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

But it already had been for over 100 years by the time the Constitution was written.
Yes, it was "unofficial" but pretty well unchallenged.
And it was roughly the new Protestant church but disliked by those who thought it was too much like roman catholicism.
The New colonies had been acknowledging the Church of England for 100 years before the Constitution and in the 18th century, England itself recognised Judaïsm, tho not as the OFFICIAL religion.
IMO there was less issue with matters of faith and more about the Rights of Man as laid down in the Enlightenment of the early 18th century.

 

Just to add something, this is an issue debated for centuries by religious scholars and became part of the concept of "à just war".
Further complicated by politicians who turn inside out by using propaganda to "justify" their wars.

 

That is the entire problem .
Her position should not be emotional. She has no right to impose her "emotional" decisions on anyone else.
IMO any appointments to such a powerful position should be voted on by a direct vote of the people. I know the Senate votes on it but here it gets tangled in politics again.

 

Every person, group, or business does not pay taxes.

 

bam
Nonsense. Justices are nominated by Presidents of the United States. Presidents haven't been rejected even if like Obama they hate the U.S. The Supreme Court exists to respect the Constitution and not what you imagine to be the will of the people.

 

That becomes illogical. Any entity has only whatever influence the lawmakers want to give it. If a congressman does not give a whit what some church has to say but is 100 % supportive what the AFL-CIO or teachers unions have to say, then the church has no influence but the unions have extraordinary influence. Is that fair? Should unions (or any other petitioning entity) be allowed to have that much influence? By your logic they shouldn't, and that means no person, group, or business can express their opinions directly to the government which is completely incongruous with a democratic republic.

 

Rep. Boebert has a right and a duty to state her position on every issue regardless of the feelings of her political opposition.

Many assume the there is a "Separation of Church and State" clause in the COTUS. They are wrong.

 

Progressiveism, Marxism, absolutism, one party rule, Fascism -- some say tomato, some say tomâto.

This entirely boils down to either following a Constitution or not following a Constitution. The Constitution is very clear, direct and succinct what the federal government has authority to get involved with. Abortion ain't there.

I'm a bit confused. Are you referring to today's American left who want, for example, any conservative/right thought or words banned or censored from social media, and want Trump supporters to not be able to get jobs or publish works? That left?

 

WE are, thanks for the compliment, sorry I have nothing to mention in return

 

She expressed an opinion. We support that in this country. We support disagreeing with an opinion as well. She didn't impose anything. She is a congress woman so she was elected by people in her district.

 

wee
Yes, and she destroyed her opponents in the Republican primary this week here in Colorado.

 

You're definitely right, Pixie, the more important factor, here and throughout many other countries, by far, was the Enlightenment!

 

some on the right don't support religious freedom... Sad!

 

Some on the Left don't support religious freedom, either, or its practice.

 

It does matter what she says. She is a member of Congress and thus has influence. If someone said we need to let Islam or Hinduism direct our government, we would see countless pages of the topic.

Lobbying is much different than directing, which infers more hands-on, interfering deep state tactics.

 

Yes, lies.
The majority decision wrote that the coach was having a "private moment" after the game. That "private moment" took place on the 50 yard line. Hardly a private place. He was also surrounded by students....not so private there. He also had been disciplined by the school for other instances which were not "private".
Yeah, lies so you just go ahead and LMAO but it's anything but funny.

 

How did the issue of this thread not meet the criteria of this SC to be pushing a religious agenda. The overturning of R v W was also a religious based decision.
You knew this, don't be coy.

 

(eyeroll) I only used the same word that were used before.

 

No, I'M sorry. I thought I had my sarcasm font turned on.

 

Oh! You might want accept the reality that it not your specialty

 

religious fanatics idea of religious freedom is the right to deny blind people rides on Uber or denying people cakes

 

Let's switch to either German or Mexican-Spanish because, in all honesty, your post above made no sense in English at all.

 

Which is curious because Jesus didn't refuse to help people in the bible.

 

Very different. Churches can lobby government but they can't direct government. You know that. I recommend you stop being flustered by what politicians say. It makes more sense to be concerned with what they do.