North Carolina May Declare Official State Religion Under New Bill

page: 2
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Even the U.S. Supreme Court swears people in on a BIBLE. In God We Trust is on our official currency.

This is NOT about an offical state religion - only the freedom to choose if you wish to.

Read the Bill. They are Not proposing NC has an official Christian religion!

They are saying that since the Constitution's 1st amendment applies to the Federal Government, Not the states it therefore falls under the 10th amendment to allow the state to choose whats right for them.

They don't believe that the Supreme Courts ruling to interrupt the 1st amendment to include the States was valid.

I don't see the problem here If they want to use this for things like an opening prayer or a statue of the 10 commandments outside of the courthouse, that's not the same as a State mandated religion.

A State mandated religion for all citizens at the federal level is the thing the 1st amendment is against. Since 1787 the States enjoyed the freedom to have state sponsored churches ( Not mandated) and this continued until 1925 when the Supreme Court changed it's interruption of the Constitution. That's 138 years. Many of those laws you post in your Op were written before 1925 so your fussing about them being on the books is silly.

By the way - In God We trust was put on our money way after the Supreme Courts ruling in 1956. If there were such a strong slant on the Supreme Courts interruption of the 1st amendment, In God We Trust would never have made it onto our currency. Therefore there is a lot of misunderstanding about this issue.
edit on 4-4-2013 by JohnPhoenix because: addition




posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Having slept on this issues, and read through the text and looked at the articles the following can be stated:

If it passes, there will be a lawsuit that goes through the courts up to the Supreme Court of the USA, and ultimately at every step, it will be shot down. It is a lose/lose situation for all those involved, from the every day people all of the way up to those in the halls of power.

The text of the law seeks to protect the religious freedoms of their citizens, and that is a noble cause, however, in doing so, they are setting up for cases of discrimination, where they are going to lose. The argument that they are stating that they want to create and establish a state religion.

Consider this, if they set the state religion as being say baptist, that means they then could legally discriminate against those who are Judaic, or even Catholic, all cause it did not meet the states view of what is and is not acceptable as a religion. And it would get worse, it then opens up for employers to use that as grounds to terminate or get rid of employeess that they may not like, all on the grounds of this law.

There is another problem and that is the ACLU, in their zeal, they tend to fail to take into account that just maybe, it is a bad idea to persue a law suit, all cause someone does something, like pray before the opening of a meeting. Too many of those quaint old customs and traditions are being lost all cause one or 2 people convienced the lawyers that they were hurt by said actions.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


I'm guessing their plan is to spit on the First Amendment first, then move on to the others. Two solutions: 1) Civil War, in which the USA will take all of our property residing in that state which we can, and destroy what we can't take back (interstte highways, for example) - the other option is to pull any and all military forces from NC, destroy any bunkers and bases before pulling out, and release NC as an independent nation. While they work on raising a national defense, sell them mercenary services to defend themselves (if they can afford it.)

Freaking idiots. Why not take a stand against something the fed gov shouldn't be doing, instead of taking a stand against one of the principal freedoms this nation was founded upon. I wonder what their planned method of torture for Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Catholics (trust me, in NC they don't consider Catholic Christians to be any different from Satanists), Jews, Agnostics, Atheists, Wiccans, etc will be. Will everyone who isn't a Southen Baptist be burned? gassed? Ripped apart at the limbs? I'm honestly shocked they didn't proscribe the method of torture and death for those who do not follow their national cult.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Again if you look at the sections 1 and 2,

SECTION 1. The North Carolina General Assembly asserts that the Constitution of the United States of America does not prohibit states or their subsidiaries from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.

SECTION 2. The North Carolina General Assembly does not recognize federal court rulings which prohibit and otherwise regulate the State of North Carolina, its public schools, or any political subdivisions of the State from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.


And compare that to the 1st amendment, believing the Supreme Courts ruling was valid - that ruling even upholds this bill since it Does apply to the states.


The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

Originally, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by the Congress. However, starting with Gitlow v. New York (1925), the Supreme Court has applied the First Amendment to each state. This was done through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, by what is called incorporation. The Court has also recognized a series of exceptions to provisions protecting the freedom of speech.
en.wikipedia.org...

