Republicans propose declaring Idaho a 'Christian state'

[danielpalos]

Yes, many were. Deism isn't atheism, BTW.

Where did I say that deism was atheism?

They had a lot of influences. To say they were also influenced by John Locke and others is clearly true. But to say they were not influenced by Christian-Judeo is ridiculous.

No, it's the truth. Absolutely nothing about the constitution, Declaration of Independence, enlightenment era thought, or anything about the founding of our country has anything Judeo-Christian about it at all, beyond the fact that some of the actors happened to be Christians. For you to even make a claim like this is a blatant admission that you don't know or understand the first thing about Christianity or Judaism, or enlightenment thinking.

As I said, the DOI was a reason, they mentioned God.

Whose god? Your god? Sure they weren't talking about another god? Maybe they meant Allah. Perhaps Demeter. You know, I don't actually know for myself....but I've heard rumors that that Jefferson was having a gay love affair with that fellow Odin.

The Constitution was a rulebook. They weren't looking for the Church to run the government and they said so. This is obvious to anyone who knows history and no one would argue it except someone who doesn't or someone who just wants to engage in a game of no it isn't.

.....And that's why you think that the constitution was influenced by Judaism and Christianity? Because they wanted the church to not be an influence? Do you not grasp how absolutely batshit that is?

What point are you even making with this? Clearly they did not want a religious government, I did not suggest otherwise. But they weren't anti-religion like the left is today either

Where did I say anything about being anti-religious? Secularism is not anti-religious. Nor is it anti-religious to refute your asinine claim that the constitution was supposedly baseded on Judeo-Christian ideas. It's simply anti-bullshit.

Obviously they were referring to Allah, they probably hadn't heard of Christianity. I'm not interested in a no it isn't discussion.

.... good. It should be moral to Tax the wealthiest into Heaven in Idaho.

 

[kaz]

Yes, many were. Deism isn't atheism, BTW.

Where did I say that deism was atheism?

They had a lot of influences. To say they were also influenced by John Locke and others is clearly true. But to say they were not influenced by Christian-Judeo is ridiculous.

No, it's the truth. Absolutely nothing about the constitution, Declaration of Independence, enlightenment era thought, or anything about the founding of our country has anything Judeo-Christian about it at all, beyond the fact that some of the actors happened to be Christians. For you to even make a claim like this is a blatant admission that you don't know or understand the first thing about Christianity or Judaism, or enlightenment thinking.

As I said, the DOI was a reason, they mentioned God.

Whose god? Your god? Sure they weren't talking about another god? Maybe they meant Allah. Perhaps Demeter. You know, I don't actually know for myself....but I've heard rumors that that Jefferson was having a gay love affair with that fellow Odin.

The Constitution was a rulebook. They weren't looking for the Church to run the government and they said so. This is obvious to anyone who knows history and no one would argue it except someone who doesn't or someone who just wants to engage in a game of no it isn't.

.....And that's why you think that the constitution was influenced by Judaism and Christianity? Because they wanted the church to not be an influence? Do you not grasp how absolutely batshit that is?

What point are you even making with this? Clearly they did not want a religious government, I did not suggest otherwise. But they weren't anti-religion like the left is today either

Where did I say anything about being anti-religious? Secularism is not anti-religious. Nor is it anti-religious to refute your asinine claim that the constitution was supposedly baseded on Judeo-Christian ideas. It's simply anti-bullshit.

Obviously they were referring to Allah, they probably hadn't heard of Christianity. I'm not interested in a no it isn't discussion.

.... good. It should be moral to Tax the wealthiest into Heaven in Idaho.

I'm telling you, lots of water....

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, many were. Deism isn't atheism, BTW.

Where did I say that deism was atheism?

They had a lot of influences. To say they were also influenced by John Locke and others is clearly true. But to say they were not influenced by Christian-Judeo is ridiculous.

No, it's the truth. Absolutely nothing about the constitution, Declaration of Independence, enlightenment era thought, or anything about the founding of our country has anything Judeo-Christian about it at all, beyond the fact that some of the actors happened to be Christians. For you to even make a claim like this is a blatant admission that you don't know or understand the first thing about Christianity or Judaism, or enlightenment thinking.

As I said, the DOI was a reason, they mentioned God.

