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

I honestly don't know if Boebert is religious or not, and I truly don't care much one way or another. We are a nation that allows all religions, but does not adopt any one of them as "established" or "official".

On a purely personal level, I think her description of controversies involving 'church-and-state junk' are uninspiring, low-brow, and tiresome. But, Boebert, like any other American citizen, has the right to an opinion, and, freedom of speech, even though framed with an admittedly elementary school vocabulary in this specific incidence.

Should she wish to comment further on the First Amendment to the Constitution, as one in an advisory capacity, I would recommend that she stay strictly within the text of the amendment and not venture off 'into the weeds' where the usual, predictable opponents who are always ready to pounce!

 

No, I got that.
I just don't agree that The Church of England in and of itself is the factor you say it is. There were so many Protestans at that time that all hated each other.
Regardless, we are arguing the same point.
Carry on.

 

So when Maxine or AOC say dumb stuff they speak for all Democrats?

 

You're right

 

My point was that just reading the text is not enough. That is why there are those who INTERPRET them.
And this has to be done better than via a politically loaded "committee".
Which BTW will by definition twist the interpretation towards their predetermined moral position.
Instead as judges it is impérative that ALL judges appro1ch ALL cases with as much objectivité as is humanly possible. Otherwise you have racist judges, ones with family in the police force, those who have a private interest in a business handing down judgement skewed and bent by outside influences.
This has been an issue since à long time ago when cases defending those of à racial minority were ruled against as a matter of course. Those who held social and financial sway in a community were almost deemed innocent of à crime.
A judge, to follow à biblical model, ruled without fear or favour. The language in many of the old legal texts is not clear, and time passing puts the laws into à very different context. Both society and its expectations/acceptances have changed.
In addition there is précédent to consider and those decisions too are subject to contextual time.
I don't trust ANY legal ruling made by judges who are long time consistent left or right leanings. And MOST CERTAINLY are of à religious background. In this case you see the then POTUS completely forgetting the purpose of the SC and instead, using it as the long arm of his own opinion. This too is against the Constitution which carefully constructs the independent checks and balances inhérent in government across the three branches.
Finally, amending the legal texts won't change the openings for bias in interpretation. Nor will it provide "perfect law" because life isn't perfect.
BTW I was not using "you" in the singular address. It was meant as a general appeal.

 

To the good of only those who are the leaders. A big con. Always has been.

 

A church has the same right to influence legislation the same as every person, every group, and every business does. Control? Absolutely not, but influence? Absolutely.

 

Hold on now.
If they can have a say in our laws then they can pay taxes like every person, group and business.

 

Well, let's see the answer to this point....

 

I read up on her earliervodd upbring8ng and experience. Frankly you can take the woman out of a psycologically conditioning environment but you wont take the effects of that conditioning out of her.
ISTM it is a bit like allowing àn Imam onto the SC. It just should not be allowed.

 

If I seem to belabor the point (perhaps as you have, too), it is because in the reign of Henry VIII, England became the first country in all of European Christendom to → establish ← its own, unique, official church (unless you count Byzantium as being "European").

This concept was so hated in the newly-formed United States that the first topic addressed in our Constitution's First Amendment was that one. Therefore it is fair to infer that even though the new country was one that included many different religious organizations, sects, groups, etc., which, as you say, may have hated each other -- at least it was agreed that no ONE religion should be recognized as THE 'official' one. Now, as you suggest, let's both carry on.

 

Half of it is wrong. The first amendment doesn't separate church and state IN MY OPINION. Neither the church or any other organization can tell government what to do. It is the other way around. You know that. So that is an opinion about which we both disagree.

 

By what law or legal principle should it "not be allowed"?

 

No. Because which faith should carry the most weigh...because one will.
If faith is accepted as being of equal value and open to be followed, which one would be most influential?
Real secularity says none of them. That law is based on the great and agreed principles of Human Rights laid down by the UN and copied into bills of rights in nearlycevery democracy on earth.
And on nothing else. Faith should have no influence in legal interpretation.

 

The expectation of moral objectivity.

 

yes, to taxing megachurches too

so every dumb thing a democrat says or does is the official opinion of the left?

they were with slick willie while he was screwing interns!

Both sides do it, that's a fact

 

Unchecked, this is the natural progression of men striving for more and more power, as fully recognized by our founders and framers, and the end result of progressiveism, Marxism, absolutism, one party rule, etc -- all the things the Democrats and the left are pushing hard for now. (Though don't get me wrong: given half a chance Republicans and the right would strive for the same thing, except they are so far seemingly much more amenable to the civility, virtue, and check and balances provided in the Constitution.)

 

Isn't that a subjective standard?

If a government of the people that promotes democracy and human rights kills innocent people by way of drone warfare, do we have moral objectivity or moral depravity in action?

 

Hmm.. So in this context, "they" (meaning the SCOTUS for you) aren't. Perhaps you'd like to substantiate your assertion then? Being critical means you have to have something substantive to be critical of, and since you haven't otherwise provided anything, well.... Things for you to work on...

 

Lies? LMAO.. This is you being "critical"?? LOL

 

and vice versa, as Jesus admonished.

 

I didn't throw out anything. I asked a question. Thanks for answering.

 

The push is also very much in the direction of fascism where one or an oligarchy controls all three branches of govt and rewrites législative text asand when it suites..
I am afraid that history has provided this model for a very long time, and when the right shouts "less government ", they are either lying or deceiving themselves.
The abortion issue is an example. The federal govt has shrugged off its responsibility to address the nation as a whole and define what freedom of choice means for half the population and has passed the ball to individual states, far more prone to législative bias . Instead of à clear "yes or no:, it has subjected captive women to the vagaries of convoluted democratic process which would take years to change and which has no business forcing behaviour based on moral opinion upon women who do not hold those morals.
That is a factor in fascism. The population either toes the moral diktats of the govt or is imprisoned.
The left I live under leaves such personal beliefs to be lived out by the individual.

 

Objectivity cannot be subjective.
That is an oxymoron.
Your second issue is interesting. And one of those moral mazes we have to reconcile.
I don't know.

 

And always will be......