North Carolina Seeking to Establish a State Religion?

http://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2013/...uce-bill-to-adopt-an-official-state-religion/

This resolution passed on April 1, which makes me hold out hope that it was a misguided troll of the ACLU.

Because it's pretty darn scary if this is meant to be the real deal.

Fuck you.

Fuck you.

Let's just let them secede, then cut them the fuck off from the money they leech.

Dueling lawsuits over commissioners in Rowan County beginning their meeting with a Christian prayer?



If you dumbasses can't work this out yourselves you've no business being commissioners in the first place.

I think the reasoning behind this resolution, while despicable, might actually have merit. States are expressly prohibited from being monarchies, but does the Constitution forbid state level theocracies?

Hopefully some of those more familiar with the law will weigh in on this question.

That said, a state level theocracy just isn't happening.*








*Unless we're including all theologies.

Any possible merit to the argument that the 1st Amendment only applies to Congress/the federal government was removed through the 14th Amendment, which essentially requires states and other political subdivisions to abide by the terms of the Bill of Rights.

Article Four, Guarantee Clause - hard for a theocracy to be a Republican form of government I would think.

Maybe, but what is a republic? It is, not a monarchy, and the term has no other real meaning. Hence Iran can accurately describe itself as a republic. Is theocracy compatible with democracy? Perhaps not, but then again, NC isn't really trying to establish a full blooded theocratic government.

Every sperm is sacred.

All the power in Iran ultimately resides in the Guardian Council (of Clerics). You can't run for office if the Clerics don't OK it, and they can remove public officials at their discretion. Indeed, they have a clerical Supreme Leader, and he has to approve the elected officials, and can appoint half the executive at his discretion. I think you can state that they are a Theocracy, and not a Republic.

I think you can have a Republic guided under religious principles, and there's plenty of examples of that in the Islamic world.

But I don't think you can have a theocracy and a republic at the same time. Because its not whether or not its religious, but where the actual power is vested, which determines the labeling.

By definition, Iran is not a monarchy. NK and Syria are examples of monarchies masquerading as republics. And since Iran is not a monarchy, it is a republic, albeit one that is religiously despotic. None of this addresses my question, although I'd say Raoul covered it by citing the 14th amendment.

If I am not mistaken, it has argued (and, I am pretty sure, that argument has been upheld legally) that the 14th Amendment, when it says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" changes the meaning of all the limitations on the federal government in the Bill of Rights from "the Federal Congress shall not do this" to "the Federal Government (notably the judicial branch) shall insure that no state or local government shall do this either."

It can certainly be argued that if the 14th does not mean that, then even though federal bans on weapons are unconstitutional, state or local bans are. So I am guessing that both left and right, there is a lot of political weight in favor of this interpretation of the 14th. Otherwise, states could do all kind of ridiculous things and there would be little anyone could do about it besides moving to another state.

Dueling lawsuits in southern small towns should have their every proceeding accompanied by jug bands and banjos.

It's just the usual right wing bullshit where they try to legislate their personal religious beliefs on to everyone else. Oh, and if anyone opposes them then they cry and call them "christianophobes" all while ignoring the constitution. You know, their usual bullshit.

That's ironic coming from you.

That's ironic coming from you. :|

I disagree. A state that is a republic is one in which the matters of the state are public, publicly known and publicly accessible. It is true that a republic need not be a democracy -- the first and most famous Roman Republic certainly wasn't --; but it does need to make sure that any public person has theoretical access to all the branches of government. Arguably, a religious test for governmental office restricts that (or, historically, redefines what a public person is, as did other tests for gender, age etc.).

Where have I ignored the Constitution, or selected from it piecemeal like Wordin loves to do?

That's ironic coming from you.

Or tried to claim the existence of requirements where there are none.

That's ironic coming from you. Ziggurat!

I always saw you as pretty balanced in constitutional interpretation...

That's ironic coming from you. Burj Khalifa!

Hey, fun boys, go get a room!

Can it be a white room with black curtains at the station?

You broke the chain.

You're a bad person.

It's like the whole world is one big comedy sketch these days.

It's either that or spend my days screaming in an asylum somewhere.

That's ironic, coming from you.

Well,they didn't say what religion they are choosing. That is the #1 thing that people fight about. That is why there are so many churches in the southern towns. They get in a fight and there is an east side church on one side of the road and a westside church on the other side. These fuckers are totally ignorant of why those things were written in the constitution. All one has to do is look at the history of Ireland to see what religion and state should be separate. All one lovely Christian isle, they are.