Jump to content

Bye Bye North Carolina...

Recommended Posts

so glad I moved out of that state to avoid the idiots who now seem to run it.

If they pass this bill then I hope Jesus will provide them with the tax dollars they formerly received from the Federal Government.


Link to comment

OK, I may be a little dense -- well, that's an accepted fact, I'm sure -- but just what does it mean for a state to have an official religion? I'd guess it doesn't mean anything at all. Are they planning on excluding the practice of all other religions? I can't imagine that. Are they planning to say all people who work for the state government must swear allegiance to whatever religion is the recognized one? No, that wouldn't work.

England has the Church of England, basically an Anglican church, and it's officially recognized, but no one is forced to attend. Well, I guess lots of schoolboys are so forced, but since when was anyone concerned about the rights of boys?

I don't see exactly what this NC bill does. Can anyone enlighten me?


Link to comment

I could be wrong, but the first thing that came to my mind is that if a state can declare that one part of the USA constitution doesn't apply to their state, then that's precedent to say other parts don't apply, either. In particular, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of the press, etc.

However, the report makes it fairly clear that the law is unlikely to be be found to be constitutional, even if it does pass.

Link to comment

We fought a Civil War over this issue a hundred and fifty years ago. The First Amendment PROHIBITS an established religion in the United States. The U.S. Constitution takes precedence over state constitutions, no matter what a southern legislature thinks. The South lost. Get over it. Move on.

Link to comment

The bill's authors seem to be operating on the fact that the First Amendment states that

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

italics mine.

They seem to be thinking that it is only Congress which, "...shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

and therefore their State can make such a law. From my reading this line of thought seems to have been tested and found to be unconstitutional.

In any case the bill seems to be merely an assertion without enforcement, but the idea that it may be used as a precedent would have to be found to do so in the courts, and I can't see that happening.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...