Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

North Carolina Lawmakers Seek To Establish Official State Religion
CBS Charlotte ^ | 04/03/2012 | AP

Posted on 04/04/2013 12:32:35 PM PDT by SatinDoll

(Following is a brief summary of the article's contents)

Raleigh, North Carolina -

Two North Carolina legislators introduced a state resolution asserting the State of North Carolina can make its own laws regarding the establishment of religion.

[See the article for further details.]


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; US: North Carolina
KEYWORDS: 14thamendment; 1stamendment; constitution; constitutionreligion; ncreligion; religion; religiousfreedom; republican; statereligion; teaparty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-94 next last
WOW! Has this got the liberals and progressives panties in a twist.

Don't miss reading the article or the accompanying comments.

Everyone knows what the U.S.Constitution states about the establishment of religion. This flies right in the face of that, and liberals are, ahem, upset.

I suspect it is being done to purposely goad the BHO2 administration, which has flagrantly violated the Constitution.

1 posted on 04/04/2013 12:32:35 PM PDT by SatinDoll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

Agree, my thoughts also.

May as well start the real wars with the liberals, because - like Muslims - they’ll concede to nothing but unstoppable force.


2 posted on 04/04/2013 12:35:52 PM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

Agree, my thoughts also.

May as well start the real wars with the liberals, because - like Muslims - they’ll concede to nothing but unstoppable force.


3 posted on 04/04/2013 12:36:26 PM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

Doesn’t the law against the establishment of religion only apply to the nation as a whole? Has it been decided that it applies to state governments? This will be interesting.


4 posted on 04/04/2013 12:36:28 PM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

Just give BHO an in, and he’ll establish shariah...


5 posted on 04/04/2013 12:36:36 PM PDT by Hardraade (http://junipersec.wordpress.com (Vendetta))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

The US Constitution says that CONGRESS cannot establish a state religion. It is silent on the individual states’ choice in that regard. Well, other than the “all other rights are reserved to the states or the people”...


6 posted on 04/04/2013 12:36:45 PM PDT by Don W (There is no gun problem, there is a lack of humanity problem!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
Everyone knows what the U.S.Constitution states about the establishment of religion...

By the federal government. The whole intent was to allow the sovereign states the ability to make their own state religions without it being dictated from the federal government.

However, the 14th Amendment is generally construed to mean that anything specifically prohibited to the federal government is also prohibited to government at all levels. (Of course, they always try to avoid applying anything to a true 2nd Amendment test.)

7 posted on 04/04/2013 12:39:04 PM PDT by kevkrom (If a wise man has an argument with a foolish man, the fool only rages or laughs...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

This is not a federal Constitutional issue. The right to establish a state religion is left specifically up to the state. There is nothing in the federal Constitution that precludes states from establishing a state church.


8 posted on 04/04/2013 12:39:55 PM PDT by Louis Foxwell (Better the devil we can destroy than the Judas we must tolerate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
WOW! Has this got the liberals and progressives panties in a twist.

Not as long as it's islam, communism or some other anti-American religion...

9 posted on 04/04/2013 12:39:57 PM PDT by null and void (Gun confiscation enables tyranny. Republicans create the tools of oppression and Democrats use them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Don W; Viennacon

Using your reasoning, there would be nothing to stop the establishment of Islamic domination in several states.

Do you really like that idea?


10 posted on 04/04/2013 12:41:48 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NATURAL BORN CITZEN: BORN IN THE USA OF CITIZEN PARENTS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
In my opinion this is flat-out allowed under the Constitution. If this were to come before the Supreme Court, and they were to read the First Amendement: "Congreess shall make no law ..." and then conclude: "the state of South Carolina is barred from doing this" then it is well and truly time to throw in the towel. The laws, as written, would mean nothing -- we would clearly have only rulership of powerful men who seek to control us as slaves.

And we've dealt with that before.

11 posted on 04/04/2013 12:42:15 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy (The ballot box is a sham. Nothing will change until after the war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hardraade

Yes, that’s my thinking as well.


12 posted on 04/04/2013 12:42:36 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NATURAL BORN CITZEN: BORN IN THE USA OF CITIZEN PARENTS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

I wasn’t reasoning, I was just wondering if this had come up before. You’re right though.


13 posted on 04/04/2013 12:43:35 PM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell

You want to live in a state that has Islam as the state religion? Shariah, anyone?


