The Second Amendment is sacred!! The First? Not so much ...

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
Chap
God
Posts: 2308
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:42 am
Location: On the imaginary axis

The Second Amendment is sacred!! The First? Not so much ...

Post by Chap »

Well, dear Americans, here you are on your way towards a right-wing theocracy, at least if some people have their way:

Republican Lauren Boebert wins in Colorado after denouncing separation of church and state

Congresswoman backed by Trump wins primary after proclaiming ‘I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk’


On Sunday, two days before the primary and in comments first reported by the Denver Post, Boebert told a religious service: “The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church. That is not how our founding fathers intended it.”

The first amendment to the US constitution, from 1791, says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

This is widely held to mean church and state should be separate. Critics charge that the US supreme court is now among rightwing bodies which dispute that.

This month, the conservative-dominated court has ruled that Maine cannot exclude religious schools from a tuition programme and ruled in favour of a public school football coach who lost his job for leading prayers on the field.

In the Maine case, the liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote: “This court continues to dismantle the wall of separation between church and state that the framers fought to build.”

Boebert, however, said she was “tired of this separation of church and state junk that’s not in the constitution. It was in a stinking letter, and it means nothing like what they say it does”.

The “stinking letter” seemed to be one written by Thomas Jefferson to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, in 1802.

The third president referred to the constitution establishing “a wall of separation between church and state”. His words have been mentioned in supreme court rulings.

Gwen Calais-Haase, a Harvard political scientist, told the Washington Post Boebert’s claim was “false, misleading and dangerous”, and said she was “extremely worried about the environment of misinformation that extremist politicians take advantage of for their own gains”.

The supreme court has also recently ruled on abortion, overturning the long established right in a ruling last week.

At the service on Sunday, Boebert said, “Look at what happened this week. This is the fruit of your labor, of your votes and of your prayers – this is your harvest.”
I am beginning to realise that for me, much as I like the Americans I have known, and have met on their own ground, they are citizens of a country whose superficial resemblance to those where I live is increasingly illusory.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
honorentheos
God
Posts: 3752
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: The Second Amendment is sacred!! The First? Not so much ...

Post by honorentheos »

Yeah, we are in a bit of a pickle. The experiment is being tested in ways only seen leading up to and during the civil war. So far we havn't dragged Charles I into a mock trial. But we will see.
Binger
God
Posts: 6132
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:34 am
Location: That's the difference. I actually have a Blue Heeler

Re: The Second Amendment is sacred!! The First? Not so much ...

Post by Binger »

honorentheos wrote:
Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:29 pm
Yeah, we are in a bit of a pickle. The experiment is being tested in ways only seen leading up to and during the civil war. So far we havn't dragged Charles I into a mock trial. But we will see.
Unreal. Oh the irony.
Chap
God
Posts: 2308
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:42 am
Location: On the imaginary axis

Re: The Second Amendment is sacred!! The First? Not so much ...

Post by Chap »

Here is the letter in question (the 'stinking letter', as Boebert calls it), as sent, from the Library of Congress website:

https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson

Jan. 1. 1802.

That seems to make it pretty clear that for Jefferson the First Amendment meant just what I always thought it meant. But then, what do I know?
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
honorentheos
God
Posts: 3752
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: The Second Amendment is sacred!! The First? Not so much ...

Post by honorentheos »

Binger wrote:
Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:32 pm
honorentheos wrote:
Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:29 pm
Yeah, we are in a bit of a pickle. The experiment is being tested in ways only seen leading up to and during the civil war. So far we havn't dragged Charles I into a mock trial. But we will see.
Unreal. Oh the irony.
Is it? Is it ironic? Do you know the history and can explain the irony? Or did you go, "hey, the insurrection of January 6th is being investigated and the findings shared and that is like a trial for DJT who I didn't vote for to be clear. Irony!"

There are two things and a word so connection! My therapist will be proud!
Binger
God
Posts: 6132
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:34 am
Location: That's the difference. I actually have a Blue Heeler

Re: The Second Amendment is sacred!! The First? Not so much ...

Post by Binger »

honorentheos wrote:
Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:45 pm
Binger wrote:
Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:32 pm


Unreal. Oh the irony.
Is it? Is it ironic? Do you know the history and can explain the irony? Or did you go, "hey, the insurrection of January 6th is being investigated and the findings shared and that is like a trial for DJT who I didn't vote for to be clear. Irony!"

There are two things and a word so connection! My therapist will be proud!
Thanks. That was perfect.
Chap
God
Posts: 2308
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:42 am
Location: On the imaginary axis

Re: The Second Amendment is sacred!! The First? Not so much ...

Post by Chap »

If you want to read facsimiles of contemporary accounts of the trial, you can access them here:

https://books.google.bj/books?id=gMUwxP ... utput=html

Image

Whether or not it was a real and legal trial depends on where you stand. Charles maintained that the court had no legal basis, and that therefore it was his duty to protect the liberty of his subjects by refusing to recognise it. Those who prosecuted him held that the people had to have the right to judge their monarch if he broke what they suggested was at least an implicit contract between the King and themselves.

The current investigation in Congress is (is it not?) of undisputed legality: as somebody said in effect "the President is not a King", and is therefore subject to the law like everybody else, especially when he has left office.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
Chap
God
Posts: 2308
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:42 am
Location: On the imaginary axis

Re: The Second Amendment is sacred!! The First? Not so much ...

Post by Chap »

But back to the First Amendment and whether the church should control the government like the lady said?
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
User avatar
Kukulkan
High Priest
Posts: 361
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2021 5:36 pm
Location: Slipping deeper into the earth

Re: The Second Amendment is sacred!! The First? Not so much ...

Post by Kukulkan »

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
Image

I wouldn't be opposed to prospective members of Congress needing to pass a high school-level exam on the Constitution in order to take office. Actually, this is like elementary grade stuff. :roll:
"I advise all to go on to perfection and search deeper and deeper into the mysteries of Godliness." -Joseph Smith
Gunnar
God
Posts: 2336
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 6:32 pm
Location: California

Re: The Second Amendment is sacred!! The First? Not so much ...

Post by Gunnar »

According to Betty Bowers, "Ameria's Best Christian,"
No precept or claim is more suspect or more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
Post Reply