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

Not what I asked. Show me in the Constitution please.

Why is that so hard?

 

What is the point you're trying to make?

 

None at all I want to know how the Constitution establishes a separation of church and state so I can use that when somebody tells me it doesn't.

I'm asking in not arguing.

 

I just gave you an example from the constitution. No religious test.

 

You explained how the words in the Constitution state a separation of church and state?

I'm very interested in that. What post or can you state it again I do apologize if I didn't notice.

 

Post #450.

 

Thank you I'll look more closely.

 

Okay upon examining that you're talking about not establishing a state religion and so that makes me think what is the separation of church and state. If it's just not establishing a state religion than I agree.

A lot of people seem to mean it means there can be absolutely no influence of religion on any part of the state. And that's normally how it's used argumentatively.

 

It's not in the Constitution, and that's my point.

YOUR CLAIM has problems with logical implications. Omni has pointed that out in the post above.

Your claim that separation of church and state isn't constitutional. Logic demands that if your claim is true and accurate, THEN the conjoining of church and state IS constitutional. That is an illogical claim you make, and false, as Omni has pointed out.

 

In eloquence, and perhaps in vocabulary, Representative Lauren Boebert is no V.K. Krishna Menon. Nor Mr. William F. Buckley Jr. either, for that matter.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

This is NOT what was said in in the OP nor what you said all Republicans want.

You're moving the goal posts.

 

The left often likes to play innocent regarding cultural degradation within the urban centers leading to a host of social issues.

They claim that all these problems are just a circumstance of social structure, while simultaneously waging war against religion like we see in this thread.

I'm not even religious, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see when you actively work to remove any form of moral compass the results are undesirable.

 

Anyone noticing the gradual Chicago’ing of America. Murder, assault, mob thefting, shoplifting, fraud, etc. too many people packing heat like in the old west. A little dose of morality can’t be a bad thing.

 

Thats literally what I wrote:

I posted her direct words and then what the scotus and republicans are doing

I see you are back to editing down my words. After being called out for doing so earlier

How embarrassing

 

I agree completely, what would we do without the moral compass set by religion

• Man charged with rape of minor at Collierville church
• Catholic Church sexual abuse cases(over 4,400 cases)
• Almost 1,700 priests and clergy accused of sex abuse are unsupervised
• Researchers reveal patterns of sexual abuse in religious settings
  • “Sociologists expose how perpetrators use trust, faith and authority to groom victims and keep abuse secret.”
• US Southern Baptist churches facing ‘apocalypse’ over sexual abuse scandal(Hundreds of cases)

Anyone that needs religious indoctrination to be a good person was never a good person to begin with.

 

What claim

that's not my claim the claim I made was the one you stated at the beginning of this post.

my claim was that it was not in the Constitution. You already agreed with that

you don't even know what my claim is to the point where you made the same claim in the first line of this post

 

Are you capable of understanding the difference between:

"The church is supposed to direct the government."

" The government's elected representatives govern based on their personal beliefs within the confines of the Establishment Clause"

You desire to blend these two concepts to serve your agenda and make BS stereotypes.

You do understand the difference between a Theocracy and a representative republic, right?

 

Try to validate your position, which is some weird affliction to people whose faith is based on religious principals.

As opposed to you, whose faith is based on government and progressivism.

You prove there are fanatics in all realms regardless of where they draw their faith.

I could show similar anecdotal facts within the LGBTQ+ community. But keep cheering for you religion against the other as if they are any different from each other.

 

I have never said anything about a theocracy — I said republicans want religious rule injected into public policy.

You have already agreed this is accurate and it looks like that is acceptable to you.

The first quote you placed was made a politician that absolutely wants a theocracy.

 

Imagine thinking thousands of children being raped is “anecdotal”. That tells me all I need to know.

Disgusting

 

Now you understand how other people feel when their children are exposed to freaks and geeks dancing around grabbing their crotches! While being told it's ok and normal to be gay, dhjfwffkfhifbkncoifuowfhk 2.0 or whatever other leftist oddity pops into their heads

 

Imagen them being trafficked and sold as sexual play things..

democrats involved in sex trafficking - Search (bing.com)

 

You're right, but it has been apparent to many for a long time that government in general, and especially the federal government, is the most immoral organization in existence. That is, it practices military aggression around the world, it harms millions in many ways, not least of which is the harm done by various Plandemic mandates.

Mr. Justice Brandeis pointed out how government immorality spreads in his dissenting opinion in Olmstead.

"If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy"

 

This is your claim to which I was discussing.

Your claim that separation of the church and state isn't constitutional.

I say by logic, that sentence implies that conjoining the state and church IS constitutional. I've asked for clarification of your position several times, but you've been dodging.

Please feel free to use different words or retract your claim if you wish. As it stands now, it is illogical in that it suggests that conjoining of c&s is somehow constitutional.