On Sunday, two days before her primary election, Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) campaigned during a religious service in Colorado. She said:
The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church. That is not how our Founding Fathers intended it. I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk that’s not in the Constitution. It was in a stinking letter, and it means nothing like what they say it does.
The “stinking letter” Boebert refers to is apparently a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association. In it, he explains the part of the First Amendment about religion (i.e., “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Religion.”)
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.
So how can Boebert claim that this is not what the Founding Fathers intended? Does she think that the person who wrote the Declaration of Independence and was one of the main proponents of the Bill of Rights, isn’t one of the Founders of this nation?
I don’t think Boebert is stupid. She says these things because that’s what her base wants to hear. However, it seems she believes her base is somewhat stupid.
Does Boebert really think that “the church” should “direct the government”? If so, which church? Even if we only consider abortion, there is no clear consensus position. Many religions either support abortion rights or have no opinion about it, including Islam, Buddhism, and Judaism. The main religion that opposes abortion is Hinduism! Shall we follow Hindu law?
You may be asking, what about Christians? Well, that is a mess. Catholics and Mormons oppose abortion, but Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, Unitarians, and members of the United Church of Christ support abortion rights. Even Catholics are not unified against abortion, after all, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are Catholics (and Pelosi just met with Pope Francis and received Communion during a papal mass in St. Peter’s Basilica, despite her position in support of abortion rights).
Even if we limit ourselves to Evangelical faiths, things are still a mess. For example, the National Baptist Convention supports abortion rights, while the Southern Baptist Convention opposes abortion.
And yet, a majority of our Supreme Court is acting like the Taliban, overturning “settled law” in favor of religion (and – ironically – guns). Not only did they reverse Roe v. Wade, they struck down a century old New York gun law that placed restrictions on carrying concealed handguns outside the home, compelled Maine to provide tuition assistance to religious schools (yes, taxpayers are going to support religious education), and finally in another reversal – despite the fact that in 1962, the Supreme Court banned organized school prayer – they somehow decided that a religious coach in a public school had the right to organize prayer sessions with players on the football field after each game.
And incidentally, Boebert won her primary yesterday. I guess that means that her base is pretty stupid.
15 Comments
Stupidity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, and the Republican (in Name only)Party’s base is dumber than a box of rocks. You can tell by what they believe to be “true”, whom they elect, and the obvious lies they spew.
I have to wonder if their decision would be the same if the praying people were Muslem. I would like to see some Muslem using their new rights.
Abortion is a polarizing subject. The far left says any and all abortions should legal including and up to birthday. The far right say none no matter what. Those 2 opinions do not take into account the majority center. I’m ok with 1st trimester abortions, and after that with a doctors opinion only.
I’m am not wrong, because this issue is a matter of opinion, not concrete and certainly never codified into any law at the federal level. Roe V Wade was a court case. Dems certainly Had majorities since then that could have made it a law, and Reb’s the same. Yet as usual neither side did. Like immigration, they’d just rather use it as a political football, to raise money, for more non-action.
Shame on Congress and the Senate and past Presidents. They are to blame.
FYI I dont care much for guns, I am fine with restrictions. For abortion Islam has its own rulings, definitely less strict than catholics or evangelicals, but definitely far from being pro-choice.
Having said that, I can definitely see and understand court reasoning for both rulings:
1. Guns are explicit rights in constitution and protected by second amendment.
2. Abortion is not explicitly protected constitution right that cant be legislated by state or federal government. So they are not banning abortion, but letting people decide in their own states.
So I do not see court as doing anything religious, but rather their constitutional understanding
BTW, does anyone have stats for last 5 or 10 years for how justices appointed by democrats vs how justices appointed by republicans split from their fellow from same “party”. Anecdotally I feel 99% of time liberals (democratic appointed) judges voted same way vs 80% for republican appointed. So I see liberals/democratic judges more idealogue than republican appointed judges
She decided to get her GED just before her first primary election. I would say uninformed/misinformed. Probably reads from a cue card, like Kim Reynolds
RK, you have a good point. Let’s see what would happen if a bunch of non-Christians started praying on the football field after each game. Heck, they could even be Christians, if they were BIPOC.
PSgt, a majority isn’t enough, as long as the filibuster lives. And it wasn’t that long ago that there was a significant block of (southern) Dems who were opposed to abortion rights.
Hassan, about guns you conveniently left out the part about “a well-regulated militia”. Free speech is also in the Constitution, but you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater. Guns need reasonable regulations for public safety.
The rulings on abortion (both Roe v Wade, and last week’s decision) were actually about whether privacy is protected by the Constitution. That’s why Justice Thomas even suggested other decisions be overturned (like gay marriage, contraception). It is also why the liberal position on abortion is called “pro-choice” and not “pro-abortion”. If there is no right to privacy, then I should be allowed to take a photo of anyone (especially in public) and publish it anywhere I want (See https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1141/privacy). Are you ok with that?
Also, according to this journal article, the partisan tilt of SCOTUS is a recent phenomenon.
Finally, I think your (anecdotal) numbers are way off. I can remember many decisions where the justices appointed by Democratic presidents were split. Besides, ALL the justices appointed in the last 10 years were nominated by Republican presidents, except for Ketanji Brown Jackson, who took her seat yesterday, so has not made any decisions yet.
IK, as I said I am not gun enthusiast, and I am not saying one way or another, I am saying I understand both sides has some valid points, and this is how jurispendence work.
For roe vs wade, againt I see both sides of arguments. But I see more benefits on how court ruled now. So privacy does not mean I have right to kill my child in my home and claim privacy. And which brings to ethical question of when life begins etc. So I think court has wisely left it to people to decide that. It is contentious moral issue, where various people have various opinions. Why should unelected people tell what is right in this matter? Let the states decide it.
Ok for anecdotal numbers, I hope someone does actual analytics and see in last 10 years how many times partisan on both sides happened.
Thanks for responding, Hassan. I always appreciate your perspective.
It just so happens that today’s Electoral-Vote.com covers the question you asked, in the question by H.M. in Murphy, TX. The answer includes a nice graph of how partisan are the votes of each justice. See https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2022/Senate/Maps/Jul02.html and search for that question (searching for “Murphy” will work).
IK, yeah that was me. They were quick!
“2. Abortion is not explicitly protected constitution right that cant be legislated by state or federal government.”
You might just want to take a look at the 9th Amendment of the US Constitution regarding that…
BRUCE.DESERTRAT, and you may want to see declaration of indepdendence (part about life).
https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/nation-world/pregnant-texas-woman-driving-in-hov-lane-gets-ticket-argues-baby-second-passenger/507-57075535-886b-4f09-b022-d449d6dfc61d
the link above is an intersting test of whether the state truly considers life begins at conception. definitly worth a read IK
Dave TN, I just posted the same story, and then saw your comment. Great minds!
On the matter of abortion. Thank you IK for pointing out the privacy issue, Roe and other cases enforced privacy as a right although not specifically mentioned. Germany has legal abortions, but their abortion rate is a small fraction of ours. Let’s do what they do.
As for guns, Justice Burger called gun NRA arguments fraud. The founders feared a standing army and national guard is our militia. Watch Burger @
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eya_k4P-iEo
eucsep
One Trackback/Pingback
[…] the government because that’s what the founders wanted. So Iron Knee goes to the record to see what the founders had to say. […]