|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
^ Lol that got me laughing.
A NATO air strike has killed four Afghan police and two civilians in the central-east Ghazni province, Afghan officials have said. A spokesman for the US-led NATO force in Kabul told the AFP news agency on Thursday that the military was checking the information. The attack happened after Taliban insurgents attacked a local police post in eastern Ghazni province before dawn and NATO planes were called in to support the officers under attack. "The NATO planes went there to assist the police, but the post was bombed and four police were killed. Two civilians present were also killed," Fazul Ahmad Tolwak, chief of Ghazni's Deh Yak district, told AFP. Ghazni provincial administration spokesman Fazul Sabawoon confirmed the incident and gave a similar account. The strike came a day after Taliban gunmen killed at least 46 people at a court complex in the western city of Farah in a bid to free insurgents standing trial. All nine attackers were killed in the assault, which started with a huge car bomb at the entrance to the court and continued for eight hours as security forces hunted down one final surviving assailant. The assault came as Afghan President Hamid Karzai, speaking to Al Jazeera in Qatar, said he remained open to talks with the Taliban, but that he wanted to secure the progress his government has made. The Farah death toll was the highest in Afghanistan from a single attack since a Shia Muslim shrine was bombed in Kabul in December 2011, killing 80 people. Karzai condemned the court attack as a "massacre" and said Afghans would "not let such killings of Muslims by the Taliban go unpunished". After an air strike killed 10 civilians, mostly women and children, in February, Karzai banned Afghan security forces from calling in NATO strikes. Also Thursday, NATO reported that an American F-16 fighter jet had crashed in eastern Afghanistan, killing the US pilot. The coalition did not release further details about Wednesday's crash. "While the cause of the crash is under investigation, initial reporting indicates there was no insurgent activity in the area at the time of the crash," the coalition said in a statement. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2013/04/201344990689504.html
Also:
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who four months ago broke the news to shocked parents that their children had been slaughtered in a Connecticut elementary school, signed into law Thursday sweeping new restrictions on weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines similar to the ones used by the man who gunned down 20 child and six educators in the massacre. ... Now, Connecticut joins states including California, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts in having the country's strongest gun control laws, said Brian Malte, director of mobilization for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington. "This would put Connecticut right at the top or near the top of the states with the strongest gun laws," Malte said. The legislation adds more than 100 firearms to the state's assault weapons ban and creates what officials have called the nation's first dangerous weapon offender registry as well as eligibility rules for buying ammunition. Some parts of the bill would take effect immediately after Malloy's signature, including background checks for all firearms sales. Following a total of more than 13 hours of respectful and at times somber debate, the House of Representatives and the Senate voted in favor of the 139-page bill crafted by leaders from both major parties in the Democratic-controlled General Assembly. Both were bipartisan votes. Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/dannel-p-malloy-signs-gun-limits-into-law-89636.html?hp=l4_b1
|
On April 05 2013 06:00 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +Ultimately, many of these mortgages turned out to be toxic. In their paper, Tomasz Piskorski and James Witkin of Columbia University and Amit Seru of the University of Chicago found that the pool of misrepresented mortgages they studied were 60 to 70 percent more likely to default than other loans.
"Investors want to understand what kind of securities they're buying, and during the housing boom years, from about 2005 to 2007, they potentially were misled by information that was given to them regarding the quality of these securities," Piskorski said. "This materially impacts the risk of these loans." Show nested quote +This wasn't a few cases of fraud, either. According to the study, 27 percent of loans obtained by non-owner occupants misreported their true purpose, and 15 percent of loans with second liens incorrectly reported that such loans were not present. SourceThis seems like a pretty good source.
Were you able to find any $ values for the fraud? I can't seem to find any good numbers... the financial crisis inquiry cites 'one study' that puts fraud losses between 2005 and 2007 at $112B. Link (see page xxii)
On the other hand core logic puts fraudulent mortgage originations at ~$30B in 2006 (losses wouldn't be 100% so the implied losses are much lower than $112B).Link
The question I have is that while I know fraud was a big and growing issue, I need more info (really better info) to know how big an issue it was.
|
On April 05 2013 10:16 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2013 12:29 Souma wrote:Didn't realize this was a problem in any states. It will obviously get struck down by the courts. 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 two lawmakers who filed the bill, state Reps. Harry Warren and Carl Ford, did not immediately return calls Wednesday from NBC News. The American Civil Liberties Union sued last month to stop the Rowan County Commission from opening meetings with Christian prayers. One of those prayers declared that “there is only one way to salvation, and that is Jesus Christ,” the ACLU said. 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.” North Carolina scholars also cast doubt on the bill. “It has elements of not being American,” Gary Freeze, a professor of politics and history at Catawba College, told The Salisbury Post. “I think it goes far beyond religion and frankly doesn’t have a lot to do with North Carolina or tradition.” Another professor at the college, Michael Bitzer, told the newspaper that 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.” http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/03/17584491-first-amendment-doesnt-apply-here-nc-lawmakers-push-bill-for-state-religion?lite Can someone remind me again why I should have a general sense of respect or even community with southern states? The sad part is that this shit isn't uncommon.
