Tired of a founding principle?

Someone on this forum has said numerous times that there should be some sort of “test” for voters. I contend that it should be candidates that should be tested. On the Constitution they swear an oath to support and defend. An elected representative, regardless of what district he or she represents, that states that the church should be directing the government, should be disqualified from running for office.

And the question arises for Rep. Boebert, “Which church?”

For those of you who have been supportive of recent SCOTUS decisions that are chipping away at the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the Separation of Church and State, need to pay close attention. A potential theocratic government is on the horizon, unless people pay attention and stand firm against it. – IMO

45 thoughts on “Tired of a founding principle?

      1. OMG, sound the alarm, fire up the tanks, dig fox holes, hide the women and children, it’s Armageddon!!!
        I believe RE: has already provided an “interesting” response to this nonsensical premonition of a theocratic world order..

        Like

          1. The anonymous poster AKA RE asked “ about a test before being allowed top post subject matter on the site”.

            Evidently he hasn’t passed one yet.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. The fact that you think an elected representative’s views on the separation of church and state are not worth discussing as laughable tripe says a lot more about you, your overly conservative strictly white Christian male worldview says a lot more about you that me.

            Like

  1. Rep. Boebert says, “the church is supposed to direct the government.”

    I agree with her. To see why, consider the opposite: The government is supposed to direct the church.

    That would be a violation of the Establishment Clause.

    Like

    1. RE: “Neither is supposed to have any sway over the other.”

      That’s a false interpretation, because it cannot be applied in any practical way. It is impossible to separate a politician from any religious ideas he may have.

      RE: “And I ask you the same question I posed to Boebert. ‘Which church?'”

      Doesn’t matter. I imagine most churches are represented in the public square. I’m not interested in making preferential distinctions.

      Like

      1. “That’s a false interpretation, because it cannot be applied in any practical way. ”

        The Founders saw it otherwise. The First Amendment says so.

        AN individual following his or her guiding principles is not the issue. The GOVERNMENT using the ideal of a single church is. Because it would not, nor could it be, “most churches”. It would have to be a single church. And this country is foundationally a secular nation, not ruled by the dictates of the Pope, the Chief Rabbi, or Lead Imam. Not all Christian churches have the same ideals. What you are advocating for is in direct opposition to what this country is about.

        “Doesn’t matter.”

        Really? So you would be OK with Islam and sharia law being the guiding force of our government? Or Judaism and Talmudic law?

        Liked by 1 person

      2. RE: “The Founders saw it otherwise. The First Amendment says so.”

        You should bone up on your history. Wikipedia: “twelve out of the thirteen [original colonies] had official religions.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

        RE: “So you would be OK with Islam and sharia law being the guiding force of our government? Or Judaism and Talmudic law?”

        You’ll have to be specific. I’m OK with any law, regardless of derivation, that is rational, necessary and consistent with the traditions of our existing legal system. I doubt that Sharia or Talmudic law could pass that test, although I’m sure there are some features of those legal systems to be found in our own.

        Like

        1. Yes, some of the thirteen had official religions. So what? That was not done in the Constitution or Bill of Rights under which the COUNTRY was founded simply because those who wrote those august documents knew it would be impossible to have a national religion that all, and I mean ALL, could be party to.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. But they were NOT a national religion. And that is the entire point of this discussion. Biebert is calling for some sort of national church, which in this country is unconstitutional and would be impossible to enforce. WIthout alienating and dismissing the beliefs of over half the country.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. “Which church?” would have to be determined if this country were to end the ‘separation of church and state’. I don’t think anyone here wants to get into that. I think the First Amendment covered that well.

      Get rid of that ‘separation’ and courts would be slammed day in and day out. JMHO

      Liked by 1 person

  2. What does it even mean to say the church should be directing the government? To do what?

    There is an old joke that says France has 1000 sauces and one religion, Catholic. Whereas the US has 1000 religions and one sauce, ketchup.

    Establishing a church for the nation would be probably be impossible and the founders opted for a secular Constitution. The 14th Amendment said that the states could not do so either.

    That is not to say that people of faith can’t serve in governments. They do. And they can vote their conscience. They do that also. But, of course, if their votes are contrary to the majority of their constituents, they can be voted out.

    Render unto Caesar, etc.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Interesting that some political leaders vote in contrary to the tenants of the religion they are members of. Tim Kaine and Nancy Pelosi, along with Joe Biden come to mind. All three are Catholic, but as leaders, sometimes they act counter to what their religion says.

      Like

    2. RE: “What does it even mean to say the church should be directing the government?”

      You have to approach the concept as part of a comparison. How is government directing the church different from the church directing government?

      To the extent that people of faith serve in government in an appropriate way, that would be an example of the church direccting government.

      Like

      1. “How is government directing the church different from the church directing government?”

