• CPMSP@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    73
    ·
    9 months ago

    Obviously knows neither the spirit nor the letter of established law…Texas huh? Yeah, that tracks.

    • Valon_Blue
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      We have a law in Texas that an Atheist can’t hold office. Really stupid, but it would have to be challenged to get rid of it.

      edit: went and looked it up

      Article 1, Section 4 of the Texas Constitution states, “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.”

      • HopingForBetter@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        9 months ago

        I’ll gladly acknowledge the existence of a supreme being; my tuxedo cat is very supreme.

        …we don’t have to say which being is supreme, right?

      • Bahnd Rollard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        By that verbage, claiming to be pastafarian meets those requirments.

        Would pay good money to see a official painting of someone with a collander on their head.

        • Valon_Blue
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Technically a Satanist does too.

          edit: though you’d have to “really believe”

      • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        We have a law in Texas that an Atheist can’t hold office. Really stupid, but it would have to be challenged to get rid of it.

        Just to be clear that’s unconstitutional. That law has no force or effect.

        Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)

        • Valon_Blue
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Yes, it’s unconstitutional…buuut, the shitty way our political system works, somebody would have to sue to get it removed in Texas. Until someone does, they’re going to enforce it.

          edit: in Texas

          • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            The text is never going to be removed for sure because that takes action. But also no one is enforcing it either. I’d love to hear about anyone it’s been enforced against, if they exist.

            • Valon_Blue
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              If you think they’re not going to fight tooth and nail to enforce it in Texas, you don’t know Texas. It would probably have to go to SCOTUS.

              • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                I just asked who has been barred from the ballot as a result. I’m aware of Republican candidates raising the issue in TX, only to be informed that it’s unconstitutional. To my knowledge, no one has ever been barred since that case. If you have different information please let me know.

                If someone were barred, they would sue in federal district court and immediately receive an injunction. Federal courts cannot ignore precedent from SCOTUS.