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

So back to flail posting and deflection? OK...

 

The current SCOTUS doesn't actually 'strike down' any part of the Constitution. What they do, do, however, is interpret it in ways to forward the right wing agenda.

See, one man's interpretation is another man's activism.

So what they do, do, is to gut laws or repeal rulings that are not accord with their 'interpretation' of the Constitution, mindful of the previous tendered aphorism.

As to how Justices 'interpret' we have Scalia's blunt admission that such depends on one's 'judicial philosophy'. And, in order to determine what a justice's philosophy is, well, we can easily surmise that on 5 of our justices, who were all recommendations by the Federalist Society, so that should tell us where their allegiances lie.

 

And, let's not forget to make sarcasm illegal.

 

I responded to your Post #220 . I deflected from nothing, and used your 'mid-east' meme rather adroitly....

 

Well now... you put your thoughts and interpretations fairly and in a straightforward way. I cannot complain about your explanations, although I don't necessarily agree with your orientation.

Surely, each SCOTUS Justice will have individual views on what exactly the Constitution holds on any given topic or issue at hand... with opinions that vary significantly from Left to Right.

 

Doubling down on deflection is a weak debate strategy.

 

Can you please give a choice of examples which show that democrats are the equivalent to Islamo Nazi régime in Iran?
When it is conservative régime which seems to diminish the equality and présence of women...metaphorically to pull the burka back over their relevance?
Proof that it is the democrats (left) who seek to restrict human rights in the USA and not the right?
That it was the left who suppressed equal civil rights regardless of race or crééd, putting into practise your Constitution? ( now called Cultural Marxism by those who seek to discrédit it).
That it is the left who seek to deplatform the media but that it is the right who live by doctrine and don't want to give legitamacy to other world views.
The fact is tthat it has always been the right which supported slavery, colonisation, the rule of family power over merit,(why did Trump try to create à dynasty?) and class division (militated against by revolutionary "leftist" forces for 300 years, from French revolutionaries through Russian revolutionaries through political philosophy known and Marxism , and dozens of révolutions across the southern hémisphère the West forgets).
The right which likes everyone in their allotted social places...allotted by the right and then blamed for the system the right creates.whenvhiman rights arecdegended, the GOD IMPERATIVE is used. This is 16th century thinking!
The right which has to invent, misrepresent and conspire to create theories which are utter nonsense attempts to justify their panic about loss of control and their terror of the need to recognise others as equals and to concède some of their historical supremacy.
Islamic Nazi régime from the left?

What I SEE in left ideology is countering to the oh so evident lust for state control through the right EVEN TO MAKING IT SOME GODLY CRUSADE like your Boebert where the faith controls the state. The state becomes the weapon of the fairh.
This is pure Nazi. Nazism became the faith rationalised first by putting christianity against Judaism and those who didn't worship it were exterminated.
When the right creates antisemitism conspiracy theories such as cultural marxism, binds half the population to legal servitude regarding their own moral compass and starts to look into the beds of gay citizens please dont tell me about islamo nazi regimes in the left. Islam nazi régimes subjugate women and exterminate dissent. They organise and regulate the population and rank its worth according to ancient text manifested in ancient theocratic law.
Just as the Islamo nazis did.
Now how is that any part of Leftist ideology?
.

 

And, doubling-down on nothing is still nothing. But, were we debating? I tried to, but you left the 'dance' after the first note was played. Leave then... you won't be missed....

 

Still post failing to frame that same straw man then?? OK, have at it!

Remember sugardaddy.com.

 

I should start by saying that I am not so-much defending what Boebert said (poorly-expressed as it was), but rather, her right to say it at a private church service. But the radical-Democrats decry Boebert's 'thought-crime', and that's the best point-of-intersection to examine both today's 'woke' Democrat Party and the Islamo-Nazis. What will get you castigated, misquoted, and cursed, in both Iran and in Washington D. C., even if all you do is speak words? Thought-crime! What did the German Jews do to get the real Nazis of their day after them like mad dogs? Thought-crime -- even if they honorably served the Kaiser in World War One, and never had been employed at a bank! It's the castigation of someone merely because of who he/she is -- the fact that a person with a different idea of fundamental concepts EXISTS! Honestly, Pixie, I tell you in truth that today's 'woke' Democrats are the most intolerant generation of Americans I have ever seen in my long life.

Radical Democrats feast on these differences between people, and call for everything, including violence to be used against those who don't share their views on a multitude of topics, including race, genetics, intelligence-testing, distribution of wealth, totally-equal treatment by government of ALL citizens, religious practices, and so many others.

