Republican lawmakers in North Carolina have introduced a bill declaring that the state has the power to establish an official religion — a direct challenge to the First Amendment.

One professor of politics called the measure “the verge of being neo-secessionist,” and another said it was reminiscent of how Southern states objected to the Supreme Court’s 1954 integration of public schools.

The bill says that federal courts do not have the power to decide what is constitutional, and says the state does not recognize federal court rulings that prohibit North Carolina and its schools from favoring a religion.

The bill was introduced Monday by two Republican representatives from Rowan County, north of Charlotte, and sponsored by seven other Republicans. The party controls both chambers of the North Carolina Legislature…

The bill does not specify a religion.

The North Carolina ACLU chapter said in a statement Tuesday that the sponsors of the bill “fundamentally misunderstand constitutional law and the principle of the separation of powers that dates back to the founding of this country…”

Professor Michael Bitzer…said the bill is based on discredited legal theory that the states can declare themselves exempt from federal law.

“We saw this in the aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education,” he said, referencing the integration ruling. “The belief is that the states hold more power than the federal government. If the federal government does something, the states can simply ignore it.”

Some folks in Confederate Republican politics still don’t believe they lost the Civil war. Why expect them to understand the Constitution?



  1. Dallas says:

    In defense of North Carolina repubs, we are talking about North Carolina.

  2. The Real Fletch says:

    After they approve the law we should make Pastafarianism their official religion and have all these douches walk around with colanders on their heads.

  3. Sir C. Garison says:

    Wow! It looks like all of those West Virginians that left the mountain state for greener pastures of North Carolina have now started to influence the culture and government.

  4. pedro says:

    All I have to say about it is… Yawn!!!!

  5. Guyver says:

    Some folks in Confederate Republican politics still don’t believe they lost the Civil war. Why expect them to understand the Constitution?

    Clearly these politicians know they are violating the original intent of separation of church and state the way the founding fathers had envisioned instead of the way it’s interpreted now.

    If politicians can step all over the 2nd Amendment then why not the 1st? Giving those “Confederate” politicians the benefit of the doubt, my guess is this is their way to illustrate how far government can go if it doesn’t stay within its enumerated powers.

    If so, those North Carolina Republicans are more Machiavellian than the liberals on this blog give them credit for. They seem to want this to be part of the national discussion. Eideard MAY have fallen for this hook line and sinker and is doing the very thing they’re hoping he’s done…. maybe. :)

    • pedro says:

      What else do you expect from WonderEd?

      • Guyver says:

        Strange how he’s concerned about challenges to the 1st Amendment, but he’s got no beef with challenges to the 2nd Amendment.

        Is there a word for that? :)

        • pedro says:

          Sure there is. But if we discuss about it, he might throw the comment rules on us. Not that it matters much, he will only be making our point.

    • Tommy says:

      Constitution…give me a break. I’ve decided that I will only obey the laws that I like, the rest can go to hell.

      Just like that Idiot in Chief.

      Fuck it.

    • Joe A Plumber says:

      Some folks in Confederate Republican politics still don’t believe they lost the Civil war. Why expect them to understand the Constitution?

      Why indeed?! It’s not like anyone up north is reading the Constitution or even has a vague idea what RIGHTS are or anything EITHER.

      Take the new gun laws for example, where there are now limits on what a person’s RIGHT is with regard to keeping and bearing arms. Never mind any freedom of expression. Never mind punishing anyone who uses a gun to offensively kill with. Ask our idiot President and he just might tell you that we can’t have none of them thar guns in no law obidin’ citizens hands. That’s DANGEROUS — for criminals!

      Too hot a topic? How about RIGHTS to be secure in our person and our property? With cops now insisting on seeing your “papers” (ID) for any little suspicion they have, it seems to me that no one is really paying attention to that one. I won’t even go into the racial or other profiling that some cops seem to be using. Some cops are now also able to snoop in your cell phone without your knowing it too. Again, never mind any RIGHTS like Miranda rights since those aren’t expressly spelled out in the Constitution or anything.

      Too controversial? How about RIGHTS to a fair and speedy trial? Care to ask any of the prisoners at Guantanamo how they feel about it? Oh! That’s right. They’re not on U.S. soil. Not that a U.S. MILITARY BASE counts our anything. Then how about looking at people in Rikers Island, Cook County, Folsom State or almost any of America’s other “jails”? Or maybe you haven’t seen our media who ALWAYS seem to find someone who got railroaded in the justice system. (Don’t even try to remember the sage old advice that it’s better to let ten guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man.)

      Too convoluted to figure out? How about a particular RIGHT to self expression or even free speech? But then we’re back to guns now aren’t we? There can’t possibly be ANY reason to have an assault weapon in a movie theater. No reason to wear a big hat or camouflage pants either! As long as the majority can step all over the RIGHTS of a minority there will always be those who will do it.

