GOP Rep. Boebert: ‘I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk’

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Patricio Da Silva, Jun 28, 2022.

  1. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,451
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So we agee, even though you want to chastise me some more... Got it. I'll remember that when you start defending democrats again.
     
    ButterBalls likes this.
  2. doombug

    doombug Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2012
    Messages:
    56,871
    Likes Received:
    22,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hahaha! Perhaps she and others will hijack the government and force their will on everyone.....no wait, that is what leftists do.
     
    glitch and ButterBalls like this.
  3. ShadowX

    ShadowX Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2014
    Messages:
    12,949
    Likes Received:
    6,727
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No that’s not what the establishment clause says.
     
    glitch and ButterBalls like this.
  4. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,451
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL... Nah brah, she's a crazy party of one. She and ms Maxine might have a wonderful lunch out sometime.... Crazy I tell you.

    Folks on the conservative side of things aren't interested in having religion "run" the country. Mostly religious folks want to make sure the government leaves them alone, like it says they will in the constitution. And, at the same time, those who wrote the constitution generally thought that those leading in government would be, for the most part, moral folks who's religious convictions would guide them without trying to create a national government religion. You know, like Europe. Or China.... And the real issue democrats have these days, is that like the Chinese, they believe that government is their religion. If you want to talk about religious zealots, that's where you're going to find them.
     
  5. AmericanNationalist

    AmericanNationalist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    41,163
    Likes Received:
    20,938
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's deeply disturbing that so many of my fellow Americans don't know what religious rule is. Go to Saudi Arabia or Yemen, then you'll find a religious-ran government. Someone praying on a football field for example, pales in comparison to what a religious state is. Go to Afghanistan and the Taliban, there you'll find very little of the liberal tolerance that makes up western civilization.

    Ours is a secular state and has been secular from the dawn of time. The SCOTUS has no ability or desire to change that, nor is there any political movement aimed at changing it.
     
    ButterBalls and drluggit like this.
  6. MJ Davies

    MJ Davies Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2020
    Messages:
    21,120
    Likes Received:
    20,246
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Clearly, to anyone that passed the required 8th grade Constitution test, Freedom of Religion applies to all (or none) religions so the best way to help this specific "genius" is to argue her point in favor of any non-Christian religion to "drive our government".

    How far and hard will she fall trying to back pedal this dumbass comment?
     
    Buri and mdrobster like this.
  7. balancing act

    balancing act Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2020
    Messages:
    4,039
    Likes Received:
    3,650
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I would argue that some of the members of SCOTUS would like to do just that.
    Example: One of them recently made a reference to the protection of the right to have contraception available in all states. What is the motivation if it is NOT religious?
    Same with same sex marriage and abortion. They're decisions to not protect the right is founded straight from the religious sect of the US.
    I agree with the first part of your statement.
     
    cd8ed likes this.
  8. archives

    archives Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,947
    Likes Received:
    3,711
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ah, not too sure about that, just had a SCOTUS decision that decided that one individual's overt freedom of speech as an employee of a governmental entity on government property was more important than the Establishment Clause
     
    9royhobbs likes this.
  9. Matt84

    Matt84 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2015
    Messages:
    5,896
    Likes Received:
    2,472
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is the same bimbo that said the second amendment was under siege............:confusion:
     
  10. Pixie

    Pixie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2021
    Messages:
    7,224
    Likes Received:
    2,408
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    You have a different definition of secular than other places do.
    The fundamental issue is that the state must not be influence by, give faveur to or take into account any religious tents, concerns, beliefs, cultural associations or traditions.
    So your influence of the Christian right and its drift through govt to à theocracy wouldn't get a bat of an eyelash. It couldn't happen.
    There wouldn't be the merest whiff of à religion anywhere in law.
    In public and underclaw, everyone is equal. I don't know what the person in the street is praying to, if anything.
    What you do behind closed doors is your business.
    It is bound up with equality and freedom. No faith can become any more important than any other and there are no exceptions anywhere in public life.
    Having said that, the wearing of à hijab is allowed as a form of scarf. The face must not be hidden.
    It stops assumption, arguments, suggestions of favoritism, blame, stereotyping, and préjudice.
     
  11. Pixie

    Pixie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2021
    Messages:
    7,224
    Likes Received:
    2,408
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Not from where I am sitting.
    I see, since Bushvjr, à move to placage the religious right secure their votes in exchange for influential places that shape and direct the moral compass and create à "if you arent with us you are against us" atmosphère.
    It sets rules and insists that everyone follows them , interferes deeply into peoples private lives, makes the state the central and controlling heart of the country while pretending to offer à smaller state, and makes every issue à matter for the particular moral bent of the PTB.
    I find it insidious, dangerous and à creeping form of control hiding behind what seems to be virtuous and acceptable.
    These people who are quietly seeping into your foundation are as extremist and potentially power hungry as any theocracy which runs the life of the country according to àn interprétation of à religion.
    Beware of the silver tongued devil.
     
    9royhobbs and mdrobster like this.
  12. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,451
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hmm.. So you misread the decision. Being an employee of a local school district doesn't restrict your religious freedom, nor does exercising it on a football field violate the establishment clause. Government isn't the established religion of this country. Thanks for you concern.
     
    glitch and ButterBalls like this.
  13. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Boebert's position is very fashionable in Washington DC. Elected politicians have thumbed their collective nose at their oath of office at least since bipartisan majorities passed the USA Patriot Act. It is very fashionable in Washington to disregard constitutional governance, and religious zealots often lead the way in that regard.

    They prefer to have a theocracy. Old news indeed.
     
    9royhobbs likes this.
  14. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Boebert is no doubt referring to the fact that so many uninformed Americans are incapable of reading and understanding the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (the "Establishment Clause").

