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

Then use internet access to access a dictionary. They are free. I absolutely will not do it for you.

Fair enough. I'm just not jumping to ridiculous conclusions.

 

I have literally sourced a poll in this very thread
They answer is yes

 

No, Boebert is an idiot. I strongly recommend you ignore her.


Please pay close attention.

First, let's clear the 'respecting the establishment' phrase: I see that you are getting hung up on the word 'establishment'. This is an older style of English, in modern english it means favoring or sponsoring a religion, it is not necessarily in the more narrower sense of referring to a state creating a national church, like the church of England.

Now, let's continue.....


There are some things in communication or written word that presume a fact or condition or state beforehand without which the communication or written word cannot be exercised or make sense.

Now then, Polydectes, given the above, see if you can follow this:

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion......


Would a church sponsored by the state violate that clause?

Yes, it would. Can you see why? Look at the statement highlighted, and see if you can apply it to the first amendment, and see WHY we can, by the wording of the first amendment, apply the same logic as that of Thomas Jefferson used, the same logic that SCOTUS used in several rulings, and arrive at the conclusion that the first amendment places a wall separating church and state.

Why?

Because, Polydectes, the constitution cannot direct congress to NOT pass any law respecting the establishment of religion IF a church or religion IS sponsored by the state, i.e., if church and state are inseparate.

So, it means that it can only do so if church and state are separate, that is the only state of the union in which the establishment clause becomes viable, workable. You can't have one with out the other.

Similarly, applying the highlighted sentence repeated immediately below to the fourth amendment:

There are some things in communication or written word that presume a fact or condition or state beforehand without which the communication or written word cannot be exercised or make sense.

The fourth amendment declares:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

Does the fourth amendment specifically state that you have a right to privacy?

No.

Is the right of privacy necessary for the fourth amendment to be viable?

Yes.

Therefore, the fourth amendment equals the right to privacy.

so says the SCOTUS.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/privacy

In Griswold, the Supreme Court found a right to privacy, derived from penumbras of other explicitly stated constitutional protections. The Court used the personal protections expressly stated in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments to find that there is an implied right to privacy in the Constitution

Can Scotus ever declare you do not have the right to privacy?

NO! Why? Because to do so would invalidate the fourth amendment, not to mention the first, third, fifth and ninth amendments.

This is why your premise that a SCOTUS ruling is temporary doesn't apply here.

No, not when a ruling invalidates the bill of rights or parts thereof.

This is why no SCOTUS can ever claim that the first amendment does not separate church and state.

Why?

Because to declare that it doesn't would invalidate the establishment clause of the first amendment.

Why?

Because of a legal doctrine called the Penumbra

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penumbra_(law)

Because separation of church and state is necessary in order to direct that Congress shall not pass any law respecting the establishment of religion.

Yes, given the evolution modern english, it would have been nice if the framers had crystal balls and were able to foresee how the English language would evolve, but, they weren't so lucky. This is why we have Scotus, they are supposed to be knowledgeable about such things.

Capiche?

No, I'm not a lawyer, but if any lawyer disagrees, chime in.

 

How is it a ridiculous conclusion? You haven't provided a single alternative meaning to what she said other than to get a dictionary.

 

About respecting the establishment of religion is essentially saying that the state cannot create a state religion and I agree with that if that's all the separation of church and state is you don't need to say anymore.

What we're talking about though is what Bogart said and it's okay if you think she's an idea not the care I don't really know that much about her so that's not really part of the discussion.

She didn't say there should be a state religion or that we should laws respecting establishment of any kind of religion. Just that the church should direct the government.

 

Because goes against the Constitution does it not?

 

Let's be clear, the first amendment has the establishment clause which means it cannot favor nor sponsor religion.

In order for that to be a true statement, it requires, by default, the separation of church and state. Therefore, the first amendment equals separation of church and state.

That is why Boebert is wrong, she said that the first amendment does not separate church and state. It does by default.

She'll have to explain what she meant by that (direct the government), because, at face value, the church does not direct the government, nor does the government direct the church.

 

Boebert just said separation of church and state doesn't exist in the constitution.

 

Well it doesn't really not completely it just means that the state can't declare an official religion. It would be incredibly hard to separate completely the church from the state.

 

Well anyway she's right you can't separate the church from the state the church exists within the state.