Well one is because they are humans too and just because they disagree with you is no reason to be disrespectful. Two is that not everyone in southern states even disagrees with you. And three is because both arguments are 100% correct. The Supreme Court isn't given the power to decide what is or isn't constitutional by the constitution, even if they have illegally exercised this power for over 200 years. And also the First Amendment does not and should not prevent states from favoring some religions over others, or even the federal government from favoring some religions over others.
TBH, I feel the same way about blue states and Dem voters a lot; that I don't actually have any respect for them at all. But I usually just need to remind myself that that kind of feeling is actually bad, and that everyone, irrespective of their opinion, deserves some basic respect.
|
On April 05 2013 12:01 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 10:16 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 04 2013 12:29 Souma wrote:Didn't realize this was a problem in any states. It will obviously get struck down by the courts. 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 two lawmakers who filed the bill, state Reps. Harry Warren and Carl Ford, did not immediately return calls Wednesday from NBC News. The American Civil Liberties Union sued last month to stop the Rowan County Commission from opening meetings with Christian prayers. One of those prayers declared that “there is only one way to salvation, and that is Jesus Christ,” the ACLU said. 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.” North Carolina scholars also cast doubt on the bill. “It has elements of not being American,” Gary Freeze, a professor of politics and history at Catawba College, told The Salisbury Post. “I think it goes far beyond religion and frankly doesn’t have a lot to do with North Carolina or tradition.” Another professor at the college, Michael Bitzer, told the newspaper that 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.” http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/03/17584491-first-amendment-doesnt-apply-here-nc-lawmakers-push-bill-for-state-religion?lite Can someone remind me again why I should have a general sense of respect or even community with southern states? The sad part is that this shit isn't uncommon. Well one is because they are humans too and just because they disagree with you is no reason to be disrespectful. Two is that not everyone in southern states even disagrees with you. And three is because both arguments are 100% correct. The Supreme Court isn't given the power to decide what is or isn't constitutional by the constitution, even if they have illegally exercised this power for over 200 years. And also the First Amendment does not and should not prevent states from favoring some religions over others, or even the federal government from favoring some religions over others. TBH, I feel the same way about blue states and Dem voters a lot; that I don't actually have any respect for them at all. But I usually just need to remind myself that that kind of feeling is actually bad, and that everyone, irrespective of their opinion, deserves some basic respect.
I know. Blue states are so terrible. We're so racist, sexist, homophobic, harmful to the individual consumer, harmful to the environment, anti-intellectual, and just overall illogical and hypocritical.
Oh wait...
In all seriousness though, my comment was tongue-in-cheek. No shit they're human beings. Stop being such an uptight Republican. It was a joke about the absurdity and hypocrisy of a red state making a law that goes against the freedom and small government that they constantly gripe about.
|
On April 05 2013 12:11 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 12:01 sc2superfan101 wrote:On April 05 2013 10:16 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 04 2013 12:29 Souma wrote:Didn't realize this was a problem in any states. It will obviously get struck down by the courts. 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 two lawmakers who filed the bill, state Reps. Harry Warren and Carl Ford, did not immediately return calls Wednesday from NBC News. The American Civil Liberties Union sued last month to stop the Rowan County Commission from opening meetings with Christian prayers. One of those prayers declared that “there is only one way to salvation, and that is Jesus Christ,” the ACLU said. 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.” North Carolina scholars also cast doubt on the bill. “It has elements of not being American,” Gary Freeze, a professor of politics and history at Catawba College, told The Salisbury Post. “I think it goes far beyond religion and frankly doesn’t have a lot to do with North Carolina or tradition.” Another professor at the college, Michael Bitzer, told the newspaper that 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.” http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/03/17584491-first-amendment-doesnt-apply-here-nc-lawmakers-push-bill-for-state-religion?lite Can someone remind me again why I should have a general sense of respect or even community with southern states? The sad part is that this shit isn't uncommon. Well one is because they are humans too and just because they disagree with you is no reason to be disrespectful. Two is that not everyone in southern states even disagrees with you. And three is because both arguments are 100% correct. The Supreme Court isn't given the power to decide what is or isn't constitutional by the constitution, even if they have illegally exercised this power for over 200 years. And also the First Amendment does not and should not prevent states from favoring some religions over others, or even the federal government from favoring some religions over others. TBH, I feel the same way about blue states and Dem voters a lot; that I don't actually have any respect for them at all. But I usually just need to remind myself that that kind of feeling is actually bad, and that everyone, irrespective of their opinion, deserves some basic respect. I know. Blue states are so terrible. We're so racist, sexist, homophobic, harmful to the individual consumer, harmful to the environment, anti-intellectual, and just overall illogical and hypocritical. Oh wait... In all seriousness though, my comment was tongue-in-cheek. No shit they're human beings. Stop being such an uptight Republican. It was a joke about the absurdity and hypocrisy of a red state making a law that goes against the freedom and small government that they constantly gripe about.