      So go ahead and make Satanism or whatever the official religion of North Carolina. At least people who go there will have some idea of what to expect. Not that the Constitution has anything to say about it or anything. It’s not like ANYONE is reading the Constitution. After all, “it’s just a goddamn piece of paper”. (GWB)

      …Now please be sure and call me a “wing nut”. I just love that expression. I love the fact that there are complete morons out there who express their complete and utter ignorance like that. At least they know just enough to NOT call me a N***ER! (For now, anyway.)

    • msbpodcast says:

      Repubes don’t take too kindly to no amendements, ya hear.

      Not the first, the second, nor the thirteenth

      99%er Tongue, meet 1%er ass… (Like it clean, slave.)

      1%er lips kiss oligarch asshole… (Eat the log, slave.)

    • Mark says:

      When the Democrats come up with these stupid ideas the public thinks it is great. When the Republicans come up with the same type of ignorant ideas the public thinks it is what it is—STUPID.

      If the state legislators have nothing better to do with their time, get the hell out of office, go home and stop wasting our money.

  6. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    The McGuyver in his greatest WTF post so far says:
    4/4/2013 at 7:32 am

    Some folks in Confederate Republican politics still don’t believe they lost the Civil war. Why expect them to understand the Constitution?

    Clearly these politicians know they are violating the original intent of separation of church and state the way the founding fathers had envisioned instead of the way it’s interpreted now. /// I think you mean the NC legislators ARE following the original intent of the Founding Fathers and NOT as the Court has interpreted the Const? I guess you stopped reading the BOR at #2? Does the 14th Amend mean nothing to you? Typical bible thumping know nothing though to fail to understand the COMPLETE separation of Church and State has helped religion to flourish in the GOUSA just as it has. Every Sunday–a four way intersection with 4 Churches all railing against the government taking away their freedom of religion. Ha, ha. Silly Hoomans.

    If politicians can step all over the 2nd Amendment /// and if they never have….. what then by the application of logic?

    then why not the 1st? /// So you think giving actual balanced meaning as far as possible to ALL our rights is “stepping all over” those who you personally would give more precedence to? How would you ease the restrictions on fire arms right now McGuyver? Mandatory carry laws? Is requiring people to conform to your notions your idea of freedom??? Is it???????

    Giving those “Confederate” politicians the benefit of the doubt, my guess is this is their way to illustrate how far government can go if it doesn’t stay within its enumerated powers. /// Ha, ha. Great imagination you display. Would that it was so. THEN this great intellect could be put to something worthwhile==you know like making pre marital sex illegal–just as god intended.

    If so, those North Carolina Republicans are more Machiavellian than the liberals on this blog give them credit for. //// FIE!! We give NO REPUBLICANS ANYWHERE such capability much less credit. You do know they are all retards don’t you?

    They seem to want this to be part of the national discussion. /// I think they would rather hide behind their State Boundaries and pretent they are sovereign to themselves.

    Eideard MAY have fallen for this hook line and sinker and is doing the very thing they’re hoping he’s done…. maybe /// I must be a bit Republ//// no … “thick” but how is having your own stupidity advertised any help at all?? aka==why do you post McGuyer?

    But I kid…… in a certain way. Good thing I voted with my feet years ago. What a backward god (my god–ie==SCIENCE!) forsaken place. Well, we need somewhere to store our idiots.

    Is it the water?

    • oldone says:

      Silly Hoomans???

      That took lobes to say. LOL

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        All done==yes, simple word play. Post here often enough and you will start to (word) play with yourself too…. or just go crazy as so many here have done. Its a fine line.

        Yea, verily!

    • Guyver says:

      I think you mean the NC legislators ARE following the original intent of the Founding Fathers and NOT as the Court has interpreted the Const?

      No. The original intent was to not have a Church of the United States since many of the forefathers did not like the Church of England. Government could not tell you what religion you should follow or worship… but they were okay with religious influences from the masses toward government. The distinction was they did not want any “official” church for the country.

      The separation of church and state has obviously been interpreted differently in the last 50 or so years to mean it goes both ways now.

      and if they never have….. what then by the application of logic?

      Depends on what you mean by “never have”. Whether or not they actually try to pass such a thing doesn’t really matter. I think what is more clear are continual attempts to erode that Constitutional right. If you can erode the Constitutional Rights of the masses on one amendment then you can logically do the same for other amendments.

      Ha, ha. Great imagination you display. Would that it was so. THEN this great intellect could be put to something worthwhile==you know like making pre marital sex illegal–just as god intended.

      And why would an agnostic care?

      What a backward god (my god–ie==SCIENCE!) forsaken place. Well, we need somewhere to store our idiots.

      We have different expectations of science. I want to know causal chains / root causes under the scrutiny of the scientific method. Humans will be perpetually ignorant in the universe of knowledge (a major reason for why I choose to be a skeptic and agnostic). Any new discoveries only reduces our present state of ignorance.

