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

Well she is probably far more entertaining. It's fun to see a politician say what they actually think.

 

Yes I do know that, which why it is shocking and dumb for a politician to say that. 1/3 of the topics on this forum are about what a politician says.

 

I agree, it makes no sense why Muslims deny blind people rides in Uber

or Christians bakers deny people cakes

I do not think it would make sense in any language

 

No they haven't.
The Constitution says that the government shall not establish an official religion. There will never be a theocracy governing the United States. I would fight even harder against that than I would against a socialist government.

 

Oh, that's what you're on about? I must be getting to be as senile as Joe Biden... I thought the topic here was Lauren Boebert and her 'church/separation/junk' bellyache. Silly me!

 

Probably more than that.

 

yes, it's about religious fanatics - but you said it.... not me

 

"Selbst verständlich!"

 

It says nothing about an official religion.

It sys "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Pretty simple, but it seems the GOP wants to do away with it.

 

I acknowledge that such a thing as a just war can exist. That would be defending against an invader or aggressor. Thus we have international laws that prohibit military aggression. Sadly, military aggression is what the US and NATO practice.

 

Wow! The whole and entire GOP wants to do away with it (the 'Establishment clause') ? Ha! And a couple of threads ago you were accusing ME of being a "drama queen"...?!

One (ONE) member of the House of Representatives makes a personal, off-hand comment about "church and state junk", and you take it as license to issue a all-enveloping categorization of the entire Republican Party...? It's a poor painter who paints with an overly-broad brush.

. "Hey, it requires less effort this way!"

 

I was paraphrasing, not quoting. The government is constitutionally forbidden to embrace any religion or prohibit the worship of any religion.

 

But it does, doesn't it?
It supports those with one belief against those with another.

 

IOW Congress will not impede the establishment of à religion or how people worship inside it ?
Or that the word "establishment" means the the existential body of présent religion as in "the church as an establishment with structure and accountability".
The interpretation makes à huge difference.

 

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

next they will want to burn witches on the street corners

inquisitions return... Republicans want to take this country back

 

The inhérent wish to burn pregnant women is already evident.

 

It is logical to observe that by being forbidden to make a law respecting an establishment of religion, Congress cannot make any laws regarding religious worship, per se, whatsoever.

Many Americans are astonished to find out that in many countries in 'the West' there is actually a government-imposed TAX to support some churches! Of course, you don't have this burden in France, but they still do have it in Germany (Kirchensteuer)... and also Austria, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Italy, Sweden, some parts of Switzerland and several other countries, too. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax

That is part of what is, and always will be, forbidden in the United States, along with declaring any religion to be 'the' official religion for the nation (as Henry VIII did in England, as we all know by now, surely).

 

Apparently so is the current SCOTUS.

 

Here we go with the Left's "broad-brush" approach to everything and everyone they don't like.... So, heynow, tell us which part of the First Amendment did the Supreme Court strike down... or did they just abolish the whole thing?! I don't watch any of the mainstream-liberal "news" media, so I must have missed it. Gosh-darn.

Of course, you'll be willing to provide us some proof, evidence, or something beyond your subjective opinion... right?

 

Do some critical thinking, you'll figure it out before it's too late to avoid a mid-east model.

 

Thinking versus believing?????

“How to connect with your audience” has long been a public speaking principle, and in politics, rhetoric, innuendos, and hyperboles are often used to arouse an audience.

 

She’s absolutely right. This is a CHRISTIAN nation. We need to begin forced conversions to Christianity. No more Mooslims. No more atheists.

 

Ms. B should read the words of Jesus about rendering to caesar what is césars etc.
Or is she now feeling powerful enough to reverse Christ's words?
This is an example of what I described as BAD judges.
The whole point about judges is that they are objective.
If she can't ignore her "unusual" background, she should not be allowed anywhere near à bench.
She seems to know the constitutional position on secularity but clearly doesn't like it. The church is supposed to direct the government?? I wonder what AIPAC and the millions of Jews in the USA are thinking?
She DEFINITELY wouldn't be happy in France!
What she suggests is directly contrary to a fundamental law of France since 1905 when the state was mandated to be neutral in religion and no religion will influence the state.

 

The only 'mid-east model' that threatens the United States today, or our Constitution, is one posed by a faction just as dangerous and crazed as the Islamo-Nazi regime in Iran -- our home-grown America-hating, 'woke', radical-Democrats!

 

What would be the difference?