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

Perhaps, but they sure do appear to be more common in that sector. Priests notwithstanding, Catholics generally seem less inclined to this 'show of righteousness' apparently favoured by folks with low impulse control. Then again it could be a socio-cultural thing. Just going on visuals, their women are something of an anachronism. They seem to be big on the 'tawdry sex appeal circa 1990's' look. Big hair, fake boobs, high heels, etc.

 

Wow. You state such indefensible nonsense at a time when we actually, factually have a surge in christian nationalism and evangelicals trying to turn the USA into a degenerate Nazi theocracy! Seems your priorities are pretty screwed up.

 

why did you dig this up?

 

Thanks for this information that I had not been aware of.

I like Boebert's style, and I was aware that she is very religious, but I was not aware of this most recent statement.

What it demonstrates is the slippery slope that cannot be avoided by such a philosophy that the church is supposed to direct the government. Religious fanaticism as shown by her and numerous others in congress was not intended by the Founding Fathers.

What the First Amendment says as you note above, is that Congress shall establish NO official religion, and what it strongly implies is that the government shall be NEUTRAL on all religious matters. Religion should be practiced in one's home or the church. Religion should NOT be practiced in the halls of government.

 

There is a difference between someone extolling the virtues of philosophical ideas found in many different religious texts, including the Holy Bible, the Mahabharata, the Quran, and others, and a 'national religion'. There is nothing 'wrong' with quoting from these sources in free and open discussions and debates among government officials (or any other citizen), and such conversations should not be suppressed or censored by anyone in a country where FREEDOM OF SPEECH is guaranteed.

But, again, the essence of the ESTABLISHMENT clause is that the United States Government must never (NEVER) establish any religion as an official, national religion -- as English monarch, Henry VIII, did concerning the origins of the Church of England.

And yet, somehow, this same Establishment clause has been turned into a divisive tool by those who hate any manifestation of expression that even hints at being 'religious' in nature. So, as we have seen over the years, even cultural accessories like Frosty the Snowman, Christmas trees, and Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer must be forbidden lest anyone get the idea that Americans are forcing people to practice Christianity! What a mean-spirited farce!

 

No, there is nothing wrong with considering the wisdom of various religious texts of the world, but there is something wrong with efforts to turn those texts into sources of political economy and practices. Therein is the slippery slope to which I refer. Such sliding can be avoided by assuring that government go to great lengths to remain neutral on matters religious.

In 2005 I read Susan Jacoby's fine book FREETHINKERS, A History of American Secularism. It reminded me of how things used to be.

The term Freethinker was used a century ago to describe the person who goes through life thinking for himself, avoiding the often dangerous restrictions on thought processes imposed by religious dogma and priests.

How any individual relates to religion is his own business, and none of the state's business. That is a paraphrase of the First Amendment.

 

*LOL*

You really enjoy her ignorance and inability to do her job, huh?

 

A surge in christian nationalism? Evangelicals trying to turn the USA into a degenerate Nazi theocracy? Here is a simple question for you. Do you suppose the level of Christian fundamentalism in America is at an all time high? If so, go read a few history books. Dude, half of the Christian churches in the WV town I live in either fly gay flags or promote gay behavior. Is this what you perhaps mean by "degenerate Nazi theocracy."

Your post belongs in the conspiracy section of PF or is simply trolling. Or both. Firstly, I challenge you to define Chrisstian nationalism. This term is something you liberals have recently invented. Constantly [effing] with the English language and the creation of Newspeak is the hallmark of a modern liberal. FYI, Christianity is a worldwide religion. How exactly does it promote nationalism? How does it promote Nazi theocracy? Do you seriously think Hitler was a Christian? Put aside the political BS you are reading and perhaps study some actual history.

 

Unfortunately this was spat o when thosevwhose religion persuaded supposedly neutral SC judges that abortion is murder.
This overly emotive statement is a clear example of a religion informing state matters.
Frankly I am surprised it stood the Constitution test. But since it was the SC, and they are answerable to no one and who are chosen by a politician not elected, they can do what they want.

 

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

Ms. Boebert should take a look at what happens when religion informs the state...
Iran
Qatar
Pakistan
Afghanistan
Saudi Arabia.

And when priests become more influential than elected politicians.
Entire revolutions were fought to stop that travesty.

 

Dude, you're confusing quantity with quality. There may not be MORE evangelical and christian fundamentalist churches in town, but the ones that exist are now getting very involved in political brainwashing and christian NATIONALISM (check the definition). The push for a Nazi theocracy is growing even if the number of churches aren't.

And I REALLY REALLY doubt any church in your town "promote gay behavior". But I'm glad they are supportive of the spiritual needs of gays.

