas constitution is a closed document. If something isn't spelled out at last somewhat obliquely in our state constitution, the state can't do it (but our legislators are quite adept at finding some oblique justification for new laws). This makes our state constitution a lengthy and somewhat unwieldy beast. For example, we have a railroad commission that is explicitly spelled out in our constitution. The Texas Railroad Commission now regulates the Texas oil and gas industry, pipelines, and mining. Oh, but not railroads. That part of its charter was long ago redacted from the constitution.

 

[russ_watters]

I think you missed my point: regardless of how the paperwork is done, prohibition is not in force because it was repealed. This line in the Texas Constitution has not been repealed/amended, it is just being ignored.

 

[Danger]

Not all Texans are bigoted idiots, Danger.

It was never my intention to imply that, Russ, and I apologize to any intelligent Texans who took it the wrong way. Evo and MIH are both from there, and you have to know that I would never accuse either of them of ignorance. What I meant is that most Texans in positions of power, and in the public eye, are bigoted idiots.
And I guarantee that if a law is still on the books, eventually some of those bigoted idiots will put someone in jail for it for as long as it takes to be overturned by your federal government. That's one reason that I'm so dead-set (pardon the expression) against capital punishment. Would you even care to speculate about how many innocent people have been executed in that state?

 

[AlephZero]

A number of the commenters here (not just picking on you, nitsuj) are from outside the US. You perhaps don't understand the distinction between constitutions and laws. There's a huge difference between the two in the US. Laws are ephemeral and mutable. Constitutions are much harder to change by design.

I wouldn't argue with that in the US, but it's not a "law of nature" that it should be that way. For example the UK gets along fine without any written constution, and things which the US would consider fundamental constitutional principles (e.g. the relationship between the government and a state religion) are Acts of Parliament, i.e. laws - even though those particular laws may only apply to one living person at any moment in time.

 

[Danger]

I wouldn't argue with that in the US, but it's not a "law of nature" that it should be that way.

There is no "law of nature" other than "survival of the fittest" that can possibly apply here. While I agree with what you said, in general, the topic of the thread is specific to Texas, USA. Anything else is irrelevant, no matter how irritating that is.

 

[russ_watters]

It was never my intention to imply that, Russ, and I apologize to any intelligent Texans who took it the wrong way. Evo and MIH are both from there, and you have to know that I would never accuse either of them of ignorance. What I meant is that most Texans in positions of power, and in the public eye, are bigoted idiots.
And I guarantee that if a law is still on the books, eventually some of those bigoted idiots will put someone in jail for it for as long as it takes to be overturned by your federal government.

Fair enough, Danger. And while I find I have a hard time disagreeing with the notion that any legislature is comprised largely of bigoted idiots, legislators are nevertheless fairly competent at one key aspect of their jobs: saying/doing whatever they need to to get re-elected. So I still see it as unlikely that they would ever challenge someone on these grounds. Why? Because even though there are points to lose by going out of one's way to have this passage removed, there are also points to lose by challenging someone on these grounds. Why? Because any challenge would be laughed-out of court and I doubt if any legislators are really that dumb (with due deference to a certain former Alabama Supreme Court justice...) as to be so publicly and officially declared to be an idiot (see: Donald Trump and the birther conspiracy theory).

But even if there is just one legislator who is that dumb, the case would crash and burn so fast that no harm would come to the person on the receiving end as a result. (See again: Obama birther conspiracy).

 

[D H]

I wouldn't argue with that in the US, but it's not a "law of nature" that it should be that way.

I never said or implied that it's a "law of nature." The laws of nature are downright brutish. Coming up with something as absolutely brilliant as the US constitution took a good precedent in British law, a big mistake in the Articles of Confederation (why you Europeans are reproducing that big mistake in the European Union is beyond me), and an incredible amount of sheer dumb luck. Even with that brilliant precedent, most of the state constitutions in the USA represent a step backwards rather than forward. The constitutions of Texas and California, for example, are best viewed as how things should not be done.

 

[Danger]

I find I have a hard time disagreeing with the notion that any legislature is comprised largely of bigoted idiots, legislators are nevertheless fairly competent at one key aspect of their jobs: saying/doing whatever they need to to get re-elected.

That applies to all levels of government in Canada as well, so I wasn't being prejudicial in mentioning it. Generally speaking, the Maritimes are more progressive than the rest of the country, but they're small.

even if there is just one legislator who is that dumb, the case would crash and burn so fast that no harm would come to the person on the receiving end as a result. (See again: Obama birther conspiracy).

How sure are you of that? Again, look at what they're doing with textbooks. Shouldn't any part of the populace with 2 functional brain cells tell these guys to go and indulge in self-gratification? The lunatics are in charge of the asylum, and nobody seems to care.

