Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

~~~

Thursday, April 4, 2013

CRAZY TENTHERS AT IT AGAIN

UPDATE BELOW



The tenthers are at it again.

It was only a matter of time before this happened in one of those states where they believe President Obama is "taking away their freedoms," and where they think the gummint is shoving all those librul, commie, soshalist, America-hating and Satan-inspired laws  down their throats.

But brothers and sisters, here we have proof of what some brilliant observer of The Land of the Free and Home of the Confused once said:

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken









And here we have the state of North Carolina and its very own "we-know-what's-best-for-you" legislature wanting to save its little chunk of humanity through declaring a state religion, the Christian religion.


"Establishing their brand of Christianity would give Republicans the opportunity to force their religious views on every citizen of North Carolina, including anti-abortion views, anti-gay views, and any other views they have. These views could in turn be passed as laws to bring the state in line with the new state religion. So even if you aren’t a Christian, you’ll be forced to live the way Republicans want you to live. 

 Republicans have attempted to use the 10th Amendment a lot in recent months in an effort to nullify federal gun laws, federal health care laws, and just about any other laws they hate or disagree with. This latest abuse of the 10th Amendment would strangle religious freedom in North Carolina so that the GOP could sponsor their twisted views of Christianity, placing it on an unfair pedestal above all other religions. This dangerous effort should make every American wary of Republican governance and should make us all question the virtues of leaving the 10th Amendment in place. Perhaps the time has come to lead an effort to repeal the 10th Amendment before Republicans use it to nullify the federal government, the Constitution, freedom, and America itself." --Addicting Info




RALEIGH, N.C. — A bill filed by Republican lawmakers would allow North Carolina to declare an official religion, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Bill of Rights, and seeks to nullify any federal ruling against Christian prayer by public bodies statewide. 

 The legislation grew out of a dispute between the American Civil Liberties Union and the Rowan County Board of Commissioners. In a federal lawsuit filed last month, the ACLU says the board has opened 97 percent of its meetings since 2007 with explicitly Christian prayers.

 Overtly Christian prayers at government meetings are not rare in North Carolina. Since the Republican takeover in 2011, the state Senate chaplain has offered an explicitly Christian invocation virtually every day of session, despite the fact that some senators are not Christian.

 In a 2011 ruling on a similar lawsuit against the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not ban prayer at government meetings outright, but said prayers favoring one religion over another are unconstitutional. "To plant sectarian prayers at the heart of local government is a prescription for religious discord," the court said. "Where prayer in public fora is concerned, the deep beliefs of the speaker afford only more reason to respect the profound convictions of the listener. Free religious exercise posits broad religious tolerance."

 House Bill 494, a resolution filed by Republican Rowan County Reps. Harry Warren and Carl Ford, would refuse to acknowledge the force of any judicial ruling on prayer in North Carolina – or indeed on any Constitutional topic: "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," the bill states."






What are we to make of yet another attempt by conservatives to do another end-run around the Constitution? To nullify anything a conservative state legislature doesn't like about the Constitution; to pick and choose which US law these conservative legislators believe suits them and which law doesn't?   

[Just imagine if a liberal state like, say, Massachusetts were to nullify the 2nd Amendment.  Can you imagine the head explosions we'd see in Conservaland?]

It's a thing to behold.  The very people who blubber and wail like banshees about freedom and liberty and freedom are busily at work picking and choosing which freedoms they think are best for you:


We've seen states where Republicans control the governorship and legislature make a legal medical procedure so difficult and cumbersome, that many clinics that offer them in those red states have packed up and left, leaving girls and women, who may need abortions, without safe, medical care.  

We've seen governors require the poor to pee in cups in order to obtain bare subsistence from welfare. 

We've recently read that a Tennessee state legislator has proposed withholding welfare from families whose students are not doing well in school.  [Little Johnny is failing geography?  No supper for you, Johnny, or your family until you get an A!  And that goes for those lousy calculus grades, too!] 


We've seen states try to impose difficult requirements for voter ID requirements that specifically target the poor and minorities.

None of the pols who live in those states believe they're taking any sort of freedom away from anyone.  It is only when liberals propose personally invasive or harassing laws is it considered freedom snatching.

But back to the great state of North Carolina and its efforts to impose a state religion on its citizens.  Let's hear what the Father of our Constitution had to say.

