• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Boebert is tired of the separation of church and state crap

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Like a huge number of people, I'm tired of Lauren Boebert! She's as fixated on her religious beliefs as she is on guns, (and I wonder if there isn't a repressed sexual reason for both of those, but never mind).

The fact of the matter is this: religion wants to have a lot to say about how you should be able to live your life: whether you can not go to church, if you don't want to, or whether you just don't want to speak in tongues or fondle (it's the right word) poisonous snakes (there's that phallic repressed sex thing again...).

Can you live in a community that has other faiths than yours, all the while insisting that they live their lives according to your rules, while you don't owe them anything like the same consideration? Not for long, that history will show you.

The "state" is about all of us -- everybody in it. Setting aside one privileged group for special treatment within that will and always does lead to other groups rising up in protest, and often to revolution and the dissolution of the state itself. Usually with lots and lots of lovely violence and death.

What is it that makes anybody think that the really improbable nonsense they were indoctrinated with before they could think for themselves (something too many religious still can't do very well, as Boebert so clearly demonstrates) should apply to others brought up in different traditions?

Is the conduct of your own life not a sufficient challenge for you, that you have to start dictating the conduct of everybody else's, too? And if not, how would you feel if (as happens) religious feelings shift -- and suddenly a new majority begins doing the same thing to you?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
People who hate constitutional originalism
should consider that this is the source of
separation of church & state.
I predict an eternal battle with fundies
who want a theocracy in Ameristan.
Constitution Originalism is a paradox as Constitutional Originalism is ultimately regular and frequent rewriting and updates to the Constitution and being free from being governed by the dead.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Just to clarify, as I've heard it used in both ways, by originalism are you referring to original intent (I'm assuming) or original meaning?
Constitutional originalism is about the
intent of those who wrote the Constitution.
"Original meaning" isn't a term applied
to constitutional law that I've ever seen.
What does it mean to you?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Constitution Originalism is a paradox as Constitutional Originalism is ultimately regular and frequent rewriting and updates to the Constitution and being free from being governed by the dead.
There is no paradox.
When the Constitution is amended,
the original intent of the amendment
supersedes what was amended.
Duh!

The dead don't govern. We use law
they wrote, & change it as required.
We keep what we want...which can't
be blamed on anyone else.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
There is really no excuse for any society to have church mingle with state.

First of all, that endangers freedom of creed. Politically, it causes unhealthy and weird collusions.

State should not even attempt to acknowledge any religious movement. Whatever they may legitimally need or require ought to be available by similar means to non-religious groups as well.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
There is no paradox.
When the Constitution is amended,
the original intent of the amendment
supersedes what was amended.
Duh!
The original intent was to the living not being governed by the dead. We are heavily governed by the dead America has deified. Thomas Jefferson's own suggestion was rewriting the Constitution frequently and regularly about every 20 years so each generation could address the issues of their day (they all knew they couldn't predict the future).
The dead don't govern. We use law
they wrote, & change it as required.
We keep what we want...which can't
be blamed on anyone else.
It hasn't been changed and trying to interpret the Constitution by what some dead guys meant in a world and time that is just as dead and gone as they are.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The original intent was to the living not being governed by the dead.
We can change the Constitution if we want.
There are amendment processes spelled
out therein.
Or do you prefer that the Prez, Congress, &
SCOTUS can do whatever they want, just
ignoring the Constitution?
Well, congrats!
You just gave Trump the right to have staged
a coup. And you gave cops the right to beat,
search, & kill us without limitation because
the 1st, 4th, & other amendments are only
dead guy rantings....& irrelevant.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Or do you prefer that the Prez, Congress, &
SCOTUS can do whatever they want, just
ignoring the Constitution?
Well, congrats!
You just gave Trump the right to have staged
a coup. And you gave cops the right to beat,
search, & kill us without limitation because
the 1st, 4th, & other amendments are only
dead guy rantings....& irrelevant.
That's a rather large and outlandish assumption.
We can change the Constitution if we want.
There are amendment processes spelled
out therein.
That's not the same as rewritting it to reflect contemporary times as the Founding Fathers did intend. They didn't want their original intentions and purposes and definitions and times governing the future. This is well documented and why positions promoting it are inherently a contradiction and paradox because the original intent was regularly updating and refreshing the Constitution.
That's not a statement of endorsement, it's a statement of facts.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
That's a rather large and outlandish assumption.
It is indeed.
But when you propose ignoring intention
behind the Constitution, you risk losing
many rights based upon interpreting
what the framers had in mind, eg,
separation of church & state.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
It is indeed.
But when you propose ignoring intention
behind the Constitution, you risk losing
many rights based upon interpreting
what the framers had in mind, eg,
separation of church & state.
The intention is that would have been rewritten about a dozen times by now. But despite this intention the living not be governed by the dead we are still governed by the dead.
That's not saying we should do it this way or that, it's saying that is the actual Original Intent according to the Founding Fathers themselves.
 
Top