      You preach correlation and argument from authority / popularity. Anyone who questions your points is somehow a “denier” of your denomination of Science. Strangely skepticism and agnosticism are other words for Christianity in your book of science.

  7. orchidcup says:

    Establishment of religion

    Originally, the First Amendment applied only to the federal government. A number of the states effectively had established churches when the First Amendment was ratified, with some remaining into the early nineteenth century.

    Subsequently, Everson v. Board of Education (1947) incorporated the Establishment Clause (i.e., made it apply against the states).

    However, it was not until the middle to late twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by the states.

    In the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that “government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion.”

    Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites.

    Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, 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.

    – Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President

    • Guyver says:

      Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites.

      Atheists like Mao Zedong, Stalin, and Hitler (Hitler is not Christian as atheists would like others to believe) have done far worse. But I don’t make the logical fallacy of condemning an entire philosophy due to the actions of groups of individuals or a form of government based off of atheism.

      “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,”

      Meaning no Church of the United States (like that of the Church of England). In England at the time, people had to worship other denominations secretly or get persecuted for it if they weren’t members of the Church of England.

      Original intent was okay with religious influence coming from the people towards government. The United States was predominantly Christian back in those days. To think you could get no religious influence from the people towards government is a bit naive.

      • What? The moth is always drawn to the flame? says:

        Establishment of religion is an enactment of a second set of laws that are the result of doctrinal edicts handed over from unelected douches who are seeking power over a broader set of (wayward) parishioners.

        If you want a law asshole, then elect someone who will put it in place.

        Don’t hand over the government to a set of unelected mullahs who have no check on their batshit crazy lust for power.

  8. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    McGuyver–you miss the point of Orchi and Myself. This thread is ABOUT ESTABLISHING A STATE RELIGION, not the “two way process” you blather about. With constitutional law/freedom so poorly grasped, you must be better at catechism? Your own cafeteria selections?

    Which is more onerous? Evil done in the name of God….. or evil done in the name of no god????

    Everyone knows the answer to that. I will assume you disagree?

    Speaking of that, saw again an excellent picture on HBO last week: “Goya’s Ghost.” Easy to criticize the Inquisition====but how else you gonna support a State Religion?

    Ha, ha.

    • Guyver says:

      This thread is ABOUT ESTABLISHING A STATE RELIGION, not the “two way process” you blather about. With constitutional law/freedom so poorly grasped, you must be better at catechism?

      Talk about catechism, did you not realize that 14th Amendment you said in passing already covers whether or not a state can establish its own religion?

      Does it matter? Why cherry pick which Amendments are strictly observed while others are not? Why pick which Amendments can constrain the force of government while others are not? Why erode one amendment but not another?

      If you can attack one amendment, then you can logically do the same for all. I think this may be the ulterior motive of those “Confederate” politicians. Time will tell.

      Even if I am wrong in giving those politicians the benefit of the doubt, what should be more alarming is how our governments are now challenging the very document which limits its powers.

      If both situations aren’t steps towards totalitarianism, then you have a very different picture of what government control of society is than I do. Ideologies aside, you SHOULD be concerned about this as much as you are concerned about the curbing of the 2nd Amendment on principle alone.

      The Constitution was designed to protect the citizens from a Totalitarian government. Whether or not you agree with either amendment is a different matter. The bigger concern is whether or not government should be allowed to invalidate parts of the Constitution when it wants to do a power grab.

  9. MikeN says:

    Republicans didn’t lose the Civil War. They won, and it was Democrats on the losing side. Their condition for not contesting the 1876 theft of the Presidential election was for Republicans to end Reconstruction so Democrats could go back to repressing blacks.

    The Confederates were Democrats. It was Democrats who repealed the Voting Rights Act the first chance they got(Maybe that’s what Drew Carey meant by Cleveland Rocks!), and implemented Jim Crow Laws. It wasn’t just Southern Democrats like Al Gore’s dad voting against civil rights laws, but all over the country. The 1957 law, even after it was weakened by Lyndon Johnson who stripped its enforcement provisions, was voted against by Democratic Senators from Oregon, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming, including the lionized Sen Mansfield.

    Even Geena Davis manages to get this history right in her terrible TV show.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      Say Mickey—thanks again for your incessant demonstration of how insane it is to have one’s thinking constrained by labels.

      Its something to see.

      You do ((do you?)) recognize the not even hidden truth just one level behind what you posted. Honest to God, I thought it was do-ill posting.

      Amusing.

    • Dallas says:

      Half truth. While Lincoln became a Republican (from a Whig) he wouldn’t recognize the Republican party today and in fact was as a radical/progressive – whose a agenda was to free the slaves. Basically, a modern day democrat.

      He would be appalled at the teapublican party today for abandoning the appeal of the majority of Americans and instead being lackeys of the Christian Taliban and top 1% of the most wealthy.

