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

That only says that to you because you have a parochial knowledge of English, you know nothing of the English of the late 18th century.

If you want to learn what it says, you have to research material by others who have knowledge of such things.

It also requires church and state to be separate by default.

It's similar to the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendments require the right of privacy to be viable, thus, these amendments, as a whole, create the right of privacy by default.

It's called the doctrine of the penumbra.

If you don't want to learn more than you know, quit asking a question for which you refuse to learn the answer.

You would say that the Constitution doesn't mention the right of privacy, therefore it doesn't grant the right of privacy.

But it does.

Douglas famously said that a general right to privacy is found in the “penumbras,” or zones, created by the specific guarantees of several amendments in the Bill of Rights, including the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/contraception-marriage-and-the-right-to-privacy

In the same manner, the first amendment separates church and state.

If you don't want to learn, don't ask questions you refuse to educate yourself about.

If you are going to repeat your same parochial answer, don't reply.

If you do not know what 'parochial' means, please look it up.

 

anytime you make a statement about me that doesn't have anything to do with the topic I consider that uncivil it's unnecessary and really rather immature.

so you believe that the state can establish an official religion? If not you and I agree on that.

if I'm not getting what you say correct then you're probably not stating it clearly enough.

you will have to go into depth of what that means it can't separate the church from the state the church is part of the state unless you say that anybody who participates in a church cannot participate at all in government.

if 3 is correct there cannot be a separation of church and state because of citizens are able to participate in a religion of their choice and they are also able to participate in the state that is conjoining the church in the state.

it cannot unless you disenfranchise anyone who participates in a church.

this isn't my problem you aren't being specific you are stating separation of church and state as though it's a mantra I'm analyzing it. The church exists within the state it cannot be separated that would violate the first amendment.

I never changed what you said I can't change what you said I don't have access to your profile. Quit falsely accusing me of things.

Again you are using your one single interpretation of it that you're repeating like a mantra and you're not analyzing it.

The church is part of the state as in the people who attended the church are also the people who participate in the state they are intermingled deeply and they are meant to be.

Before you get off into the weeds again remember I'm perfectly okay with what the first amendment says about not respecting the establishment of a religion that is not separating religion from the state because the state is the people and the people are religious.

 

you don't have any knowledge of it either. I do not accept you as an expert in it because you have presented no credentials.

This is just an attempt to insult someone for disagreeing with you.

I was asking you mister expert. That seems to know everything about everything did you do that did you retain the knowledge? Why can't you recite it?

I'm not pressuring you to explain it to me so that I understand I'm pressuring you to see if you understand.

it cannot legally the state is the people the people can also be religious they are not separated sometimes that exists within the same population.

I didn't ask you about that I asked you to explain separation of church and state to me you can't do that to the point where you seem to be quite frustrated with me.

it is complete arrogance to think that you're in a position to teach. I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.

I didn't say that we aren't talking about that you are distracting from the subject quit explaining to me all these things I didn't ask you to explain and explain the one damn thing I asked you to.



In the same manner, the first amendment separates church and state.

assuming my level of education is some personal beef you have and I'm not interested in it.

I asked you to explain something don't get mad at me because you failed or get mad at me all you want it just means you're not reasonable and you're not in any position to be teaching anyone anything.

I'm going to reply to you in whichever manner and however often I wish to.

If you want to stop talking about this stop talking about this. But when I see this level of frustration I dig in harder.

I look up many words in the process of speaking on subjects all the time. You aren't smarter than other people because you use 50 cent words that's actually an indication of someone who's trying to appear smarter than they actually are. And you further affirm this by assuming I don't know what it means and insisting that I look it up.

I haven't given you a narrow answer your reframing what I've said.

I'm coming at this from a position that someone could mean any number of things when they say something like Bobert did. Maybe it's your effort to make her out as a bogeyman because she disagrees with you politically.

So I would say you were approaching this with an extremely narrow view.

 

are you kidding me? then what the hell do you consider this?

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

yeah, the Supreme Court, and constitution scholars, state that the first amendment separates church and state, and the free exercise clause grants an individual the right to choose, or not to choose, his or her religion.

And no, that's not a 'judicial principle', that's a supreme court ruling and it's final. Can they change it? sure, but until then, it's the constitution because that is how the court has interpreted it. It's not likely they will change it.

How in hell do you know what's ever happened to me? How can you possibly know how often I get challenged on these things?

How do you know what I was told and whether or not I believe what I'm told?

I can make the same charge against you: I can say:

anytime you make a statement about me that doesn't have anything to do with the topic I consider that uncivil it's unnecessary and really rather immature.

And you accuse me of being 'immature' and you tell me this? You make **** up and then you have the gall to tell me I'm 'immature' if I call you on it?

Who the **** to you think you are?

Getting mad at stupidity isn't immaturity, it's a natural human reaction.

Clearly enough? I've restated it several ways, and you still do not get it.

YOu're not paying attention --- I've gone into depth.

That makes no sense. The constitution's religion clauses in the first amendment, 'the establishment clause' and the 'free excercise clause directs the government to not favor or sponsor religion, and the government can't tell you what religion you must worship or you can choose none.. The religion clauses are the constitution directing the government. These two clauses 1. separate church and state 2. grant citizens the freedom to choose their religion, or no religion at all. It's implied, just as the right to privacy is implied by the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 9th amendments imply it. Scotus has told us this using a legal doctrine called the doctrine of the penumbra. Google it.

That's nuts. Freedom to choose your religion or not does not affect separation of church and state, it reinforces it.