Boebert evidently believes in her heart that the United States should have an 'official', 'established' religion -- Christianity -- and although that personal belief, expressed in a church service, flies in the face of the First Amendment, unlike those we're comparing her with in Iran, she hasn't advocated seizing those who disagree and "wiping them off the face of the Earth".... If she ever were to do that, I'd strongly advocate that she be censured, and, if possible, expelled from the House of Representatives.

. "No, my name is not 'Boebert'...."

 

IMO thought crime is the same as voicing an opinion. And that is fair game when the opinion flies in the face of fundamental human rights. There comes à time when those who hold power need to be reminded that their opinion must conform to protecting those rights and if it doesn't, they should keep quiet. In fact if they don't believe in human rights they shouldn't hold those positions.
To call those on the left comparable to Islamo Nazis is more than ironic when she and others on the right have just taken à giant step towards the répression of women that any member of the Taliban would applaud.
If the German people had acted more overtly when members of the new Nazi party had expressed antisemitism views in the early 30's, millions of Jews would have been saved. You cannot allow those who hold abhorrent opinions and are so confident as to dare to speak them aloud in public, to pass unnoticed. Have we learned nothing?
These quasi Nazis need exposing and stripping of power before they start picking off those they themselves object to. Especially when they are in positions of such power.
I am afraid I too would be most intolérant of such remarks. Not to the point of violence but certainly to call out as loudly as I could, the dangers she represents to the vast majority of the population including those of non Christian faith and no faith. It is she who would be the witchfinder général or the enforcer in a country officially dedicated to loss of freedom of religion. Of course I have no fear that her opinions will become fact but it is more concerning that she hold them at all.
IMO when one is not in a position of power, opinions are relatively harmless. When one can change the shape of àn entire country, I MUST speak up.
First they came for the socialists
But I did not speak because I was not a socialist
Then they came for trade unionists
But I did not speak up because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
Bur I did not speak up because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left to speak up for me.
I cant comment on the left's réactions to right wing opinion in général. What moves each of us is our personal right to hold. In the UK people glue themselves to major roads in protest to perceived environmental damage. But in no way does overt action amount to Islamo Nazi behaviour. In fact it is the opposite and we should fight to keep the right to express our fears that one day we may not be able to.

 

Once again, in politics, the guest speaker/audience connection statements are more often B.S.

For example; If I were Mr. Politician, and was invited to be a guest speaker at a QAnon Conference, in an effort to connect with my audience, I would “dishonestly” acknowledge one of their conspiracy theories.

 

Quote; “The church is supposed to direct the government”

Did SHE really said that?

If so, and whether she believes it or not, she’s a crazy woman.

 

I view everything a politician says as self interest and worth ignoring. Before there is a QAnon conference there will have to be a QAnon.

 

..

 

Lauren Boebert said: "The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church."

Can you detect the difference when the REST of her statement is conveniently left out by the hyperliberal media...?!

Boebert might have expressed her thought more clearly, true, but the media certainly didn't make any effort to help her clarify. As I understand it (I live in Colorado, although not in Boebert's District #3), what she was trying to criticize was the belief many in this country have that "separation-of-church-and-state" means that expression of any religious tenets or beliefs is expressly forbidden by the Constitution. IT ISN'T! What the Constitution actually says is that no religion will be named the OFFICIAL RELIGION of the United States. But people who hate all religions do not (NOT) want you to focus on THAT! Hint: our Founding Fathers were making sure that we didn't have some "Henry VIII"-president who might decide to create an OFFICIAL "Church of the United States"... got it...?!

The first clause in the Bill of Rights states that (my emphasis): “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” But those who abhor religious expression of all kinds have twisted this to mean that no mention of anything having a root in any religious expression must occur in public! THAT is what Boebert was criticizing, but radical, 'woke' Democrats are feasting on her statement about 'junk' to paint her as some kind of religious-crazy person.

Try reading the Constitution of the United States sometime... it's a WEALTH of accurate information about this country!

 

What about you? Are you growing tired of this separation of church and state junk?

To me, it’s an irrelevant issue.

What’s actually junky is her saying it, however, for the sole purpose of pleasing/arouse a gullible crowd.

But, let’s give her a break as she’s learning to be a politician.

 

Me? You want my opinion? I'm just an average American citizen-taxpayer who has complete loyalty and adherence to the Constitution of the United States -- exactly as written and legally amended. Nothing else matters....