14 posted on 04/04/2013 12:44:07 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NATURAL BORN CITZEN: BORN IN THE USA OF CITIZEN PARENTS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
I don't like that idea but it definitely falls under the old Voltaire quote: "I may not like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

If my state wants to establish Islam as a state religion, then they can do so. I wouldn't like it, but my only option would be to move to a different state. That is the very nature of our federal republic.

15 posted on 04/04/2013 12:44:56 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy (The ballot box is a sham. Nothing will change until after the war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

Only applies to Fed Gov. At time of ratification several states had official state religions.


16 posted on 04/04/2013 12:46:30 PM PDT by Kozak (The Republic is dead. I do not owe what we have any loyalty, wealth or sympathy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

Not my reasoning, it’s the way the document is written.


17 posted on 04/04/2013 12:48:38 PM PDT by Don W (There is no gun problem, there is a lack of humanity problem!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kozak

And how many of them still have official state religions? How about Utah, do they have the Church of LDS as an official state religion?


18 posted on 04/04/2013 12:48:44 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NATURAL BORN CITZEN: BORN IN THE USA OF CITIZEN PARENTS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Don W; SatinDoll
Well, other than the “all other rights are reserved to the states or the people”...

Common error. It says all other 'powers', not rights (ie, there is no such thing a State's Rights, but instead, State's Powers). Rights are considered inalienable. This has long been an internal conflict both on the right and left in terms of how they view rights and powers. Are rights something that can be infringed upon by any level of government or are they inalienable to the individual. Traditionally Conservatives have been on the side of the latter with only extreme 'States Rights(sic)' type folks (those who think States have the rights to do anything, period). States having the power to trump individual rights is the side the left has often fallen on. A good example is the Heller decision where they argued that States (or in this case DC) had the right to infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights.

Generally as a rule though, Conservatives always should come down on the side of rights as being inalienable to the individual and not to be trampled upon by any governmental authority, be it Federal, State, or Local.

19 posted on 04/04/2013 12:49:42 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

I think this may be a tactical move to cause a SCOTUS decision confirming the Bill of Rights means what it says.

Of course, librals will find the action anathema. (Pun intended.)

Long-term (several years) this could serve to strengthen the Bill of Rights.


20 posted on 04/04/2013 12:49:52 PM PDT by William of Barsoom (In Omnia, Paratus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William of Barsoom

It was actually a tactical move to prove a point on a local level...never a serious proposition.


21 posted on 04/04/2013 12:52:19 PM PDT by C. Edmund Wright (Tokyo Rove is more than a name, it's a GREAT WEBSITE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy; Don W

Well, if the U.S.Constitution is written in such a way that states can have official state religions, how long do you think it will be before there is an amendment ginned up by Congress to seal that off.

Having a bruising fight in Congress is much preferable to having an openly fought civil war, IMHO.


22 posted on 04/04/2013 12:54:22 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NATURAL BORN CITZEN: BORN IN THE USA OF CITIZEN PARENTS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Don W

“The US Constitution says that CONGRESS cannot establish a state religion. It is silent on the individual states’ choice in that regard. Well, other than the “all other rights are reserved to the states or the people”...”

Yes....but is this a right that you’d want your state exercising?


23 posted on 04/04/2013 12:56:22 PM PDT by VanDeKoik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

Yes! Thank you for reminding me.

People have rights while government, state or federal, have powers.


24 posted on 04/04/2013 12:56:49 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NATURAL BORN CITZEN: BORN IN THE USA OF CITIZEN PARENTS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
how long do you think

Uhhhhhhh, we're at 230 years and counting. Congress hasn't tried to amend the First Amendment yet, but they've had a long time to consider doing so. So far: no interest.

25 posted on 04/04/2013 12:57:12 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy (The ballot box is a sham. Nothing will change until after the war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

The document says nothing about establishing a state religion.


26 posted on 04/04/2013 12:57:43 PM PDT by AppyPappy (You never see a massacre at a gun show.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

“It was actually a tactical move to prove a point on a local level...”

How so?


27 posted on 04/04/2013 12:58:14 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NATURAL BORN CITZEN: BORN IN THE USA OF CITIZEN PARENTS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

I meant the Bill says nothing about establishing a state religion.


28 posted on 04/04/2013 12:58:22 PM PDT by AppyPappy (You never see a massacre at a gun show.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

Exactly, and those powers should be constrained as much as possible.

Thinking through the ‘how’ behind the establishment of a State religion, especially in historical contexts, flies in the face of individual rights. Having a State religion, in the past, meant that citizens of said State (nation state, empire, whatever) don’t have the right of conscious in choosing their own religion but must express fealty to the religion of the State.