      He be disgusted by attempts to deny gay rights, invading the women’s vagina and repudiation of equal pay/equal work.

      Lincoln would bitch slap Boner for not working with the democrats instead of engaging in endless bickering.

      Stop comparing Lincoln to the Teapublicans and that goes for Reagan too.

      • pedro says:

        Sure DUhllass, whatever feeds you idiotic dream that everything is good and dandy with your team.

        Now, go get teabagged.

  10. bobbo, knock/knock---is anybody Home?..... says:

    I SAID KNOCK KNOCK!!!!! Quick—call 911==McGuyver has been taken hostage and the sub normal is failing at his doppelganger task:

    “Does it matter? Why cherry pick which Amendments are strictly observed while others are not? /// Umm==”Basic Brain Activity 101″–NO AMENDMENT is strictly observed. Ha, ha. What a dope. Second Time Request: What restriction on your right to bear arms do you think should be lifted? Let us know the full scope of your insanity.

    Why pick which Amendments can constrain the force of government while others are not? /// All Amendments constrain the force of government but must be balanced against one another, common sense, the common weal, etc.

    Why erode one amendment but not another?” /// Reality demands its. Its one reality to have people with muskets running around and another ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THING to have semi-automatic rifles with 300 bullet drums. You do see the difference between one round fired every 40 seconds versus 300 bullets fired in what… 5 minutes?

    Do the Math.

    • Guyver says:

      Umm==”Basic Brain Activity 101″–NO AMENDMENT is strictly observed. Ha, ha. What a dope.

      All you had to say was you’re okay with an official State religion. I knew you could find some common ground with religious people. ;)

      All Amendments constrain the force of government but must be balanced against one another, common sense, the common weal, etc.

      All you had to say was you’re okay with a Totalitarian state because government power was never meant to be limited. :)

      Its one reality to have people with muskets running around and another ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THING to have semi-automatic rifles with 300 bullet drums. You do see the difference between one round fired every 40 seconds versus 300 bullets fired in what… 5 minutes?

      Are you suggesting that law abiding citizens would misuse that sort of firepower? Or does the mere act of possessing such things CAUSE a person to be a criminal?

      Or are you just making an argument that government is best suited to tell you what you need? Like someone doesn’t need an SUV, or need steak and caviar, or that you don’t need to have a movie collection? How much do you want government dictating your life / lifestyle?

  11. Egon Ruuda says:

    If they pass this, then they should also be forced to abandon the rest of the constitution as a consequense. Damn their freedoms if they deny others the same!

  12. sho off says:

    How is this in any way conservative? Government out of our life, not in it. I am for this as long as they collect 10% tithe from all taxpayers and distribute to official churches.

    How many of these ‘necks will support that?

    Put their money where your mouth is?

    • Guyver says:

      How is this in any way conservative? Government out of our life, not in it. I am for this as long as they collect 10% tithe from all taxpayers and distribute to official churches.

      Conservatives pass legislation to try to maintain some sort of semblance of what they call a moral code. So they do want government in your life, but for different reasons.

      Libertarianism is what you’re confusing with Conservatism.

  13. The Monster's Lawyer says:

    Those crazy dumbass southern Republicans. Bless their racist god-fearin’ hearts.

    • Guyver says:

      Those crazy dumbass southern Republicans. Bless their racist god-fearin’ hearts.

      Could be worse. We could have a half-black president who subscribes to the one-drop rule created by Southern Democrats back when Jim Crow laws were popular among Southern Democrats.

      • bobbo, knock/knock---is anybody Home?..... says:

        You piss me off McGuyver. Such a lame brain ignorant game you play. The Southern Democrats you label from 150 years ago are the Pukes of today.

        Why you sooooooooo lame?

        Its like you want us to see the warts on your penis. PUT THAT THING AWAY!!!!!!!!!

        Any good Christian would.

        Labels. What Satan makes in his workshop.

        • pedro says:

          Aaaaaaaw, dumbbo lost it. How cute!

        • Guyver says:

          Its like you want us to see the warts on your penis. PUT THAT THING AWAY!!!!!!!!!

          Whoa there Androgynous Pat! I wasn’t the one who said I’d do a Canadian Beauty Queen who was born a man (if my rectal data bank serves me correctly).

          I’ll keep my hetero lifestyle private and hope you keep your transgender fantasies / lifestyles private as well.

          I judge the quality of your tantrums / rants based on the value of your points (or lack thereof) and not where you choose to insert your p3nis. Hopefully you’ll reciprocate in kind (if you want to keep this to regular “coffee talk”).

        • msbpodcast says:

          Its like you want us to see the warts on your penis.

          Its the syphilitic scars and the oozing buboes and pustules we dont wanna see.

          I’ll lend you my flavor straw.

          • The Monster's Lawyer says:

            Hey, can’t a guy troll Southern Redneck Republican inbreeds without it turning into penis talk.

