Is this really a part of the TX Constitution?

Factual Questions
1

I’ve been in GD and ran across this incredibly outdated [clause](No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding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.) which is list as being part of the Texas Constitution. State Constitutions aren’t always up to date. But, this clause seems so against most US Supreme Court decisions that I must wonder if I have found a site by someone who does not believe in the seperation of Church and State.

2

Your link (linked as “clause”) does not work. What particular portion of the Texas constitution are you calling outdated?

3

I think the OP is looking here.

4

There’s a difference between something being written in a State constitution and whether a provision is actually applied. If someone was really subjected to the test linked to and denied access to a public office because of this reason, this would surefire be declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. The provision is still part of the Texas Constitution; but its application would violate federal constitutional law, so it’s not applied any more and doesn’t have practical relevance.

5

Why not simply look at the Texas Constitution as it is currently written to find out? You can find it through the www.findlaw.com site, I have no doubt.

6

That is the current wording of Article 1, Section 4:

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/txconst/sections/cn000100-000400.html

But, it’s not operative, due to Torasco v. Watkins (MD atheist sues to be sworn in as Notary Public) and McDaniel v. Paty (Baptist minister runs for Tennessee constitutional convention delegate in spite of Tenn. law banning ministers from holding office)

7

Stuff can linger in state consitutions for decades simply because removing things can be time consuming, and you run the risk of alienating the the ultra-conservatives while not really making much hay from anywhere else, as the people that would object to the wording consider that battle won. There’s just no advantage in fighting that fight.

Case in point: the Alabama constitutional ban on interracial marriage was only removed about four years ago. To remove something takes a state-wide vote, and no one wanted to open that can of worms for something that wasn’t enforcable anyway. When they did have the vote, it was pretty depressing; 40% of voters voted to keep it in the constitution!