Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 5 and Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 6: Difference between pages

(Difference between pages)
m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary
 
mNo edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{DISPLAYTITLE:Article I, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution (''<small>"Witnesses Not Disqualified by Religious Beliefs; Oaths and Affirmations"</small>'')}}{{Texas Constitution|text=Adopted February 15, 1876:
{{DISPLAYTITLE:Article I, Section 6 of the Texas Constitution (''<small>"Freedom of Worship"</small>'')}}{{Texas Constitution|text=Adopted February 15, 1876:


'''No person shall be disqualified to give evidence in any of the Courts of this State on account of his religious opinions, or for the want of any religious belief, but all oaths or affirmations shall be administered in the mode most binding upon the conscience, and shall be taken subject to the pains and penalties of perjury.'''
'''All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship. But it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect equally every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship.'''


|editor=
|editor=


Sections 4 through 7 of Article I, including the recently adopted Section [[Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 6-a|6-a]], concern religion.
Sections 4 through 7 of Article I, including the recently adopted Section [[Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 6-a|6-a]], concern religion. This section is the most expansive of those sections. Among other things, it guarantees individual religious freedom and prohibits discrimination between religious denominations. Despite its breadth, the section has been the subject of relatively few court decisions. Moreover, since roughly the 1950s, Texas state courts have routinely relied on the federal constitution rather than the state constitution when resolving suits involving the interaction of state government and religion. However, it should be noted that the United States Supreme Court's jurisprudence in this area of the law has been heavily criticized.


Under this section, the state is prohibited from requiring the following oath: "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God."
Due either to the plain language of the provision or to state court decisions interpreting the provision, the substance of the provisions concerning religion contained in the state constitution sometimes differs from the substance of the provisions concerning religion contained in the federal constitution. For example, "opening exercises" in public school classrooms that include the reading of a Bible passage and the recital of the Lord's Prayer do not violate this section. However, such practices violate the federal constitution. See ''Abington School District v. Schempp'', 374 U.S. 203, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2708202356121821143#p225 225] (1963) ("They are religious exercises, required by the States in violation of the command of the First Amendment . . . .").


In addition, the section prohibits a person from testifying in any state judicial proceeding unless he or she is "subject to the pains and penalties of perjury."
This section is derived from the 1845 Texas Constitution, which provided: "All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion; and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious societies or mode of worship; but it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of their own mode of public worship."
 
And also note that it is substantively similar to provisions concerning religion contained in the early state constitutions of Pennsylvania (1790), Tennessee (1796), and Kentucky (1799). For example, the Kentucky Declaration of Rights provided: "That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; that no man shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent; that no human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious societies or modes of worship."


|recent=
|recent=


* ''Scott v. State'', 80 S.W.3d 184, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4925470986104743832#p196 196] (Tex.App.–Waco 2002, ref'd) (citations omitted) ("Article I, section 5 of the Texas Constitution and article 1.17 of the Code of Criminal Procedure require a witness to make his oath or affirmation 'subject to the pains and penalties of perjury.' In our view however, this does not equate to a requirement that the witness affirmatively state that he is testifying 'under penalty of perjury' if such a statement is contrary to the witness's religious beliefs. As stated by the Fourth Circuit, 'the form of the administration of the oath is immaterial, provided that it involves, in the mind of the witness, the bringing to bear of this apprehension of punishment [for perjury].'")
* ''Pleasant Glade Assembly of God v. Schubert'', 264 S.W.3d 1, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5305447475925079813#p2 2] (Tex. 2008) ("This appeal concerns the tension between a church's right to protection under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and a church member's right to judicial redress under a claim for intentional tort. U.S. CONST. amend. I; see also TEX. CONST. art. I, § 6. . . . We further conclude the case, as tried, presents an ecclesiastical dispute over religious conduct that would unconstitutionally entangle the court in matters of church doctrine and, accordingly, reverse the court of appeals' judgment and dismiss the case.")
 
* ''HEB Ministries, Inc. v. Texas Higher Educ. Coordinating Bd.'', 235 S.W.3d 627, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=517806966840097315#p642 642] (Tex. 2007) (footnotes omitted) ("The Establishment Clause prohibits . . . . Correspondingly, article I, section 6 of the Texas Constitution states that 'no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society'. We have referred to this provision and article I, section 7 as 'Texas' equivalent of the Establishment Clause.' The parties do not argue that there is any difference in the application of these federal and state constitutional provisions to this case, and we will assume for present purposes that they are coextensive.")


|historic=
|historic=


* ''Craig v. State'', 480 S.W.2d 680, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7290750826632979491#p684 684] (Tex.Crim.App. 1972) (footnote omitted) ("In construing [Article I, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution], this court has previously held that it is constitutionally permissible that jurors be allowed to affirm instead of being sworn. . . . Article 1.17, V.A.C.C.P., which is almost identical to the above constitutional provision, is to be construed similarly. To the extent that prior decisions such as ''Crisp v. State'', 87 Tex.Cr.R. 137, 220 S.W. 1104 (Tex.Cr.App. 1920) and ''Hewey v. State'', 87 Tex.Cr.R. 248, 220 S.W. 1106 (Tex.Cr.App. 1920) are inconsistent with this holding, they are overruled. The statutes complained of are not unconstitutional.")
* ''State v. Corpus Christi People's Baptist Church'', 683 S.W.2d 692, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9335125298661201719#p696 696-97] (Tex. 1984) ("[T]he State has a compelling interest of the highest order in protecting the children in child-care facilities from physical and mental harm. . . . We have considered all of People's Baptist's remaining arguments: that state licensing and regulation of these homes would violate the Ninth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; 42 U.S.C. 1983; article I, sections 3a, 6 and 19; article II, section 1; and article III, section 1 of the Texas Constitution. We conclude that the State's regulatory scheme does not violate these provisions.")
 
* ''Ex parte Luehr'', 266 S.W.2d 375, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10688224872471884201#p376 376] (Tex.Crim.App. 1954) ("The [City of Cuero] ordinance in question reads as follows: '. . . .' Appellant is a missionary evangelist preaching from house to house by soliciting and taking orders for subscriptions to the magazine The Watchtower, under the directions of the Victoria Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, as his way of worship. Under many authorities the above ordinance when properly construed and applied does not cover such preaching activities, and if it does so the ordinance is in conflict with the Constitutions of the United States and of This [sic] State.")
 
* ''City of New Braunfels v. Waldschmidt'', 207 S.W. 303, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/207_SW_303.pdf#page=3 305] (Tex. 1918) ("The ordinance [requiring students attending school to be vaccinated against the smallpox virus] does not in any way undertake to control or interfere with any rights of conscience in matters of religion. As pointed out in Chief Justice Waite's opinion in Reynolds v. United States . . . . No more does section 6 of the Bill of Rights in our state Constitution relieve one from obedience to reasonable health regulations, enacted under the police power of the state, because such regulations happen not to conform to one's religious belief.")
 
* ''Church v. Bullock'', 109 S.W. 115, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/109_SW_115.pdf#page=3 117-18] (Tex. 1908) ("Did the exercises which the evidence shows the teachers engaged in convert the schoolroom into a 'place of worship,' within the intent and meaning of [this section]? . . . An annual appropriation is made for a chaplain for the penitentiary; in fact, Christianity is so interwoven with the web and woof of the state government that to sustain the contention that the Constitution prohibits reading the Bible, offering prayers, or singing songs of a religious character in any public building of the government would produce a condition bordering upon moral anarchy.")


* ''Ramirez v. State'', 264 S.W.2d 99, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4273965640812252416#p100 100] (Tex.Crim.App. 1953) ("From the letter in evidence it was evident that the appellant had in 1949 belonged to an organization from which the jury might reasonably conclude that he in fact did not believe in a Supreme Being. Under the state of this record, the evidence disclosed by the letter had no relevancy to the offense for which the appellant was being charged but was admitted solely for the purpose of impeaching the witness. Section 5 of Article 1 of the Constitution of Texas, Vernon's Ann. St., provides that no person . . . . The State has made no effort to justify this obvious error. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.")
* ''Gabel v. City of Houston'', 29 Tex. 335, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/029_Tex_335.pdf#page=13 347] (1867) ("It does not enjoin upon any person the duty of conforming his conduct to the rites of his church; but it does prevent him from following a tippling occupation in the city on Sunday, by which crowds of persons may be congregated at a public house, and, under the influence of intoxication, may commit riots and breaches of the peace, to the great annoyance . . . . That there is nothing in the constitution of the United States or of this state to prevent the legislature from forbidding the pursuit of worldly business upon Sunday, has been decided in a number of states.")


* ''Santillian v. State'', 182 S.W.2d 812, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/182_SW2_812.pdf#page=4 815] (Tex.Crim.App. 1944) ("Therefore a child who could never be 'convicted of a crime in any court' is not amenable to the pains and penalties of perjury, and therefore could not testify in any court. If such were true, then the result would be to deny to such child the equal protection of the laws, as guaranteed in the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution. If the child were hurt in an accident, with no witness save the child, it would have no protection under the law. Again, on the criminal side, in cases of rape under the age of consent, the female could not be heard to testify, she being not punishable under the law of perjury.")
* ''Blair v. Odin'', 3 Tex. 288, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/003_Tex_288.pdf#page=13 300] (1848) ("But the revolution, and the constitution formed by the people as the fundamental system of the new government, materially affected these pretensions of the church, and with justice and humanity resolved, that, as man is an accountable being, he should be permitted to worship his maker according to the dictates of his own conscience. The third article of the Declaration of Rights is, that '. . . .' This declaration reduced the Roman Catholic church from the high privilege of being the only national church, to a level and an equality with every other denomination of religion.")


|seo_title=Article I, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution ("Witnesses Not Disqualified by Religious Beliefs; Oaths and Affirmations")
|seo_title=Article I, Section 6 of the Texas Constitution ("Freedom of Worship")
|seo_keywords=Article 1 Section 5, Texas Bill of Rights, religious beliefs
|seo_keywords=Article 1 Section 6, freedom of religion, school prayer
|seo_description=No person shall be disqualified to give evidence in any of the Courts of this State on account of his religious beliefs.
|seo_description=All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.
|seo_image_alt=Texas Bill of Rights
|seo_image_alt=Texas Bill of Rights


Line 32: Line 42:
[[Category:Texas Bill of Rights]]
[[Category:Texas Bill of Rights]]
[[Category:Religion Law]]
[[Category:Religion Law]]
[[Category:Evidence Law]]
[[Category:TxCon ArtI Sec]]
[[Category:TxCon ArtI Sec]]