North Carolina Yokel Wants to Establish State Religion

[Midtowner]

Y'all think the Okie Tea Party has managed to create a bit of an image problem for the tin foil hat society? Check this moron out:


Republican North Carolina state legislators have proposed allowing an official state religion in a measure that would declare the state exempt from the Constitution and court rulings.

The bill, filed Monday by two GOP lawmakers from Rowan County and backed by nine other Republicans, says each state "is sovereign" and courts cannot block a state "from making laws respecting an establishment of religion." The legislation was filed in response to a lawsuit to stop county commissioners in Rowan County from opening meetings with a Christian prayer, wral.com reported.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/north-carolina-religion-bill_n_3003401.html

Of course, keep in mind, this is a resolution and has no force of law, but what a black eye if this passes.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Sounds good to me...Puts the country/state where the Framers envisioned...

THey did not deny God, they Denied the Church of England, the Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists etc.

[Midtowner]

You ought to read the measure. It declares that they believe the State of North Carolina can actually declare an official state religion.... e.g., Catholicism could be the official state religion.

[SoonerBBall]

Sounds good to me...Puts the country/state where the Framers envisioned...

THey did not deny God, they Denied the Church of England, the Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists etc.

Not sure if serious or just epic troll.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Not sure if serious or just epic troll.

No troll. Just ****ing tired of the separation of church and state. THere was nothing ever said about separation from God.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

You ought to read the measure. It declares that they believe the State of North Carolina can actually declare an official state religion.... e.g., Catholicism could be the official state religion.

I didn't get that from your blurb. I read Christian, but that is not a "religion" to me, it is a description of believers in Christ , God and the Trinity, but no denomination.

[Midtowner]

Do you just reject altogether the notion that Marbury v. Madison is kind of a thing?

[Midtowner]

I didn't get that from your blurb. I read Christian, but that is not a "religion" to me, it is a description of believers in Christ , God and the Trinity, but no denomination.

Well, I do know you sort of redefine words to support your odd world view, but for most folks, if we're talking about a specific state religion, that's denominational, e.g., Catholic, Southern Baptist, Lutheran, Hindu, Muslim, etc.

Under your interpretation of the Constitution, if a lot of Muslims moved into Michigan and became the majority, they could declare the state religion of Michigan to be Islam. You'd be fine with that?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Our laws are not based on Islam, they are based on Christianism, at least a belief in the Trinity. I think all the Founders had a belief in God and that was made part of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence...

As far as Michigan, would that be the Sunni or Shi'ite variety? Just as with Christianity, I don't think you can place a state religion into effect without defining the flavor or denomination...

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

VERY valuable thread. haha

[SoonerBBall]

Our laws are not based on Islam, they are based on Christianism, at least a belief in the Trinity. I think all the Founders had a belief in God and that was made part of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence...

As far as Michigan, would that be the Sunni or Shi'ite variety? Just as with Christianity, I don't think you can place a state religion into effect without defining the flavor or denomination...

Okay, now I'm sure you're just trolling.

[Midtowner]

Our laws are not based on Islam, they are based on Christianism, at least a belief in the Trinity. I think all the Founders had a belief in God and that was made part of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence...

Who cares what they believed?

They're all dead white guys who wrote a document, which among other things, counted black slaves as 3/5 of a human. We have years upon years of judicial precedent, since 1803, stating the Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution and for quite some time now, it has held that the Establishment Clause is incorporated to the states through the 14th Amendment and prevents the states from establishing a religion, putting up a Nativity Scene on the public square, etc.


As far as Michigan, would that be the Sunni or Shi'ite variety? Just as with Christianity, I don't think you can place a state religion into effect without defining the flavor or denomination...

For ****s and giggles, let's say Sunni. Michigan has voted to be a Sunni state. They want to put a Jihad on Ohio State. Kosher?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Thats the crux of the whole thing, we should care what they believed and intended. I do not think the Constitution is as plastic as you believe.

If Michigan went Sunni, then that would be unconstitutional. Tho, I like the idea of a jihad against Ohio State.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

... I like the idea of a jihad against Ohio and Ohio State.Well, they sorta did ask for it by voting commie in the last erection.

[Midtowner]

Thats the crux of the whole thing, we should care what they believed and intended. I do not think the Constitution is as plastic as you believe.

