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

and something about revolushunarii war airports.

 

You're conflating Boebert being allegedly uneducated with Boebert being moronic. Shoot, Boebert is an ideologue who you disagree with. I mean, if every ideologue in the federal gov't were forced from office, there wouldn't be anyone to run the federal.

 

No Rep. Boebert NEITHER is supposed to direct the other and that is exactly how the founding father designed it and the Constitution's only mention of religious faith is restrictions on it's mingling in government.

 

You believe that is something a large part of the right wing ascribes too? I would hardly think so but then there are those on the left who believe government should direct and control religious faith. Let's keep them separate and those of religious faith do not intercede in those without and those without do not intercede in those that do, we respect both views.

 

Poll after poll has shown the majority of the right believe both this is a Christian nation and that their beliefs should be used to underpin law.

 

Well, America would certainly be better if everyone followed the advise of Vince Lombardi:

Think of only three things: your God, your family and the Green Bay Packers-in that order.

The far left has been moving steadily to destroy the family concept, The Church and The Constitution. Liberalism destroys everything eventually. Maybe her remarks were off the mark but right now, America needs a reset and a shift away from the far left and those that can't handle making our communities and our country a better, safer place.

 

Our beliefs do underpin law. Our legal system is derived from English Common Law which is rooted in a blend of Mosaic Code, Christian principles of Celto-Brythonic Law, and old Germanic customs.

And she has a point. It's the First Amendment that is dispotive, not Jefferson's personal letter.

Others voicing views you disagree with won't kill you, or, even harm you.

 

Nonsense

 

If a law needs to reference rules created by belief and are unable to stand with a logical foundation then they should be abolished.

One cannot exist under their own religious or personally held principles if they are being ruled under by yours.

 

If that were SO! I would expect a few examples of such

 

Nonsense!

 

Anyone who believes the first amendment doesn't separate church and state is a moron.

She doesn't believe the first amendment separates church and state. She said so.

See, the reason it does is the same reason the constitution grants the right of privacy via the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th amendments.

If you are a Congressperson or a Senator of the United States, these are fundamental principles one should understand.

If you don't, by congressional standards required of those offices of public trust, you are a moron.

 

So you agree she is wrong, eh?

 

You could not determine that from my post or something?

 

Oh there are some and when I asked what they believe are the "Christian" principles they either can't come up with any or cite things that I as not Christian also believe.

 

Well Vince was great but he got it wrong this time

Your personal moral principles, your family and the Crimson Tide - in that order.

 

For the record I do not think there is an absolute constitutional separation of church and state, and I am not a moron.

 

The Bible says that you are not to commit murder. Many governments have instituted laws against murder because of that. Is that wrong?

 

Given how often you defend many on the right, I was just making sure that was what you wrote (it could have been a typo).

 

Two things:

1. There is no absolute anything in the universe.
2. The first amendment separates church and state in the same fashion that the 1st. 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th amendments give us the right to privacy as they cannot exist without it, nor can the first amendment exist without separation of church and state. It doesn't mean, however, a teacher cannot have a class do prayer, as long as it is done by students personally, privately, not promoting one religion over another, or god over no god, nor does it mean you must, as a government official, abandon your religious values just as long as you do not impose those values that are outside the secular realm on others. If there are grey areas, perhaps this is what you are thinking of?


Understanding the above will assure you are not a moron.

 

There are many conservatives who support the separation of church and state in fact it is the more conservative Constitutionalists position. That includes government not forcing people to violate their their moral beliefs how about you?

 

I want tried to insult you as you seem to want to do others maybebit's that "golden rule" thingy that transcends almost all religious and philosophical beliefs.

A government teacher in a government school has no religious freedom to conduct a religious ceremony in their classroom or have someone else do it for them. That would be giving respect to a religious faith.

 

Murder has been against the law long before the Bible existed. It has a logical understanding that it impacts another without just reasoning.

Horrible example

A better example is laws making it illegal to sell alcohol on “the lords day” or not allowing people to sign a civil document because they are the wrong sex pairing or allowing institutions to to claim tax breaks without proving they are doing anything charitable.

These have no logical foundation.

 

Establishing to a Court that a law is arbitrary is generally enough to have Court vacate any resulting sanctions.

You most certainly will if they coincide with justice and fairness and you live in a fair and just system.

Some anti-Christian fools have falsely claimed that all religious expression must be removed from the public square, when only compulsion is forbidden. But the Court has bitch-slapped their false claims fairly firmly and they have likely learned their lesson.

And, have you noticed that we are WINNING THE WAR ON CHRISTMAS?

 

Haven't won too many cases, eh?