1) They are Not seeking to establish an state run religion. 2) They are asking that their rights to free exercise of religion not be impeded. So either way you look at it they do make a valid case. If they change their tactic they can say to the court, " Hey, you cant stop me from asking for an opening prayer, I'm protected by the 1st amendment!" - and they would be 100% correct. I think this is WHY In God We Trust was allowed on our currency. It depends on how you understand the ruling.
edit on 4-4-2013 by JohnPhoenix because: sp



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   
The wording in the constitution regarding religion is simply this:

"Congress shall make no laws regarding the establishment of religion"

Period.

Strictly speaking this leaves the door open for States to establish their own religions....

I know all the arguments which relate to Jefferson's "wall of seperation" clause however I would like to point out that Jefferson neither had the final say on the constitutional wording nor on it's ratification.

At the time, meetings were began with a prayer. The first congress was begun with a prayer. It has begun each session since the first with a prayer. The Supreme Court building is rife with religious symbolism.

The current "interpretation" of the constitution which defines the relationship between state and church is wholly disingenuous.

I do not believe that the church and our govt should be in bed together, so to speak, but to conveniently "interpret" such a plain and simple statement such as "congress shall make no laws regarding the establishment of religion" to the degree that is currently accepted is wrong.

There is a process for changing the constitution....through amendments. To change the constitution through "interpretation" is asking for trouble.

I could make a case that "providing for the common good" means we should deport or kill the bottom 10 percent of our society. Kill or deport all habitual criminals...kill or deport all people with genetic disorders...

I think you get the drift. Tis a slippery slope when we change the constitution to mean what is convenient and popular by means of "interpretation".
edit on 4-4-2013 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-4-2013 by bbracken677 because: typo correction and clarification



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 11:03 AM
link   
And to reply to the comment that people in the US have a "freedom from religion"....

Wrong. Show me the wording in the Constitution that provides for "Freedom From Religion".

Does not exist.

You do have the right to choose a religion, or not. You do have the right to choose not to believe in a religion.

However, you do not have freedom FROM religion. See....I have the right to exercise my Freedom OF Religion and you, sir, cannot prevent that.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Just In: House Speaker Thom Tillis' office says a GOP-sponsored resolution supporting North Carolina declaring an official religion is dead and won't be voted on.


WRAL NEWS NC

Its dead! No way could this pass!



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by bbracken677
And to reply to the comment that people in the US have a "freedom from religion"....

Wrong. Show me the wording in the Constitution that provides for "Freedom From Religion".

Does not exist.

You do have the right to choose a religion, or not. You do have the right to choose not to believe in a religion.

However, you do not have freedom FROM religion. See....I have the right to exercise my Freedom OF Religion and you, sir, cannot prevent that.


I have freedom from you, or anyone else, forcing your religion on me. How's that?



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 




If that, people could pee blood.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   
actually I believe this is against the North Carolina State Constitution .....

Brad and Britt on WBT has it right!



NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONSTITUTION-- Article One, Section Five, reads as follows:
"Every citizen of this State owes paramount allegiance to the Constitution and government of the United States, and no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or subversion thereof can have any binding force." So the two idiots from Rowan County proposing the possible imposition of a state religion need to brush up on their constitutions.... both the US and the North Carolina versions



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword

I have freedom from you, or anyone else, forcing your religion on me. How's that?




That is not freedom from religion.... how's that?

You do not have the right to infringe on anyone else's right to exercise their religious choice and freedom.

Just as they cannot "force" their religion on you, you cannot force your views on them. I find it rather odd that people who consider themselves progressive and tolerant tend to be extremely intolerant when it comes to people of faith.

By your definition (I am guessing) anyone that conducts religious activities in your proximity is impinging on your rights?

The same example could be used with regards to gay rights. Does it impinge your rights if someone displays their sexual orientation in your proximity?

Seems we have some societal issues at odds here....


Oh, and you forgot (or rather, cannot) quote a passage from the Constitution that provides for Freedom FROM Religion....


edit on 4-4-2013 by bbracken677 because: Added the last line.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 


Now, you're just playing around with words. I have the freedom to be religion free. I have the right to NOT HAVE religion imposed on me.