Everybody can clap all they want if it is a religion they like, but as soon as you open that door, you now have given the State powers to establish an official religion that opposes your views. (and you can’t say ‘just move’ either because as soon as you give the States powers to tell you want to believe, you are giving them enough power they can tell you where to go, what you can or can’t say, where you work, etc so state-to-state mobility could be out of the question.)


29 posted on 04/04/2013 1:01:26 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

As much as I enjoy baiting liberals, does anyone REALLY think this is a good idea?


30 posted on 04/04/2013 1:05:02 PM PDT by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon
I was just wondering if this had come up before

It has.

In 1833, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the entire Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government, not to the states. Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833). But after the 14th Amendment was ratified, a series of Supreme Court decisions held that most (but not quite all) of the Bill of Rights now also applied to the states.

The Establishment Clause was held applicable to the States in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947). The Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms was held applicable to the states in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010).

31 posted on 04/04/2013 1:05:26 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

“How about Utah, do they have the Church of LDS as an official state religion?”

Are you serious? Just looked and Utah, as a state is 61% Mormon, but it isn’t a state religion per se.


32 posted on 04/04/2013 1:06:38 PM PDT by vette6387
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

None that I know of.


33 posted on 04/04/2013 1:08:04 PM PDT by Kozak (The Republic is dead. I do not owe what we have any loyalty, wealth or sympathy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

Up until 1833, there were individual States that still had official State churches. So the idea isn’t illegal under the Constitution at the time. Questions about the 14th amendment cause questions about the Constitutionality of the idea today, but clearly the founders saw no problem with a State Church under the 1st amendment during the first four decades of our nation.


34 posted on 04/04/2013 1:10:18 PM PDT by Anitius Severinus Boethius (www.wilsonharpbooks.com - New Robin Hood book out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

How about Massachusetts passing a law banning homophobic speech since everybody knows about the free speech clause of same amendment; prohibition on Congress.

As someone else posted you seem to ignore the 14th amendment which applies the constraints of the Bill of Rights on the states as well.


35 posted on 04/04/2013 1:11:21 PM PDT by C19fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

I wonder if it’ll be ChristIslamUdism?


36 posted on 04/04/2013 1:11:23 PM PDT by SkyDancer (Live your life in such a way that the Westboro church will want to picket your funeral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

If my state wants to establish Islam as a state religion, then they can do so. I wouldn’t like it, but my only option would be to move to a different state. That is the very nature of our federal republic.

That is part of the Islamic plan, look at France, look
at England. We already have Islamic congressmen.
First we were infiltrated by communists and now muslims.


37 posted on 04/04/2013 1:18:09 PM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

I’m not ignoring anything. This subject is out for discussion.

It is interesting that you should mention banning ‘homophobic’ speech. It seems there are universities that have done just that, which is odd because one would expect a university to be a place where ideas are argued, not banned.


38 posted on 04/04/2013 1:25:28 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NATURAL BORN CITZEN: BORN IN THE USA OF CITIZEN PARENTS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

It was too allow one local agency to open their meetings with prayer...not sure of all details...but I live in NC and have heard the explanation. I’ve been out of the country for 5 days, but will catch up on all the details shortly.


39 posted on 04/04/2013 1:30:47 PM PDT by C. Edmund Wright (Tokyo Rove is more than a name, it's a GREAT WEBSITE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: William of Barsoom

It would be a stupid one. This very issue was ruled on in Everson v. Board of Education. Denying the Natural, God-given rights of individuals is a pretty perverse way of claiming to “strengthen the Bill of Rights.”


40 posted on 04/04/2013 1:48:09 PM PDT by cizinec ("Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
>> how long do you think
>
> Uhhhhhhh, we're at 230 years and counting. Congress hasn't tried to amend the First Amendment yet, but they've had a long time to consider doing so. So far: no interest.

Not quite -- The USSC thrashed the first amendment in 1919 with Schenck v. United States. This decision is the famous "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" case, but that whole argument is actually very tangential to the meat of the case which was initiated due to [violation of] Congress's Espionage Act -- which basically criminalized dissent, or as Infoplease case-history says:

A major effort to promote national unity accompanied America's involvement (1917-1918) in World War I. As a part of this effort, Congress enacted a number of laws severely restricting 1st Amendment freedoms to curb antiwar dissent. In 1917, Congress passed the Espionage Act, which set stiff penalties for uttering and circulating “false” statements intended to interfere with the war effort.

In the end the USSC decided it was better to justify Congress's actions than to adhere to the Constitution.