  14. bobbo, knock/knock---is anybody Home?..... says:

    Spinning OUT OF CONTROL, the McGuyver reveals how deep his stupid hole is and says:
    4/4/2013 at 10:44 am

    Umm==”Basic Brain Activity 101″–NO AMENDMENT is strictly observed. Ha, ha. What a dope.

    All you had to say was you’re okay with an official State religion. I knew you could find some common ground with religious people. ;) //// I do not support Official State Religion. This thread is about the State of NC trying to establish one in violation of the First Amendment AS INTERPRETED 150 years after our Founding Fathers probably would have been fine with it. As you unwittingly ((not to be redundant)) referenced, it would be Machiavellian of me to advocate a State Religion as that would surely mark its downfall. How much INQUISITION type “other motives” would have to be endured before the Religion was thoroughly trashed makes the exercise completely inhuman. As a secular humanist, I must defer to our Constitutional Rights, as trammeled, misunderstood, and whored out as they are.
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    All Amendments constrain the force of government but must be balanced against one another, common sense, the common weal, etc.

    All you had to say was you’re okay with a Totalitarian state because government power was never meant to be limited. :) /// You make no sense at all. I SAID: ALL THE BOR LIMITS GOVERNMENT POWER. You really do live within your own bubble don’t you McGuyver. Facts, links, quotes, argument having no impact at all. Just repeat ad naseum==like a mantra.
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Its one reality to have people with muskets running around and another ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THING to have semi-automatic rifles with 300 bullet drums. You do see the difference between one round fired every 40 seconds versus 300 bullets fired in what… 5 minutes?

    Are you suggesting that law abiding citizens would misuse that sort of firepower? ///// Dipshit. By definition–law abiding citizens could have tanks, mustard gas, even Atomic Weapons. What do you “think” law abiding means? No DUMBSHIT===laws are written to keep the honest citizens honest, and to catch/prosecute the law breakers, religiously insane, and those just off the boat.

    Or does the mere act of possessing such things CAUSE a person to be a criminal? /// As is so often the case, general prohibitions must be imposed on the law abiding, the law breaking, and those in the middle because they all have access to the same mechanisms/rights/opportunities. God may be aware of each sparrow that falls, but he does nothing to aid it in its flight. God DOES NOTHING to prevent bad people from using guns illegally to kill people.

    Or are you just making an argument that government is best suited to tell you what you need? Like someone doesn’t need an SUV, or need steak and caviar, or that you don’t need to have a movie collection? How much do you want government dictating your life / lifestyle? /// Well–I certainly want government to do more than they have in protecting society against the illegality and stupidity of many generally deleterious things. Like Guns. Its not about “what I want” as much as I realize what society needs in order to function.

    SuV==needs a carbon tax
    Steak==needs to be labeled re feed stocks, anti-biotics, gmo and such
    Caviar==supply regulated so that a steady renewable supply can be guaranteed into the future
    Movie Collection==I think Sony v Beta Max was good law. It just needs to be expanded to the digital age. Let the people vote, not the Corporations.

    Sad McGuyver. What up? You get fired?? Ha, ha. Watch out===interwebitudes generally not good for mental health of those in a bubble.

    Your brain might get stretched.

    • Guyver says:

      I do not support Official State Religion.

      Oh so you meant to say you’re a hyocrite when it comes to cherry picking which amendments the government should be allowed to nullify?

      You make no sense at all. I SAID: ALL THE BOR LIMITS GOVERNMENT POWER. You really do live within your own bubble don’t you McGuyver.

      So it sounds like you’re flip flopping because it seems like you would oppose any nullifying or eroding of any amendment such as the 2nd…. unless you want to go back to being hypocritical.

      What do you “think” law abiding means? No DUMBSHIT===laws are written to keep the honest citizens honest, and to catch/prosecute the law breakers, religiously insane, and those just off the boat.

      Oh I get it! You believe that if you allow government to nullify the 2nd Amendment that criminals would obviously not be able to get guns and that law-abiding citizens can wait the 10 or so minutes after dialing 911 (in case their home is getting burglarized in the middle of the night). Afterall, big government is good for all and we should have police stations on every street corner. No need to defend yourself.

      God may be aware of each sparrow that falls, but he does nothing to aid it in its flight. God DOES NOTHING to prevent bad people from using guns illegally to kill people.

      Strange how you talk religion to an Agnostic. You sound like a closet Christian. :) But then again you’re prone to lots of logical fallacies in the past.

      Well–I certainly want government to do more than they have in protecting society against the illegality and stupidity of many generally deleterious things. Like Guns. Its not about “what I want” as much as I realize what society needs in order to function.

      So you are in favor of empowering government beyond the BOR so that citizens cannot protect themselves from a power-hungry totalitarian government or burglars in the middle of the night!

      :)

      SuV==needs a carbon tax

      Bravo!!! Spoken like a true elitist liberal. Make things that people like to buy cost prohibitive so that only the rich can afford it.