 

[D H]

How sure are you of that? Again, look at what they're doing with textbooks.

"They", the Texas legislators, are not guilty of these travesties. That's the Texas State Board of Education you are talking about, not the legislature. So how do these board members get there? In Texas we voters don't just get to vote for the governor, lieutenant governor (who has a lot more power than does the governor), and legislators. We also get to vote for the railroad commissioner, the land commissioner, the state comptroller, judges, et cetera -- and that et cetera includes the members of the board of education.

You need to put the blame for the schoolbook mess where it belongs, which is we the people of Texas.

 

[Gokul43201]

Not all Texans are bigoted idiots, Danger. ... I do see prejudice in the assumption though: this wasn't written by modern-day Texans, but you are assuming they are cut from the same cloth.

If there wasn't the possibility that a majority of the Texas electorate were "bigoted idiots" (I'd choose different words - I think that's not a good description) then the following, bolded part, wouldn't be true:

There is no practical way to remove these obsolete clauses from these constitutions. A legislator would have to propose amending the constitution, a super-majority would have to pass that proposed amendment, and in Texas at least, the proposed amendment would have to be approved by the voters. There's little chance that a legislator in Texas would make such a proposal (it would be political suicide), even less chance that the legislature as a whole would approve it (this would be mass political suicide), and zero chance that it would pass that final test by the voters (we voters can be downright stupid and very bigoted.) There isn't a law that prohibits voters from being stupid or bigoted. Such a law would in fact be unconstitutional.

But I think D H has got it exactly right.

The idea of a religious test is not a lifeless remnant of archaic thought. It is a very mainstream concept among a large segment of the US population - that the US Constitution prohibits it from being legally applied is just an inconvenience. Remember the old Presidential debate when one of the contenders won loud applause from the audience when he asserted that an atheist can not be trusted with power? That was Gingrich: only months ago, not decades or centuries.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't buy that at all, Gokul, but since we're both just speculating without evidence, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[ThomasT]

Shouldn't any part of the populace with 2 functional brain cells tell these guys to go and indulge in self-gratification? The lunatics are in charge of the asylum, and nobody seems to care.

It's part of the bible belt. Isn't it? I grew up in a bible belt state. I don't think it's so much a matter of intelligence (which is contextual) as it is socialization, and individual internalization of group norms, mores, etc. Even very smart (according to certain criteria) people can become emotionally attached to religious doctrine, tradition, and practice ... I think.

So, my two cents is that if there are objective criteria wrt which the apparent religiosity of any individual or group can be evaluated as being contradictory to the well being of a society in general, then those are the lines along which the argument should proceed.

I would like to see certain obviously religiously grounded (wrt my perspective) laws repealed or superceded (I don't know how that stuff works exactly). For example, sometimes I run out of booze on Saturday night and would like, Sunday morning, to get, say, margarita or mimosa fixin's for Sunday brunch. But even in Florida stores are prohibited from selling spirits until 12 noon on Sundays -- a most inconvenient law which I think has something to do with the Christian religion.

 

[mege]

I would like to see certain obviously religiously grounded (wrt my perspective) laws repealed or superceded (I don't know how that stuff works exactly). For example, sometimes I run out of booze on Saturday night and would like, Sunday morning, to get, say, margarita or mimosa fixin's for Sunday brunch. But even in Florida stores are prohibited from selling spirits until 12 noon on Sundays -- a most inconvenient law which I think has something to do with the Christian religion.

Per the SCOTUS - 'days of rest' (regarding Blue Laws, like TT has described) have a secular value to them. (McGOWAN v. MARYLAND): "The present purpose and effect of most of our Sunday Closing Laws is to provide a uniform day of rest for all citizens; and the fact that this day is Sunday, a day of particular significance for the dominant Christian sects, does not bar the State from achieving its secular goals."



As a thought experiment (and because I'm dense like this): does one have to be religious to believe in god or a supreme being? Is there a legal test that defines 'belief in a god' as religious (it should be noted that there are Atheistic Hindus and Buddists, for example)? "God"/"supreme being" is used in a lot of US Government documents without any reference to Christianity or another religion. I think that 'belief in a god' is being equivocated too loosely with 'establishment of a religion' by many.

That said, I would think that a better reason to dissolve (have dissolved, etc) the 'must believe in a god' clauses in certain states constitutions would be more on grounds of discrimination rather than because of the establishment of religion clause. Equal opportunity isn't being given to Atheistic religious folks. Having a test of 'do you believe in god?' does not establish religious intent any more than 'do you drive a car?' (because you could drive a car to go to church, after all).