For example, these state laws that bar atheists from public office are discriminatory and are an attempt to force anyone who hopes to attain a position in public office to publicly avow a belief in a god.

This is a violation of an individual's right to be free from religion.

Do you see what I'm saying, now?



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   
A declaired 'State Religion' will be struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Wait! I know! NC should just secede from the country. Yeah! Maybe they can get some neighboring states to do the same! Yeah! That will work... Oh, wait a minute.....



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 



I do believe I totally understand....I also understand that you keep dodging pertinent questions.

When you say that you have the right not have have religion imposed on you, specifically what do you mean?

In principle I agree that you should have the right, I just happen to believe some atheists take it way too far to the point that they are imposing their non-beliefs on others.

And the same applies to gay rights... If you can prevent me (generic) from exercising my free will with regards to religion in public, can you (generic) prevent a gay person from exhibiting gay behavior in public?

Personally I think everyone is just too damned sensitive about anything that is contrary...leave the religious to do as they please as long as they do not harm nor threaten to harm me, my family and my property. Same said for gays, same said for anyone.

This country has become the freaking Nation of the Offended.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by TownCryer
A declaired 'State Religion' will be struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Wait! I know! NC should just secede from the country. Yeah! Maybe they can get some neighboring states to do the same! Yeah! That will work... Oh, wait a minute.....


It probably would be struck down as unconstitutional due to the non-existent separation of church and state clause in the constitution.

By all means we should always interpret the constitution to mean what we want it to mean.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 





I do believe I totally understand....I also understand that you keep dodging pertinent questions. When you say that you have the right not have have religion imposed on you, specifically what do you mean?


I have given you a specific example. That's what I mean.

You're the one changing the subject to include your personal annoyance with pushy atheists and outspoken gay rights activist. But those things don't have anything to do with the bill proposed or laws barring the non-religious people from holding public office.



edit on 4-4-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


I saw that...that is a discriminatory issue and has absolutely nothing to do with Freedom From Religion.

I am not annoyed with gay rights activists (unless they go way overboard)...perhaps you should reread.

Actually I am annoyed with people that cannot be tolerant of others even when their supposed belief system (whether that be progressive/liberal, or conservative/religious) dictates that they should be and become offended at the stupidest and most ignorant things.

If you want a partial checklist these would be towards the top of the list, with more time I can come up with more: Atheists that push their agenda. Religious zealots that push theirs. Conservatives with no heart. Progressive liberals with no brain. Corrupt politicians. Stupid politicians.

I do believe there should be an absolute separation of church and state. I just happen to believe that the constitution does not provide for that. However, our activist court system has taken the convenient way out by "interpreting" the constitution in just that way....dangerous.

Oh, and the questions (seek the question marks) about gays and religious comparisons are not, were not, changes of subject...they were questions.

edit on 4-4-2013 by bbracken677 because: added last line



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
I think the idea in the OP is equally as ridiculous as the objections to a few people saying a prayer before a meeting. If I read the OP correctly this was done as a response to people trying to prevent others from practicing their religion. Separation of church and state is one thing but I don't get atheist that object to something as trivial as someone saying a prayer. Its not like you have to participate or believe. Ive seen articles where people get bent out of shape over praying for the safety of football players before a school game. Then you see articles where a teacher tries to make a child stomp on a depiction of Jesus. Which one of those situations is inspired by hate? Ill let you decide.

That said NC is just making this a bigger issue and will look ridiculous in the eyes of the rest of the country. If they were any other special interest group besides Christians people would be screaming about their rights being infringed and wanting the supreme court to recognize their "uniqueness" as a group.
edit on 4-4-2013 by NihilistSanta because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 


reply to post by NihilistSanta
 


So you believe that states have a right to legislate laws respecting the establishment of a religion? Do you agree that people who have no belief in a god should be excluding from public office?


edit on 4-4-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


I think people have a right to practice their religion and states should not be able to interfere with that. As to office I think that it is ridiculous. If you read my post I wouldn't have to repeat myself but you typically like to argue with anyone that does not support your anti theist views.






top topics



 
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join