I'm sure you mean "Christian" nationalism. Are you saying you have no access to a dictionary or computer?

https://www.christianitytoday.com/c...-nationalism-capitol-riots-trump-podcast.html

https://isps.yale.edu/news/blog/2022/10/understanding-white-christian-nationalism

 

Even after reading a wiki piece about your 'Supreme Court' in France (Court of Cassation), I'm still not sure if I understand how abortion as a right to French women is guaranteed. Abortion became legal in France in 1975 (Simone Veil 'law'), and it was expanded in scope this year to allow for more time in which abortions can occur legally. But I noticed that not even this Court of Cassation has the ability to overturn legislation passed by the French Parliament. Links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Parliament , and, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Cassation_(France)

I suppose my question is, if the French Court of Cassation cannot overrule the French Parliament, does that mean that the French Parliament has the ability to enable and modify measures like abortion -- and -- to take them away?

 

Christian nationalism played a huge part in Greek and Russian history, not to mention British, Irish ( and still does to a glaring degree) and through all those missionaries who told the indigenous populations that they will be given eternal life by a dead man hanging on a cross.
The Christian Religion has defined politics for 2000 years, from witch trials to forced abortion.

 

The issue isn't who has the power but one of the French Constitution and the 4th pillar of French law, secularity. (after liberty, equality and fraternity).
Any proposed law which is at all emanating from any religious source is illegal by definition.
It is seriously followed and while there may be contests between freedoms of expression ( burkinis come to mind) the power of secularity is always paramount.
This is one of the primary reasons I live here. The UK bends over too far to accommodate religious interests which inflames the tensions between ethnic groups and it prevents those like Boebert who support a theocracy.
The French Assemblee Generale could never entertain the idea of making abortion illegal on any grounds orher than if women started to die all over France because abortion suddenly killed them.
Not because of religion.

 

When Boebert said the church is supposed to guide the government, which church is she talking about?

 

Thank you. That clarifies the issue of the right of abortion in France to my satisfaction, surely. And I'm in agreement with you, at least I think I am, that no country, anywhere in the world, should be burdened with a "national church" or a "national religion" (which is the chief reason that countries like Iran are so fundamentally unfair and dangerous).

But I do disagree that Lauren Boebert is in favor of a "theocracy". Admittedly, she spoke inadvisably, and by deliberately truncating her actual, full statement, the liberal media made it SEEM like she was promoting some kind of "Christianity über alles" idea. The part of Colorado she represents consists mainly of fiercely independent-minded people, and although many are religious, I seriously doubt that many of them would support the idea of a "national religion" or a "national church" (and please don't forget that although I'm not in Boebert's "District #3", I have lived in Colorado for decades, and I know "us")....

 

You realize that the abortion debate isn't strictly a religious ideal. There are a great many people in the Democrat party that believe that abortion is murder. They may believe that other things are more important and let this issue slide in order to get other free stuff but that doesn't mean that they are pro-abortion people.

 

I would have to see all of what she said and in what context.
Imagine trying to impose a Christian USA on the highly influential and emotional Jewish population wouldn't win any votes.

 

Hers, of course...

 

Sigh.
I am discussing religion and its place in a national hierarchy of power, not your eternal D and R war of attrition.

 

How has the religion of socialism/communism, i.e., statism worked out? Why are you people so threatened by any morals and ethics that are not defined by big government?

But the solution should be simple. If you don't like Boebert, don't vote for her.

 

The fake liberal outrage is amusing. Liberals living in a glass house should not throw rocks considering your man Joe Bible has a history of religious pandering.

https://www.christianheadlines.com/...-is-calling-for-healing-unity-in-america.html

In a speech at Warm Springs, Georgia on Tuesday, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden told a rally of voters that America must become “one nation under God” again, The Christian Post reports.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...h-speech-quoting-hymn-bible-verse/6210854002/

https://churchleaders.com/news/4043...lling-isis-k-america-will-hunt-them-down.html

Biden said, “Those who have served through the ages have drawn inspiration from the book of Isaiah when the Lord says, ‘Whom shall I send? Who shall go for us?’”

“Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?” And I said, “Here am I. Send me!

Biden ended with this: "And now, together — on eagle’s wings — we embark on the work that God and history have called upon us to do."

And this classic pandering.
https://www.themonastery.org/blog/o...as-biden-quotes-famous-hymn-in-victory-speech

But not only Biben panders.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/n...-booker-bible-democratic-campaign-debate.html

So the question for my liberal friends. Why has your outrage concerning politics intersecting with religion only surfaced for Boebert? The answer seems pretty simple to me - hypocracy. But I look forward to other explanations.

 

As you know, liberal propoganda is not history. And your newspeak only defines the English language for the low information types and the uneducated. Here is FYI an educational discussion on the subject of Christian nationalism with respect to US history.

https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/2159/christian-nationalism

 

So who, exactly were you talking about when you said, "Unfortunately this was spat o when thosevwhose religion persuaded supposedly neutral SC judges that abortion is murder."

 

It may be useful to look at my earlier Post #241 in this thread to see Boebert's quote as a complete statement.

She actually 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...?! Again, Boebert could have put the concept across more artfully, but you may agree that, in her own somewhat poorly-phrased way, she, too, was arguing in favor of a "separation of church and state"....