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

Supreme Court cases makes it a Constitutional principle.

For FFS, it's a University Website, one glance at the URL should have tipped you off.

I don't know what malware app you us is, but I recommend Malwarebytes or Norton -- I use Norton, which prevents me from accessing malware driven websites.

WTF? I made the argument, so I will repeat, with a rewording of the part that makes the argument in enlarged type, so you won't miss it this time :
***********************************************
Given the wording of the first amendment, the church and state must be separate in order for the first amendment to apply.

Therefore, it does so, effectively, which is to say, by it's application.

Numerous SUPREME COURT cases firmly establish the principle of separation of church and state by the application of the first amendment to resolve an issue concerning them both.

(it's a university site, I promise it won't byte you)

Establishment Clause (Separation of Church and State)
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/885/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state

Several other SCOTUS rulings are given on the link.

 

Moot point; what matters are SCOTUS rulings.

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/885/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state

http://politicalforum.com/index.php...nd-state-junk’.601127/page-16#post-1073866200

Given the wording of the first amendment, the church and state must be separate in order for the first amendment to apply.

Therefore, it does so, effectively, which is to say, by it's application.

Numerous SUPREME COURT cases firmly establish the principle of separation of church and state by the application of the first amendment to resolve an issue concerning them both.

Establishment Clause (Separation of Church and State)
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/885/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state

 

What is incorrect is to assert that:

"the Church is supposed to direct the government, the government is not supposed to direct the church, that not how our founding fathers intended it ....
I'm tired of this 'separation of church and state junk --- it's not in the constitution." Lauren Boebert.

 

More Boejunk

'Fact check: Boebert says 'the church is supposed to direct the government'
"In an impassioned address to worshippers at a Colorado church, Republican U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert said: "The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church." PolitiFact checks her claim about the founders."

"While encouraging churchgoers to get more involved in their local governments to help shape policy, Boebert, who easily won her primary election on Tuesday, said she’s "tired of this separation of church and state junk."

"The reason we had so many overreaching regulations in our nation is because the church complied. The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church," Boebert said. "That is not how our Founding Fathers intended it, and 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."

Snip:

"The words "separation of church and state" come from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. In it, Jefferson wrote that the First Amendment had essentially built "a wall of separation" between church and state.

The passage read:

"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."


Pure BS from Boebert's mouthpiece trying to clean up her stupidity and faux Christianity.
Boebert spews Evangelical Christianity and the soon to be 2nd coming, so she certainly wants what is her brand of Christianity made into federal.and state laws.
She's obviously severely lacking in Christian principles.
No Jews, Muslims. Buddhists or Pastafarians invited.to this idiots agenda.

"Asked for more information about the congresswoman’s statement, Boebert’s spokesperson, Benjamin Stout, told PolitiFact that "Christian principles have informed and guided lawmakers in America since its founding. The Congresswoman believes that that should continue."

"The Congresswoman does not believe in a theocracy, or an established religion set by the state," Stout added. "That’s exactly what the establishment clause protects against."

Cont:
https://www.wral.com/fact-check-boe...s-supposed-to-direct-the-government/20365965/

 

missing link

 

No they don't. That takes all three branches and the states. They make it a judicial principal. The supreme court isn't the dictator.

I still won't click on your links. You need to make your argument. You would use links to back it up but to do it for you.

Don't be lazy.

Quit making excuses for your refusal to make an argument.

When you do that I'm more adamant never to click on your links.

No you just insisted and dumped links because you can't make an argument. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

This is just a claim with no evidence. One could easily say that it was worded to establish a state religion and it's every bit as credible as your clam. The only support you gave was a cherry picked opinion that I have to read.

So I doubt your claim. Explain in the wording how you magically extrapolate this. I'm testing to see if you understand it if your just cherry picking links.

You haven't established that.

Yes is a judicial principal I agree I already agreed. You don't have to make this point again

No. You need to articulate. Did you read the site did you understand it or did you just Google and cherry pick.

Again I agree it's a judicial principal. You've made that point multiple times and I've agreed every single time.

Further, I am being civil so please refrain form telling me things won't bite me. I explained the reason I am not addressing somebody else's words for you.

 

*rolls eyes*

I pretty much disagree with you on every topic on this forum, and am considered conservative and I'm agnostic.