 

NO, it says Congress shall make no law RESPECTING the establishment of a religion. That would logically include a promotion, advocacy, and quoting of religious text by any government official, because doing such is a small step away from making that religion the "national religion".

The Founders intended to prevent the kind of religious defense and backing of government policy as was the reality back in Britain. Therefore the SCOTUS once ruled that there must be a separation complete with the force of tax law on religious institutions that dared delve into political matters.

Beyond that how should Jews feel about Christianity being bantered about by politicians? What about other religions of our citizens, including Muslims, Buddhist, Hindus, etc.?

But you are dedicated to the limited, literal interpretation of a document that, by its nature, must point where it's going but can't specify where it's going because of the risk of important aspects being left out of a literal delineation.

 

SCOTUS was, of course, quite right in asserting that "religious institutions that dared delve into political matters" are susceptible to taxation and must pay taxes... we agree on that much, certainly. But that scarcely has much to do with a Henry the Eighth-esque ESTABLISHMENT of a national religion (such as Henry's "Church of England").

Too few of us who purport to be English-speakers understand the differences between the distracted, inexact jibberish that passes for American English in the 21st-century and the proper "English-English" spoken and WRITTEN by our Founding Fathers in the Eighteenth century. Indeed, this comes up often -- especially in discussions about what the word, "welfare" means today versus what it meant in the 1700's, but I digress....

As written in the Constitution, the word "respecting" as we see it in (guess what?) the ESTABLISHMENT clause, is a preposition meaning "with reference or regard to". The operative word in the ESTABLISHMENT clause is (again, guess what?), the word, "ESTABLISHMENT".

Think: Who in England would have thought much about it if Henry VIII had said, "Well, I'm now considering things, with reference or regard to the concept of starting my own church"? But that's not what he did... no... Henry very aggressively ESTABLISHED his own Church of England, and those who refused to go along with it, like Sir Thomas More, who had once been Lord Chancellor of England, were often found guilty of treason and were executed. NOW... do you think that something like that in the not-too-distant-past of the "Mother Country" made an indelible impression on our Founding Fathers who were crafting the charter for a new nation...?

At any rate, because of Freedom of Speech, you can quote the Quran on any American street corner to anyone who will listen, and other 'street preachers' can do the same with things written in the Christian Holy Bible. But NOBODY can make ANY religion the official, ESTABLISHED religion of the United States of America... thank God!

 

Whether she was trying to play around with a corner of the constitution or not is IMO secondary to the idea that ANY idea of which institution takes precedence over the other is faulty.
Because there simply should not be one influencing the orhercat any time. If you want a Christian justification for secularity, Jesus said " render unto Caesar that which is Caesar"s and to God that which is God's". IOW rhe sate takes precedence in material issues and God takes precedence over spiritual matters.
ONE DOES NOT INFORM THE OTHER.

As for those who wrote the Constitution, they weren't so far from those who sailed on the Mayflower etc to forget that they had been chased out of a country twice before having to find refuge half way around the world. They were very sensitive to states interfering with religious matters and were careful to separate church and state.
Of course they were aware of the terror the Protestant Reformation generated too, but they were victims of that in their own way and wanted a government free from prejudice.
As I see it, there is a pressure under the American cultural surface which would love to give the church more political influence...and which therefore doesnt give a damn about equality before the law.
No CHURCH (note she said CHURCH, not faith ) should ever direct government. What she said was dangerous and opens up the path to bigotry before the law.

 

OMG .. did he do that?

What is it about these creeps and Western Protestantism. Weird as hell.

 

Nobody believes what you are accusing people of believing here.

The first amendment does NOT suggest that people can't express their religious views. I have NO idea what makes you think there are those who object to that.

And, that amendment clearly states "establishment of religion". It doesn't say that they meant the establishment of a single religious belief system.

Today, many want government to be allowed to teach children which religion is correct. And, that is clearly counter to our first amendment.

Today, many want precepts of specific religions to have standing in court. That's not consistent with the first amendment.

 

This discussion provides, for lack of a better way to put it, a certain degree of irony and humor.

Because LIBERALISM IS A RELIGION.

Liberals are statists, worship the state, and consider the state to be their GOD.

No one in America is forcing a God based religion on anyone. But liberals are trying to force the religion of liberalism and worship of the state on everyone. Ergo, the fake outrage displayed in this thread.

Liberalism has dogma, sin, rights and rituals, definition of moral behavior, herisy and the list goes on. Even virtue signaling, long a practice of religion has been adopted by liberals.

 

Ah so. A hasty generalizatin fallacy/ lol