I've had enough of your incoherence.

Consider yourself put in the ignore function. From now on your comments will not appear in my browser, so don't bother responding, i won't see it.

Now go pester someone else.

 

The SCOTUS has interpreted the first amendment.

Their word is final. That's not a 'judicial principle' that is something you made up.

Can SCOTUS change it? They can, but it's not likely.

Until then, that's what the constitution says because SCOTUS has told us what it says.

That's their job.

When people disagree about what the constitution says, we have SCOTUS to tell us what it means.

Their word is final.

If you don't like it, that's your problem.

 

I suppose when she "establishes a religion" as a function of congress, you should get back to us then. It's like that is the only part of the 1rst amendment you actually support though. All that "free speech" and stuff, not for you, that's for sure... Free assembly? Not for you. And anything but religion. This is the condition you yearn for.

 

You're making stuff up.

Reread what I wrote, and then tell me what part of it do you not understand or what part you disagree with. But quote, don't allude.

 

LOL... nah, you pegged yourself already.

 

That's nasty a statement about you personally. Lots of people repeat hings they were told without really thinking about it.

yes said no in a way the first amendment for bids a separation of church and state you're not allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of their religion in things like voting so the church is in the people who attend get to direct the government if they have enough people.

Reactions to challenges.

Difficulty discussing civilly.

I didn't make anything up that's a false accusation.

Almost as bad as asking "do you think you are better than me?"

you can blame me imaginary stupidity for your failure all you want it doesn't get you out of this.

You shouldn't get mad just explain try harder.

you haven't really though so I think it's you that doesn't get it. And then you're frustration you're taking it out on me it's okay.

you go off on tangents explaining something that doesn't have anything to do with the subject at all.

the government can not sponsor a religion and allow people to exercise whichever religion they want and still not be separate.

Is in the case there are religious people that participate in the government.

religion participating in the government is it does does affect the separation

Excuses.

So take your ball and go home I'll respond to you all I wish. If you want to remove yourself from the argument it's forfeit.

 

You say that so much.

 

So the separation church and state fully applies to respecting the establishment of religion? Yeah we already agreed on that a thousand times didn't really want to acknowledge it but that was never part of the debate.

I don't think you can separate the church and stay the exist within one another.

 

Of course it can. The first congress that wrote the 1st amendment opened their sessions with a prayer to God Almighty, for instance. The 2nd amendment says the right of people to have a gun shall not be infringed. Does that mean the government cannot have anything to do at all -- be completely separated from -- with firearms?

 

Adam Frisch conceded like a gentleman, not that one's conceding or not determines election recounts as we see here.
Boejunk is a blithering idiot,

Mandatory Recount Ordered for Colorado Congressional District 3

December 1, 2022

Late last month, Boebert put Democrats on notice by warning them she will be around to “fire” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

“There’s no doubt I was a target for the Democrats, but I am confident once all of the ballots are counted, I will win, and I will be there to help fire Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. I don’t know if there wasn’t enough enthusiasm for our top ticket candidates for governor and Senate or what happened there. But there was a lot of shifting of the votes there. Of course, I expect to win,” Boebert said.

https://conservativebrief.com/ordered-colorado-68725/?utm_source=CB&utm_medium=JE

Yesterday afternoon vote tally.

99% reporting

Lauren Boebert
Republican Party
50.1%
163,832 votes

Adam Frisch
Democratic Party
49.9%
163,278 votes

 

inadequate reply; vacuous accusations lack substantiation, comment dismissed.

 

What it means is that the government cannot legislate religion. Conservatives on the courts have made concessions allowing government officials to begin their day with prayer, as a personal matter, and it would have to be non denominational.

That doesn't negate the principle of the separation of church and state.

However, it must be noted that only conservatives on the SCOTUS have voted in favor of it.

Liberals have always dissented, they believe it's too much in the direction of government sponsoring religion.

THere is no bipartisan consensus on that point.

there IS bipartisanship on the idea of government sponsoring religion (legislation favoring religion, or any particular religion), that would be a no no.

As a liberal myself, I don't have a problem with it, if the religious among us want ot pray before a government work day, have it it. Doing so will allow all of us to get along better. I see no harm in it, just as long as we don't legislate favoring one religion over the other. We can legislate freedom of religion, but it's already in the first amendment, so it would be redundant.

 

Might be true. Boebert ain't one of those though.

lol

 

Boebert is an ideologue but not a mental defect like Biden or Fetterman.

 

Atheists want to remove religion from gov't. The founders didn't want to remove religion from gov't.

 

Bravo.
Excellent reasoning

 

Boebert is a moron. A moron who obtained her GED after she was elected, and claimed she didn't finish HS because she was planning to have a family (in high school??) . A hillbilly who doesn't understand the Constitution and soils the seat she sits in.

 

She was surely more effective as a prostitute/call-girl for godaddy.com than as an adjudicator over Thomas Jefferson's wisdom for the ages. Word is that most of her few and sorely lacking brain-cells migrated to her vagina, but that has not been corroborated by independent source.

 

That's being very kind on your part.

 

Well, that's me.

 

Kindness knows kindness.

Did you know that the word "kindness" is not even in the MAGA Dictionary?

Of course, most MAGAssss do not read the Dictionary, perhaps because they can't.

Oh, well, Baby steps!

 

The MAGA or MAGAGA (Make America Great and Glorious Again) dictionary is 2 pages long. It goes from "America" to "zionism", and includes "covfefe" .