But you like to put everybody in little boxes to argue against a boogeyman that you created in your head because your positions and defense of them are weak.

You do you.

 

It’s a quote from her, if you’re not gonna even pay attention to what’s being said why participate?
I don’t have to create the boxes. These people create them for me

And yes, we disagree on just about everything which lets me know I am on the right track seeing the “logic” you typically use.

If you’re going to try to pick a fight, at least come to the table with facts.

 

Both.

To be all inclusive, I'd have to add SCOTUS in the misinterpretation.

 

I think the GOP's version (with Trump's impetus) of infrastructure was adequate enough and should've been passed.

The dem' version of infrastructure is a lot of extra bells and whistles and IMO, a whole lot of non-infrastructure stuff...You realize I'm talking about the 'Inflation Reduction Act', for example? You realize than socialists, er, neo-communists in the US can't help themselves when it comes to gov't overspending?

 

And when will we see all this infrastructure renewal take place?

 

You keep displaying you MO while projecting it, like it's a crown, that's kinda clownish. Did Boebert "hook" on suddaydaddy.com? Seperation of church and state is a 'thing" and so is Boebert and sugardaddy.com.

 

Im engaged in a debate with those here on the forum, not some author of unknown research elsewhere claiming church and state are not separate. You should probably go debate with them

 

Sorry, dont understand the meaning of "hook" on suddaydaddy.com.
Probably just more distraction into irrelevancy because you have nothing relevant to the debate to contribute.

 

Read my post slowly then, one word at a time?!

 

Au contraire, On the constitutionality of law, they are the final arbiter. I wouldn't use 'dictator' that's pejorative. But, in a sense, the answer is yes.

So, we are dealing with semantics here. SCOTUS, when there is ambiguity in law, and an appeal to SCOTUS is done to resolve the constitutionality and a disagreement or issue being litigated, their ruling is final. No confirmation of any other branch is required, as you have implied.

We can thus call it, from that point, the interpretation as constitutional.

If you disagree on that point, it doesn't matter because what that ruling is IS 'final'.

....unless, of course, a constitutional amendment overrules it, or the court themselves overrule it.

And that is all that matters.

? You accuse me of being uncivil for the use of a pun, 'byte', and now are patronizing me?

If you were at all familiar with my many postings, there have been many times I've had to truncate the post to which I am responding to due to the 16k character limit. The last thing anyone can accuse me of is being lazy.

That's odd, if I didn't feel I hadn't sufficiently made that argument, I would have written more. but, since you don't see it, I will elaborate more.

Why thank you, oh holy one dispenser of all that is righteously argued according to your impeccable standards.

Give me break.

"byte" was uncivil? You're the one who complained about clicking on risky websites, hence my recommendation for malwarebytes, and my 'pun'. I thought I was being cute. My my, your ego is fragile.

The wording of the first amendment is a reaction, and thus rejection, of what was done in England, which established a state sponsored religion.

It's called the 'establishment' clause, (because of the wording 'shall not establish' ) but it's really a disestablishment clause. the wording effectively makes it unconstitutional for the government to approve or sponsor a religion, any religion, or give favor to one religion over another, and thus all religions are given equal status, but none are favored by the state. The consequence of the first amendment is separation of church and state, it needn't have explicitly used the words 'the church and state are now separate', given the wording results in the same consequence, it would have been redundant, --- though, I'm certain if they had forseen all the nitpicking from future right wingers over this, they would have revised their wording to include it.

If you can't grasp that the first amendment results in the separation of church and state, as a reaction to the church of england, which was the founding father's concern, then I can't help you.

https://www.freedomforuminstitute.o...e-where-did-this-idea-come-from-is-it-really/

Although the words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the First Amendment, the establishment clause was intended to separate church from state. When the First Amendment was adopted in 1791, the establishment clause applied only to the federal government, prohibiting the federal government from any involvement in religion. By 1833, all states had disestablished religion from government, providing protections for religious liberty in state constitutions. In the 20th century, the U.S. Supreme Court applied the establishment clause to the states through the 14th Amendment. Today, the establishment clause prohibits all levels of government from either advancing or inhibiting religion.

he First Amendment has two provisions concerning religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment clause prohibits the government from "establishing" a religion. The precise definition of "establishment" is unclear. Historically, it meant prohibiting state-sponsored churches, such as the Church of England.

