North Carolina May Declare Official State Religion Under New Bill
- Thread starter Timshel
- Start date
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
Anyway, I've just been pointing out that this law is not unconstitutional under the 1st, and would have been perfectly legal for a long time after its ratification. This is a 14th Amendment incorporation matter. I am not even sure the establishment clause has been fully incorporated yet, but only the free exercise clause.
That said, not many people are going to defend the actual merits of this bill, or claim that it's in any way a good idea.
That said, not many people are going to defend the actual merits of this bill, or claim that it's in any way a good idea.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
BWAHAHAHA, this from the idiot that says cops are trained to shoot innocent people.
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
I think N. Carolina should be allowed to create a state religion, then we can cut their federal funds. They are one of the "taker" states, and it would be interesting to see how long it takes them to squeal!
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
I thought the Holy Confederacy was the state religion across the South?
I would agree with that correction but not your review of the article.
Everson v BOE
The majority opinion.
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'" 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.
----------
The dissenting opinion agreed with incorporation but not that the case violated the establishment clause.
"The funds used here were raised by taxation. The Court does not dispute nor could it that their use does in fact give aid and encouragement to religious instruction. It only concludes that this aid is not 'support' in law. But Madison and Jefferson were concerned with aid and support in fact not as a legal conclusion 'entangled in precedents.' Here parents pay money to send their children to parochial schools and funds raised by taxation are used to reimburse them. This not only helps the children to get to school and the parents to send them. It aids them in a substantial way to get the very thing which they are sent to the particular school to secure, namely, religious training and teaching." 330 U.S. 1, 45.
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'" 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.
----------
The dissenting opinion agreed with incorporation but not that the case violated the establishment clause.
"The funds used here were raised by taxation. The Court does not dispute nor could it that their use does in fact give aid and encouragement to religious instruction. It only concludes that this aid is not 'support' in law. But Madison and Jefferson were concerned with aid and support in fact not as a legal conclusion 'entangled in precedents.' Here parents pay money to send their children to parochial schools and funds raised by taxation are used to reimburse them. This not only helps the children to get to school and the parents to send them. It aids them in a substantial way to get the very thing which they are sent to the particular school to secure, namely, religious training and teaching." 330 U.S. 1, 45.
Madison wanted the BofR to apply to the states from the outset.
The house speaker killed the bill.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/04/state-religion-bill-north-carolina_n_3016154.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/04/state-religion-bill-north-carolina_n_3016154.html
SmarterthanYou
rebel
anyone that concludes that all politicians are the same, yet still argues that one side is better than the other is whining
Of course he did. Which brings back my original question.
Why don't these teabagger idiots quit introducing bills that will go nowhere and do something to actually help their state?
When are y'all hey going to listen to their constituents, dem and pub, and introduce legislation they, the people, want?
Case in point: The recent Quinnepeac (sp) poll shows overwhelming bipartisan need for gun control legislation. Where is it?
I am not arguing that one side is better than the other. I attack the idea that social conservatives support limited government or are even remotely inclined to such a position and the idea that Republicans are better. This was proposed by Republicans.
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
I'm surprised a religious bill would come up now seeing as NC just swung Dem in the last election.
The state government is dominated by Republicans.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Odd, isn't it that you have YET to find the direct quote from me saying as much.
Actually, not odd at all...just more of the same tired lies from another petty Rightie trying to divert everyone's attention away from the fact I was right yet again.
Last edited:
Yup. The smart people in Raleigh and Charlotte won the state for Obama.
Boris The Animal
It's Just Boris!
Corrected for truth.
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
I just correlate irreligiosity with Dem victories. 