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

I'm not playing 'semantics', robster... I'm asking you, straight-up, what does the First Amendment actually SAY?! It's not a trick question, and although I'm an 'old guy', no, I didn't write it! Focus on what is actually WRITTEN, that's all!

It doesn't matter what anybody thinks somebody else was thinking about this, that, or anything else -- where the Constitution of the United States is concerned, what MATTERS is what's WRITTEN in it and its Amendments!

 

To repeat the Constitution (1st amendment) reads, ".... no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....." Neither the words separates, church, nor state are anywhere to be found.

 

Thomas Jefferson is telling us how to interpret the 1st amendment. Is the guy who helped write the constitution wrong in his interpretation and the intent of the 1st amendment?

 

The Constitution spells out very clearly and succinctly the requirements for running for federal office. Nothing akin to a civics exam is anywhere to be seen.

 

Maybe it is somehow clear to you, but the words separation of church and state are nowhere written in the Constitution. Even the individual words separation and church are nowhere to be found in the Constitution, though the word state is in it often.

 

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

View attachment 178760

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 the Gov cannot sponsor any religion. That it can't sponsor any religion equals separation of church and state.

I'm for taxation of non profit institutions. But 'non profit' actually means 'not intended primarily for profit' because any organization must take in more than it pays out.

So, I'd accept, in the case of non profit institutions, that they pay a tax and they can deduct the expense of their charitable work from their gross revenues. For many, it might mean they pay little in taxes.

It's pretty much a settled argument that the first amendment separates church from state. All it means is that the state can't sponsor one religion over another, and if it can't do that, it can't sponsor any religion and that is the separation. It must treat all religions equally. To argue otherwise is to fail to grasp that fundamental point.

 

the word 'respecting' is used in a very old fashioned sense, the sentence, in modern language, means not to give one religion special treatment over another.

See, in order to do that, it must treat all religions equally. There 4000 religions, so what, you are going to join state and 4000 religions?

Impossible. Therefore, The net result of the amendment is separation of church and state and that is a settled argument among academicians.

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

 

A letter from anybody is not the Constitution. Anybody can argue what they think the Constitution means, but not what it says -- though some here do that too once in a while. I don't know if Boebart is right or wrong. Define "wall" and "wall between" and then I'll try to think it through. BTW, Jefferson was not one of the drafters (writers) of the Constitution.

 

I'm aware of all the establishment clause stuff. I just don't agree with it. It is not written in the constitution. It is an interpretation of words that say nothing about such a separation. It is a perversion of the first amendment. My impression is that the founders defined what federal government should do and left everything else to the states. It isn't what happened. We suffer a huge, incompetent, corrupt federal government as a result. Therefore let me add perverse to the adjectives in the former sentence.

 

Jefferson is not just some anybody lol! He was the mentor of James Madison who wrote the constitution. He of course had input in the ideas that our country was founded on.

 

You want me to recite the words ?

Bray and bleat all you want, but only fools think any church, temple, or synagogue should have any input into us laws.

 

Tell yourself whatever you need.

 

That is simply inaccurate. First, the word "respecting" in the Constitution means what it meant when the words were written, not necessarily what it means today. Secondly, back then what they meant was the government was not to respect or allow themselves to establish a national (or government sanctioned and sponsored if not dictated) religion as was the case in a few colonies (at least one AFAIK, Maryland) and virtually every European country. Thirdly, not establishing does not mean not recognizing. The founders and framers knew very well that government established religion was the root of much grievous evil where liberty was involved, and they wanted none of that. They did not intend for the government to be completely devoid of religion (in the general sense) as Jefferson kinda envisioned.. For instance Washington was inaugurated the first time with his hand on a bible, congress early on started every session with a prayer even before the Constitution was ratified, and "Do you..... so help you God" has been used in US courts for virtually forever. Jefferson was inaugurated with his hand on a bible, though he was one of only a couple of presidents not a member of any organized religion or church.

 

How do you propose to remove a church's 1st amendment rights to speech, press, assemble, and file grievances?

 

Which has nothing to do with the subject of what Boebert said.

 

If you believe I'm just making stuff up, like you seem to do, I challenge you to point out in the Constitution the words separation or church, or the phrase separation of church and state.

 

That's true. Sorry for going off thread, but I was responding to your post.

 

And James Madison who wrote the constitution objected to chaplains and daily prayers on the grounds that it violated the Bill of Rights requirement of disestablishment of religion and government. If you are going to open with a prayer, then you should not discriminate against any religion.

 

I suspect you are arguing that 'respecting' in context of:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

doesn't say 'the state cannot treat one religion over another.

It's an old fashioned use of the word, but that is exactly what it means.

I wouldn't mean it today, but it did, then.

 

She's wrong on this and its going to cost her some votes. Probably not a lot given the alternative, but certainly a lot more folks will be voting for her as the less bad option now instead of the best option.

...lot of that going around these days.

 

All you've got is more huff-and-puff DEFLECTION. The Constitution and its Amendments say what they say -- NOT what you, me, or any other individual or political faction WANTS any of it to say. If you aren't willing to accept the Constitution as it is written and amended, then what validity do you think ANY of it has?

 

As allergic as our Founding Fathers were to the entire practice of a government (king, parliament, etc.) declaring an 'official religion', surely their intent was to forbid any tyrant, of any type, even remotely like Henry VIII, from declaring one in the United States!

Also, I believe that "respecting" in that context meant "with regard to...." That seems consistent with the rest of the sentence.

 

I'm just thankful she isn't getting much support for his idiocy.

 

I should have suggested this before... if you don't like the wording within any part of the Constitution, THEN AMEND IT. It's already been amended successfully 27 times already. Throw what you don't like, include something you want, or simply replace whole chunks if it -- but -- do it LEGALLY!

 

This Just In! Breaking News! J6 Star Witness Cassidy Hutchinson heard somebody say that Lauren Boebert is running an escort service out of her House Office! And if that's her religion, then hey, none of this "separation of Church and State Junk!"

COLORADO: GOP Rep. Lauren Boebert scores crucial vote of confidence in Colorado primary election victory: ‘Freedom wins.’

Another Fine GOP Babe Advances!
​

"Boebert described herself and Rep. Mary Miller of Illinois, who won the GOP primary in her state's newly drawn 15th Congressional District as: "Moms, freedom fighters, and professional RINO hunters!"

She's all Fight, Fire, and Fineness!
​

"Boebert, a conservative firebrand and gun-toting Second Amendment enthusiast, said she was looking forward to Republicans winning back the House majority and dethroning" Dried Up Old Hag, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Getting Back On Track!
"Conservative Republicans like me are going to help take back the House in November, fire Nancy Pelosi, and do all we can to get our country back on track."

​

Clearly the lovely and take no crap off the authoritarians, Boebert, was speaking to this silliness that Christianity is to be banned from the public square.