    Focus (FOCUS) on what it actually says (my emphasis added for those with comprehension difficulties):

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    Do any of you who throw crap at Boebert understand why the authors of the Constitution felt so strongly about the ESTABLISHMENT of a religion in a nation -- a "national religion"? Because they had just successfully won independence from England -- which had "THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND"! It, as history reveals was put into place in the first place hundreds of years before by an English king who was pissed off at the Roman Catholic Church because it wouldn't allow him to get out of marriage(s) he had grown unhappy with.

    Anyway, the hyperliberal Leftists here can go on gnashing their teeth and castigating Lauren Boebert as they have done recently when they declared her to be a WHORE who was unqualified to be in office as a representative. Oh -- she just trounced her opposition here in Colorado in yesterday's primary election, and so now radical Democrats and their sycophants are trying a new tactic to damage her. NO surprise....
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2022
    glitch, RodB and Eleuthera like this.
  15. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,360
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The constitution calls for "no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It does not call for separation of church and state. I have no idea if Boebert is explaining that nuance or if she's blowing smoke up everyone's butt.

    You cannot require an elected person to pass a civics exam without amending and muddying up the Constitution.
     
  16. fullmetaljack

    fullmetaljack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2017
    Messages:
    7,916
    Likes Received:
    6,705
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Boebert and other Republicans want the government to let Christians and Christian organizations get their snouts into federal public money. The founders did not want a theocracy in this country. They understood that if a government became a proponent of a religion it would cancel the freedom to practice any other religion.
    Now we have Republicans like Boebert , and others, trying to piss on the establishment clause in the name of morality, of which they have none.
     
  17. balancing act

    balancing act Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2020
    Messages:
    4,039
    Likes Received:
    3,650
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's amazing that anyone who can walk and talk can't see the problem with religion being intertwined with government and laws.
    Which one of the hundreds (if not thousands) should we use for basing government and laws around? Scientology? Southern Baptist? Muslim? Hindu? etc.
    Anyone who says something like this signals to me a lack of critical thinking skills, which, I assume, Boebert sorely lacks.
     
  18. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The authors of the Constitution of the United States protected all of us American citizens from the tyrannical dictates involving the official, governmental →ESTABLISHMENT← of any kind of national religion -- and THAT was enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution. It was put there to forever protect Americans from tyrants like HENRY VIII.

    What in hell is so hard to understand about THAT?!

    [​IMG]. "Don't like my church? Then GO TO THE NEW WORLD!" :roll:
     
  19. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,758
    Likes Received:
    14,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One might think so but they would be wrong.

    No it says that government cannot establish a religion and it cannot interfere with the practice of religion. It has been "interpreted" to mean a division of church and state when the words of the constitution seem to say the opposite. The founders didn't want a national religion. They wanted people to be able to worship as they see fit. Reading more into that than it says is common in law but makes little sense to me.

    I don't think any organization that has revenue and expenses should be free from taxation. Religions are businesses in my view because they have revenue and expenses. Some are very profitable.

    No, I agree with her. I don't see any division between church and state in the first amendment. I often disagree with what lawyers do sometimes. It is what it is. Like you, I am also allowed to disagree.

    At least her positions are different from yours. That is of no interest to anyone other than you.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/28/lauren-boebert-church-state-colorado/

    It is a reasonable position in my view.

    Not a very good or accurate way to put it. At least she is right that government is not supposed to direct the church. The first amendment is clear on that point.

    Fortunately she is not a diplomat.
     
    Pollycy likes this.
  20. omni

    omni Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2021
    Messages:
    6,042
    Likes Received:
    5,406
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Separation of church and state came from a letter from one of our founding fathers who wrote the constitution. A wall between church and state does not mean church directs state.

    Boebert is saying Thomas Jefferson's interpretation of thr constitution is wrong.
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2022
    mdrobster likes this.
  21. mdrobster

    mdrobster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    34,177
    Likes Received:
    12,800
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Isn't it amazing how all these RWers are Constitutional law experts and yet they need to once again interpret an unhinged lawmaker's words to fit their narrative.
     
  22. omni

    omni Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2021
    Messages:
    6,042
    Likes Received:
    5,406
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's only a matter a time before they call Thomas Jefferson a liberal activist like everyone else who doesn't interpret the constitution like they want.
     
    mdrobster likes this.
  23. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,238
    Likes Received:
    16,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Say what?

    The first amendment is the amendment which separates church and state.

    https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/885/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state

    establishmentclause.jpg

    The most famous use of the metaphor was by Thomas Jefferson in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. In it, Jefferson declared that when the American people adopted the establishment clause they built a “wall of separation between the church and state.”

    One of the prime motivators to get the Bill of Rights into the constitution was to guarantee religious freedom, and since there were so many competing churches, Jefferson fought for the disestablishment of church and state, he didn't want the state favoring one religion over another, and that this is why that language found it's way in the first amendment. That's what it means, the state cannot sponsor one religion over another. That, in effect, means it cannot sponsor any religion.
    How does the constitution disallow a candidate from any office from passing a civics exam?

     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2022
    mdrobster likes this.
  24. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ok, robster, if you have read the First Amendment, as it was written, what do you see -- in plain English...?

    Perhaps you on the liberal-Left see magical 'invisible writing' that we Conservatives are unable to view?
     
    glitch likes this.
  25. mdrobster

    mdrobster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    34,177
    Likes Received:
    12,800
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The separation of church and state is clear. Other posters have provided links about it. Which church is right anyways.

    Playing petty semantics with the 1st amendment is a joke.
     
    9royhobbs and Patricio Da Silva like this.

Share This Page