• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

North Carolina May Declare Official State Religion Under New Bill

Deuce said:
The first amendment applies to state governments and declaring an official state religion is a clear violation of the establishment clause.
Click to expand...

But, only if the establishment of a state religion violates the free excercise clause. IMO, SC can create an "official" religion, as long as that religion isn't the only religion that is allowed to be practiced inside the state. i.e. create laws prohibiting other religions.
 
Deuce said:
Or that a state can house national guard troops in your house, or ban all firearms, or ignore your right against self-incrimination...

Edit: The third amendment says no soldier shall be quartered in your home. It doesn't say anything about marines! :p
Click to expand...

Yeah, but:

sol·dier

1

a: one engaged in military service and especially in the army

b: an enlisted man or woman

c: a skilled warrior

2

: a militant leader, follower, or worker
 
By the way, if you have a state or national church, like in Denmark, you have a situation where you can now force the church to perform and recognize gay marriages (like in Denmark). Ta da! See how the barrier between church and state works?

Not that a state or national church could be considered constitutional anyway, but still.
 
cpwill said:
This isn't in contradiction to the Constitution. As much as I would oppose such a measure (it's bad for religion), it is within the State Powers to declare a State Church. At the time of the Signing of the Constitution, for example, several states had their own respective state churches, and kept them for years.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't put too much stock into some state religions hanging on after the Revolution/adoption of a Constitution. Madison is oft times quoted by 'conservatives' when it suits and he was very clear that in a limited Government picking an official religion was out of the scope of state officers... Reference the Virginia state Constitution. By 1800 all but one state had dropped the state religion laws, the lone hold-out was Mass until 1833- it had a strong Puritan tradition that was viewed with a great deal of suspicion by the Southern states- now the positions are reversed!

It is a tad ironic that the very force that forced a populous end to state established religions is now pushing to renew the practice. The Great Awakening of Evangelical Denominations demanded an end to the state established sect over all others. Now their descendants want to re-establish what was considered bad in our Founder's day.

Will be interesting to see if the Tea Party/libertarians/ any other group who believes strongly in limited Government joins this... :peace
 
apdst said:
But, only if the establishment of a state religion violates the free excercise clause. IMO, SC can create an "official" religion, as long as that religion isn't the only religion that is allowed to be practiced inside the state. i.e. create laws prohibiting other religions.
Click to expand...

No law may justly be based in religious doctrine alone.
 
Cardinal said:
By the way, if you have a state or national church, like in Denmark, you have a situation where you can now force the church to perform and recognize gay marriages (like in Denmark). Ta da! See how the barrier between church and state works?

Not that a state or national church could be considered constitutional anyway, but still.
Click to expand...

That is true, a State owned church must abide by government rules and regulations. Also the clergy of said church would be government employee and subjected to all restrictions held to government employees.

Theocracy is a bad thing. We did the State Church thing in the past. Turned out it was best for the religion if they were free from government's thumb.
 
apdst said:
But, only if the establishment of a state religion violates the free excercise clause. IMO, SC can create an "official" religion, as long as that religion isn't the only religion that is allowed to be practiced inside the state. i.e. create laws prohibiting other religions.
Click to expand...

Completely incorrect reading of the First Amendment, both as to practice and to intent.
 
Wiggen said:
Completely incorrect reading of the First Amendment, both as to practice and to intent.
Click to expand...

In your opinion, sure. I'm thinking that you're unable to understand how, "establish", is being used in the 1st Amendment. I don't see a religion being established by the state, in this case. It's more like the state tree, state dog, state flower, etc...IMO.

I'm not seeing how any harm is being done. Now, if they infringed on the right to practice other religions, I would say it's time to go to the cartridge box.
 
Deuce said:
Yes, it says that. But the bill of rights has been incorporated against state governments also.
Click to expand...
Most of it anyway - including the establishment clause (or we'd still have prayer in school, etc.)
 
Deuce said:
Or that a state can house national guard troops in your house, or ban all firearms, or ignore your right against self-incrimination...

Edit: The third amendment says no soldier shall be quartered in your home. It doesn't say anything about marines! :p
Click to expand...
Actually... that particular one has only been incorporated in three states. (Though I'm sure if given the opportunity the court would rule on the other 47 states.)
 