We all know how you people like to take everything at the absolute most literal you possibly can

 

Wow, such tortured logic in action....

 

I learned at a young age that one can lead a horse to water, but one cannot make him drink. So too one can lead a man to knowledge, but one cannot make him think.

 

She is still wrong according to meaning of separate as defined in the dictionary.

 

Polydectes, the first amendment, by default, separates church and state.

IF you want to nitpick on an absolutes, (which is what your term 'completely' suggests) note that that would refer to grey areas, and those grey areas have been addressed, with parameters given, by various SCOTUS rulings.

That fact does not negate my statement, that the first amendment, by default, separates church and state.

Now, I've already explained to you why that is so.

 

The first amendment would have nothing to do with it.

The tenth amendment though would strike it down.

 

I just went through something with another poster where he essentially explained that separation of church in the state simply means Congress will make no law respecting the establishment of a religion that doesn't mean that government officials can't take direction from church.

 

meaning that the state can't create an official state religion in this also extends to local municipalities which I agree with.

Well the impetus for this discussion was comment bobert made and she wasn't saying we need to establish a state religion so it doesn't apply to what she said.

again which simply means the state cannot create a official state religion and I agree with that again we don't have to keep going over and over and over on this stuff we've already agreed.

 

No we have not agreed.

We're only going over and over it because you insist on not getting it quite right

That's partially correct

now listen carefully

No it means exactly what I said it meant That the 1st amendment by default separates church and state and that includes all of the various parameters Of which what you stated was but one aspect.

1. The government cannot create or sponsor any religion

2. The government cannot create a law that favors any religion over others or give favor to one religion over another in any way..

3. Citizens are free to choose the religion of their choice or reject religion altogether

For the above 3 things to be true it necessitates the separation of church and state.

Your understanding is too narrow.

So quit changing what I said, thank you.

Boebert stated that the Constitution did not separate church and state which is false. It's the entire reason I started this thread.

 

If you said anything other than it forbids the establishment of a state religion then it doesn't mean that because that's what it says.

You kept pointing to it and said it says it there and look there and I did and now you want to come up with something else finally answer the question I asked in the first place?

I am challenging your beliefs it's probably something that's never happened to you before. I can tell by the way your responding that it is very uncommon that you get challenged on these things. And your inability to support them suggests you don't believe it because it's true you believe it because you were told to.

 

We don't mind religious speech just as long as it doesn't violate the 1st amendment, noting that she is paid by taxpayers

 

Please provide evidence that leftists hijack the government.

 

No it says everything I said it has the 2 aspects of the establishment clause and the free exercise clause

You're truncated my post which changes the full meaning of it and now you're making **** up.

Let's see if you can respond to my post on point in toto. I'm pretty sure you're incapable of it because you have failed miserably thus far.

 

Here's what you're failing to grasp; it falls in the category of you can't have one without the other --you can't have the 1st 3rd 4th 5th and 9th amendments without the right to privacy yet nowhere in the Constitution does it say we have the right to privacy.

Similarly the Constitution via the 1st amendment cannot direct government to not pass any law respecting the establishment of religion unless church and state are separate

So the separation of church and state is by default: Just as the right to privacy exist by default --in the Constitution --So says the Supreme court. It's a doctrine called the doctrine of the penumbra look it up

 

There is no need to be uncivil.

 

I wasn't. If you make **** up I'm going to call you on it.

Let's see if you can respond to the post without truncating it, in toto, without changing what I wrote.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/gop-rep-boebert-‘i’m-tired-of-this-separation-of-church-and-state-junk’.601127/page-23#post-1073879166

No we have not agreed.

We're only going over and over it because you insist on not getting it quite right

That's partially correct

now listen carefully

No it means exactly what I said it meant That the 1st amendment by default separates church and state and that includes all of the various parameters Of which what you stated was but one aspect.

1. The government cannot create or sponsor any religion

2. The government cannot create a law that favors any religion over others or give favor to one religion over another in any way..

3. Citizens are free to choose the religion of their choice or reject religion altogether

For the above 3 things to be true it necessitates the separation of church and state.

Your understanding is too narrow.

So quit changing what I said, thank you.

Boebert stated that the Constitution did not separate church and state which is false. It's the entire reason I started this thread.