If Michigan went Sunni, then that would be unconstitutional. Tho, I like the idea of a jihad against Ohio State.

What if Michigan went Catholic so they could declare a Crusade on Ohio State?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

What if Michigan went Catholic so they could declare a Crusade on Ohio State?Heck, the USA wasn't occupied by Americans, let alone Catholics in the 1300's, or whenever the Crusades occurred. Seems like he's not referring to way-back-then times.

It might appeal to Yermom, though. He could move to Ohio, so he could battle the Michigan Catholics.

[SicEmBaylor]

The Constitution, as originally conceived and originally written, would allowed for individual states to create state religions since the Constitution only applied to Federal law.

The 14th amendment changed all of that, unfortunately. In any case, states should still have that right notwithstanding the 14th though it's a horrible horrible idea.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Well, Meatchicken would be moslem, and maybe the other Obearist-going states would pick the same? Things would happen, and ancient battle-lines would form. The Obears would have the modern weapons, though, and since He belives in equality of outcomes, would share the nukes, AK-47's etc. with the Christians.

[yermom]

Thats the crux of the whole thing, we should care what they believed and intended. I do not think the Constitution is as plastic as you believe.

If Michigan went Sunni, then that would be unconstitutional. Tho, I like the idea of a jihad against Ohio State.

the whole idea is that it's plastic, thus the Bill of Rights, and the amendments that follow

[badger]

Just curious... does this country go through a religion phase every 50 years ago? I mean, wasnt that around the time they added "under god" to the pledge of allegiance? When did "in god we trust" get added to money?

Anyways, i would propose jehovah's witness as our state religion. :)

[diverdog]

Well, Meatchicken would be moslem, and maybe the other Obearist-going states would pick the same? Things would happen, and ancient battle-lines would form. The Obears would have the modern weapons, though, and since He belives in equality of outcomes, would share the nukes, AK-47's etc. with the Christians.

Were you drinking lost night because I have no idea what you are talking about.

[SicEmBaylor]

Just curious... does this country go through a religion phase every 50 years ago? I mean, wasnt that around the time they added "under god" to the pledge of allegiance? When did "in god we trust" get added to money?

Anyways, i would propose jehovah's witness as our state religion. :)

The pledge of allegiance was an oath created by a socialist to indoctrinate (his stated purpose not just me pontificating) youth into devotion to the national state.

The "indivisible" part is the most offensive part of the pledge.

[Midtowner]

Were you drinking lost night because I have no idea what you are talking about.

He's clearly thought about this a lot.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Anybody that wants to establish a state religion is not conservative and does not believe in individual liberty.

[jkjsooner]

The Constitution, as originally conceived and originally written, would allowed for individual states to create state religions since the Constitution only applied to Federal law.

The 14th amendment changed all of that, unfortunately. In any case, states should still have that right notwithstanding the 14th though it's a horrible horrible idea.

It would be a sad day when state governments ended our freedom of speech, the right to peaceably assemble, due process, or blantantly denied our right against unreasonable search and seizure.

I think you are serioulsy in the minority here.


It's clear to me that you and I have different views of who most threatens our liberties. I've seen corrupt small town cops who admitted to me that they would make up traffic violations if they thought the person had drugs in his car. (The exact phrase was, "If you want to stop a black guy say he crossed the center line. He'll never be able to prove he didn't.") I don't trust the locals where I grew up to protect my rights one bit.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Anybody that wants to establish a state religion is not conservative and does not believe in individual liberty.and, it's difficult to understand why it is that anyone would actually want state sponsorship or even specific approval of a particular religion.

[KantoSooner]

[QUOTE=TheHumanAlphabet;3599604]Our laws are not based on Islam, they are based on Christianism, at least a belief in the Trinity. QUOTE]

One's mind boggles.

'Christianism'. This is kind of new one on me. 'Christianity' I've heard of. 'Judeo-Christian' even. Parsing it a bit, 'Christianism' would mean a 'belief in 'Christian' which, grammatical nonesensicality aside would, I assume, imply some doffing of the judicio-legislative chapeau to the Bible, no? And that august tome includes the Old Testament, yes? The same Old Testament that is part of the holy writings of Judaism, right? And of.......(wait for it)......Islam, right?

How the Trinity works into the writing of laws is anyone's guess. Maybe the Holy ghost serves as writer, Jesus brings the refreshments and God is sort of the motto over the door?

Unfortunately for your argument, whatever the private inspirations of the founders, they pretty definitely wrote 'religion' out of the founding documents leaving only a deism so divorced from any particular lineage that it could just as easily been ascribed the name of 'nature'.

[SoonerBBall]

Anybody that wants to establish a state religion is not conservative and does not believe in individual liberty.

Exactly.

[SicEmBaylor]

It would be a sad day when state governments ended our freedom of speech, the right to peaceably assemble, due process, or blantantly denied our right against unreasonable search and seizure.

I think you are serioulsy in the minority here.
All of those things are guranteed by every state constitution that I'm aware of which is the purpose of the state constitutions. One of the reasons for having state constitutions was to provide coverage where the Federal constitution lacked (and to bring colonial charters and old constitutions into compliance with the new Federal constitution). People act as if there is no s uch thing as state law and state constitutions...as if we'd have no rights at all if it weren't for the Feds....which is utterly absurd.



It's clear to me that you and I have different views of who most threatens our liberties. I've seen corrupt small town cops who admitted to me that they would make up traffic violations if they thought the person had drugs in his car. (The exact phrase was, "If you want to stop a black guy say he crossed the center line. He'll never be able to prove he didn't.") I don't trust the locals where I grew up to protect my rights one bit.
Which, again, is an issue for state courts. The Federal government has no business interfering with purely intrastate concerns.

[Midtowner]

All of those things are guranteed by every state constitution that I'm aware of which is the purpose of the state constitutions. One of the reasons for having state constitutions was to provide coverage where the Federal constitution lacked (and to bring colonial charters and old constitutions into compliance with the new Federal constitution). People act as if there is no s uch thing as state law and state constitutions...as if we'd have no rights at all if it weren't for the Feds....which is utterly absurd.

The North Carolina lacks an analogue to the First Amendment Establishment Clause. The Oklahoma Constitution on the other hand has a grant of religious liberty and a guarantee that public money shall not be used for sectarian purposes.

http://www.ncleg.net/Legislation/constitution/ncconstitution.html

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/index.asp?ftdb=STOKCN&level=1

Those are irrelevant though because the 14th Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights to the states and whether or not the states grant their people those rights, the people enjoy those rights through the U.S. Constitution, and some would argue as natural rights as well.

[SicEmBaylor]

The North Carolina lacks an analogue to the First Amendment Establishment Clause. The Oklahoma Constitution on the other hand has a grant of religious liberty and a guarantee that public money shall not be used for sectarian purposes.

http://www.ncleg.net/Legislation/constitution/ncconstitution.html

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/index.asp?ftdb=STOKCN&level=1

Those are irrelevant though because the 14th Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights to the states and whether or not the states grant their people those rights, the people enjoy those rights through the U.S. Constitution, and some would argue as natural rights as well.
Which is why I hate the 14th amendment. It truly destroyed our constitutional government as envisioned by the Framers. Not to mention the fact that the 14th amendment itself is unconstitutional in lieu of how it was "ratified."

The 17th amendment is just as bad, if not worse, than the 14th.

[Midtowner]

Which is why I hate the 14th amendment. It truly destroyed our constitutional government as envisioned by the Framers. Not to mention the fact that the 14th amendment itself is unconstitutional in lieu of how it was "ratified."

The 17th amendment is just as bad, if not worse, than the 14th.

Do you think any court is going to worry about how the 14th was ratified at this point?

It was the best thing to happen to this country ever. It's what makes us a country.

[SicEmBaylor]

Do you think any court is going to worry about how the 14th was ratified at this point?
Absolutely not. I never suggested they would.

It was the best thing to happen to this country ever. It's what makes us a country.[/QUOTE]

Knowing your "ends justify the means" theory of constitutional law, this ridiculous statement absolutely does not surprise me in the least.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Which is why I hate the 14th amendment. It truly destroyed our constitutional government as envisioned by the Framers. Not to mention the fact that the 14th amendment itself is unconstitutional in lieu of how it was "ratified."

The 17th amendment is just as bad, if not worse, than the 14th.

I disagree with this myself, but in my bones I think I'm a closet Federalist so that may be why.

Point being, for Full Faith and Credit to truly have teeth, one would think there would have to be an overarching binder. That binder is the 14th and the 10th. The teeth being that here's the ground rules, States. Do what you will, yours must be recognized by theirs and vice versa, but they can NOT violate these prime edicts of society. And that, in my opinion, is truly what it is. The prime edicts of our version of society. If you don't have a method or mechanic to make it universal to that society, then your society is fractured, continuity resting only within state boundaries.

And when speaking toward the freedoms prescribed by the Bill of Rights, present or not in state legislation/constitutional language, their importance to the very structure of this nation is why the 14th is necessary.

[SicEmBaylor]

I disagree with this myself, but in my bones I think I'm a closet Federalist so that may be why.
Aye. I'm a big big big fan of decentralization and spreading power around. The Constitution was meant as a perfect compromise between the interests of the state and interests of the Feds and it goes beyond what most people think about. For example, the Congress itself was supposed to be divided between the interests of the people directly and the interests of the states as a whole. The House were the direct representatives of the people while the states were the representatives of the states. Those interests divided and institutionalized are what the Federal government is. Even the responsibilities of each house of Congress is evident of this fact. Another example is treaty ratification being the sole purview of the Senate. Why is that? It's because the Framer's didn't consider the people themselves (via their representatives) to be the best arbiters of sound foreign policy. Since no individual state can conduct foreign policy, treaty ratification was left to the states united within their representative body (the Senate).

I say all this for a reason. The 14th and 17th amendments stripped the states of that equal power they shared with the Federal government and gave dominant weight to the Federal government in ways that the Framer's had not intended when they created and ratified the Constitution. Many states would never have ratified the document if they foresaw the 14th and 17th amendments.

The Constitution is the greatest governing document ever conceived by man, but it depends on maintaining the document's inherent delicate balance between different interests. The reason for a good 90% of our nation's troubles today are the result of procedural issues resulting from changing that document more than the political differences associated with those issues.


Point being, for Full Faith and Credit to truly have teeth, one would think there would have to be an overarching binder. That binder is the 14th and the 10th. The teeth being that here's the ground rules, States. Do what you will, yours must be recognized by theirs and vice versa, but they can NOT violate these prime edicts of society. And that, in my opinion, is truly what it is. The prime edicts of our version of society. If you don't have a method or mechanic to make it universal to that society, then your society is fractured, continuity resting only within state boundaries.
One problem I have with your reasoning is that you're making the mistake many people have when they over-weigh the implications of the FFC clause. The FFC clause was always intended to remain consistent with the rest of the US Constitution. It wasn't intended to mean that every state automatically had to adopt the same law that some other state passed nor does it even mean the states have to recognize a law passed by the Federal government. The FFC clause was the result of a problem inherent with the Articles of Confederation. Namely, debtors were running off to other states to avoid having to pay their debts. There was no legal framework for compelling them to do so if they crossed state lines. One of the results of the FFC clause was ensuring that a court decision in Alabama was still valid in Mississippi. Which is consistent with a reasonable view of interstate commerce clause.


And when speaking toward the freedoms prescribed by the Bill of Rights, present or not in state legislation/constitutional language, their importance to the very structure of this nation is why the 14th is necessary.
The irony here is that there was far more individual liberty among citizens prior to the 14th amendment than after. I see your logic, but the reality is that the 14th amendment had the effect of centralizing government authority and thus enabling that government to grow by leaps and bounds. The states lost much of their ability to "check" the expansion of Federal power. With no barrier (other than the Supreme Court which was thereafter packed with like-minded jurists) left for government growth, we now find ourselves with an enormous beast of a Federal government that simply cannot be slain.

[KantoSooner]

Even Tommy J found that his attitude towards centralized power changed dramatically once he was tasked with running the country. You simply can't have everyone in charge of everything all the time and expect any result better than five year olds playing soccer.
And comparing the quality of state governments (completely bug **** insane) vs. that of the federal government (aggressively mediocre), I'm pretty happy the feds won out.

