From a purely semantic perspective you are largely correct. From a sociological and demographical perspective they are treated as such, which you likely know already.
We studied a semester of Texas Politics in public school–along with a semester of Texas Geography & at least a year of Texas History.
The political science teacher did not actually say the Texas Constitution “sucks”–but he conveyed that general message. It is an ancient & unwieldy document that gets constant Amendments. When it really needs a total rewrite…
It is about as popular as the State Song. How many of you know the words to “Texas, Our Texas”?
I went to public school in Fort Worth for about 11 years, (including kindergarten), and we were regularly subjected to Texas history. I remember studying it in 3rd, 6th, and 8th grades at least, possibly other grades. I had one semester of American history in high school (taught by a spectacularly bad teacher), and I also had a few semesters of general history. But dear Og, we did get lectured about Texas history. And Texas was heavily praised at all times.
Depends on the aim of the person they’re running from, too.
I find it ironic that this is how you respond to my post hinting that atheists are a bit touchy and quick to take offense.
Cheap “gotcha” attempt-FAIL. Correcting an oft-made mistake isn’t being “touchy”.
I don’t believe that was his intent, but whatever.
Ancient and unwieldy are two of the most common descriptions, along with hideously lengthy (the number of amendments is close to 500 now). Someone attempts to pass a rewrite every couple of decades or so, never sucessfully.
This kid does. Learned it in first grade. 
There’s another thing I wanted to comment on:
It’s your OP, and I may not agree with what you say, but I shall defend to the… well, let’s call it attention span… your right to harp
[quote=shakes]
[This time Capitol One would like to throw their hat in the ring of stupidity.](http://consumerist.com/2012/03/capital-one-says-it-doesnt-allow-religious-images-on-credit-cards-apparently-hasnt-looked-at-its-own.html"
[/quote)
Talk about your face palm moments.[/QUOTE]
I had a face palm moment, too. I still stand by the theater in your OP, but there is no way in Hell I can stand by Capital One in that. That’s the one you should have bitched about because it is an obvious double standard. I see no double standard regarding the theater refusing to run ads from religious groups (excuse me Uzi, I meant to say “groups that have an opinion on religion” ), but Capital One’s “policy”? Sheesh. That’s discriminatory. It’s not a freedom of speech issue, but it is pretty damn discriminatory.
Awesome.
This one made me snort too:
Your own definition of groups talking about religion was closer to my intent when I wrote it than anything else.
But if you must, I really don’t want to be associated with the subgroups that make up the religious (pulled from my ass, so it isn’t a thesis where I’m going to provide cites):
Liars: >100 IQ
-People who actually know the truth but for a variety of reasons lie about what they know. Subgroups of this are cowards, the deluded (but not idiots), the power seekers who use what they know for their own benefit (Every recent president other than probably Jimmy Carter) and all televangelists.
Idiots: <100 IQ
-People who actually believe the Easter Bunny died for our sins in a helicopter crash (or some such rubbish).
Touchy, aren’t you?
But let’s just let pit Capital One. I can get behind the pitting of that, because that one IS a double standard.
That’s actually pretty progressive for 1876. That provision was a post-war Reconstruction era law written as a state version of the federal 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause. The purpose was to guarantee the rights of newly freed slaves, not to distinguish between the rights of free and non-free men.
Dude…YOU LIVE IN DALLAS. I live in Fort Worth. You should know by now that DFW is the rodeo buckle of the bible belt. As an avowed post theist, i look at all the others and go “jeez, y’all are wasting your time when you could be living.” aside from that, I agree with you. living in God’s conservative, heterosexual, armed country can be a bit odious at times.
it were stevie ray vaughn who died fer TEXAS’ sins in that there whirly bird crash! (sadly, I’ve actually heard that sentence, used seriously, in a sober conversation.)
Just for the record, that’s a nullity; the Supreme Court struck down a similar provision in the Maryland Constitution on First Amendment grounds. Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961).