41 posted on 04/04/2013 1:53:01 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius

“clearly the founders saw no problem with a State Church . . .”

That is patently false. Madison argued against it. Jefferson argued against it. Many of the founders argued against it. They argued against it at the STATE level. The fact that they weren’t unconstitutional at the federal level at the time does *not* mean they did not violate individual, God-given rights.

There are NO questions about whether or not the 14th Ammendment applies. The Supremes have ruled time and time again that it does, beginning with Everson. Are you people really this thick? Are you such backwards libtards that the only difference between you and Obama is in what you’ll ban and fund?


42 posted on 04/04/2013 1:53:18 PM PDT by cizinec ("Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
Rights are considered inalienable.

Untrue; there are legal rights which are certainly alienable (that's actually how power of attorney works).

43 posted on 04/04/2013 1:54:24 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom
However, the 14th Amendment is generally construed to mean that anything specifically prohibited to the federal government is also prohibited to government at all levels. (Of course, they always try to avoid applying anything to a true 2nd Amendment test.)

The first-amendment explicitly states "congress", so since most states don't have congresses [assemblies or the more general "legislature"]; so unless you want to give the courts the incredible power of magically translating text from what is written I wouldn't push that line of reasoning.

44 posted on 04/04/2013 1:56:51 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

“If my state wants to establish Islam as a state religion, then they can do so. I wouldn’t like it, but my only option would be to move to a different state. That is the very nature of our federal republic.”

First off, no they can’t. See Everson v. Board of Education. Second, no they can’t. See people like me who won’t let it happen.

You also disagree with the principles on which this nation was founded, as discussed by men such as William Walwyn, John Lilburne, Roger Williams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc. etc. This nation was founded, to a great extent, by religious minorities who wanted to be left alone to practice their faiths without fear of oppression by the tyranny of the majority.

This isn’t England 1649 and the England of 1649 was precisely what MOST of the founders were trying to avoid.

Tell you what, I’ll go ahead and stay a free-born man with my God-given rights, and you can go somewhere else and give yours up. Have fun.

If you think you can force people like me to pay to ANY church because you or they are a majority and you think it’s a cute 10th Ammendment trick, you’re in for a very unpleasant surprise.

The 10th Ammendment is there for many reasons. Using state power to crush individual liberty is not one of them. This whole discussion is a disgrace to FR.


45 posted on 04/04/2013 2:01:55 PM PDT by cizinec ("Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: cizinec
I don't appreciate being called a backwards libtard. And I wasn't speaking to the case in question. I was just pointing out that until 1833 we DID have States in our union that had State Churches.

And if the founders, i.e. the men who ratified the Constitution and established our government, had been opposed to it across the board, then that would not have happened. You can argue about this person's views or that person's views, but it was Constitutional.

The 14th amendment has been used to assert rights of individuals that were originally held only in the U.S. Constitution, but the restrictions of privileges afforded to States being constrained by the 14th amendment doesn't have as clear of a history. That's why I said there were “questions”. If there were not “questions”, then the Supreme Court would not take up cases dealing with the subject on occasion.

46 posted on 04/04/2013 2:05:27 PM PDT by Anitius Severinus Boethius (www.wilsonharpbooks.com - New Robin Hood book out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

Didn’t they try to do this right after 9/11? I remember something about NC wanting to become a religious State.


47 posted on 04/04/2013 2:07:49 PM PDT by DivineMomentsOfTruth ("Give me Liberty or I'll stand up and get it for myself!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon
Doesn’t the law against the establishment of religion only apply to the nation as a whole? Has it been decided that it applies to state governments? This will be interesting.

That would be up to the individual states' constitutions.

48 posted on 04/04/2013 2:11:57 PM PDT by Cementjungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

“Untrue; there are legal rights which are certainly alienable (that’s actually how power of attorney works).”

Wrong.

All Women are people
You are a man.
Therefore, you are not a person.

Deductive fallacy 101.

There are inalienable, natural rights. See Hobbes, Locke, Pain, Jefferson, Lilburn, Walwyn, Williams . . . or maybe you missed those authors.

Obviously not all rights are natural rights. That does NOT mean all rights are alienable.


49 posted on 04/04/2013 2:21:46 PM PDT by cizinec ("Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: cizinec

“Are you people really this thick?”

Settle down, pal. You’re bitin’ off way more than you can chew.


50 posted on 04/04/2013 2:26:53 PM PDT by beelzepug (Telling other people they need to die is a good way to get your own lamp blown out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-94 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson