Lawmakers in NC Attempt to Have Official State Religion

[JumpyTheFrog]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/north-carolina-religion-bill_n_3003401.html

 

I hope this doesn't get far. As a Christian, I don't want any state religions. It never works out well.

 

[Ellie]

:blink:

[Orthodox6]

It won't succeed. Don't worry.

[JumpyTheFrog]

The comments in the article are interesting. Several commenters think NC is trying to re-start the Civil War.

[extendedforecast]

Is this more a challenge of state sovereignty than establishing a state religion? If so, I wish they would have chosen a less polarizing issue.

[Aslana]

Look at this a bit deeper. I think this was an April Fool's joke. I seem to recall reading somewhere that it was.

[Laurie4b]

The April Fool's joke idea is interesting. The bill was #666 . Hmmm.

[extendedforecast]

Haha ExtendedForecast I was just typing that.

 

Pushback for states rights? Many think the Federal government has overstepped (me included) and this would be a way to see how far states can go.

Here's another article on it my BIL linked to me.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/04/03/north-carolina-lawmakers-introduce-law-to-establish-an-official-state-religion/

 

Great article. And I agree with the idea many believe that the federal govt. has overstepped.

[Aslana]

I'm trying to find more information, but everywhere I read is saying "we thought it was, but apparently it isn't."

 

However, you'd have to be a special kind of stupid to not realize virtually nothing can overturn the constitution, bill of rights, or articles of confederation (just covering all my bases here). They can surely propose such a preposterous idea, but it will never gain traction.

 

The 1st amendment states as much and will not allow it to..period.

 

I also found this (because law blogs always have interesting takes on these things: http://www.popehat.com/2013/04/03/are-harry-warren-and-carl-ford-oathbreakers-or-merely-dangerous-cranks/)

[Aslana]

Oh and this isn't about establishing a state religion so much as its about two counties refusing to stop opening state official public meetings with prayer. Those two counties are the ones who apparently introduced this as a way to get out of the 1st amendment and continue opening their public meetings with prayer.

[extendedforecast]

Oh and this isn't about establishing a state religion so much as its about two counties refusing to stop opening state official public meetings with prayer. Those two counties are the ones who apparently introduced this as a way to get out of the 1st amendment and continue opening their public meetings with prayer.

 

Would opening the meetings with more inclusive prayer lessen the objections, I wonder.

[Ellie]

Oh and this isn't about establishing a state religion so much as its about two counties refusing to stop opening state official public meetings with prayer. Those two counties are the ones who apparently introduced this as a way to get out of the 1st amendment and continue opening their public meetings with prayer.

 

And then we can have the whole discussion about how there isn't actually a constitutional basis for "separation of church and state," and that even if there were, opening a public meeting in prayer isn't actually establishing a religion. :patriot:

[Aslana]

I do not have the time to get into it, so I'll only ask this: what do you mean there is no constitutional basis for separation of church and state?

 

I just want to know what the answer to this question is.

[Jane in NC]

Oh and this isn't about establishing a state religion so much as its about two counties refusing to stop opening state official public meetings with prayer. Those two counties are the ones who apparently introduced this as a way to get out of the 1st amendment and continue opening their public meetings with prayer.

Would opening the meetings with more inclusive prayer lessen the objections, I wonder.

 

A couple of years ago, an attempt was made to expand the prayer before another NC county commission body by inviting representatives of a variety of faiths. One of the commissioners who had no objection to Christian prayer said he would walk out if a Buddhist led the invocation. That is his prerogative, of course. I believe that the group now has a moment of silence.

 

NC legislators have been on a roll lately. Frankly I think they could use some prayers for wisdom as it seems to have gone missing.

[JumpyTheFrog]

NC legislators have been on a roll lately. Frankly I think they could use some prayers for wisdom as it seems to have gone missing.

 

Are you referring to the proposed homeschool law changes discussed in other threads? Or are they up to something else?

[Aslana]

It won't happen, but at least they will be able to argue for state's rights. And with that, possibly bring up all of the ways the federal government has been able to go around state's rights. Religion is attention grabbing and makes a strong case for separate federal and state's rights since we could never have a federal religion.

 

It's not so much that the federal government has been "Going around" states rights, so much as it is the constitution and the bill of rights state what the federal government can and cannot do with regard to states right and the states allow this because the federal government gives them money.

 

That's what it boils down to. Take education for example. It's argued that education is a states right. Okay, but the federal government can step in and say "we will give you money to help keep your schools open if you do this or this or this" and the states allow that because of the money. That's not the federal government being the big baddy here. That's just them working in conjunction with the constitution and the states to achieve a more cohesive country.

 

But I understand that fact may not be believed. That's okay. But the Constitution and the Bill of Rights allow for this to happen.

[*********]

:blink:

 

 

:iagree: :D

[Jane in NC]

Are you referring to the proposed homeschool law changes discussed in other threads? Or are they up to something else?

 

What they should be doing is working on a budget. Instead we seem to be receiving a series of distractions from Raleigh on legislating morality. For example, one recent proposal calls for a two year waiting period for divorce with mandatory counseling of some type for those with children in the hope of reconciliation. This might be a good idea in some cases but I cannot see legislating that a person who has been subjected to domestic violence must make attempts at reconciliation.

[Aslana]

Ideally this would work that way. But with states that are broke, are they really able to say no? At what point does it go from achieving a more cohesive country to bribed servitude? They may be following the law, but does that make it right?

 

I understand what you are saying, I simply disagree that the government is achieving "bribed servitude". If a state is that broke that it has no choice but to accept the money (and there have been news reports of states that broke that have not accepted), perhaps what the federal government should be doing--instead of just throwing money at them--is find a way to help them achieve this states right thing without the federal government needing to step in and offer money.

 

Eg: Not that the feds are doing any better, but if a state is so broke there simply is no choice, perhaps the feds can offer a better solution to just throwing the state money and thus, the state won't feel like a "bribed servant".

[LucyStoner]

The April Fool's joke idea is interesting. The bill was #666 . Hmmm.

 

Well that settles it. It has to be a joke.

[JumpyTheFrog]

For example, one recent proposal calls for a two year waiting period for divorce with mandatory counseling of some type for those with children in the hope of reconciliation.

 

Two years? Wow! That's insane. I assume that many couples don't file until they have already given up because reconciliation didn't work. But I am not close with anyone who has gotten a divorce, so I don't have actual experience with real divorces.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It won't happen, but at least they will be able to argue for state's rights. And with that, possibly bring up all of the ways the federal government has been able to go around state's rights. Religion is attention grabbing and makes a strong case for separate federal and state's rights since we could never have a federal religion.

 

It won't be much of an argument. I think the state's rights advocates would have a better case if the argument frequently wasn't raised when defending attempts to remove rights from other citizens of a state.

[butterflymommy]

It's not quite as kooky as it sounds. According to the article this began after a lawsuit was filed trying to stop county commissioners from opening a meeting with a prayer. While I do believe in separation of church and state I'm also very sensitive to allowing people to practice their own religion, including prayer in public/ government buildings and settings, as long as they're not forcing anyone else to do it.

 

But they're going about it the wrong way-- instead of trying to make a state religion they should be trying to protect the right to pray in public & government buildings.

[Aslana]

It's not quite as kooky as it sounds. According to the article this began after a lawsuit was filed trying to stop county commissioners from opening a meeting with a prayer. While I do believe in separation of church and state I'm also very sensitive to allowing people to practice their own religion, including prayer in public/ government buildings and settings, as long as they're not forcing anyone else to do it.

 

But they're going about it the wrong way-- instead of trying to make a state religion they should be trying to protect the right to pray in public & government buildings.

 

 

To the bolded section only: any building or business or anything (really) that is run by the government (even state or local), accepts federal (or state or local) funds from the government--absolutely does not have the right to include prayer in any of the government run things. This includes opening an county commission meeting with prayer. The 1st amendment states as much.

 

Allowing people to practice their own religious beliefs is guaranteed by the 1st amendment as well. But this does not include opening a state (or local/federal) funded governmental branch with prayer.

[Pawz4me]

I fervently wish it was an April Fool's joke. It would be a very good one. But I'm afraid it's not. If it is, it sure is fooling the local media outlets. I'm one county over from Rowan, and the proposed legislation is getting lots of coverage here. I hope it's just an attempt to make a statement (rather misguided, IMO), and that they don't actually believe this bill will go anywhere.

[[email protected]]

Just a reminder to maintain the board standards of civility. Which, so far, you are all doing wonderfully well.

 

 

Moderator

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It's not quite as kooky as it sounds. According to the article this began after a lawsuit was filed trying to stop county commissioners from opening a meeting with a prayer. While I do believe in separation of church and state I'm also very sensitive to allowing people to practice their own religion, including prayer in public/ government buildings and settings, as long as they're not forcing anyone else to do it.

 

But they're going about it the wrong way-- instead of trying to make a state religion they should be trying to protect the right to pray in public & government buildings.

 

A county commissioners meeting is a public event, and should not cater to the individual religious beliefs of the county commissioners. The fact that one of them said he would walk out if a non-Christian prayer opened the meeting makes it very clear that this is not about "freedom of religion" but rather a few trying to impose their personal beliefs on everyone else.

[KarenNC]

Look at this a bit deeper. I think this was an April Fool's joke. I seem to recall reading somewhere that it was.

 

I wish. Evidently a number of our current crop of legislators may indeed be jokes and doing their utmost to make our state the butt of any number of jokes, but, unfortunately, those efforts don't seem to be limited to a specific day.

 

Here's a response from Ford today:

http://www.salisbury.../130409856/1016

 

and more local coverage

http://www.charlotte...h-official.html

 

BTW, relatively recently, when I went to our town council meeting to protest the mayor's use of the town water bills to solicit for contributions to a proselytizing Christian charity, they specifically did a prayer in Jesus' name asking for wisdom and guidance to make decisions in accordance with God's will. After the meeting, while I was speaking to the mayor, another citizen came up and asked the mayor how long he thought the council could hold onto praying before "they" made it stop. They mayor's response was "as long as possible." He's also put in the town brochure that one of his primary accomplishment is the establishment of his prayer breakfasts where town business is conducted. His first name begins with a "T" and on all his campaign signs, the T was replaced with a cross.

[Laurie4b]

 

 

To the bolded section only: any building or business or anything (really) that is run by the government (even state or local), accepts federal (or state or local) funds from the government--absolutely does not have the right to include prayer in any of the government run things. This includes opening an county commission meeting with prayer. The 1st amendment states as much.

 

Allowing people to practice their own religious beliefs is guaranteed by the 1st amendment as well. But this does not include opening a state (or local/federal) funded governmental branch with prayer.

 

 

Doesn't Congress open in prayer?

[Aslana]

 

 

Doesn't Congress open in prayer?

 

To this I answer something quite simple: http://www.chacha.com/question/does-congress-open-in-prayer

 

"The tradition to open the Continental Congress with prayers started before there was a Declaration of Independence, Constitution or Bill of Rights. In short, the practice was perfectly legal in the beginning of our government's history."

 

Therefore, the point you thought you were making does not exist. Congress being allowed to do so is only allowed because they did it before we had any of the above stating they could not do it. Now, it is a bit of semantics here because one could argue that Congress should now be doing what the law currently states, so to that, I would agree. But since Congress did it before the law went into effect, it technically would not apply to them.

 

 

(all other arguments of what Congress can and cannot do aside).

[KarenNC]

It's not quite as kooky as it sounds. According to the article this began after a lawsuit was filed trying to stop county commissioners from opening a meeting with a prayer. While I do believe in separation of church and state I'm also very sensitive to allowing people to practice their own religion, including prayer in public/ government buildings and settings, as long as they're not forcing anyone else to do it.

 

But they're going about it the wrong way-- instead of trying to make a state religion they should be trying to protect the right to pray in public & government buildings.

 

The issue is not whether an individual commissioner (or any individual) can pray while in a government building or practice his or her religion at any other time than when acting publicly as a representative of the government conducting government business. Believe me, this area does not lack for opportunities for any Christian to practice his or her religion at almost any time of day or night! At issue is whether the commission as a whole can, once the meeting has been convened, lead everyone present in a prayer said specifically in Jesus' name, specifically stated as being on behalf of all present, asking for guidance from Jesus in making decisions that will be in accordance with Jesus' will, as part of the meeting. In my view, this is a participatory worship activity invoking a specific deity that does not belong in a government meeting, regardless of the religion represented. Substituting an occasional prayer to Allah, Buddha, Athena, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster would not make it better or right. It requires anyone who wants to participate in the meeting as a citizen to participate in the prayer as well. See my previous post for a specific example from my town. If the intent is to allow commissioners to pray for individual guidance according to their own religious dictates, that could very easily be accomplished with prayer before they come into the meeting or by a moment of silence at the beginning. They appear entirely unfamiliar with the instructions for prayer from that very Jesus to whom they pray, as stated in Matthew 6. This is entirely about a show of power, not about personal piety.

[Aslana]

And likewise, the issue is not that they cannot pray. You CAN pray in these places just as you can pray in schools. What you cannot do is lead a possibly unwilling group of people in prayer in those places. You cannot exclude anyone in this prayer and as Karen said, you cannot condone any one religion while praying.

