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

[Gordy327]

Where in the constitution does it state that ?

And again Hugo black, who originated that “ruling”, was absolutely wrong.


We are talking about the founding where states were able to have state sponsored religions. The establishment clause is limiting, in this regard, the federal government not the state…

The Establishment Clause. Separation is a key concept for it.
Your opinion of the ruling is noted, but irrelevant. What makes you more of an expert on the Constitution or the intensions of the FF than the SCOTUS?
I already said states originally had greater autonomy to do what they wanted. That's partly why we had a Civil War too. But that became moot with the 14th Amendment, which applied SCOTUS rulings to the states.

 

[CaughtInThe]

In all seriousness, this is how a country dies. Ever so slowly the extremists start saying stuff like this and then decades later it's accepted.

 

[Gordy327]

In all seriousness, this is how a country dies. Ever so slowly the extremists start saying stuff like this and then decades later it's accepted.

What's the old saying: when fascism comes to America, it will be wearing the flag and carrying a cross (or bible).

 

[bomberfox]

No. But I do agree with John Adams, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Oh cool then the government is inadequate to me then \o/. **** yeah!

 

[bomberfox]

Or maybe John Adams signed it because it was what was required for signing a trade treaty with a Muslim nation at the time.

Not very relevant he still signed it making it enforceable. This aint a christian nation in the christian nationalist sense.

 

[Crovax]

Not very relevant he still signed it making it enforceable.

Yes it was a trade agreement that was all the enforceable part of it.

 

[Gordy327]

Not very relevant he still signed it making it enforceable. This aint a christian nation in the christian nationalist sense.

Let's not forget the Treaty was unanimously passed too. That says a lot right there.

 

[fbi10]

The Establishment Clause. Separation is a key concept for it.
Your opinion of the ruling is noted, but irrelevant. What makes you more of an expert on the Constitution or the intensions of the FF than the SCOTUS?
I already said states originally had greater autonomy to do what they wanted. That's partly why we had a Civil War too. But that became moot with the 14th Amendment, which applied SCOTUS rulings to the states.

Again, when your original point was the founders view, they didn’t vision that the federal government would establish a national religion it would limit the power of the federal government from the states if they wished to…before the 14th amendment.

The ruling that brought the phrase “separation of church and state” wasnt decided on the 14th amendment in 1947, as far as I know( could be wrong ) it was 1st amendment case.

 

[Gordy327]

Again, when your original point was the founders view, they didn’t vision that the federal government would establish a national religion it would limit the power of the federal government from the states if they wished to…before the 14th amendment.

The ruling thé brought the phrase “separation of church and state” wasnt decided on the 14th amendment in 1947, as far as I know( could be wrong )

The FF wanted to respect state rights. This was also partly necessary to get the states to ratify the constitution. The Establoshment Clause proves the intended separation. It wasn't until 1878 that separation was affirmed and applied to the states. You're trying to argue over established and large accepted precedent. Or do you seriously think each state should be allowed to establish an official religion?

 

[LostInSeattle]

Go back and read. Its all right there.

Typical Fletch reply. I have read the entire thread.

 

[LostInSeattle]

@Fletch
You wrote (post 65), "Bobert is largely correct... Separation of church and state is NOT in the Constitution and the way it is applied today was never intended by the Founders. Including Jefferson. He, and they, were opposed to a state religion, not the free exercise thereof."

(post 68) "The establishment clause specifically rejects the idea of a state religion."

That's pretty much the substance of what you said. Not really 'demonstrating' much of anything.

How is the separation of church and state different from not allowing a state religion? You seem to imply that but provide no reasoning to substantiate it.

Also, Boebert claimed that the church is supposed to direct the government but you didn't address why you think that is correct.

The sentiments in the First Amendment governing religion derive from the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1786), which Jefferson wrote. Paragraph two, specifically:

"II. Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

Jefferson considered freedom of worship to be a natural right, as evidenced in paragraph III.

"III. And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the act of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such as would be an infringement of natural right."

There is no benefit to having God/religion enter into official proceedings of any kind, at any level. Given the multitudinous religions and religious sects/denominations, it can serve only to resonate with one set of believers while alienating all the rest. If government is supposed to represent and serve the interests of everyone - regardless of faith - then any particular faith needs to be left out of governmental activity. What alternative is there?

 

[D_NATURED]

The ignorant leftist who actually believe that there’s separation of church and state from a letter they quote out of context is laughable. Separation of church and state was a ruling by a racist Supreme Court justice Hugo Black, former Klansman, who hated the Catholic Church. He used that letter as basis for his ruling completely out of context…

Don't call others ignorant and then post that drivel. Furthermore, if you want to talk about words being taken out of context, consider the buy-bull. Christianity is fractured into a thousand different versions of dumb by people who understand it slightly different than everyone else. If there were any constitutional equivalent, the second ammendment would be the first in all the dumb, I mean "GOP" states.

 

[Fletch]

Typical Fletch reply. I have read the entire thread.

Typical? As in typically honest? Must be since in your next post you mange to post exactly what I was talking about. Here:

@Fletch
You wrote (post 65), "Bobert is largely correct... Separation of church and state is NOT in the Constitution and the way it is applied today was never intended by the Founders. Including Jefferson. He, and they, were opposed to a state religion, not the free exercise thereof."

(post 68) "The establishment clause specifically rejects the idea of a state religion."

You asked what I thought Bobert was right about, I told you I had already answered and lo and behold you found it.

That's pretty much the substance of what you said. Not really 'demonstrating' much of anything.

False. I demonstrated that she was right about that. If you disagree, lets hear it.

How is the separation of church and state different from not allowing a state religion? You seem to imply that but provide no reasoning to substantiate it.

Also, Boebert claimed that the church is supposed to direct the government but you didn't address why you think that is correct.

The sentiments in the First Amendment governing religion derive from the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1786), which Jefferson wrote. Paragraph two, specifically:

"II. Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

Jefferson considered freedom of worship to be a natural right, as evidenced in paragraph III.

"III. And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the act of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such as would be an infringement of natural right."

You just made my point. Joe Kennedy kneeling in prayer at the end of a game is protected religious liberty. Yet somehow, you and the rest of the left see it as a violation of Church and state, a phrase that is not in the Constitution as Bobert pointed out. Now you have to ask yourself why you oppose the First Amendment in light of the quotes you posted from Jefferson.

There is no benefit to having God/religion enter into official proceedings of any kind, at any level. Given the multitudinous religions and religious sects/denominations, it can serve only to resonate with one set of believers while alienating all the rest. If government is supposed to represent and serve the interests of everyone - regardless of faith - then any particular faith needs to be left out of governmental activity. What alternative is there?

A football game is not government activity.

 

[fbi10]

The Establoshment Clause proves the intended separation.

Separated what from what? I already addressed that separation of church and state wasn’t decided in 1878. The separation more commonly argued was decided in 1947.

that separation was affirmed and applied to the states.

Ok and again, the establishment clause was to limit the federal government NOT the states. When addressing the founding, we can both agree that states did have established religions, correct? So in order for YOU to argue your separation argument you would need to go back to the founding…and you can’t.

do you seriously think each state should be allowed to establish an official religion?

When did I argue that? You are arguing about the founders intent and I corrected that assumption…

 

[fbi10]

Don't call others ignorant and then post that drivel

In regards to separation of church and state and the typical ignorant leftist argument, I can.

 

[LostInSeattle]

Typical? As in typically honest? Must be since in your next post you mange to post exactly what I was talking about.

No, typical as in, you have a penchant for expressing your thoughts cryptically and incompletely and prefer to let others figure out wtf you're trying to say.

Here:
You asked what I thought Bobert was right about, I told you I had already answered and lo and behold you found it.'

I had found it before, tyvm. It's just a statement without any demonstration. Hence my questions to you.

False. I demonstrated that she was right about that. If you disagree, lets hear it.

See the post you're responding to. Stating is not demonstrating. I notice that you failed to address either of the questions I posed to you. Again, typical of Fletch. I'll paste them here for clarity:
1) How is the separation of church and state different from not allowing a state religion?
2) Boebert claimed that the church is supposed to direct the government but you didn't address why you think that is correct. After all, you said she is "largely correct."

You just made my point. Joe Kennedy kneeling in prayer at the end of a game is protected religious liberty. Yet somehow, you and the rest of the left see it as a violation of Church and state, a phrase that is not in the Constitution as Bobert pointed out. Now you have to ask yourself why you oppose the First Amendment in light of the quotes you posted from Jefferson.