Today, what constitutes an "establishment of religion" is often governed under the three-part test set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Under the "Lemon" test, government can assist religion only if (1) the primary purpose of the assistance is secular, (2) the assistance must neither promote nor inhibit religion, and (3) there is no excessive entanglement between church and state.

The Free Exercise Clause protects citizens' right to practice their religion as they please, so long as the practice does not run afoul of a "public morals" or a "compelling" governmental interest. For instance, in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), the Supreme Court held that a state could force the inoculation of children whose parents would not allow such action for religious reasons. The Court held that the state had an overriding interest in protecting public health and safety.

Sometimes the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause come into conflict. The federal courts help to resolve such conflicts, with the Supreme Court being the ultimate arbiter.



The university website backs up my claim. Argument given. I can't help that fact you can't understand what is written in front of you.

 

no they aren't actually Congress can do what's known as jurisdiction stripping where they take away their ability to be the final arbiter so they're not.

It's all checks and balances it's designed that way.

it's not final look up jurisdiction stripping.

Ford Congress engages in jurisdiction shipping I think we're getting too far out in the woods here.

The point is separation of church and state is not constitutional and it is a judicial principle

 

Well, I realize only one thing; you can't be taken seriously.

 

You mean 'weeds'. But, of course, you are wrong.

"Judicial Stripping" cannot affect how the Supreme Court renders an interpretation of law or the constitutionality of any law or issue. That's covered by Marbury v Madison. Sorry. Besides, JSing is applied to federal court's appellate jurisdiction issues, which could affect the outcome of litigation, but it sure as hell doesn't affect the SCOTUS interpretation of constitution or constitutionality of law.

You see, the Constitution IS the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, and so how in hell do you honestly believe Congressional 'Judicial Stripping' is going to say to SCOTUS, what, 'sorry, you guys can't interpret the constitution or constitutionality of any law any more', or, 'that ruling is null'? You have completely misunderstood the principle. That's not what JSing does. It doesn't even affect, directly, any ruling by any court.

You are 100% wrong on that point.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44967

My point stands: A SCOTUS ruling on the constitutionality of an issue or law is final, and can be overruled only by:

1. SCOTUS itself, or
2. A constitutional amendment.

 

Separation of the church and the state still isn't constitutional.

 

That statement seems to imply then that the conjoining of the church and the state IS constitutional....

What am I missing?

 

I'm talking about what YOU said:

"I give her points for saying what the right wing represents"

Complete and utter BS.

Nah, you don't get to run away from your stereotypical nonsense.

Yet you do.

You want to try to make your adversaries out as one cohesive group using one person to define the entirety of the opposing viewpoints because its a weak way to debate.

As opposed to your fallacies.

You couldnt keep up with me if you tried and i guarantee on any topic you resort to deflection, personal attack, or fallacies when facts and logic dont go your way... which is how things usually go down.

You mean the facts that you create in your head?

When you say things like "this defines the entire republican partt, and you believe that as fact, somebody failed to teach you the difference between opinions and facts.

 

Looking at their policy positions on abortion, marriage, religious indoctrination, religious exemption, their imposition of religious judges and religious push into law the facts disagree with you.

But you are entitled to your incorrect opinion based on whatever you base them on.

It’s your party platform. I don’t care if you disagree with parts of it is what the right pushes.

Not only one person
Would you like me to post the republicans calling for holy war or referencing religion in their decisions?

You are entitled to your incorrect opinion based on whatever you base them on.

Oh you want “facts” and not “opinion”? Maybe some pretty pictures and links with graphs will help you since words don’t



Would it make you feel better if I said the vast majority of the Republican Party? Maybe you can present some facts and not opinion now.

 

Nonsense.

You won't find many Republicans that align with the idea that government should be controlled by the church.

You know what... prove it.

Show me any platform from the Republican Party that supports this. Hell, find me 10 Republicans that support this.

Until then, your stereotype is just utter BS.

 

I see you had to delete the vast majority of my post because you couldn’t even address it.

How ironic (and slightly pathetic) after you said “You couldn't keep up with me if you tried”

If you would like to address my entire post we can continue, if not then I accept your failed concession.