James Madison:



"Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves."


Mr. Madison continues:


"Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entagled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?"

MORE HERE:
North Carolina GOP Attempts to Violate the Constitution by Proposing an Official State Religion


Let's hope the legislators of North Carolina come to their senses and act like Americans instead of like potentates in certain Middle Eastern countries act, where their rulers enforce every aspect of state religion.


Here's another conservative pol and panty-sniffer looking out for your "freedoms":




Virginia’s Attorney General Thinks Oral and Anal Sex Should Be Illegal

"Virginia Attorney General and Republican gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli wants to legislate what goes on between your sheets, as evidenced by a petition he filed with a federal appeals court to keep the state’s anti-sodomy laws on the books. Using the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision as its basis, a three-judge panel ruled last month that the portion of Virginia’s “Crimes Against Nature” statute outlawing oral and anal sex between consenting adults is unconstitutional."


UPDATE:


Resolution Is Dead’ – North Carolina House Speaker Rejects GOP Attempt To Declare State Religion

23 comments:

skudrunner said...

It does seem to be a ridiculous bill to even think about. I doubt if many people take this serious. People on both sides are prone to be excessive toward their cause.

Preach against gun control and violence in one state and go to another to get money from the industry that promotes violence.

Take a $20,000 pay cut to show support for those affected by the sequester then spend millions to fly to a fund raising event.

Protest the killing of seals then support the killing of a fetus. One thing people in this country are good at, especially politicians, is being hypocritical.



Silverfiddle said...

Ho hum...

Ignorant political masturbation that will go nowhere...

I like that you included the H.L. Mencken quote.

It is a pithy summation of the dictatorial progressivism that has dominated this nation for the past century or so.

I recommend you big government liberals read some Mencken. He was an American proto-libertarian.

Anonymous said...

AMAZING SF COMES HERE AND RAILS AGAINST LIBERALS AFTER WHAT YOU WROTE. I'M SURE HE WOULD BE THE FIRST TO SIGN SUCH A LAW.

Shaw Kenawe said...

I don't think he would, but he's definitely not happy with the direction the country is going in vis-a-vis marriage equality.

Over at Western Hero, he has a post up that features Mark Steyn's bigoted take on same-sex marriage:

"Mark Steyn, as usual, casts an illuminating light on the thinking of those who have stubbornly refused to join the Gay parade...

His first thought springs from something an Australian politician said to him last year:
“It’s not about expanding marriage, it’s about destroying marriage.”



People who love each other and want to make a life-long commitment to each other destroy marriage?

Seriously.

This is the same worn-out argument unenlightened people used to prevent interracial marriage.

It failed.

And so will those who try specious arguments to stop marriage equality.

Dave Miller said...

Shaw... As a Christian, I have absolutely no problem if the government desires to make gay marriage 100% legal.

In fact, I would prefer that marriage be primarily a civil institution and then if a couple chooses, they can have that marriage ratified or blessed n their particular church in a public way of their choosing.

This way churches will not be forced to do something they feel they cannot theologically support, and yet people can still marry.

Now, as for the North Carolinians, well that's another story. Skud, and essentially Silver, both seem to write this off as just so much bluster.

Really? This isn't a fringe person. This is the party. Elected leaders of a state are advocating imposing a state religion on the people of that particular state.

Now Silver has argued in the past that the constitution does not prohibit state religion. fair enough in that it prohibits the federal government from doing so. Clearly, the belief of the founders was that the institution of a state religion was a bad idea.

This becomes even clearer when you take into account that the founders were fleeing state sponsored religious persecution.

But let's move past that and ask a few questions...

The religious right believes that all that is wrong with America can be righted by a return to their version of the Christian God. Thus their move in NC to codify in law, Christianity.

What about Utah? Will those same Christians stand and support Mormons who might desire to make Mormonism, the majority view in this state, the state religion there?

How about Hawai'i? Will those same Christians stand and and support a move to make Buddhism, again, a majority religion in that state, the state religion there?

Would they support states like Oregon or Vermont, two famously non Christian states if they decided to enshrine atheism of Wicca as their "official" religion?

The answer to all of these is, of course a resounding no.

What seems to be the problem for many in the GOP and for many conservatives in general is that they are fighting against the march toward a religious neutral state.