[jkjsooner]

All of those things are guranteed by every state constitution that I'm aware of which is the purpose of the state constitutions. One of the reasons for having state constitutions was to provide coverage where the Federal constitution lacked (and to bring colonial charters and old constitutions into compliance with the new Federal constitution). People act as if there is no s uch thing as state law and state constitutions...as if we'd have no rights at all if it weren't for the Feds....which is utterly absurd.

I can't speak for all states but many state constitutions are amended almost as regularly as normal laws. That's not a recipe for protection of our rights. I do not trust states to protect my rights. The smaller the government entity, the easier it is to throw away rights at their convenience.

[SoonerBBall]

The bill of rights isn't a list of all of our rights, it is the short list of rights that are universal and undeniable by any government, be it national or state.

Accordingly, it is ridiculous to think that the founding fathers intended states to be able to endorse a state religion. That flies directly in the face of religious liberty and it is silly that this is even being discussed.

[C&CDean]

IDGAF if there's a state religion. They can be anything they want. However, the minute they try to tell me I have to be one of whatever the **** they decide they are is when the dukey hits the fan.

[SicEmBaylor]

I can't speak for all states but many state constitutions are amended almost as regularly as normal laws. That's not a recipe for protection of our rights. I do not trust states to protect my rights. The smaller the government entity, the easier it is to throw away rights at their convenience.
Part of the reason they're amended so frequently is because it's easier for the people to keep control of their elected officials when those elected officials are "closer to home."

Domestic policy, by and large, ought to remain the sole purview of the individual states for the very reason that state legislators are closer to the people than Federal officials. State constitutions may be amended more frequently, but that is not necessarily a bad thing at all. I certainly won't say states aren't above abusing their power, but abuse of power is easier to remedy on the state level than it is on the Federal level.

And considering the degree to which the Federal government has infringed upon individual liberty for the last 150 years, saying they are less likely to do so than state governments is as comical as it is absurd.

[Chuck Bao]

Part of the reason they're amended so frequently is because it's easier for the people to keep control of their elected officials when those elected officials are "closer to home."

Domestic policy, by and large, ought to remain the sole purview of the individual states for the very reason that state legislators are closer to the people than Federal officials. State constitutions may be amended more frequently, but that is not necessarily a bad thing at all. I certainly won't say states aren't above abusing their power, but abuse of power is easier to remedy on the state level than it is on the Federal level.

And considering the degree to which the Federal government has infringed upon individual liberty for the last 150 years, saying they are less likely to do so than state governments is as comical as it is absurd.

Dude, seriously?!!???!!! The constitution is the supreme law of the land (or state when it doesn't contravene the US Constition). Thank the Lord Almighty that we had some very smart men draft our US Constituion. I do not have the same high regard for our Oklahoma legislature. Talking about individual liberties, a state constitution is not something to fiddle around while looking at the latest poll numbers. People get hurt. Trust me on this. Thailand has had some 17+ constitutions since beginning their experiment with democracy in the mid 1930s and the mess they've made of it doesn't seem to improve each time small and narrow-minded politicians try to re-write it.

[jkjsooner]

State constitutions may be amended more frequently, but that is not necessarily a bad thing at all.

I really can't believe youmsaid that. Other than defining the rules of government at time t=0, the reason constitutions are so powerful is because they are so hard to change. It you make it too easy to change it might as well not even exist.

[KantoSooner]

Well, we could go with an 'unwritten' constitution like good old Britain has.


But then again, they also have an official secrets act and an internal security act, both of which pretty much mock habeas corpus; so maybe that's not such a good plan.

[Midtowner]

And considering the degree to which the Federal government has infringed upon individual liberty for the last 150 years, saying they are less likely to do so than state governments is as comical as it is absurd.

Remind me.... was it the states or the feds who did away with Jim Crow?

--so you mean freedom for white people then?

[Midtowner]

Well, we could go with an 'unwritten' constitution like good old Britain has.

Recall Madison was once against the inclusion of the Bill of Rights because he thought that since the Constitution didn't contain a positive grant of the federal government's power to infringe on those rights, they were unnecessarily included and redundant.

I prefer my rights to be written, either by the Constitution itself or searchable on my Westlaw account. Thanks much.

[KantoSooner]

I kind of like where we are: A written constitution with some specific rights, enumerated and a lot of 'dicta' to suggest the thinking of the drafters and guide judges as future, unforeseen events necessitate interpretation. Pretty much of a combo-play.