Jump to content

No Atheist Politicians In Texas


Ahh!
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/txconst/sectio...100-000400.html

 

"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."

 

Those poor persecuted Christians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Women there have no rights.

 

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/txconst/sectio...100-000300.html

 

All free men, when they form a social compact, have equal rights, and no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive separate public emoluments, or privileges, but in consideration of public services.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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."

 

Isn't this a self-contradiction?

 

I think my brain just exploded... :twitch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My state Tennessee has the same law against atheists, I don't think it would be upheld unless you were in a corrupted small town's government though or something small and local like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Burnedout, help me out here, which part is archaic and means something different than how we read it today:

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.

 

-edit-

 

I think I know what you mean. It was written during a time when Atheism and Agnosticism didn't exist, and they couldn't imagine that someone could completely disbelieve in a deity of some kind. So the "religious test" was that anyone could have any religion.

 

But at the same time, they did indirectly admit to the knowledge that someone could be denying a supreme being (deity) just by adding that extra line afterwards demanding acknowledgment of a belief in a supreme being. If they couldn't imagine anyone without such a belief, they wouldn't have written the demand, or ...? :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to think the same way you did until I had an English teacher explain that to me.

It may be of a surprise to you, but I already knew that. It was more a sarcastic comment on how backwards, behind the times, Texas is. Again, I forgot to explain myself further.

post-86-1173463205_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HEY FOLKS!!!!

 

Read my above post...that document is not saying what you think it says.....it is written in an archaic form of English......

My friend, chill. As usual no one paid attention to my post and all have been commenting on your OP. You started a good topic and you've shown just how insidious and dishonest these christians are. :goodjob:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I had no problem with your input on the "Women there have no rights" issue. I agree there.

 

But I still do have a problem how a text can be written like this "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." Still, it does stronly imply a test is needed for office. A Buddhist, Pagan or Hindu can not hold office either, and those religions did exist even in those days, regardless of what they really wanted to include or exclude potential atheists or agnosticists (and I understand they probably didn't think of that group at all). I just can't see how a "Supreme Being" even back then could mean anything else than a sort of god, and that the belief in such was required, and yet no test of such belief was not required. To me it looks like a contradiction even if I'd been born 200 years ago. So again, can you point out which part of the sentence that I misunderstand. Maybe the problem is that they didn't know about Buddhism or Hinduism back then, or maybe they didn't recognize them as "religions"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HEY FOLKS!!!!

 

Read my above post...that document is not saying what you think it says.....it is written in an archaic form of English......

My friend, chill. As usual no one paid attention to my post and all have been commenting on your OP. You started a good topic and you've shown just how insidious and dishonest these christians are. :goodjob:

 

Dave,

 

It's cool...no offense meant...LOL...what happend there just grated on me kind of like someone coming into a class room and running their fingernails on a chalk board. I just over reacted...please accept my apologies. .......

 

I sincerely hope I am understood by my explanation, again, I certainly did not mean to over react. Sorry everyone..... :grin:

No problem. I, for one, can empathize with frustration. :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back then, it is very conceivable that they had no clue that Buddhism and Hinduism even existed and it was also conceivable that there was nobody alive in the American colonies that would even have it in their psyche's that there could be no god of any kind...Again, a cultural/langauge usage issue. Plus, the American colonies were very isolated from the rest of the world...it was not even close to the country we have today. Only about 20% of the people could read or write. It was just a little backwater section of the far off continent across the ocean that took weeks to cross by saling ship, it sometimes took a month or more from the ports of Britain.

That is fine, but it has nothing to do with the constitution of Texas, the present version was ratified on Feb. 15, 1876. They knew about Buddhism and Atheists at that time. Also at that time most had already been told that unless one believed in a god of some kind that they could not be moral. Up until the mid 70's or so Atheists could not testify in court, in Texas, because they didn't believe in a god they could swear to and thus force them to tell the truth.

 

Also, the document is not written in stone and can be modified and voted on every two years. Do you think an amendment taking out; "provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being" would pass? I don't.

 

Edited to add: The "he" part is not the problem. The "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being" part is where the problem is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave,

 

As for your case with the state of Texas...really, seriously, most of the problems you encounter are most likely from after WW2. That is when most of the governments have been playing schinanigans. Prior to that, nobody really gave a shit. People, aside from a few very rich people, were poor and they figured, that was in Austin, we live here, that has nothing to do with me.

True. The Cold War was used by the christians to get their nose under the tent. That was when they put their god in our Pledge and on our coinage. If anyone was dumb enough to protest they were immediately called a Commie and jailed.

 

Christianity was so engrained into the society, even if they did not take it seriously, they always figured they were Christian and never really thought much about it. If you attack the churches there, you will get a fight you will not want. You may be right about changing the constitution but there may be a Federal case in the making and change comes slowly and you cannot become impatient. You must be ready for a long battle lasting perhaps a lifetime. In the mean time, treat the ignorant Christians as what Lenin called, "useful idiots," there is nothing wrong with working covertly, that is part of the nature of warfare. Until you enough numbers of people to marshal forces, you must sit and bide your time and gain allies. Sometimes the best ally can be your enemy. Read the book, The Art of War by Sun Tzu, it will explain what you must do in a war if you are weak and when you are strong.

I don't put much stock in old books. I like new stuff better. But you're right, christianity is too imbeded and it's going to take awhile to get the camel out of the tent. It's become too comfortable and is crapping all over the house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.