I know that it can feel like persecution and an anti-Christian bias, but that is natural when you've been the big dog in the room for so long.

We are in a painful transition period right now and it hard for some people to adjust to those changes.

Some may not like where we seem to be heading, but the solution is not to look backward for a remedy. It's to look forward with fresh eyes acknowledging the reality of what we have become... a pluralistic, multi-religious, multi-ethnic country where we must strive to protect and honor the rights of everyone, not just the majority.

Absent a strong dismissal from the national leadership of the GOP, we would certainly be right to assume they agree with this type of legislation.

The actions of the NC legislators are a bad precedent for not only North Carolina, but the Republican Party and America,

Sorry for the length Shaw... but I do feel better having said this.

Silverfiddle said...

Shaw,
As you know, I am for gay marriage based upon my libertarian principles. I am also on record stating heteros have done more damage to marriage than gays ever could.

I wrote the post based upon Steyn's column because it was a witty take on the other side of the issue.

Unfortunately, there are many who not only don't want to hear both sides, they cannot even countenance that there is another side.

Anon ALL CAPS: I am against laws mandating religion, so you're wrong, as usual.

Again, I encourage progressives to go read Mencken, especially what he had to say about bossy, intrusive governments.

He was anti-big government for the reason he was anti-religion: They boss people around and violate our liberties.

But, unlike government, you can escape religion.




















Shaw Kenawe said...

Dave, when a government does not favor one religion over any other, ALL religions are equal.

The worst thing for a state to do is impose one religion on all of it's citizens, because all of its citizens are not of one religion.

This will not stand in North Carolina, because I belive cooler heads will prevail.

PS. The length of your comment was just as long as it needed to be, and made very good points.


SF, people like Steyn keep bringing up reasons for not granting equality in marriage; also people keep quibbling about the label "marriage," as though one group owns the word.

Years from now, people will look back at this and see it in the same way as we see the anti-miscegenation laws.


Les Carpenter said...

@ Silver... "Unfortunately, there are many who not only don't want to hear both sides, they cannot even countenance that there is another side."

Well said and all to true. Unfortunately...

KP said...

Here's a good exercise:

Treat people that can’t defend themselves better. Service people come to mind. From there, seek to treat everyone better. That would include other posters if you act out angrily on blogs.

Lower stress -- because under stress we are not very good at remembering to treat one category of people better than another.

Ducky's here said...

Well here's the deal, Silverfiddle.

The generation coming up isn't going to buy into any of this silly bigotry.
Gay marriage will be accepted and we'll move along.

The question is whether or not a portion of the population wants to waste time listening to the likes of Mark Steyn when even Rush "Talent on Loan from Synthetic Morphine" Limbaugh thinks gay marriage is inevitable.

We have real problems to solve rather than wasting time on bigots

Anonymous said...

The other side is talking wacko 101, you listen to them, as you usually do.

Always On Watch said...

Dave,
What about Utah? Will those same Christians stand and support Mormons who might desire to make Mormonism, the majority view in this state, the state religion there?

How about Hawai'i? Will those same Christians stand and and support a move to make Buddhism, again, a majority religion in that state, the state religion there?

Would they support states like Oregon or Vermont, two famously non Christian states if they decided to enshrine atheism of Wicca as their "official" religion?


Excellent points!

Madness is afoot the past few years. Everything is action and reaction. Sheesh.

Silverfiddle said...

Ducky: Keep beating that bandwagon drum!

Dave: I pointed out that the constitution does not prohibit state religions (establishment clause aside).

That does not mean I am for it. I am not. Many times, I will point something out, or consider another angle, but that does not mean I am advocating for something.

If you cannot understand and cogently explain what you oppose, you have no business arguing against it.

skudrunner said...

Once the gay marriage debacle and gun control run their course, what will be the next diversion from no job creation in 4 1/2 years will the administration use?

There are probably as many democrats opposed to gay marriage and gun control as republicans. The republicans have pinned that title on themselves and can't run from it. Of course they are the same group who considers a program you have paid into an entitlement.

(O)CT(O)PUS said...

This morning, I read, the speaker of the NC legislature nixed the bill.

But there is another bill before the NC legislature sponsored by the GOP leadership. The bill will impose an additional tax burden on parents if their college bound kids vote in the district where their college is located. Objective: To make it harder for "librul" college kids to vote where they attend school. Presumably, the kids would be forced to take time off from school and travel home to cast their vote - thus suppressing the "librul" margin of victory.