        Neither of which is happening. But because recent SCOTUS decisions are ripping piece by piece the idea of no national religion, Boebert is jumping on that very dangerous bandwagon.

        “To the extent that people of faith serve in government in an appropriate way, that would be an example of the church direccting government.”

        That is not legitimate thinking. INDIVIDUALS are one thing. What Boebert is talking about is a NATIONAL religion, based probably on HER own faith while disregarding those who don’t believe the same way she does.

        The concept you propose is arrogant and unconstitutional. – IMO

        Liked by 1 person

      2. RE: “What Boebert is talking about is a NATIONAL religion, based probably on HER own faith while disregarding those who don’t believe the same way she does.”

        Again, how is she doing that?

        Like

          1. It is you who lacks understanding and your attempt to deflect it on to me is noted with the usual disgust your comment like this deserve.

            Like

  3. “To the extent that people of faith serve in government in an appropriate way…”

    Appropriate way? What does that mean?

    You are posing two options, but there is a third. And the third way is what the founders alluded to with the establishment and the free exercise clauses. No state church and the citizens can worship as they see fit.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. RE: “Appropriate way? What does that mean?”

      You said it yourself: “And they can vote their conscience… But, of course, if their votes are contrary to the majority of their constituents, they can be voted out.”

      Like

  4. I wonder if Boebert realizes, if church and state aren’t separate, churches can be taxed?

    In a government run by Christian Scientists, there would be no medical care. None. For anybody. Anytime. I had two friends who were diabetic. They died rather than take insulin. One of them passed out on the street and a neighbor called an ambulance that took him to the hospital. Members of his church took turns standing watch at his bedside to insure no doctors touched him. He never regained consciousness.

    Or how about a government run by the Amish? You would get up every morning, feed your horse, clean the stall, and hitch him up to the buggy to get to work. You wouldn’t have to worry about gas prices because you wouldn’t be allowed to own a car.

    Or how about the snake handlers? Instead of required in-office prayer meetings at lunch, you might be asked to prove your faith by dancing with a rattlesnake.

    Every single one of those religions claims they are Christian. You want a “Christian” government? Pick a flavor.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Separation of church and state isn’t necessary to prevent the abuses you predict. Rationality would suffice. For example, it isn’t rational to base a law on God’s will, because it is not possible to determine God’s will.

      Like

      1. “Rationality would suffice.”

        Not in today’s America.

        Let’s keep the church out of government and the government out of church.

        Or, let anyone marry whomever they want with all the rights and responsibilities as described by law. And prevent the government from forcing religious organizations to perform the ceremony if they choose not to do so. Not that hard.

        (The preceding announcement was an example, not changing the subject.)

        Boebert was just playing the “outrage” card to a crowd of “outraged conservatives”. Nothing out of the ordinary.

        Liked by 2 people

          1. I have supported my comments. You have played your usual semantic games when you get cornered. Rats in a corner are dangerous. Semantic rats on this board are proof that the deepest parts of the right wing are a true danger to our democratic republic.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. I was actually showing support for Lois’s and Len’s comment.

            Calling someone irrational when they appear irrational is not an attack; it is an observation. If you feel it is an attack, so, what? If your little right wing overly conservative snowflake feeling are hurt, it means BUPKIS to me.

            Like

      2. RE: “Boebert was just playing the “outrage” card to a crowd of “outraged conservatives”. Nothing out of the ordinary.”

        I think she was expressing the view (which I share) that boorish liberals don’t understand the concept of sparation of church and state. The boors insist that the Constitution requires a secular nation, but that’s ridiculous.

        Like

        1. “The boors insist that the Constitution requires a secular nation,”

          People who believe in the Constitution and the principles of our democratic republic are now “boors”?

          So, Mr. ‘the church should guide the government”, what DOES the Constitution require? The First Amendment is quite clear that there should be no national religion and the idea is anathema the the founders principles, as stated in those documents.

          And if you can’t see that that is what Boebert was getting at, then I cannot help you, nor convince you otherwise.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. I understand the concept of the first amendment.

          The Constitution is clear. We are a secular nation with a lot of different religions represented among it citizens.

          There is no mention of God in the constitution but there is a section that specifically states there shall be no religious tests for office. As it should be if we are secular.

          Liked by 1 person

        3. “The boors insist that the Constitution requires a secular nation, but that’s ridiculous.”

          Why?

          Religious people can live, be free and have a great life in a secular nation that guarantees the freedom to worship as they see fit without the imprimatur of a state church.

          But few will live free if the state church is the only one recognized and all others banned.

          I think one should appreciate the freedoms guaranteed by the state through our Constitution and not spend a life time looking for loopholes that affect citizens who do not agree on which details of worship are followed by some.

          If you think a sectarian government is a good idea, you might check out a myriad of countries around the world that have them. And if you think religious people here are persecuted, there are even more countries that lack our guarantees and the rule of law.

          Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s