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

Well I see the acknowledgement that the population can believe what they feel is right without being castigated by others who dont agree.
So how about doing just that?

 

The way I read it, sécularisation means that no religion or set of organised spiritual beliefs should influence lawmaking or its processes. No part of state legislation should reflect any acknowledgement of articles of faith .
This is not really the same as "you can practise any faith you want free from persecution".

While here, I cant help but notice that the SCOTUS seems to have forgotten this important principle in its latest exercise in population control.
It has removed the freedom to come to moral beliefs and decisions from the individual and given it to the state.
Which is directly in conflict with the first amendment.

 

Unfortunately in some important aspects, govt has moved to override personal choice based on moral conviction and regulate it at the highest level.
Turing govt into a more impérative than religious belief.

 

A church can lobby government just like anybody else and suggest laws. Your position is emotional not real. it doesn't matter what Boebert said. Her position is emotional as well.

 

Didn't provide it either.

 

Government gathers and increases its power and control. It always has and always will. It is the most important thing the citizens fight against.

 

Are you saying that Utah doesn't allow freedom of religion?

 

Her position without all the misspoken words and emotion is that government should consider morality in its legislation. Morality is good for society. I trust you don't disagree with that.

 

I said opinion. Opinions can't be wrong. They are just opinions. You and she have different ones. Nothing wrong with that.

 

I rarely post links to internet articles because I consider them to be opinion rather than fact. I didn't post a single link in this thread.

 

The point is an obvious one, Roy. The men who wrote our Constitution had it uppermost in mind -- as shown clearly in the very first part of the First Amendment -- that there wasn't going to be one of the foremost trappings of the English monarchy given any chance to take root in the new United States, that of an 'established, official religion'. We declared independence from England, and that included, its 'woven-in' 'established, official religion'... (Do you find that point a mysterious one?)

English King Henry VIII had been dead and gone for almost 250 years when our Constitution was adopted, but our Founding Fathers remembered his 'hallmark' achievement well -- that of establishing the official Church of England... and they wisely made it impossible in the United States!

 

I had responded to Robster's post saying, "Isn't it amazing how all these RWers are Constitutional law experts and yet they need to once again interpret an unhinged lawmaker's words to fit their narrative." Whose 'castigation' was that...?

The imputation is that, somehow, we on the Right deliberately twist and manipulate the words of the Constitution to "fit (our) narrative", which is as inaccurate as it is deliberately insulting. But rather than simply rejoining Robster's snipe with a similarly snotty post, I drew attention instead to the necessity for reading the exact words of the Constitution closely -- not going off on speculative tangents of the Left OR the Right about what Thomas Jefferson, Lauren Boebert, or anybody else might have thought about what is written in its First Amendment.

As I did recently when the cause célèbre was our Constitution's Second Amendment, I suggest that anyone who wants to make changes do so by further amending our foundational document, and not just carping and bellyaching about it, misinterpreting what it SAYS, or trying to use misattributions about it to defame or slander others.

 

A little inconvenient fact: Jefferson was not one of the drafters of the Constitution.

 

Nobody is claiming that the 1st amendment applies only to congress. It applies to every branch of government and every person. Although your question is interesting. The government cannot prohibit the exercise of religion. However they can prescribe work habits and demeanor of their employees even on government (public) property. That would be a tough one. But, the president cannot issue an order that I can't pray on government property without violating the constitution.

 

Yet you gave a response and then had the link again, which had nothing to do with your response....so why put it there.

 

Nothing even remotely to that.
Guess you can't respond to the issue so you throw out a strawman.

 

I like Boebert, but I understand she is strongly religious, which is OK. I ask only that she honor her oath, and avoid having the government enforce religious dogma. Keep religion in the church house, and out of the state house.

 

Any reasonable person would agree that morality is good for society. That's why we came up with it but that isn't at all what she is talking about. That's your interpretation,which you can have, but it is wrong regardless.

 

Here is one of the issues.
Religion is not just about playing. Religion often touches most if not all aspects of someone's life.
If govt cannot prohibit the exercise of religion, then why does it feel it is able to legislate on moral issues?
How would those whose moral position accepts guns if the govt removed the right to have one if by chance the POLITICALLY APPOINTED court ruled that the gun facilitates murder?

 

Morality is subjective in nature. As a society we try to arrive at a good moral code that knows the difference between right and wrong.

By the actions of the government we can see that it does not know the difference between right and wrong, or does not care.

 

Yet every society ever has had religion.

 

Humans tend to be superstitious, and some humans like to play the role of Priest, even as other humans like being led by men in black robes.

 

If you say churches instead of religion, then they, like every person, every group, and every business, certainly can and does have a say in our laws. I don't know what you mean by "in the context of."

 

No, no you didn't, you said position. Opinon and position are two different things.
Of course opinions can be wrong. Some are of the opinion that the world is flat.
Boebert, a Congresswoman in the federal government, is of the opinion that the first amendment of the Constitution does not call for a seperation of church and state and that the "church" (which one, she didn't say) should be telling the government what to do. That is wrong and a shameful viewpoint for someone in her position, so yeah, there is something wrong with that.

 

Yet there it is in your post. A carry over from the OP