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

And you think that means she wants to establish a theocratic government?

 

What does she mean?

 

If you don't know how can you jump to conclusions. It's on the jump to the worst possible scenario every opportunity you get.

 

our founders would be rolling in their graves if they saw what some Republicans are trying to do to this country

 

You are saying she means something else. So what does she mean?

 

it's like all the religious nuts the right put in the SCOTUS, they said they did not want to overturn roe vs wade, looks like they beared false witness... while swearing on a bible to tell the truth... ironic

 

She probably doesn't mean overthrow the government and set up a theocratic dictatorship that's just a guess but what she means precisely I don't know but I'm not jumping to the dumbest conclusion imaginable because I don't have some partisan game to play here.

 

So you have no idea what she means yet are lecturing me on what she doesn't mean. Ok.

Church should direct the government means exactly what it does

 

you speak with such certainty that she means to take over the government and install a religious dictator and that's absurd.

If you don't know what she means you probably shouldn't jump to this conclusion unless it's some sort of partisan hackery.

So you think that that means install a dictator and take over the world while rubbing your hands together and saying mwahaha?

 

Who said anything about overthrowing the current government and taking over the world? Let's stick to what Boebert said. Boebert says the government should be in lockstep with the church. That doesn't require installing a dictator.

 

It seems an answer to your question is impossible. Who knows that data? Who has conducted such a poll?

 

With this series of posts, you have shown yourself to be a dishonest poster. You are trying to have it both ways, and logic demands that can't be done.

 

Do you have a dictionary handy? Maybe you are polylingual and English is not your first language?

 

You said:

And you posted 5 instances of religion being implicated in child molestation.

YOU are the one who insinuated, in a single post, that religion is responsible for these egregious acts. And that ANYONE who participates in religious indoctrination as a moral compass was never a good person.... again, after posting five examples of bad.

So... what cubed WAS the intent of your post? Let's see you answer that without back peddling.

 

She said that?

 

Then don't post responses to me.

 

I didn't ask what the meaning of a particular word was. And there is nuance in language.

 

That is what "church should direct the government" means right?

 

I don't know. It couldn't mean any number of things this is what I meant by saying I don't jump to conclusions.

 

How many different meanings can "church should direct the government" take?

 

But it does say that, just not in those words.

Which is precisely why Thomas Jefferson wrote,

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 and State.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letter_to_the_Danbury_Baptists_-_January_1,_1802

You can't have a government that makes no law respecting the establishment of any religion, which means not favoring one religion over another religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, UNLESS CHURCH AND STATE ARE SEPARATE.

It's the same reasoning the SCOTUS has granted citizens the right of privacy, because the right of privacy is presumed in order for bill of rights to be viable, though it doesn't actually say it in those words.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html

The constitution does not specify you have the right ti purchase arms at a store, but by what methods are we normally expected to keep and bear arms if we cannot purchase them first?

do you understand?

There are some things in communication or written word that presume a fact or condition or state beforehand without which the communication or written word cannot be exercised or make sense.

If you can't understand that, then I can't help you, and please do not regurgitate your last comment .

The constitution cannot mention every little damn thing, the just assumed, perhaps, incorrectly, that folks would act in good faith and use common sense.

 

As long as those religious principles can make sense from a non religious viewpoint.

For example, 'thou shall not kill'.

That's in the Bible, but it's also a value independent of religion.

So, in that sense, you can assert 'it's acceptable to bring one's religious convictions to lawmaking'.

UNLESS, the proposed law is entirely dependent on religion, such as making it illegal to eat Meat and dairy together, as it says in the Torah : do not boil a kid in its mother's milk (Exodus 23:19) then you cannot because it violates the first amendment.

No reasonable person would agree with you that progressivism is a 'religion'.

You can ascribe the adjective rhetorically, but, for the purpose of the first amendment, progressivism would not qualify as a religion, for it's not organized, there is no charter, no congregation, no ministers, methods of worship, scripture, and all the trappings a reasonable persons associate with religion. Schools of thought aren't considered to be religions, for the purpose of the first amendment.

 

Really what could it possibly mean.

Why don't you just wait for her to explain it instead of jumping to the boogeyman conclusion.

 

Duh. I know it doesn't say it in those words where it says or implies it anywhere please that's all I've been asking for.

in the Constitution?

this isn't the Constitution you said it was in the Constitution show me where the **** it is in the Constitution.

You should already know just asserting something isn't enough you have to explain why. If you can't you don't know and you're just making **** up

It's the simplest damn thing in the world show me in the Constitution.

If you can't then you're dishonest.

 

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/886/wall-of-separation

The Supreme Court first quoted Jefferson’s reference in Reynolds v. United States (1879), a case in which the Court rejected the claim that the First Amendment’s protection of religious liberty exempted members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from the prohibition of polygamy due to their religious belief (at that time, but no longer) in the duty of polygamy.

Justice Hugo L. Black concluded his opinion for the Court’s majority with the pronouncement that “[t]he First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. New Jersey has not breached it here.”


Court used 'wall of separation' metaphor to announce strict separation of church, state In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), which first applied the First Amendment's establishment clause to the states, the Supreme Court relied on Jefferson's metaphor in announcing a strict standard of separation between church and state.

https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/435/everson-v-board-of-education

In Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), the Supreme Court ruled as constitutional a New Jersey statute allocating taxpayer funds to bus children to religious schools — because it did not breach the “wall of separation” between church and state — and held that the establishment clause of the First Amendment applied to state and local governments as well as to the federal government.