Talk about a problem with the "separation of church and state!!!"

[JackBurton]

Just noticed this about the Texas Constitution:

he 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.

"Provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being?" Is that not a religious test? Who is the crack head that wrote this thing?! That is like saying, "you can believe in ANY God you want....as long as that God is Jesus." So no, apparently an Athiest can not hold office. What a pile of crap!

 

[daveymark]

So I can acknowledge myself as existing? I can apply for governer now

 

[PlatinumGold]

R

 

[bigalt]

texas rulez!

 

[Goosemaster]

The one thing all americans must unite in recongnizing is this:


Texas is well, Texas.

 

[ElFenix]

like anyone actually reads all 400,000 words of the texas constitution

 

[Mallow]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
Just noticed this about the Texas Constitution:

he 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.

"Provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being?" Is that not a religious test? Who is the crack head that wrote this thing?! That is like saying, "you can believe in ANY God you want....as long as that God is Jesus." So no, apparently an Athiest can not hold office. What a pile of crap!

Where do you get Jesus out of that statement? Is the only entity that can be considered a supreme being Jesus? Think again.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
like anyone actually reads all 400,000 words of the texas constitution

Half of its citizens either need it in spanish or need to have it read to them

 

[Mallow]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: ElFenix
like anyone actually reads all 400,000 words of the texas constitution

Half of its citizens either need it in spanish or need to have it read to them

Actually, we won't be up to 50% hispanic until 2020 or something. Also, not everyone who speaks spanish is unilingual

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Mallow

Originally posted by: JackBurton
Just noticed this about the Texas Constitution:

he 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.

"Provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being?" Is that not a religious test? Who is the crack head that wrote this thing?! That is like saying, "you can believe in ANY God you want....as long as that God is Jesus." So no, apparently an Athiest can not hold office. What a pile of crap!

Where do you get Jesus out of that statement? Is the only entity that can be considered a supreme being Jesus? Think again.

Hey genius, I suggest you do the thinking. I'm not saying Supreme Being = Jesus, I'm saying there is a glaring contradiction in this section of the Texas Constitution! It's saying, there will be no religious tests, but then says you have to believe in a God. Isn't, "do you believe in a Supreme Being" a religious test question?

 

[Jzero]

Relevant Repost Nazi Link Not really a proper repost since this is about a specific instance....

Regardless, it does not declare that the so-called supreme being has to be a god of any sort. It's only a religious test if you are looking for a flame war, which is par for this particular course.

You could simply declare that you believe that man is the supreme being over the earth.

 

[Mallow]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Mallow

Originally posted by: JackBurton
Just noticed this about the Texas Constitution:

he 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.

"Provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being?" Is that not a religious test? Who is the crack head that wrote this thing?! That is like saying, "you can believe in ANY God you want....as long as that God is Jesus." So no, apparently an Athiest can not hold office. What a pile of crap!

Where do you get Jesus out of that statement? Is the only entity that can be considered a supreme being Jesus? Think again.

Hey genius, I suggest you do the thinking. I'm not saying Supreme Being = Jesus, I'm saying there is a glaring contradiction in this section of the Texas Constitution! It's saying, there will be no religious tests, but then says you have to believe in a God. Isn't, "do you believe in a Supreme Being" a religious test question?

Wow, ATOT members amaze me more every day. I never disputed the fact that this is a glaring contradiction to separation of religion and state. However, I only asked you why you presumed in your original post that someone had to believe in jesus in order to satisfy the clause... clear to you yet? I now realize the effort to investigate you original thought pattern was truely futile. thx

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: Mallow

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: ElFenix
like anyone actually reads all 400,000 words of the texas constitution

Half of its citizens either need it in spanish or need to have it read to them

Actually, we won't be up to 50% hispanic until 2020 or something. Also, not everyone who speaks spanish is unilingual

he's not used to that. everyone in goosemaster's trailer park is unilingual.

 

[Ameesh]

Originally posted by: Mallow

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Mallow

Originally posted by: JackBurton
Just noticed this about the Texas Constitution:

he 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.

"Provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being?" Is that not a religious test? Who is the crack head that wrote this thing?! That is like saying, "you can believe in ANY God you want....as long as that God is Jesus." So no, apparently an Athiest can not hold office. What a pile of crap!

Where do you get Jesus out of that statement? Is the only entity that can be considered a supreme being Jesus? Think again.

Hey genius, I suggest you do the thinking. I'm not saying Supreme Being = Jesus, I'm saying there is a glaring contradiction in this section of the Texas Constitution! It's saying, there will be no religious tests, but then says you have to believe in a God. Isn't, "do you believe in a Supreme Being" a religious test question?

Wow, ATOT members amaze me more every day. I never disputed the fact that this is a glaring contradiction to separation of religion and state. However, I only asked you why you presumed in your original post that someone had to believe in jesus in order to satisfy the clause... clear to you yet? I now realize the effort to investigate you original thought pattern was truely futile. thx

he was making an analaogy using jesus, he was not saying that the clause in the constitution said anything about jesus

 

[tcsenter]

Wasn't there a thread about this several months ago that showed most US states had similar laws or constitutional provisions at onnn....ahhh yes, that was it. Thanks Jzero!

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Mallow

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Mallow

Originally posted by: JackBurton
Just noticed this about the Texas Constitution:

he 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.

"Provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being?" Is that not a religious test? Who is the crack head that wrote this thing?! That is like saying, "you can believe in ANY God you want....as long as that God is Jesus." So no, apparently an Athiest can not hold office. What a pile of crap!

Where do you get Jesus out of that statement? Is the only entity that can be considered a supreme being Jesus? Think again.

Hey genius, I suggest you do the thinking. I'm not saying Supreme Being = Jesus, I'm saying there is a glaring contradiction in this section of the Texas Constitution! It's saying, there will be no religious tests, but then says you have to believe in a God. Isn't, "do you believe in a Supreme Being" a religious test question?

Wow, ATOT members amaze me more every day. I never disputed the fact that this is a glaring contradiction to separation of religion and state. However, I only asked you why you presumed in your original post that someone had to believe in jesus in order to satisfy the clause... clear to you yet? I now realize the effort to investigate you original thought pattern was truely futile. thx

I apologize. Obviously my Jesus analogy was a little too tough for you to grab. I assumed all AT members had at least an average IQ level, but obviously not in your case. Maybe next time I'll make my analogies a little simpler for you.

 

[Mallow]

An analogy is contrasting similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar. What you said was more of a statement than an analogy.

"you can believe in ANY God you want....as long as that God is Jesus".

Nuff said

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Jzero
Relevant Repost Nazi Link Not really a proper repost since this is about a specific instance....

Regardless, it does not declare that the so-called supreme being has to be a god of any sort. It's only a religious test if you are looking for a flame war, which is par for this particular course.

You could simply declare that you believe that man is the supreme being over the earth.

You can play this game all you want, but Supreme Being does equal a God. What else would a Supreme Being be? It IS a religious test, and if you don't think it is, you are in extreme denial.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Mallow
An analogy is contrasting similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar. What you said was more of a statement than an analogy.

"you can believe in ANY God you want....as long as that God is Jesus".

Nuff said

"...nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

is saying...

"... you can have any religion provided that it acknowledges a supreme being..." (my take on it at least)

is similiar to...

"...you can believe in ANY God you want....as long as that God is Jesus..."

is similiar to...

"... you can buy any computer you want, as long as it's from Dell..."

 

[Yossarian]

Originally posted by: Jzero
Relevant Repost Nazi Link Not really a proper repost since this is about a specific instance....

Regardless, it does not declare that the so-called supreme being has to be a god of any sort. It's only a religious test if you are looking for a flame war, which is par for this particular course.

You could simply declare that you believe that man is the supreme being over the earth.

no, it says "a" Supreme Being. it would have to be a specific man, like me.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Mallow
An analogy is contrasting similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar. What you said was more of a statement than an analogy.

"you can believe in ANY God you want....as long as that God is Jesus".

Nuff said

It WAS an analogy and if you interpreted it otherwise, that is YOUR problem, not mine. Like I said, next time I'll make the analogy a little simpler for you grasp.

Nuff said

 

[VictorLazlo]

I think I have an answer for you.

They probably have to take an oath to enter office. Or they have to "swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god."

In that case, the person in question must acknowledge the existence of a supreme being, otherwise the oath is meaningless.

 

[Cuda1447]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Mallow

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Mallow

Originally posted by: JackBurton
Just noticed this about the Texas Constitution:

he 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.

"Provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being?" Is that not a religious test? Who is the crack head that wrote this thing?! That is like saying, "you can believe in ANY God you want....as long as that God is Jesus." So no, apparently an Athiest can not hold office. What a pile of crap!

Where do you get Jesus out of that statement? Is the only entity that can be considered a supreme being Jesus? Think again.

Hey genius, I suggest you do the thinking. I'm not saying Supreme Being = Jesus, I'm saying there is a glaring contradiction in this section of the Texas Constitution! It's saying, there will be no religious tests, but then says you have to believe in a God. Isn't, "do you believe in a Supreme Being" a religious test question?

Wow, ATOT members amaze me more every day. I never disputed the fact that this is a glaring contradiction to separation of religion and state. However, I only asked you why you presumed in your original post that someone had to believe in jesus in order to satisfy the clause... clear to you yet? I now realize the effort to investigate you original thought pattern was truely futile. thx

I apologize. Obviously my Jesus analogy was a little too tough for you to grab. I assumed all AT members had at least an average IQ level, but obviously not in your case. Maybe next time I'll make my analogies a little simpler for you.

Dude, your analogy sucked. Don't try and blame him for you having a crappy analogy.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: Mallow
An analogy is contrasting similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar. What you said was more of a statement than an analogy.

"you can believe in ANY God you want....as long as that God is Jesus".

Nuff said

"...nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

is saying...

"... you can have any religion provided that it acknowledges a supreme being..." (my take on it at least)

is similiar to...

"...you can believe in ANY God you want....as long as that God is Jesus..."

is similiar to...

"... you can buy any computer you want, as long as it's from Dell..."

Thank you TuxDave. Yes, I should have used your anaolgy instead, "...you can buy any computer you want, as long as it's from Dell." That should be MUCH less confusing for Mallow. Is that too hard for you too? Or are you going to then accuse me of equating Supreme Being to Dell?

 

[TuxDave]

Just to cool the flames....

http://archive.aclu.org/news/w053097c.html