Conservatives try to impose a state religion in North Carolina.

[Sallow]

Wow what a circle jerk thread.

How so?

 

[tinydancer]

From the linked story:

The measure acknowledges the U.S. Constitution prevents Congress from establishing an official religion, but says that the prohibition does not apply to states, counties or towns.

A state religion? What?s next, North Carolina, secession?

So what do you think the Official Religion of NC will be? Southern Baptist? Maybe Catholic so they can drink? Could a small town or county garner enough votes to establish a local Jonestown?

.

 

[AVG-JOE]

It's not a state's "official religion" I worry about...

How soon before a state adopts an official corporate sponsor?

I think there are some cities out in California who'll lead the way there.

If Coke becomes the official sponsor of Stockton, CA, will Pepsi be available only in semi-underground medical sugar clinics?

 

[tinydancer]

I hate to say this but I believe that legally states might have the right to establish an official religion.

Depends, I suppose, on the STATE constitution.

US Constitution has supremacy

Hence the 14th.

You have no fun in your life do you you?

The state is going to challenge the SC This strategy is awesome.

 

[Sallow]

I hate to say this but I believe that legally states might have the right to establish an official religion.

Depends, I suppose, on the STATE constitution.

US Constitution has supremacy

Hence the 14th.

You have no fun in your life do you you?

The state is going to challenge the SC This strategy is awesome.

What?

 

[AVG-JOE]

I hate to say this but I believe that legally states might have the right to establish an official religion.

Depends, I suppose, on the STATE constitution.

US Constitution has supremacy

Hence the 14th.

You have no fun in your life do you you?

The state is going to challenge the SC This strategy is awesome.

Perhaps... but to what end?

Is forcing all Americans to go kicking and screaming to church once a week really the best use of political discussion?

Are there no issues that err on the side of freedom for the republicans to pursue? This insistence that the morals of Christianity be codified in American Civil Law is a complete waste of time now that evangelical Christians are no longer the majority of voters.

This is an new environment republicans find themselves in - survival demands change, and if the organism is too top heavy to change, it will perish.

 

[tinydancer]

2014 & 2016 are going to be most interesting elections. Either the republicans jettison their religious base to save their party or republican relevance continues to decline.

Either way, it looks like the end of the codification of religious morals for the sake of religious morals is in sight. Yay!

Why do you hate Islam and Muslims.?

Not kidding. Very curious

 

[tinydancer]

US Constitution has supremacy

Hence the 14th.

You have no fun in your life do you you?

The state is going to challenge the SC This strategy is awesome.

Perhaps... but to what end?

Is forcing all Americans to go kicking and screaming to church once a week really the best use of political discussion?

Are there no issues that err on the side of freedom for the republicans to pursue? This insistence that the morals of Christianity be codified in American Civil Law is a complete waste of time now that evangelical Christians are no longer the majority of voters.

This is an new environment republicans find themselves in - survival demands change, and if the organism is too top heavy to change, it will perish.

Ever witness on your side liberal...some one screaming Koran thumper

 

[AVG-JOE]

2014 & 2016 are going to be most interesting elections. Either the republicans jettison their religious base to save their party or republican relevance continues to decline.

Either way, it looks like the end of the codification of religious morals for the sake of religious morals is in sight. Yay!

Well if what's happening in the courts is any indication, Republicans trying to repeal the voter's rights act, they are pretty nervous.

That's scary, if it has any traction.

 

[Sallow]

2014 & 2016 are going to be most interesting elections. Either the republicans jettison their religious base to save their party or republican relevance continues to decline.

Either way, it looks like the end of the codification of religious morals for the sake of religious morals is in sight. Yay!

Why do you hate Islam and Muslims.?

Not kidding. Very curious

How do you construe this?

No religion should be the law of the land.

It's in the constitution.

Check it out.

 

[Sallow]

2014 & 2016 are going to be most interesting elections. Either the republicans jettison their religious base to save their party or republican relevance continues to decline.

Either way, it looks like the end of the codification of religious morals for the sake of religious morals is in sight. Yay!

Well if what's happening in the courts is any indication, Republicans trying to repeal the voter's rights act, they are pretty nervous.

That's scary, if it has any traction.

We'll see.

It's in the SCOTUS now and Scalia is acting very much the fool.

One has to wonder how anyone seriously thought that Scalia, Alito and Thomas were worthy of the SCOTUS.

Seriously.

 

[Seawytch]

Hence the 14th.

You have no fun in your life do you you?

The state is going to challenge the SC This strategy is awesome.

Perhaps... but to what end?

Is forcing all Americans to go kicking and screaming to church once a week really the best use of political discussion?

Are there no issues that err on the side of freedom for the republicans to pursue? This insistence that the morals of Christianity be codified in American Civil Law is a complete waste of time now that evangelical Christians are no longer the majority of voters.