Whose god? Your god? Sure they weren't talking about another god? Maybe they meant Allah. Perhaps Demeter. You know, I don't actually know for myself....but I've heard rumors that that Jefferson was having a gay love affair with that fellow Odin.

The Constitution was a rulebook. They weren't looking for the Church to run the government and they said so. This is obvious to anyone who knows history and no one would argue it except someone who doesn't or someone who just wants to engage in a game of no it isn't.

.....And that's why you think that the constitution was influenced by Judaism and Christianity? Because they wanted the church to not be an influence? Do you not grasp how absolutely batshit that is?

What point are you even making with this? Clearly they did not want a religious government, I did not suggest otherwise. But they weren't anti-religion like the left is today either

Where did I say anything about being anti-religious? Secularism is not anti-religious. Nor is it anti-religious to refute your asinine claim that the constitution was supposedly baseded on Judeo-Christian ideas. It's simply anti-bullshit.

Obviously they were referring to Allah, they probably hadn't heard of Christianity. I'm not interested in a no it isn't discussion.

.... good. It should be moral to Tax the wealthiest into Heaven in Idaho.

I'm telling you, lots of water....

Is there a Latin word for kosher, Christians can borrow?

 

[JakeStarkey]

American government in 1787 was not anti Christian religious values, only wary of any Christian religious organization dictating to government how one should think and believe and act.

The US Constitution is secular but not anti-religious.

 

[Dana7360]

Certainly within the law, such an action will spark intense discussion, I think. Whether I agree or not, my left and right sides of the brain are in disagreement at the moment.

Republicans propose declaring Idaho a Christian state - Yahoo News

This is the same state that is trying to make it legal for people to kill their kids by withholding medical treatment and the child dies.

If Idaho passes this law it will quickly be struck down. It's a violation of the first amendment to the constitution.

 

[Dana7360]

And what will they do next, pass a law saying Idaho is a white state?

They'll pass the law that makes killing a child by refusing medical treatment legal. Which they're trying to do right now.

 

[kaz]

Yes, many were. Deism isn't atheism, BTW.

Where did I say that deism was atheism?

They had a lot of influences. To say they were also influenced by John Locke and others is clearly true. But to say they were not influenced by Christian-Judeo is ridiculous.

No, it's the truth. Absolutely nothing about the constitution, Declaration of Independence, enlightenment era thought, or anything about the founding of our country has anything Judeo-Christian about it at all, beyond the fact that some of the actors happened to be Christians. For you to even make a claim like this is a blatant admission that you don't know or understand the first thing about Christianity or Judaism, or enlightenment thinking.

As I said, the DOI was a reason, they mentioned God.

Whose god? Your god? Sure they weren't talking about another god? Maybe they meant Allah. Perhaps Demeter. You know, I don't actually know for myself....but I've heard rumors that that Jefferson was having a gay love affair with that fellow Odin.

The Constitution was a rulebook. They weren't looking for the Church to run the government and they said so. This is obvious to anyone who knows history and no one would argue it except someone who doesn't or someone who just wants to engage in a game of no it isn't.

.....And that's why you think that the constitution was influenced by Judaism and Christianity? Because they wanted the church to not be an influence? Do you not grasp how absolutely batshit that is?

What point are you even making with this? Clearly they did not want a religious government, I did not suggest otherwise. But they weren't anti-religion like the left is today either

Where did I say anything about being anti-religious? Secularism is not anti-religious. Nor is it anti-religious to refute your asinine claim that the constitution was supposedly baseded on Judeo-Christian ideas. It's simply anti-bullshit.

Obviously they were referring to Allah, they probably hadn't heard of Christianity. I'm not interested in a no it isn't discussion.

.... good. It should be moral to Tax the wealthiest into Heaven in Idaho.

I'm telling you, lots of water....

Is there a Latin word for kosher, Christians can borrow?

what about using kosher?

what does that have to do with anything?

 

[regent]

Just left Idaho, great state. Kootenai county is the home of the ultra conservatives, the home those of the John Birch mentality. Either they choose to remain together or pressure is put on them to occupy a county. Idaho is conservative but as a liberal, I lived there for a long time and kept my liberalism. Great state.

 

[Faun]

Certainly within the law, such an action will spark intense discussion, I think. Whether I agree or not, my left and right sides of the brain are in disagreement at the moment.

Republicans propose declaring Idaho a Christian state - Yahoo News

This is the same state that is trying to make it legal for people to kill their kids by withholding medical treatment and the child dies.

If Idaho passes this law it will quickly be struck down. It's a violation of the first amendment to the constitution.

How does it violate the 1st Amendment?

 

[danielpalos]

Certainly within the law, such an action will spark intense discussion, I think. Whether I agree or not, my left and right sides of the brain are in disagreement at the moment.

Republicans propose declaring Idaho a Christian state - Yahoo News

This is the same state that is trying to make it legal for people to kill their kids by withholding medical treatment and the child dies.

If Idaho passes this law it will quickly be struck down. It's a violation of the first amendment to the constitution.

How does it violate the 1st Amendment?

Not everyone claims to be Christian; and some non-Christians want recourse to any full faith and credit regarding any alleged morals; even if on a for-profit basis through morals testing instead of drug testing, simply because drug testing is useless for that.

 

[sealybobo]

Certainly within the law, such an action will spark intense discussion, I think. Whether I agree or not, my left and right sides of the brain are in disagreement at the moment.

Republicans propose declaring Idaho a Christian state - Yahoo News

Me too! I want to say christians should be allowed to live among each other just like I think whites should be able to live without black people.

Just remember non christian states could get over run with Muslims and they will impose sharia law.

Nope. I've made up my mind. No christian states and no separate but equal.

 

[Faun]

Certainly within the law, such an action will spark intense discussion, I think. Whether I agree or not, my left and right sides of the brain are in disagreement at the moment.

Republicans propose declaring Idaho a Christian state - Yahoo News

This is the same state that is trying to make it legal for people to kill their kids by withholding medical treatment and the child dies.

If Idaho passes this law it will quickly be struck down. It's a violation of the first amendment to the constitution.

How does it violate the 1st Amendment?

Not everyone claims to be Christian; and some non-Christians want recourse to any full faith and credit regarding any alleged morals; even if on a for-profit basis through morals testing instead of drug testing, simply because drug testing is useless for that.

A state establishing itself a Christian state is still not violating the First Amendment.

 

[Billo_Really]

Certainly within the law, such an action will spark intense discussion, I think. Whether I agree or not, my left and right sides of the brain are in disagreement at the moment.

Republicans propose declaring Idaho a Christian state - Yahoo News

I love how the right bitches about Muslim's, while they try to start their own caliphate in Idaho.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Constitution does not prohibit a state from declaring itself Christian, Muslim, or Jewish

 

[Billo_Really]

The Constitution does not prohibit a state from declaring itself Christian, Muslim, or Jewish

But the principles of American values, do.

And I would argue that the Constitution does prohibit states from declaring themselves "Christian States". The Constitution say's you shall make "no law" respecting religion. And the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. So it takes precedence over States rights.

 

[JakeStarkey]

American values are not prohbitive.

The portion of the Constitution to which you refer is not yet been "incorporated" by SCOTUS, thus any state can constitutionally, right now, can establish a state religion. The Constitution prohibits politically only a national religion.

If Idaho were to pass such a law, I think SCOTUS would incorporate that portion of the 1st Amendment and overturn Idaho law. But for now, Idaho can do it.

 

[Faun]

The Constitution does not prohibit a state from declaring itself Christian, Muslim, or Jewish

But the principles of American values, do.

And I would argue that the Constitution does prohibit states from declaring themselves "Christian States". The Constitution say's you shall make "no law" respecting religion. And the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. So it takes precedence over States rights.

The Constitution prohibits the U.S. "Congress" from passing laws respecting the establishment of religion. No such restriction exists on the individual states. The Constitution protects the nation on a federal level from becoming a theocracy; but not on a state level. As long as such a self-declared Christian state doesn't interfere on its residents' practice of other religions or lack thereof, I see no violation of the Constitution.

 

[SwimExpert]

A state establishing itself a Christian state is still not violating the First Amendment.

Actually, it is, via the 14th amendment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A state establishing itself a Christian state is still not violating the First Amendment.

Actually, it is, via the 14th amendment.

Not until SCOTUS agrees with that.

Right now that part of the 1st Amendment has not been incorporated by SCOTUS,

 

[SwimExpert]

How does it violate the 1st Amendment?

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between Church and State."

Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947)