      Steak==needs to be labeled re feed stocks, anti-biotics, gmo and such

      You already have that at places like Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s. Sucks how capitalism works.

      Caviar==supply regulated so that a steady renewable supply can be guaranteed into the future

      Unless they’re grown on farms. But at least you don’t consider it an entitlement for all!

      Movie Collection==I think Sony v Beta Max was good law. It just needs to be expanded to the digital age. Let the people vote, not the Corporations.

      But just like bullets, you don’t need to have THAT many movies. And if it’s p0rn, after you’ve seen a few, you’ve seen them all. Big government is a force of good where the oligarchy can dictate what you should and shouldn’t need. It’s all about dictating to you what the pursuit of happiness is. The BOR is just a minor inconvenience that sheeple agree should be removed for the betterment of a totalitarian government.

  15. Glenn E. says:

    Yeah, a single state religion will save them. That’s what’s been missing all this time. Yeah, right. To bad they can ensure the voters that the politicians will adhere to that religion. I have to believe that they’ll always have their own, private believe system. The Almighty Dollar religion.

    • Glenn E. says:

      correction:
      “Too bad they can’t ensure the voters that the politicians will adhere to that religion.”

  16. Uncle Patso says:

    According to a story in the Salisbury Post, this was less a secessionist act than an attempt to support county commissioners who wanted to have prayers at their meetings. The ACLU filed a lawsuit against the prayers at Rowan County Commissioners’ meetings.

  17. Captain Obvious says:

    I’ve been to the Carolinas. Most of their Christians believe in the power of bumper stickers.

    • Guyver says:

      I’ve been to the Carolinas. Most of their Christians believe in the power of bumper stickers.

      There’s an abundance of liberals in academia who do the same thing.

      • bobbo, knock/knock---is anybody Home?..... says:

        Ahhh…the Teapublican equivalency jag-off.

        Yes, both groups do it. Now===in which group do you think it predominates?

        So standard its a stereotype: the wishy washy liberals who won’t take a stand. “NOT” the bumper sticker mentality. Perhaps you are thinking of factions under the tent like Save the Whales or Hug Your Kiddie Day?

        McGuyver–ever find youself choking on your own bile? No???? That used to it huh?

      • Captain Obvious says:

        “There’s an abundance of liberals in academia who do the same thing.”

        Um, thanks for playing. Johnny, what parting gifts do we have for Guyver.

  18. bobbo, knock/knock---is anybody Home?..... says:

    Guyver says:
    4/4/2013 at 1:04 pm

    I do not support Official State Religion.

    Oh so you meant to say you’re a hyocrite when it comes to cherry picking which amendments the government should be allowed to nullify? //// Gee Whiz McGuyer==tiresome you mischaracterize what has been very clearly stated 3 times now: ALL the DOR must be balanced against one another. That is not nullification, but common sense absent the very nullification you demand. Are you this stupid on purpose or just this blind to your own dogma?

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    You make no sense at all. I SAID: ALL THE BOR LIMITS GOVERNMENT POWER. You really do live within your own bubble don’t you McGuyver.

    So it sounds like you’re flip flopping because it seems like you would oppose any nullifying or eroding of any amendment such as the 2nd…. unless you want to go back to being hypocritical. /// See just above. You don’t/refuse to understand plain simple English.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    What do you “think” law abiding means? No DUMBSHIT===laws are written to keep the honest citizens honest, and to catch/prosecute the law breakers, religiously insane, and those just off the boat.

    Oh I get it! You believe that if you allow government to nullify the 2nd Amendment that criminals would obviously not be able to get guns and that law-abiding citizens can wait the 10 or so minutes after dialing 911 (in case their home is getting burglarized in the middle of the night). Afterall, big government is good for all and we should have police stations on every street corner. No need to defend yourself. /// Yes, that is what the cross cultural studies show. You/Me/We are “in fact” safer calling the police than shooting it out. I know…. “Facts”…. one of your many bugaboos.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    God may be aware of each sparrow that falls, but he does nothing to aid it in its flight. God DOES NOTHING to prevent bad people from using guns illegally to kill people.

    Strange how you talk religion to an Agnostic. You sound like a closet Christian. :) But then again you’re prone to lots of logical fallacies in the past. /// Point them out. Yes–lots of logical fallacies when you change what is said. ….. only way to get a win on your part, as illusory and fraudulent as it is.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Well–I certainly want government to do more than they have in protecting society against the illegality and stupidity of many generally deleterious things. Like Guns. Its not about “what I want” as much as I realize what society needs in order to function.