A football game is not government activity.

Oh my. This thread is not about Kennedy and I posted nothing about him or his case here. But nice effort at deflection.

Rather than pointing to him, why don't you express in your own words where exactly you think the line should be drawn and why. Referring to a football game is not helpful to understand your position more broadly.

 

[Trippy Trekker]

Lol what?

Masturbate with glee, while panting “… oh God, oh God, oh God!”

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

No. But I do agree with John Adams, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

So not for Donald Trump then, no wonder he tried to overturn an election

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

No it hasn't most every person in America today has a "legal=moral" attitude which has lead to ever increasing laws.

That is what occurs when living in close proximity to others, especially when the others are selfish jack a with no concerns about other's. You get laws about when you can cut your grass, how many cars you can park outside on your property, etc.

 

[Trippy Trekker]

Yeah…she’s what the Founding Fathers wanted in Congress. So much knowledge about the Constitution!

Chelsea Handler uses a few choice phrases to describe Rep. Boebert’s ignorance of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers.

Advance the video to about the 7minute mark to key in on the monologue directed toward Boebert:

 

[mrdeltoid]

So Boebert is sick of this separation of church 'junk'.

Of course it didn't occur to her that perhaps some people in the electorate would expect our representatives, you know, the folks who make laws consistent with the CONSTITUTION, that they would have at least studied the Bill of Rights.

Separation of Church and State is in the establishment clause of the First Amendment which states that you are free to practice your religion, just as long at it isn't subsidized directly by the US Taxpayer or otherwise sponsored by the US Government. I think we should use the word 'sponsor' on this because one could argue that their tax free status is, in effect, funding by the tax payers to the degree they do not pay taxes, others do. But, they do charity work. However, not all of their work is charity, they run businesses, or a number of religions such as Scientology, do. For example Scientology's book and film department, and their 'OSA" Office of Special Affairs, their nefarious and litigious dirty tricks department. Should not any business that a tax free institution runs be taxed?

Anyone here want to dispute that point on Boebert's ignorance of the first amendment?

Also, do any of you in the DP peanut gallery think it's a good idea that, in order to qualify as a lawmaker, anywhere, that they must pass a test on basic civics and the constitution? Is that too much to ask of our lawmakers? I mean, if there ever were evidence of the need for such a test, she is the living example.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/28/lauren-boebert-church-state-colorado/

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), who faces a primary election Tuesday, says she is “tired” of the U.S. separation of church and state, a long-standing concept stemming only from a “stinking letter” penned by one of the Founding Fathers.

Speaking at a religious service Sunday in Colorado, she told worshipers: “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.”

She added: “I’m 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.” Her comments were first reported by the Denver Post.

I agree on the separation of church and state. I wonder though, if we followed to the best of our ability the 10 commandments, wouldn’t we be better off as a people?

 

[Geoist]

In all seriousness, this is how a country dies. Ever so slowly the extremists start saying stuff like this and then decades later it's accepted.

The ol' frog in the pan.

 

[Fletch]

No, typical as in, you have a penchant for expressing your thoughts cryptically and incompletely and prefer to let others figure out wtf you're trying to say.

I have never done that. I am very clear about what I believe and am very clear when I post

I had found it before, tyvm. It's just a statement without any demonstration. Hence my questions to you.

Stating the facts demonstrated that Bobert was correct. If you are trying to argue that she was incorrect, make you case.

See the post you're responding to. Stating is not demonstrating. I notice that you failed to address either of the questions I posed to you. Again, typical of Fletch. I'll paste them here for clarity:
1) How is the separation of church and state different from not allowing a state religion?

They are quite different when you drop the context. Where do you find the following wording?:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

You find it in the Bill of Rights. What is the purpose of the Bill of Rights? To lay pout the rights of the people. The Constitution limits the power of the government and the Bill of Rights lays out the rights of the people. Here, the wording is clear. Congress may pass no law regarding a state religion and it may not prohibit the free exercise thereof. Enter Joe Kennedy and his Constitution right of free expression of religion and the left violates those rights based upon wording that existed in a letter from Jefferson and are not part of the Constitution, That is how separation of church and state is vastly different from not allowing a state religion.

