Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ulysses.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!smb
From: smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.politics,net.legal
Subject: religion and public life: texas
Message-ID: <927@ulysses.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 27-Jul-84 14:55:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: ulysses.927
Posted: Fri Jul 27 14:55:10 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Jul-84 10:38:17 EDT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 13

I heard a good one on the radio this morning.  It seems that after a legal
battle lasting seven years, the state of Texas has finally agreed that a
provision in their state consitution violates the First Amendment.  Said
provision barred from public office anyone who did not profess belief in a
supreme being.  In light of the First Amendment, is there anyone on the net
who'd care to claim that this provision is indeed constitutional?  In light
of a Supreme Court ruling in 1971 striking down a similar clause in Maryland,
would anyone care to defend Texas' decision to fight this for seven years?
Finally, would anyone care to defend the concept of such a clause, regardless
of whether or not it conflicts with American law?  (This one is much easier;
Thomas More himself advocated such policies in his "Utopia".)

		--Steve Bellovin