This is an new environment republicans find themselves in - survival demands change, and if the organism is too top heavy to change, it will perish.

Ever witness on your side liberal...some one screaming Koran thumper

No...but I'm going to start using it, thanks!

"That Bin Laden is one dead Koran Thumper!"

 

[AVG-JOE]

2014 & 2016 are going to be most interesting elections. Either the republicans jettison their religious base to save their party or republican relevance continues to decline.

Either way, it looks like the end of the codification of religious morals for the sake of religious morals is in sight. Yay!

Why do you hate Islam and Muslims.?

Not kidding. Very curious

I don't hate Muslims in general and, while Islam scares me, I don't necessarily hate it.

What I hate is having my life restricted with regards to social freedoms because some other Monkeys imaginary Deity finds the practice 'sinful'.

I simply see no difference between legislation like DOMA and Sharia Law. Neither has a place in the Civil Laws of a Pluralistic Society.

When Civil Law and Religious Law conflict, Civil Law and freedom must trump.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Hence the 14th.

You have no fun in your life do you you?

The state is going to challenge the SC This strategy is awesome.

Perhaps... but to what end?

Is forcing all Americans to go kicking and screaming to church once a week really the best use of political discussion?

Are there no issues that err on the side of freedom for the republicans to pursue? This insistence that the morals of Christianity be codified in American Civil Law is a complete waste of time now that evangelical Christians are no longer the majority of voters.

This is an new environment republicans find themselves in - survival demands change, and if the organism is too top heavy to change, it will perish.

Ever witness on your side liberal...some one screaming Koran thumper

You mean besides in my trusty mirror? Of course, I have, haven't you?

I tend to lump all of the ancient stories together, especially the three that are based on the life and times of Abraham, circa 4,000 BC - I have no reason at all to see any of them as superior or inferior to the rest.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I hate to say this but I believe that legally states might have the right to establish an official religion.

Depends, I suppose, on the STATE constitution.

You should hate to say it because it’s wrong.

The First Amendment applies to the states and all other jurisdictions. See: Gitlow v. New York (1925).

This type of ‘protest legislation’ represents how frustrated the right has become. Somehow in their bizarre view of the world they’ve ‘lost control.’ For years now the courts have been rejecting similar un-Constitutional legislation enacted by conservative lawmakers.

Last year was particularly tough on the right: ‘personhood’ laws were invalidated, the Court upheld the ACA, and Obama was reelected. Last fall a Florida law was struck down that denied instate tuition to US citizens whose parents just happened to be undocumented immigrants.

And this year we’ve seen these idiotic and un-Constitutional measures making it a ‘crime’ to obey Federal laws.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well if what's happening in the courts is any indication, Republicans trying to repeal the voter's rights act, they are pretty nervous.

That's scary, if it has any traction.

We'll see.

It's in the SCOTUS now and Scalia is acting very much the fool.

One has to wonder how anyone seriously thought that Scalia, Alito and Thomas were worthy of the SCOTUS.

Seriously.

Heh, Thomas would likely agree with you – he’s no conservative, he’s a libertarian who would like to see the SC done away with and 50 independent countries created.

Scalia and the other conservatives represent a minority and incorrect view on the role of the Constitution and the source of the Founding Document’s authority, that being the states, not the people. But since before McCulloch we’ve known the Constitution’s authority emanates from the people, not the states. The view of the Court’s conservatives conflicts with the fundamental doctrines of inalienable rights, the rule of law, and a republican form of government, where whether or not one will have his civil liberties is not determined by majority rule.

Given these facts it’s clear to see why the proposed North Carolina measure is indeed offensive to the Constitution.

 

[Truthmatters]

more proof the right does not like our government and think the founders were wrong

 

[Sallow]

That's scary, if it has any traction.

We'll see.

It's in the SCOTUS now and Scalia is acting very much the fool.

One has to wonder how anyone seriously thought that Scalia, Alito and Thomas were worthy of the SCOTUS.

Seriously.

Heh, Thomas would likely agree with you – he’s no conservative, he’s a libertarian who would like to see the SC done away with and 50 independent countries created.

Scalia and the other conservatives represent a minority and incorrect view on the role of the Constitution and the source of the Founding Document’s authority, that being the states, not the people. But since before McCulloch we’ve known the Constitution’s authority emanates from the people, not the states. The view of the Court’s conservatives conflicts with the fundamental doctrines of inalienable rights, the rule of law, and a republican form of government, where whether or not one will have his civil liberties is not determined by majority rule.

Given these facts it’s clear to see why the proposed North Carolina measure is indeed offensive to the Constitution.

Well yeah.

And it proves out again that Conservatives grossly misinterpret the Constitution on almost every point.

It also proves out both the authoritarian and tribal nature of modern conservatism.