American Taliban (aka GOP) strikes in NC

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Why do Republicans hate America?

North Carolina getting a state religion? No.

By Eric Marrapodi and John Blake, CNN

(CNN)– Politicians often declare that the U.S. is a Christian nation, but a group of representatives in North Carolina wants to add a new wrinkle to that argument.

They want North Carolina to be able to make its own laws establishing religion.

Two Republican representatives in North Carolina filed a resolution Monday that would permit the state to declare Christianity its official religion and reject any federal laws or court rulings regarding how the state addresses the establishment of religion.

[Danno 1,228]

Why do Republicans hate America?

Wouldn't be the first state to have an official religion.

Anyway we have a state tree a state bird, a state sport and a state soft drink, why not a state religion which reflects the People of NC?

Edited April 5, 2013 by Danno

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Wouldn't be the first state to have an official religion.

Anyway we have a state tree a state bird, a state sport and a state soft drink, why not a state religion which reflects the People of NC?

I see. You're a Taliban yourself. Not surprising.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The first major religion case in the 20th century was Cantwell v Connecticut (310 US 296 [1940]). In this case, the Supreme Court found that the religious freedoms embodied in the 1st Amendment were protected from state infringement by virtue of the 14th Amendment. The defendants in the case, Newton, Jesse, and Russell Cantwell, a father and his two sons, were convicted of violating several state laws when they canvassed a neighborhood promoting the Jehovah's Witness religion. The law they had been convicted of violating required prior approval of religious solicitations by the secretary of the public welfare council, such approval having not been acquired.

In striking down the requirement for prior approval of solicitations, the Court was unambiguous:

We hold that the statute, as construed and applied to the appellants, deprives them of their liberty without due process of law in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment. The fundamental concept of liberty embodied in that Amendment embraces the liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment.

The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws.

In explaining the freedoms they were referring to, the Court continued:

The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect. On the one hand, it forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship. Freedom of conscience and freedom to adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual may choose cannot be restricted by law. On the other hand, it safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion. Thus the Amendment embraces two concepts, freedom to believe and freedom to act.

Edited April 5, 2013 by The Patriot

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The Taliban doesn't give a shyt about the Constitution.

[Danno 1,228]

Except in this case no one fines you if you don't drink the State soft drink or ticket you for planting something other than the State tree and like wise you are free to follow your own faith.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Except in this case no one fines you if you don't drink the State soft drink or ticket you for planting something other than the State tree and like wise you are free to follow your own faith.

I see. The Taliban also has a hard time grasping simple concepts.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Also:

Finally, in Everson v Board (330 US 1 [1947]), the Court put the final touch on the incorporation of religious liberty as applies to the states, though in a roundabout way. Arch Everson brought a suit against the Ewing, New Jersey schools for authorizing payments to parents of students attending parochial schools for use of the public bus system to transport the student to school. Everson contended that such payments to parents of parochial school students unconstitutionally funded religion with public funds. The law in question did prohibit the disbursement of funds to any parent who sent their child to a private school that was run for-profit.

The Court disagreed, in a close 5-4 vote, with Everson. In doing so, however, it wrote some powerful statements concerning the 1st Amendment:

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.

Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

[Danno 1,228]

Also:

How does making the dogwood tree the State tree harm any other tree?

Nothing is being established, nothing is being supported and no one is being limited in their faith.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

How does making the dogwood tree the State tree harm any other tree?

Nothing is being established, nothing is being supported and no one is being limited in their faith.

In my state, harming the state tree is a crime.

[Danno 1,228]

In my state, harming the state tree is a crime.

Here it is a tradition.