2) Boebert claimed that the church is supposed to direct the government but you didn't address why you think that is correct. After all, you said she is "largely correct."

Boebert is wrong about that.

Oh my. This thread is not about Kennedy and I posted nothing about him or his case here. But nice effort at deflection.

Thats stupid. Joe Kennedy and the SC decision is what prompted the current discussion of church and state. If you think its a deflection you a simply trying to avoid the issue because you cannot argue against it.

Rather than pointing to him, why don't you express in your own words where exactly you think the line should be drawn and why. Referring to a football game is not helpful to understand your position more broadly.

It is the perfect thing to talk about but you resist because it exposes the lefts blatant disregard for individual rights and to side with state power on every issue before the court.

 

[CaughtInThe]

I’m tired of this separation of mosque and state junk!!!!​

 

[LostInSeattle]

I have never done that. I am very clear about what I believe and am very clear when I post

Sure, you go ahead and think that. This post of yours I'm responding to here belies that statement.

Stating the facts demonstrated that Bobert was correct. If you are trying to argue that she was incorrect, make you case.

You admit below that she wrong's in half of her assertion.

They are quite different when you drop the context.

Not really.

Where do you find the following wording?:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

You find it in the Bill of Rights. What is the purpose of the Bill of Rights? To lay pout the rights of the people. The Constitution limits the power of the government and the Bill of Rights lays out the rights of the people. Here, the wording is clear. Congress may pass no law regarding a state religion and it may not prohibit the free exercise thereof. Enter Joe Kennedy and his Constitution right of free expression of religion and the left violates those rights based upon wording that existed in a letter from Jefferson and are not part of the Constitution, That is how separation of church and state is vastly different from not allowing a state religion.

Boebert is wrong about that.

Hey, we agree on something!

Thats stupid. Joe Kennedy and the SC decision is what prompted the current discussion of church and state. If you think its a deflection you a simply trying to avoid the issue because you cannot argue against it.

It is the perfect thing to talk about but you resist because it exposes the lefts blatant disregard for individual rights and to side with state power on every issue before the court.

I'm not deflecting anything. I honestly don't care much at all about Kennedy, though I find his ostentatious prayer demonstation distasteful (and against Jesus's teachings - When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men). My only concern, as I stated in the thread on this topic, is for any negative impacts of his behavior on student atheletes who don't share his religious convictions.

I'm asking the question of where one draws the line - if at all in your estimation, because the football case in question is an insufficient data point by itself, and what you believe is very much NOT clear from your posts, much as you might imagine otherwise. Is it your contention that the individual right to free exercise of religion cannot be constrained in any way? For example: can a teacher lead a prayer in a classroom? May a judge lead a prayer while in court? Can the state prohibit the use of intoxicants that are part of a religious practice/ceremony, e.g. cannabis for Rastafari, or peyote for Native Americans? Can the state legally intervene to prevent cult members from committing mass suicide together? What about genital mutilation of babies for religious purposes? Should the Mormon Church be allowed to practice polygamy?

The tension in the First Amendment is long-standing and not easily resolved through simple tests or standards. Different cases reveal a multitude of facets in the application of the law and Constitution. It's just not an issue that can be explained by a sinble example as you (and Boebert) seem to think.

Consider some of the issues raihe sed in this law review article:

Limits of Religious Freedom - Harvard Political Review

Several hot button issues currently standing before the Supreme Court and Congress could shift conceptions of just how far religious liberty extends.

harvardpolitics.com

SCOTUS has held in earelier decisions that the government can "only infringe on religious liberty when a compelling interest exists to do so." The “Sherbert Test” requires that an individual must prove sincere religious beliefs and substantial burden through government action.

An even more substantial question is whether the state can permit individuals, on the basis of their religious conviction, to discriminate against other individuals.

This article notes:
"Sixteen states have approved laws allowing citizens to “ignore state regulations or laws that contradict his or her sincerely held religious beliefs,” and Kentucky seems likely to approve a similar bill soon. Though applied broadly, these laws are a thinly veiled attempt to allow employment, housing, and other forms of discrimination against homosexuals. In essence, the laws apply a version of the Sherbert Test to states—groups establish sincerely held beliefs and then demonstrate a burden originating from following the law."

Is that ok? These are weighty questions.