This too will be struck down by the courts - a 1979 SCOTUS ruling affirmed the right of college students to vote where they attend school.

If the GOP can't win an election honestly, it seems, then chicanery and neo-fascism is their only option.

Shaw Kenawe said...

skudrunner: "Once the gay marriage debacle and gun control run their course, what will be the next diversion from no job creation in 4 1/2 years will the administration use?

There are probably as many democrats opposed to gay marriage and gun control as republicans. The republicans have pinned that title on themselves and can't run from it. Of course they are the same group who considers a program you have paid into an entitlement."

Seriously, skudrunner, do you come here and post b.s. just to get a rise out of people? You comments are idiotic.


"NBC/WSJ poll: Despite defeat, Obama's jobs bill is popular
By NBC's Mark Murray
Even though the United States Senate on Tuesday blocked President Obama's jobs bill, the legislation's specifics -- as well as the idea of taxing the wealthy to pay for it -- are popular with the American public, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll."


Your comments on gay marriage support among Democrats and Republicans are wrong:

"A 2012 poll shows that 68% of Democrats in the United States support same-sex marriage. 27% oppose it."

Support of gay marriage was part of the Democrats' platform this past year! For gawds sake. What's wrong with you?!

The official 2012 national party platform says:
Freedom to Marry. We support the right of all families to have equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law. We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples. We also support the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament without government interference. We oppose discriminatory federal and state constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny equal protection of the laws to committed same-sex couples who seek the same respect and responsibilities as other married couples. We support the full repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act."


Do Republicans support same-sex marriage: Some do although the majority currently do not. Although the official national party stance is anti-gay marriage, many Republicans have rejected the party's hard line stance.

"The Republican party opposes legislation that would give homosexuals equal marital rights under the law as those enjoyed by heterosexuals."


Coming here and depositing your lies is getting tiresome. Next time bring a little blue plastic bag, and clean them up yourself.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Here is the percentage, from an April 2, 2013 report, of Republicans who are against same-sex marriage:

"59 percent of Republicans said they oppose gay marriage in the Post-ABC News poll, the number is down from 72 percent in 2004."--Washington Post, 4/2/2013

Sixty percent against same-sex marriage is a LARGE percentage against.

Republicans' 40% FOR same-sex marriage vs. Democrats' 70% FOR same sex marriage isn't even close.

skudrunner said...

If you will read my post you will see that I referenced republicans and democrats not The republican party and The democratic party. I did not reference the party platform because it is not relevant. Most voters will vote with the party that most shares their overall ideals but may not support all of their ideals.
I am neither a republican or a democrat because I am a social liberal and fiscal conservative. Neither party is fiscally conservative but at least the republican party promotes business and professes to believe in small government, even though they don't.
Your statics probably come from a poll which we know are a very accurate indications of a persons true feelings, :>).

Don't know if you heard, new job creation was very disappointing but campaigning is strong.

Les Carpenter said...

Anonymous said... "The other side is talking wacko 101, you listen to them, as you usually do."

Wonder who the neo-facsist is?

(O)CT(O)PUS said...

If the North Carolina legislature wants to establish an official religion, my question is: Which one? There is a glaring omission here.

I confess to being a bit disappointed and curious. Any suggestions?

Anonymous said...

I wonder who worships the same political messiah as Paul Ryan? You know the A - morals GOD Ayn Rand.

Shaw Kenawe said...

If the state of Massachusetts ever passed a silly law instituting a state religion, I would hope that state religion would be Bokononism.


Bokononism is based on the concept of foma, which are defined as harmless untruths.

A foundation of Bokononism is that the religion, including its texts, is formed entirely of lies; however, one who believes and adheres to these lies will have peace of mind, and perhaps live a good life.

The primary tenet of Bokononism is to "Live by the foma that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy."

That or the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, with a little marinara sauce on the side.

And free Parmesean cheese for everyone.

Les Carpenter said...

Tis good to engage in wispy thoughts of nothingness from time to tim. eh?

But really, an official State religion? Our founding fathers and all the signatories to the Constitution of the United States of America would no doubt be turning over in their graves. If such a thing were possible.

It just keeps getting more bizarre with the rEpublican socons.