Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 6: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (11 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
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." | 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 | And also note that it is textually similar to the 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= | ||
https:// | * ''SMU v. S. Cent. Juris. Conf. of United Methodist Church'', 716 S.W.3d 475, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14056762347756447748#p508 508] (Tex. 2025) (Young, concurring) ("I turn to the question that in the end may prove most consequential: Given the Texas Constitution's distinct language and history, is its church-autonomy doctrine meaningfully different from its federal counterpart? As with other important constitutional guarantees, the answer is: 'We still do not really know, even as we approach the sesquicentennial of our current Constitution.' ''Tex. Dep't of State Health Servs. v. Crown Distrib. LLC'', 647 S.W.3d 648, 664 (Tex. 2022) (Young, J., concurring).") | ||
* ''Perez v. City of San Antonio'', 715 S.W.3d 709, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3463690842371194617#p717 717] n.9 (Tex. 2025) ("We have also applied strict scrutiny to the Texas Constitution's Freedom of Worship Clause, which is original to the 1876 Texas Constitution and provides in part: 'All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences,' and '. . . .' Tex. Const. art. I, § 6. For want of arguments to the contrary, we have assumed that the Freedom of Worship Clause provides protection that is 'coextensive' with the federal Free Exercise Clause and thus requires a strict-scrutiny analysis.") | |||
* ''Perez v. City of San Antonio'', | |||
* ''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.") | * ''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.") | ||
| Line 41: | Line 38: | ||
|seo_title=Article I, Section 6 of the Texas Constitution ("Freedom of Worship") | |seo_title=Article I, Section 6 of the Texas Constitution ("Freedom of Worship") | ||
|seo_keywords=Article 1 Section 6, | |seo_keywords=Article 1 Section 6, religious liberty, school prayer | ||
|seo_description=All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. | |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 | ||