Cardinal said:
Using this logic every time the USSC overturned a state law as unconstitutional it was exceeding its authority.
Click to expand...

Which would make every gun control law in the country...UNconstitutional.

Ain't it a bitch when Libbos want the Constitution to mean two different things and it just can't do it?
 
apdst said:
Which would make every gun control law in the country...UNconstitutional.

Ain't it a bitch when Libbos want the Constitution to mean two different things and it just can't do it?
Click to expand...

Are you talking to me?
 
Ikari said:
No law may justly be based in religious doctrine alone.
Click to expand...
What's "just" is a matter of interpretation, but as for what's legal - laws can be "based in religious doctrine alone."
 
azgreg said:
North Carolina May Declare Official State Religion Under New Bill
Click to expand...

This would have been perfectly legal from the inception of this nation until the ratification of the 14th amendment in 1868. Up until that time the forbidance to establish a state religion was directed at the federal government and only the federal government. Each state supported their own religion until 1875 when North Carolina became the last of the original 13 colonies/state to put an end to that practice.
 
cpwill said:
This isn't in contradiction to the Constitution. As much as I would oppose such a measure (it's bad for religion), it is within the State Powers to declare a State Church. At the time of the Signing of the Constitution, for example, several states had their own respective state churches, and kept them for years.
Click to expand...

And why don't they anymore?
 
Taylor said:
What's "just" is a matter of interpretation, but as for what's legal - laws can be "based in religious doctrine alone."
Click to expand...

What is just is the product of the metaphysics of morality. One cannot justly hold their religious doctrine over those of differing faith. Not in a free Republic.
 
Perotista said:
This would have been perfectly legal from the inception of this nation until the ratification of the 14th amendment in 1868. Up until that time the forbidance to establish a state religion was directed at the federal government and only the federal government. Each state supported their own religion until 1875 when North Carolina became the last of the original 13 colonies/state to put an end to that practice.
Click to expand...
I believe it was legal up until 1947 - when the Establishment Clause was incorporated against the states. The last state to have an established religion was Massachusetts, and all made the decision on their own to "disestablish" decades before the 14th amendment was passed... North Carolina disestablished in 1776. They did have a law that made it illegal for anyone other than a Christian to serve in office up until 1875. They still have a law that forbids atheists from serving, but I doubt it's been tested.
 
Ikari said:
What is just is the product of the metaphysics of morality. One cannot justly hold their religious doctrine over those of differing faith. Not in a free Republic.
Click to expand...
Really? Go to Indiana on a Sunday and try to buy some liquor.
 
Your Star said:
What a waste of time, so unconstitutional it's not even funny. What silly little children.
Click to expand...

although i am not for such a thing, can you show where it would be unconstitutional?

if you produce the first amendment, please take note of the first few words, ....."congress shall make no law"
 
cpwill said:
This isn't in contradiction to the Constitution. As much as I would oppose such a measure (it's bad for religion), it is within the State Powers to declare a State Church. At the time of the Signing of the Constitution, for example, several states had their own respective state churches, and kept them for years.
Click to expand...

Things have changed since then

Everson v. Board of Education - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then you also have the parts of the bill that are just flat out wrong and clearly unconstitutional
Whereas, the Constitution of the United States does not grant the federal government and does not grant the federal courts the power to determine what is or is not constitutional;therefore, by virtue of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the power to determine constitutionality and the proper interpretation and proper application of the Constitution is reserved to the states and to the people
Click to expand...

These guys are smart enough to know that the courts are in fact the ones that determine what is and is not constitutional, they are just attempting to drum up support among their uneducated voters by pretending they are actually doing something in their jobs.
 
Wiseone said:
Things have changed since then

Everson v. Board of Education - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then you also have the parts of the bill that are just flat out wrong and clearly unconstitutional


These guys are smart enough to know that the courts are in fact the ones that determine what is and is not constitutional, they are just attempting to drum up support among their uneducated voters by pretending they are actually doing something in their jobs.
Click to expand...

i am not aiming anything at you personally, so please dont take it that way.

but why is it i see people posting things that are federal law, and put it forth as it overrides constitutional law, or say something is unconstitutional, when the Constitution does not mention it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom