GOP: Okay to establish State Religion

[_subgenius]

I don't see how you have any complaint. This is a state's rights issue.

and what complaint did i offer?

[_subgenius]

The Left works hard to remove religion so it can insert it's own philosophies as the state religion.

Yeah, that's why most representatives are atheists.

he sad they work hard, not that they were successful at it.

[_beastie]

he sad they work hard, not that they were successful at it.

So they're so unsuccessful that they can't even nominate predominantly atheists.

Both parties are full of god believers. You all are safe. No one is going to prevent you from praying to the friendly spirit in the sky who grants your wishes while letting millions others suffer and die. Not to worry. He'll help you find your keys.

[Guest]

I don't see how you have any complaint. This is a state's rights issue.

and what complaint did i offer?

1. That a North Carolina state court judge can rule on whether or not the Book of Mormon is a Christian scripture.
2. That the legislature and/or the judiciary of North Carolina can decide whether or not Mormonism is part of Christianity.

Popular sovereignty, Subgenius. If the State of North Carolina decides to exclude Mormonism from the definition of Christianity, or even ban Mormonism altogether, that is the State's prerogative under the 10th Amendment. North Carolina also has the prerogative to exempt itself from the Supremacy Clause. If you disagree, you are a liberal and also an atheist, just like ldsfaqs says.

[_Darth J]

Nothing like classic liberal lying.....

The GOP nor the "bill" in question does nothing of the sort.
The Bill only allows the freedom to pray, period. It has nothing at all to do with establishing a "state religion". Please notice how the actual "facts" quoted in the article that have to do with the bill state nothing of the sort. Only the liberal "editorializing" propaganda in the article makes the claim that the GOP is trying to establish state religion.

What you liberals and atheists don't understand is that your "banning" of prayer is ITSELF fascism and "state controlled" religion, that religion of secularism and anti-religion.

In a truly FREE and Pluralistic society ALL groups are represented, and people actually respect and "tolerate" each other's exercise of good Faith and belief. You speak of "tolerance" toward others who may not believe the same, but what about YOUR tolerance of those who believe differently than you? How does saying a prayer in public "hurt" you? In contrast, we view the banning of prayer as hurtful to not only us, but to America itself.

No GOP does or has said that "only" "Christians" can pray. In true tolerance not only the "minority" is respected but also the majority. Even the article itself said that 3% of the time someone other than a "Christian" prayed, which likely represents the percentage of those self same believers who are not Christian in that area.

Freedom of Religion NEVER was based on "freedom from religion". If people can't respect others beliefs in the public square, then there is certainly not any respect privately. And, we certainly see that in this forum. All GOOD no matter the group should be "represented". Uh, that's AMERICA folks..... BANNING "representation" is not America, it's fascism, it's evil.

This is one of the stupidest things I have ever read. What the North Carolina bill purports to do would give the state's courts the ability to disregard the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and the Supremacy Clause in article VI of the Constitution. Besides being de facto secessionist, the bill, if enacted into law, would give the State of North Carolina the power to restrict the free exercise of any religion the legislature or a court determined to be non-Christian. Had you the slightest idea of the background in this controversy, you would be aware that Mormonism has been specifically mentioned as one of the non-Christian religions that North Carolina's state constitution allegedly does not have to recognize as legitimate.

If this bill actually is signed into law, it has a 100% chance of being struck down by the federal courts, because the bill obviously violates the Supremacy Clause. How the hell you think concern about everyone's freedom of religion---including specifically your religion---is part of some liberal/atheist is beyond the hope of rational understanding.

[_subgenius]

1. That North Carolina state court judge can rule on whether or not the Book of Mormon is a Christian scripture.
2. That the legislature and/or the judiciary of North Carolina can decide whether or not Mormonism is part of Christianity.

Popular sovereignty, Subgenius. If the State of North Carolina decides to exclude Mormonism from the definition of Christianity, or even ban Mormonism altogether, that is the State's prerogative under the 10th Amendment. North Carolina also has the prerogative to exempt itself from the Supremacy Clause. If you disagree, you are a liberal and also an atheist, just like ldsfaqs says.

wha?
you asked the following (viewtopic.php?p=699119#p699119):
Do you agree with the judge who started this whole controversy in North Carolina that the Book of Mormon is not part of the Christian scriptures, and is comparable to a Wiccan text?
to which i responded "No". - that is not a complaint
i disagree with his opinion i did not say he could not provide one.

Do you feel that the 10th Amendment authorizes state court judges to rule on whether or not a given religion falls under the rubric of "Christianity"?
to which i responded "No". - that is not a complaint
i do not believe the 10th gives that power to judges...only to legislators.

Even if i agree that the 10th allows such legislation, my agreement states nothing towards how the judiciary will, or should, behave towards that legislation.
and either way, my response could not reasonably be concluded as a "complaint".

as for your latter conclusion above you have presented a false dichotomy which, at this point, merits no response.

so, again...my alleged complaint was?

[_subgenius]

This is one of the stupidest things I have ever read. What the North Carolina bill purports to do would give the state's courts the ability to disregard the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and the Supremacy Clause in article VI of the Constitution. Besides being de facto secessionist, the bill, if enacted into law, would give the State of North Carolina the power to restrict the free exercise of any religion the legislature or a court determined to be non-Christian. Had you the slightest idea of the background in this controversy, you would be aware that Mormonism has been specifically mentioned as one of the non-Christian religions that North Carolina's state constitution allegedly does not have to recognize as legitimate.

If this bill actually is signed into law, it has a 100% chance of being struck down by the federal courts, because the bill obviously violates the Supremacy Clause. How the hell you think concern about everyone's freedom of religion---including specifically your religion---is part of some liberal/atheist is beyond the hope of rational understanding.

what are the conflicting laws that would invoke the Supremacy clause?
For example....allowing same-sex marriage under DOMA would be a conflict for a State, correct?
How about legalizing marijuana? Are Washington and Colorado not subject to the Supremacy clause on this point? - are they not in fact committing acts of secession?

[_Darth J]

1. That North Carolina state court judge can rule on whether or not the Book of Mormon is a Christian scripture.
2. That the legislature and/or the judiciary of North Carolina can decide whether or not Mormonism is part of Christianity.

Popular sovereignty, Subgenius. If the State of North Carolina decides to exclude Mormonism from the definition of Christianity, or even ban Mormonism altogether, that is the State's prerogative under the 10th Amendment. North Carolina also has the prerogative to exempt itself from the Supremacy Clause. If you disagree, you are a liberal and also an atheist, just like ldsfaqs says.

wha?
you asked the following (viewtopic.php?p=699119#p699119):
Do you agree with the judge who started this whole controversy in North Carolina that the Book of Mormon is not part of the Christian scriptures, and is comparable to a Wiccan text?
to which i responded "No". - that is not a complaint
i disagree with his opinion i did not say he could not provide one.

He can provide that opinion in his official capacity as a judge? Okay. And so if an ex-Mormon in North Carolina sues the LDS Church for fraud, as in teaching a false religion, and an all-Christian jury presided over by a Christian judge agrees that the LDS Church is a fraudulent religion and the Church has to pay monetary damages to this ex-Mormon for teaching him a fraudulent religion, you are okay with that.

Thanks for sharing. When you are able to explain how the North Carolina bill in the OP, and your belief that the 14th Amendment is not part of the Constitution, would preclude this from happening, let me know.

Do you feel that the 10th Amendment authorizes state court judges to rule on whether or not a given religion falls under the rubric of "Christianity"?
to which i responded "No". - that is not a complaint
i do not believe the 10th gives that power to judges...only to legislators.

Oh, so state legislatures have the authority to declare the truth value of various religious denominations? Tell me how the following words permit that:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Even if i agree that the 10th allows such legislation, my agreement states nothing towards how the judiciary will, or should, behave towards that legislation.
and either way, my response could not reasonably be concluded as a "complaint".

Yeah, see, the thing is that the bill tells the state's courts how they should behave.

as for your latter conclusion above you have presented a false dichotomy which, at this point, merits no response.

You're not impressed with ldsfaqs' reasoning, then? Why not?

so, again...my alleged complaint was?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/complaint

an expression of discontent, regret, pain, censure, resentment, or grief; lament; faultfinding: his complaint about poor schools.

[_Darth J]

This is one of the stupidest things I have ever read. What the North Carolina bill purports to do would give the state's courts the ability to disregard the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and the Supremacy Clause in article VI of the Constitution. Besides being de facto secessionist, the bill, if enacted into law, would give the State of North Carolina the power to restrict the free exercise of any religion the legislature or a court determined to be non-Christian. Had you the slightest idea of the background in this controversy, you would be aware that Mormonism has been specifically mentioned as one of the non-Christian religions that North Carolina's state constitution allegedly does not have to recognize as legitimate.

If this bill actually is signed into law, it has a 100% chance of being struck down by the federal courts, because the bill obviously violates the Supremacy Clause. How the hell you think concern about everyone's freedom of religion---including specifically your religion---is part of some liberal/atheist is beyond the hope of rational understanding.

what are the conflicting laws that would invoke the Supremacy clause?

The bill purporting to give North Carolina state courts the final say in interpreting the federal constitution, and Article III of the federal constitution.

ETA: And also the bill's language purporting to favor one religion over all others, and the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.

For example....allowing same-sex marriage under DOMA would be a conflict for a State, correct?

No, you have the concept completely convoluted. Refusing to recognize same-sex marriages that are valid under state law is a conflict for the federal government under the 10th Amendment, because Congress has no authority to define marriage for the states. That has to do with the 10th Amendment, not the Supremacy Clause.

How about legalizing marijuana? Are Washington and Colorado not subject to the Supremacy clause on this point? - are they not in fact committing acts of secession?

Yes, they are, and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that federal narcotics laws preempt state laws purporting to legalize substances that are illegal under federal law.

[_moksha]

I was mulling over the idea of the Iraq Crusade. Pretty catchy as a name and as a way of spreading the faith.