    So you are in favor of empowering government beyond the BOR so that citizens cannot protect themselves from a power-hungry totalitarian government or burglars in the middle of the night! /// In short form: yes.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    :)

    SuV==needs a carbon tax

    Bravo!!! Spoken like a true elitist liberal. Make things that people like to buy cost prohibitive so that only the rich can afford it. /// Yes, meaning fewer sold and the rich start to pay for their true costs.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Steak==needs to be labeled re feed stocks, anti-biotics, gmo and such

    You already have that at places like Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s. Sucks how capitalism works. /// Yes, and for those vendors who don’t? I guess unlabeled crap off the killing floor is appropriate for those who can’t shop upscale? Amusing how you make the points without even noticing.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Caviar==supply regulated so that a steady renewable supply can be guaranteed into the future

    Unless they’re grown on farms. But at least you don’t consider it an entitlement for all! /// I hate caviar. Too salty. Let the rich have all they want.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Movie Collection==I think Sony v Beta Max was good law. It just needs to be expanded to the digital age. Let the people vote, not the Corporations.

    But just like bullets, you don’t need to have THAT many movies. /// You don’t need any movies. Its a freeeeeeedom issue.

    And if it’s p0rn, after you’ve seen a few, you’ve seen them all. Big government is a force of good where the oligarchy can dictate what you should and shouldn’t need. /// That is the nature of the beast.

    It’s all about dictating to you what the pursuit of happiness is. The BOR is just a minor inconvenience that sheeple agree should be removed for the betterment of a totalitarian government. /// Rambling rantings.

    Ha, ha. Poor McGuyver. I am starting to think you might believe half the crap you post though. That is disturbing.

    • Guyver says:

      tiresome you mischaracterize what has been very clearly stated 3 times now: ALL the DOR must be balanced against one another. That is not nullification, but common sense absent the very nullification you demand.

      The BOR were not written so that government can invalidate it or allow to evolve to its liking whenever it becomes convenient to government.

      You OBVIOUSLY beg to differ. Given enough time, I’m sure you’ll find the Constitution unconstitutional.

      You make no sense at all. I SAID: ALL THE BOR LIMITS GOVERNMENT POWER.

      You talk out of both sides of your mouth.

      You say it limits government power, but you also insist it can and should be changed whenever it’s convenient to do so.

      In other words, you are in favor of changing BOR limits to be less limiting towards government and more limiting towards the masses.

      Yes, that is what the cross cultural studies show. You/Me/We are “in fact” safer calling the police than shooting it out. I know…. “Facts”…. one of your many bugaboos.

      Impressive. You’ve illogically concluded that a defenseless homeowner will be able to stall an intruder(s) long enough for the police to show up before something bad happens to them or their family. You’re either naive or intellectually dishonest due to your ideologies.

      BTW, states with the strictest gun control have the highest incidents of violent crime. Strange how that works.

      Point them out. Yes–lots of logical fallacies when you change what is said. ….. only way to get a win on your part, as illusory and fraudulent as it is.

      You mistake my sarcasm as an attempt to make a win when I’m only making fun of your talking out of both sides of your mouth.

      That said, I’ve pointed out your fallacies on a number of occasions. Hasty conclusion being one of them since you seem to want to get all anti-religious on me even though I’m agnostic.

      In short form: yes.

      Which is why you’re okay with government not allowing itself to be constrained by the BOR. See, all you had to say is you’re a big government liberal who likes the idea of government sidestepping the BOR whenever it’s convenient. :)

      Yes, meaning fewer sold and the rich start to pay for their true costs.

      And also denying middle class people from enjoying things. Nice to see your elitist mindset come through. All you had to say is you like using the force of government onto the masses to deny them what they want based off of your ideologies.

      Freedom is an afterthought in your totalitarian utopia.

      Yes, and for those vendors who don’t? I guess unlabeled crap off the killing floor is appropriate for those who can’t shop upscale? Amusing how you make the points without even noticing.

      Until our government slides into your totalitarian utopoia, I’ll choose to vote with my wallet.

      I hate caviar. Too salty. Let the rich have all they want.

      I hate seafood. Does it matter? Nope.

      You don’t need any movies. Its a freeeeeeedom issue.

      Free to choose what I want. Bullets, movies, p0rn, steak, caviar, SUVs, etc.

      That is the nature of the beast.

      At least you’re being a bit more honest here in commenting that you believe government best chooses what people need than the people themselves.

      Rambling rantings.

      Just calling a spade a spade. Liberals want to empower government so much that they remove all personal freedoms and responsibility.

      What a sheeple life to live.

  19. So What? says:

    It’s always interesting to see how many people seem to know what was in the minds of the framers of the constitution and what they meant and intended when they wrote it. Do you guys regularly get together for a seance to consult with them?

    • bobbo, knock/knock---is anybody Home?..... says:

      Worse than that: bottom line: its simple nonsense to reference “What the Founding Fathers thought” about anything. They were all conflicted just as we are today.

      Further, even on points of unanimity==as in slaves being 3/5th a person for representation rights…the Const has moved forward thru interpretations by the court.

      All in writing.

