E-Mail 'Clearing up confusion on the "NC wants to establish a state religion" nonsense' To A Friend

Email a copy of 'Clearing up confusion on the "NC wants to establish a state religion" nonsense' to a friend

Loading ...

5 Responses to "Clearing up confusion on the “NC wants to establish a state religion” nonsense"

Nate says:

April 3, 2013 at 6:32 pm

I agree that the State Legislature should have kept themselves out of it. As you wrote, this should have remained at the county level, and the county should have battled the ACLU in court over it.

But if they pull the resolution now, the ACLU will perch on the courthouse roof and crow about how they beat those pushy Christianists again without having to go to court.

If it would be possible for the county to politely thank the State for their offer, but just as politely refuse it and go on to tackle the ACLU on their own would be best; however, I have no clue how they could do it.
ST says:

April 3, 2013 at 6:36 pm

Nate wrote:

If it would be possible for the county to politely thank the State for their offer, but just as politely refuse it and go on to tackle the ACLU on their own would be best; however, I have no clue how they could do it.

Sadly, they won’t.
Jeff says:

April 3, 2013 at 8:35 pm

Sadly, Fitzsimon is correct. They really ARE claiming a right to ignore federal court rulings on the constitutionality of anything:

“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; and Whereas, each state in the union is sovereign and may independently determine how that state may make laws respecting an establishment of religion…”

By that logic, every state can independently determine how it wishes to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, how it may quarter troops in its citizens’ homes in peacetime, how it may subject us to cruel and unusual punishment, and so on down the line.
ST says:

April 3, 2013 at 8:51 pm

If only he could have made his point without invoking George Wallace and all the racial implications that come with it.
Carlos says:

April 3, 2013 at 9:39 pm

Well, there are good and forceful arguments that can be made against the proposed resolution, but the jackass branch of the statist tribes has been practicing ad hominem attacks and childish name-calling for so long, apparently they’ve forgotten how to discuss any issue based upon merits.

Comments are closed.