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

I deleted the vast majority because your trying to get off track from the initial criticism I had about your post.

Essentially, youre deflecting.

And now avoidance of the original point with personal deflection.

Youre so predictable.

Your original post that I challenged suggested the Republican platform supports government being controlled by the church.

Prove it.

 

Ok. I'll respond to this because at least you tried.

First of all. The idea that the United States should be identified as a Christian nation does not mean that people that think that desire a theocracy. What it means is that people see Christianity as the predominate and foundational religion of the people and thus the default faith.

This is no different than saying the US is an English speaking country.

That's a much different thing than establishing the Christian church should CONTROL the US government.

Your second attempt also fails.

Most of our laws are directly tied to Christian principals. Not really debatable, but you can try. Also, the individual beliefs of legislators are fully in play when it comes to passing laws. There is nothing in our Constitution nor the Establishment Clause that requires politicians to abandon their faith in the legislative responsibilities.

Though the government can't mandate or require people to practice any faith, simply creating or passing laws based on one's beliefs is also not a theocracy.

So, in essence, both of your posted facts do nothing to affirm your original stereotypical claim.

 

You haven't refuted my rebuttal, which clearly proves you are incorrect.

 

Which one is Boebert saying? She said the Church should direct the government i.e. control. She didn't say faith.

 

So poll after poll and policy positions of the Republican Party as a whole indicate that they believe their believed rules in the Christian Bible should impact our laws but that doesn’t mean the Republican Party really wants their version of church to be involved in our laws.

I am sure that makes sense to you

I love that you edited my posts down twice now saying I was deflecting only to reintroduce the bulk of it once called out to say I tried but you cannot disprove any of it and instead say it doesn’t really mean what it means.

How boring.

 

Neither.

She's nuts.

My argument us that saying all Republicans carry the same level of crazy is ridiculous and a cheap argument.

 

I'm not sure you're missing anything you're inferring something that I didn't imply.

 

People voting to pass laws that align with their faith is no different than people passing laws based on their beliefs.

For some reason, you would find this acceptable for woke liberals, but not ok for christians.

You desire to persecute people of faith simply because they draw their opinions from religion, an easy target for those that desire to weaponize and molest the Establishment Clause.

Unless Christians desire the church to appoint the president or require you go to church every Sunday, the claims of a theocracy are unfounded.

I'm still waiting for you to provide proof that the Republicans desire a theocracy.

We both know you can't. So can we both agree your stereotype was in fact BS?

 

Proposing your rebuttal expresses that separation of church and state is a judicial principle. I agree with that why would I rebut something I agree with?

 

Her exact words are the church should direct the government though.

I'm not sure the issue is a politician using their faith to make decisions. The leftists who hate religion voted for a president who is catholic.

 

It's a ruling by SCOTUS which is final.

What you disagreed with is that it was not final, that, in your words:

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

Your above statement, as I proved in a subsequent rebuttal, is categorically false.

THat is false is what you have failed to rebut, not whether or not it's a 'judicial principle'.

 

So it's judicial not constitutional.

I'm not interested in that diversion. The topic is separation of church and state.

I'm not interested in your diversion.

 

SCOTUS interprets the Constitution and has ruled for 150 years it does indeed imply separation of church and state. I'll take their word over Boebert.

 

Explain how and where it implies that.

Just claiming isn't going to cut it.

 

I have proven to you with quotes and with polls that show republicans want law based off religious belief and not legal principle.

Excuses are now being made in attempts to defend something that you said wasn’t happening. Something that was so obvious that you had to remove portions of my post to keep up the charade.

The original claim that Republicans fully support what bobert said has been proven whether you like it or not.

I have no desire to persecute religious people, I just want them to keep their imaginations out of legal theory. They are the only ones persecuting anyone.
They demand special laws for them that are unavailable to others while demanding they be able to interfere in the personal lives of those same people.

You were right though, I definitely cannot keep up with your <removed>.

 

Thomas Jefferson who was one of the most influential contributors to the Constitution mentioned it in a letter. At what point in history has the Church ever directed the US government?

Boebert who considers herself a true conservative would be considered a liberal back in the 1800's.

 

Sure but that isn't in the constitution. I asked a question about how it is implied.

Not sure what this has to do with what I asked

There is a contingent in the republican party that is ever shrinking that love to do the jesus jesus crap which i think is both bad for Christianity and the government, but some have to appeal to this.

 

That is a meaningless statement. SCOTUS is the final arbiter on what the constitution says.
That IS the only salient point.

My diversion?


YOU are the one who falsely claimed that SCOTUS's rulings were not the final word.

Scotus has ruled that the first amendment separates church and state, and that ruling is final.

You called it a 'judicial principle', and you make the false claim that their ruling isn't 'constitutional'.

That makes no sense. If SCOTUS is the final arbiter on the constitution, which is true, then, by default, their rulings are constitutional.

 

Separation of church and state isn't in the Constitution.

If you had a case to make you would have made it by now.

 

True.
Legislators can and do, if not convinced otherwise, vote according to their consciences.
But this woman was advocating that "the church"...whichever church she means which isn't clear, Control the state.
IOW raise, express, support, vote and carry out legislation as suggested by those UNELECTED church officials.
That is a theocracy.

In practise it of course won't happen. Imagine the response of influential Jews or Arabs.

I imagine she said something so thoughtless in order, of course, to get a cheer from a particular audience. But it is another example of the standard of politician that attracts votes.

 

And she is considered a nutter by thinking people in this century.

 

And you want laws based off your religious believes, progressivism.

The establishment clause was never intended to forbid legislators from passing laws based on their beliefs regardless of where those beliefs were founded. Religion included. Thats not theocratic.

The original quote was that the church should CONTROL the government.

To which you made the blatent false claim that all republicans want a theocracy.

clearly the establishment clause and theocracy are concepts that are over your head.

If your unable to differentiate religious freedoms from theocratic government... I guess you would see it that way.

If you expect or require elected representatives to abandon their religious faith in the execution of their duties then you absolutley do.

See

Examples?

Ok.

 

Well, if separation of the church and state is NOT constitutional, doesn't that suggest that conjoining the church and the state IS constitutional?

 

I have already shown that the right wants religious rule to dictate civil law. You have even admitted that this is true

There is no point in continuing this back and forth unless you can disprove that — which you cannot.

Religious principles not founded on a rational foundation that make up civil law and give themselves exemptions that no one else receives is absolutely religious rule.

I am sorry you don’t like the implication of what is actually happening but that doesn’t change facts.

I bet you wouldn’t have such a hard time comprehending if this was Muslims wanting to base laws off their beliefs.