      Only a complete fool references the Founding Fathers or even the Constitution. WHAT has the Supreme Ct decided in the past 50 years?

      Silly Hoomans.

    • MikeN says:

      Well, there’s plenty in the Federalist Papers. Then you have Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution.

    • Guyver says:

      It’s always interesting to see how many people seem to know what was in the minds of the framers of the constitution and what they meant and intended when they wrote it. Do you guys regularly get together for a seance to consult with them?

      It could be worse. You could have issues with someone labeling you a socialist, but you overtly proclaim you embrace classless society which is another name for Communism all the while trumpeting your vast intellect.

  20. MikeN says:

    Now if we can get rid of the Democrats who believe the State is a religion.

    • msbpodcast says:

      Dumb-o-craps or Repubes makes no difference.

      They’d switch parties in a minute if they thought one was more likely to win them a place at the trough.

      All politicians go through a moment where they have to ask themselves how much do they want for their mothers’ orifices.

      The winners rent those out.

  21. Bob73 says:

    more of bobbo using his amazing ability to make points at the same time as demonstrating his lack of character …

    “… in his greatest WTF post so far says:”
    “Does the 14th Amend mean nothing to you? Typical bible thumping know nothing ..”
    “You do know they are all retards don’t you?”
    “how is having your own stupidity advertised any help at all?? aka==why do you post?”
    “you blather about”
    “Basic Brain Activity 101″
    “What a dope”
    “Let us know the full scope of your insanity”
    “You piss me off”
    “Such a lame brain ignorant game you play”
    “Why you sooooooooo lame?”
    “Its like you want us to see the warts on your penis”
    “reveals how deep his stupid hole is”
    “You really do live within your own bubble don’t you”
    “Dipshit”
    “No DUMBSHIT”
    “ever find youself choking on your own bile?”
    “Are you this stupid on purpose or just this blind to your own dogma?”
    “You don’t/refuse to understand plain simple English.”
    “I know…. “Facts”…. one of your many bugaboos.”
    “only way to get a win on your part, as illusory and fraudulent as it is.”
    “I am starting to think you might believe half the crap you post though.”
    “Silly Hoomans.”

    Such a pity. But I digress. You could do so much better bobbo if you would just try harder.

    • Guyver says:

      Such a pity. But I digress. You could do so much better bobbo if you would just try harder.

      My guess is this works for him at school during lunch period when he gets his feathers ruffled.

      :)

    • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

      Nice list Bob—but in fairness to my character, lack thereof: it has been a long thread AND …. oops!==NOT that long AND it wasn’t on AGW either. Darn!! I hate it when I get all defensive and stuff.

      Well, in all serious Yahoo: you are only missing the humor inherent in such word play. Maybe you and even most people don’t see it, or don’t appreciate it. Thats fair.

      But I do, and why else do any of us post?

      Yea, verily!

  22. orchidcup says:

    Did I start something?

    • Guyver says:

      Depends.

      Is Bobbo like this all the time, or only when you post? :)

      • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

        Huh? I like Orchi. Copy and Paste and all.

        I “try” to like you McGuyver–I just totally in fact honestly intensely dislike they way you argue. I think it is dishonest in a way that you must know?

        Hmmmm,,,, would it be any better if you honestly thought what you post?

        Ha, ha. Have to agree with Bob73 though==does look pretty bad when you post the sparkling bon mots without the motivation calling them forth.

        Its like some kind of “editing” that Breitbart might use? You know–accurate in a misleading way?

        Ha, ha. If I had the energy, I would make a list of what McGuyver said.

        I think a year or so ago I complimented you on taking the fire while maintaining calm. It certainly does have its pro’s and con’s. Keeps you looking good, but I wonder if you really pay attention or care?

        x 2.

  23. cliouser says:

    from wikipedia there were established religions in the colonies and for some time in the early states.

    Colony Denomination Disestablished
    Connecticut Congregational 1818
    Georgia Church of England/Episcopal Church 1789
    Maryland Church of England/Episcopal Church 1776
    Massachusetts Congregational 1833
    New Hampshire Congregational 1790
    North Carolina Church of England/Episcopal Church 1776

    South Carolina Church of England/Episcopal Church 1790

    Florida Church of England/Episcopal Church 1783
    Virginia Church of England/Episcopal Church 1786

    Certainly our founding fathers did not feel the federal constitution applied within the states. We didn’t have a national religion, but individual state religions were up to the states. Over the years our federal system has slowly been becoming nationalized. Lincoln ended states rights when he did not allow secession. A free people should have the ability to choose whom they wish to assemble and disassemble themselves from.

    • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

      Nice idea. Such plebiscites do occur. I don’t think the secession being for the cause of imposing slavery was even part of the consideration.

      Is fun to think about though.

  24. Somebody says:

    But actually, the states can and should ignore federal law that violates the constitution even if the supreme court lies and says the laws do not. Otherwise, what we have is absolute dictatorship.