 

To do so silently (as in a moment of silence) is one thing and fine. That leaves everyone up to praying or not praying as they see fit. Do do any of what Karen NC stated, is what is in question and what is wrong.

 

Here is a better source for what I stated above that better explains WHY congress can open in prayer: http://candst.tripod.com/chaptest.htm

[KarenNC]

 

Well that settles it. It has to be a joke.

 

Not sure where the "bill is #666" came from (I know a previous poster mentioned it, but it must be referenced somewhere), as it is House Joint Resolution 494, not a bill at all.

http://www.ncleg.net/Applications/BillLookUp/LoadBilldocument.aspx?SessionCode=2013&DocNum=2501&SeqNum=0

 

Senate bill 666 is on election law changes http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2013&BillID=s666

House bill 666 is on electronic payments by local governments http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/billlookup/billlookup.pl?Session=2009&BillID=H666

[Seasider]

Sort of early/pre talibanish.

 

 

More like The Handmaid's Tale.

 

I am all for states' rights, but wish they'd have chosen a different issue over which to plead a case.

[TravelingChris]

Separation of church and state is not in the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights. Read the first amendment for yourself. Secondly, you most certainly are allowed to open with prayer. The problem with that council seems to be is that they want to limit it to only a certain kind of prayer. We have prayer opening city council meetings. Different ministers, priests, rabbis, whoever volunteer to start the session. I don't know if a secular humanist has but I coul see someone doing an inspirational story type thing instead of a prayer and at least in my city, I don't think we would have a problem. As long as no one was having a prayer or little story about how all the others are wrong or evil, I can't see a problem.

[KarenNC]

In this case, the issue is not really not about states' rights or about personal piety. It's about a show of power and an attempt at a level of disenfranchisement. It's a specific, very public way of communicating who is acceptable and who is not. It is saying to anyone who is not part of the "in-crowd" (in this case, Christian, preferably Protestant), "See, you are not one of us, you are only grudgingly tolerated because we are required to do so. If you want to actually participate in the governing of this town (county, state, etc) you will either become one of us or at least give enough lip service to 'pass' when in public."

 

Given the experiences of the early Christian church and the Roman government, I find the entire situation very ironic. Truly, those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it, and not always on the "good" side.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Separation of church and state is not in the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights. Read the first amendment for yourself. Secondly, you most certainly are allowed to open with prayer. The problem with that council seems to be is that they want to limit it to only a certain kind of prayer. We have prayer opening city council meetings. Different ministers, priests, rabbis, whoever volunteer to start the session. I don't know if a secular humanist has but I coul see someone doing an inspirational story type thing instead of a prayer and at least in my city, I don't think we would have a problem. As long as no one was having a prayer or little story about how all the others are wrong or evil, I can't see a problem.

 

All good points except in this case the proposal is to establish a state religion, which is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.

[TravelingChris]

Well that is why I agree with you, ChocolateReign, I don;t agree with the proposed law, as I do think the Constitution prohibits the establishment of a religion, whether it be federal or state. After all, when the colonies were formed, they did have state religions. There never was a proposal for a national religion, therefore, I have to conclude that the 1st amendment refers to the states as well. And as a military wife , who has been moving all over the country these last 26 years, I can tell you that if those legislators had to do that, they might be changing their minds. After all, I am now, after 26 years, finaly living in an area where I am in the majority in both my religious and political beliefs. I have't lived in such a place for all of our other postings. So I am not one to rush out and request state religions since I know I would have not liked the results where I have lived most of my life.

[Ravin]

The 14th amendment imputes the 1st amendment (and other bill of rights amendments) to the states. Prior to that, states could, indeed, establish state churches and some of the colonies/early states had them.

 

Nowadays? They can't do it. The Constitution says so.

[Laurie4b]

 

Not sure where the "bill is #666" came from (I know a previous poster mentioned it, but it must be referenced somewhere), as it is House Joint Resolution 494, not a bill at all.

http://www.ncleg.net...m=2501&SeqNum=0

 

Senate bill 666 is on election law changes http://www.ncleg.net...013&BillID=s666

House bill 666 is on electronic payments by local governments http://www.ncleg.net...009&BillID=H666

 

 

Yes, that's where I got that. I had originally read one article expressing dismay with both bills, and I confused the number.

[Pawz4me]

Just reported on the local news station -- the speaker of the N.C. House says he will NOT allow this bill to come up for a vote.

[HomeschoolMamaOfTwo]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/04/state-religion-bill-north-carolina_n_3016154.html