politics, usaEvery couple of years I consider filing the paperwork to run for either state office or Congress (knowing full well I’d have a snowball’s chance in South Texas of getting any votes) just because I feel that voting isn’t enough, and that part of our civic duty as citizens is to participate in government as fully as possible (you may roll your eyes now).
But…
Article I, Section 4 of the Texas State Constitution has this bit of language:
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.
Emphasis mine. I’m a little-a atheist; I do not acknowledge the existence of a supreme being. If I read this correctly, this means that if I want to be honest with myself and everyone else about my beliefs, I cannot hold state office in Texas.
Can a clause like this be challenged before a US court? If so, what would be the basis?
Edit
Since posting the question I’ve done some random googling (which is what passes for research these days), and the general consensus seems to be that, if challenged, the provision would be struck down on 1st Amendment and Article 6 grounds, so it simply isn’t enforced. I imagine the same is true for the other states that have constitutional provisions like this.
Note that this is entirely a separate issue from getting anyone to vote for an atheist, especially around here. I mean, that wouldn’t be the platform (Vote for me! I reject you and everything you stand for! I’m perfect for the job!), but if asked I’d have to be honest.
United States Constitution Article 6, Paragraph 3
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
The problematic line is ‘any office or public trust under the United States’ Does this mean no religious test is required for federal office or state office? That question needs to be answered before this can be taken up as unconstitutional.
Wow, does it seriously say that?! That sounds completely contradictory. Being required to acknowledge the existence of a supreme being sounds like the very definition of a religious test!
Even though I am not a lawyer, I would think there is valid ground to challenge that. Whether the country and the courts are progressive enough to correct such a contradiction in this day and age is a whole other matter, unfortunately.
I encourage you to run simply to challenge the statement of a need for belief. Do not bother with defining a Supreme Being as yourself or any other. This language needs to be removed from the Texas’ constitution, and being “that guy” could actually garner you support nationally from secular groups as well as equal rights groups. You may not win in Texas, but even challenging the notion is a win for secular society.
You could always hop on the flying spaghetti monster bandwagon when forced into a corner. There’s also egotism, whose to say you don’t perceive yourself to be a supreme being.
Yes, it is very discriminatory.
If I had the time, I’d make this big. Talk to the ACLU; they do this stuff all the time. It’s almost certainly illegal under the separation of church and state, but IANAL TINLA
Improper definition of Supreme Being? They should provide a full definition of the term. This sound more like a fifth element kind of being.
Maybe your most admired individual can be your supreme being - the being that personifies what you hope all man to someday achieve.
I don’t think these requirements are legally enforceable. Nobody wants to be ‘that guy’ that proposes it be removed, though.
Many states still have laws like this in the books - however Im certain that if they were to be challenged on first amendment grounds they would be overturned, simply because freedom of religion also includes the freedom not to believe, and that forcing an officeholder to acknowledge the existence of a supreme being is absolutely a religious test.
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.