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

That's exactly why I wrote post #31.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...and-state-junk’.601127/page-2#post-1073546505

Since she did not specifically say "Christianity" one can argue for the "church" <any flavor> to lead our government and they would all have a group hysterical fit. Critical thinking doesn't seem to be barrier for them. Like Trump, they just spout a few buzzwords and wait for everybody to cheer.

Can you possibly imagine a group of critical thinkers NOT researching the VP's role as President of the Senate and one to certify the election results beating the hell out of hundreds of cops and threatening our lawmakers' lives based on a statement by a functionally illiterate narcissistic @ss? I can't.

 

So who do you claim is being forced to practice a religion or being prevented from practicing a religion. Personally I think liberalism is a religion as you have :

Scripture - Karl Marx et al.
Gods and Prophets - Biden, Obama, etc. are your Gods and the fake news are your prophets
A place of worship - Every liberal political meeting and of late the public school system
Symbols - The rainbow flag

So you not only get to practice your religion but get to make it part of the government. Your religious holidays have become government holidays. So life is good.

And stop invoking the Constitution which was written by old white men who owned slaves.

 

Ad hominem fallacy argument.

 

I’m sorry does your little girl have an explanation as to how you come to the conclusion that Congress = government?

 

Ever heard of the federal government?

 

There are 3 branches of federal government, which includes Congress.

 

This woman does not stop. She needs to go away.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...sedgntp&cvid=579816b11bca4950a8c6262a41e485ba

 

That’s correct. Which means that congress is always part of government. But it does NOT mean that government is always part of congress.

 

"They" would be the SC.
I thought you guys were critical thinkers?

 

Except that the decision was based on lies. It's a sad situation.

 

What is your point here? We sought independence from The Church of England?
The Colonies were made up of people leaving England and Europe because of religious persecution all of which were Christian denominations of one type or another.
Religion is the bane of society

 

You think that the wording is "nuance" when the person who helped to write it also penned "the separtion of church and state".

 

So you think the executive branch can violate the 1st amendment? According to you, the 1st applies to only congress. What if Biden came out with an executive order saying you cannot pray in government buildings? This would be constitutional according to your logic.

 

Yet it's clearly there and backed by Jefferson himself in the letter she remarks about. Sure, you can disagree but it doesn't make you right which is why we are here.....to help you.
It's been already stated here that if that is NOT what the first amendment means then all religions can have a say in the context of our laws?

 

And the people in the article you had a link to. Not only do they have a different position, they also state how and why she is wrong.

 

Government can't "disestablish" a religion. And, clearly, it can

How would a law possibly be enacted by a church?

 

Ah yes, the people in the article, whoever they are.

 

But it's completely wrong

 

None of what she said is very good nor accurate yet you think it's a reasonable position.

 

Many ways.
One example off the top of my head would be laws in the state of Utah

 

Yeah, the article YOU provided.
Didn't read it, did you.

 

The church can be in contact with congress and tell them to make laws as the church sees fit. Notice Boebert said the church, not faith, should direct our government.

 

Far xxxx wing idiots don't do anyone any good. She (and a whole lot of the right wing) need to learn that freedom of religion doesn't mean "only for Christians". Similarly, lefty kooks need to learn that "shal not be infringed" means exactly that. Far left or far right are no better than dictators that run the s**t hole countries.

 

Doesn't sound like you understood the OP.

 

Well yes and no.
The original settlers of the USA called Puritans or Pilgrims were religious dissidents who had been chased out of England and fled to Leiden in Holland in 1608, where they were made to feel uncomfortable so left there too.
They were strict Protestants fresh from the Protestant schism from Rome who believed that the New church of England was too much like the RC church and that everything they dis should be rooted directly back to being mentioned in the bible. Hence they earned the réputation for being joyless and literal.
So the original settlers established à particular kind of christianity 100 years beforevit was confirmed in writing after the révolution.
Of course during those 100 years the settlers had wiped out swathes of the indigenous population, had taken part in the slave trade and had imposed à kind of value in racial and religious purity.
I don't know why the Constitution contains article one...whether it was an attempt to loosen the tight hold of the established WASP présence, whether that by the time of theclate 18th century crowds of non WASP Europeans were arriving including Jews from the 1650's and Roman Catholics such as Pôles and other Eastern Europeans.
I don't know if the article was à generous Christian gesture designed to invite much needed help to establish à new country so isolated, or was some recognition of the principle of secular equality. Or both.
I do however recognise that America still places highest value on bloodlines which track back to the WASP identity of the first 100 years of settlement and more broadly, the general faith in the values of hard work and poverty being gods punishment for something in this life or the previous one. Often identified as laziness.
It is also true that the first non WASP président wasn't elected until JF Kennedy, so strong à grip on power held by the establishment.
The other rights mentioned...freedom of the press etc were I agree direct réactions to the behaviour of the British Govt particularly around dissent about taxation and billeting.
But the story of religious freedom in the USA is a far more complicated one woven into the social and cultural fabric from the very beginning.