GOPer pushing for State Sponsored Religion

[Kosh]

The phrase "Separation of Church and State" was in a personal letter from Thomas Jefferson. It's NOT in the Constitution.

“If the American people want to do it, I suppose they can enact that by statute, but to say that’s what the Constitution requires is utterly absurd,” Scalia said."

And he's right.

Incorrect.

It can be found here in the Constitution:

“[T]he First Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of separation between Church and State.”

FindLaw Cases and Codes

Remember that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, where “but that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

Once again the far left reaches and misses by a mile..

Then get the government out of the business of "Marriage".

 

[Kosh]

'“You remove God and you remove religion,” he said, “and you remove the state from encouraging religious belief and you get more secularism, you get more problems, you get more crime, you get all, whatever, fill in the blank out there.”

“End result,” Hice said, “you get bigger government.”'

This fails as a post hoc fallacy.

There is no 'evidence' that Establishment Clause jurisprudence results in 'more crime' or 'bigger government,' whatever that's supposed to mean.

Too many on the right exhibit this sort of ignorance and stupidity.

Once again the far left shows they do NOT understand the Constitution..

 

[Skylar]

godless liberals are afraid of Christianity being promoted by a majority of citizens.....Islam would never be compatible with our Constitution...

It doesn't matter if you feel applying Christianity would be good. Or Islam would be bad. You can't codify any promotion or persecution of a religion in law. The moment you do either, any such legislation fails.

so we can also ban official participation in liberal/godless ceremonies by schools, government agencies etc....?

Depends on the ceremony. The Hokey Pokey wouldn't carry the same constitutional prohibitions as say, the Lord's Prayer.

the 14th is about race.....it's amazing how liberals can find so much nonsense between the lines...

The 14th is many things. Its one of the largest amendments to the US Constitution, having 5 entire sections. Among the things that the 14th is about are privileges and immunities of federal citizens that the States may not violate, explicit prohibitions against the States denying federal citizens equal protection under the law, and empowering the federal government to do something about it.

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.

14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Section 1.

That's not 'between the lines'. That's the lines. Its explicit prohibition of the States violating the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or denying the due process of law or equal protection of the law.

You can ignore it if you'd like. But you can't make us or the courts ignore it.

interracial is not the same as sexual preferences.....get back when you can prove deviancy is a minority right....

Please see Romer V. Evans on whether or not gays and lesbians can be protected from State discrimination that has no compelling state interest or rational reason. And take a long hard look at who wrote the decision.

There are 4 conservatives in the SCOTUS. There are 4 liberals in the SCOTUS. And then there's Kennedy, the swing voter. He's the man that wrote the Romer decision explicitly prohibiting the states from discrimination against gays. He's also the one that wrote the recent DOMA decision overturning the parts of federal law that discriminate against gay marriage.

You may not recognize gays as a protected minority. But the swing voter of the USSC certainly does. As does case law and nearly a decade's of precedent.

one compelling state interest is the protection of children....but liberals don't give a damn about our kids...

Several problems with that reasoning.

First, no one is required to have children or be able to have children in order to be married. So you'd be making up a requirement that applies to no one. Than applying it exclusively to gays for the sole purpose of excluding them from marriage. That hits the brick wall of the 14th amendment in about 3 different ways.

Second, there's no evidence that gay parents are any more or less prone to child abuse than straight ones. Robbing your narrative of even a hypothetical justification.

citizens votes are justification enough for matters not spelled out in the Constitution.....there is plenty of rational reasoning behind their votes.....but is ignored by liberal judges...

No, they're not. The founders were quite clear that they opposed the tyranny of the majority; where rights of individuals could be stripped on a majority vote. Rights are not up for a vote. The only reason they can be violated is if there is a compelling state interest that be acheived in no other plausible way AND if there is a rational reason to do so.

Worse, conservatives who reject this principle don't think it through.

If the majority could vote away the rights of anyone with a simple 50% + 1 vote...then what rights couldn't you be stripped of? Are you religious liberties subject to a simple majority vote? Your right to life? Liberty? our right to keep and bear arms perhaps? Of course not. They're protected from the tyranny of the majority.


And finally, most conservatives DO believe that the Federal Government can and should overturn State laws that violate individual rights. As they demonstrate with their support for the McDonald V. Chicago ruling that overturned strict gun control laws in Chicago.

If the majority can simply vote away your rights....then why couldn't they? See the 14th amendment and rejoice.

 

[Skylar]

Once again the far left shows they do NOT understand the Constitution..

You say that marriage isn't a right. The USSC says that it is. 14 different times.

In any contest of what is a right, the USSC wins.

 

[Kosh]

Once again the far left shows they do NOT understand the Constitution..

You say that marriage isn't a right. The USSC says that it is. 14 different times.

In any contest of what is a right, the USSC wins.

And once again the far left shows that they do not understand the Constitution.

 

[bodecea]

Is there officially, legally separation of church and state? Yes or no?

what kind of 'separation' are you talking about....?

Separation.....but I see that you are now trying to back out.

not at all.....you need to define what kind of 'separation' you are talking about....

can you separate a citizen from his religion....?

The separation as in the phrase "separation of church and state". Do you believe it exists legally or not? Yes or no?

how do you 'separate' a citizen's conscience from his religion....?

Easily....unless you believe that a person MUST have a religion in order to have a conscience.

 

[Skylar]

Easily....unless you believe that a person MUST have a religion in order to have a conscience.

In terms of the law, its irrelevant. A person can be motivated by religion, personal ethics, political partisanship, hell...the alphabet. And it doesn't matter. The why of a voter has no bearing on that voter's authority.

But the law they're voting for? Totally different story. It must hold up without religious justifications. Or its simply invalid.

 

[bodecea]

Once again the far left shows they do NOT understand the Constitution..

You say that marriage isn't a right. The USSC says that it is. 14 different times.

In any contest of what is a right, the USSC wins.

And once again the far left shows that they do not understand the Constitution.

No, you are saying that the USSC doesn't understand the Constitution.

 

[turtledude]

Sorry, but the left has already beat us to it, they worship big government.

Hazlnut worships big brother on his knees
wearing a bib

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one in government can force organized religion on anyone.

S/he has no power to do so.

 

[Kosh]

Once again the far left shows they do NOT understand the Constitution..

You say that marriage isn't a right. The USSC says that it is. 14 different times.

In any contest of what is a right, the USSC wins.

And once again the far left shows that they do not understand the Constitution.

No, you are saying that the USSC doesn't understand the Constitution.

No you are the far left are saying that you do not understand the Constitution, but being far left that is natural.

If you truly believed in a non-ruling being a ruling, then you would not support Obama as being the most Unconstitutional president in history as the 9 -0 from USSC show.

So you finally going to stop your support for Obama and the far left? or do you continue to show that you do not under stand the Constitution?

 

[Kosh]

No one in government can force organized religion on anyone.

S/he has no power to do so.

Says the far left Obama drone that support the far left forcing their religion on others.

 

[blackhawk]

I'm guessing this was the part the OP was taking out of context.

“Government has a responsibility to encourage religious belief,” he concluded, “because that is is the foundation, as I said earlier, of how limited government can exist.

Note the word encourage not force religious belief also note that no one or a specific religion is mentioned.