I take it that you're implying that red states are racist, sexist, etc? If so then I will laugh, because actually, in a lot of ways, I feel like those are exactly how the blue states generally are.
How does a law that takes power away from the federal government, and awards it to the state and local governments, conflict with a small government/freedom philosophy?
|
States with supermajorities do stupid shit like that all the time. I just wish they'd share the good fast food chains with the north. They play ads for sonic in minnesota all the time and they have no sonics here in minnesota.
I still don't understand people when they use the terms "red states" and "blue states" when this nation is now just a collection of a ton of small red counties and a very few very largely populated blue counties.
|
What exactly is the point of declaring a state religion? I can't think of any positives, only negatives. Christianity has already found it's way into the government where it doesn't belong, isn't that enough?
On April 05 2013 12:23 Sermokala wrote:
States with supermajorities do stupid shit like that all the time. I just wish they'd share the good fast food chains with the north. They play ads for sonic in minnesota all the time and they have no sonics here in minnesota.
I still don't understand people when they use the terms "red states" and "blue states" when this nation is now just a collection of a ton of small red counties and a very few very largely populated blue counties.
I used to live across the highway from a sonic. It's greasy and amazing. And they serve breakfast all day long :D
edit; and pretty girls wear skates to deliver food to your car.
|
They tried to start one up around where Iive but they went full stupid and tried to keep an outdoor eating fast food place open during the cold winter. My cousin worked there and they didn't get any business for weeks at a time.
|
On April 05 2013 12:31 Sermokala wrote:
They tried to start one up around where Iive but they went full stupid and tried to keep an outdoor eating fast food place open during the cold winter. My cousin worked there and they didn't get any business for weeks at a time.
That's how sonic works. You can eat in your car, on the outside tables, or take it home. Hell I've been to a dozen sonics and only one had an indoor area that no one used. It's old school. Of course down there cold weather is like 40F lol. Southerners...
|
On April 05 2013 12:16 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 12:11 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 05 2013 12:01 sc2superfan101 wrote:On April 05 2013 10:16 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 04 2013 12:29 Souma wrote:Didn't realize this was a problem in any states. It will obviously get struck down by the courts. 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 two lawmakers who filed the bill, state Reps. Harry Warren and Carl Ford, did not immediately return calls Wednesday from NBC News. The American Civil Liberties Union sued last month to stop the Rowan County Commission from opening meetings with Christian prayers. One of those prayers declared that “there is only one way to salvation, and that is Jesus Christ,” the ACLU said. 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.” North Carolina scholars also cast doubt on the bill. “It has elements of not being American,” Gary Freeze, a professor of politics and history at Catawba College, told The Salisbury Post. “I think it goes far beyond religion and frankly doesn’t have a lot to do with North Carolina or tradition.” Another professor at the college, Michael Bitzer, told the newspaper that 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.” http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/03/17584491-first-amendment-doesnt-apply-here-nc-lawmakers-push-bill-for-state-religion?lite Can someone remind me again why I should have a general sense of respect or even community with southern states? The sad part is that this shit isn't uncommon. Well one is because they are humans too and just because they disagree with you is no reason to be disrespectful. Two is that not everyone in southern states even disagrees with you. And three is because both arguments are 100% correct. The Supreme Court isn't given the power to decide what is or isn't constitutional by the constitution, even if they have illegally exercised this power for over 200 years. And also the First Amendment does not and should not prevent states from favoring some religions over others, or even the federal government from favoring some religions over others. TBH, I feel the same way about blue states and Dem voters a lot; that I don't actually have any respect for them at all. But I usually just need to remind myself that that kind of feeling is actually bad, and that everyone, irrespective of their opinion, deserves some basic respect. I know. Blue states are so terrible. We're so racist, sexist, homophobic, harmful to the individual consumer, harmful to the environment, anti-intellectual, and just overall illogical and hypocritical. Oh wait... In all seriousness though, my comment was tongue-in-cheek. No shit they're human beings. Stop being such an uptight Republican. It was a joke about the absurdity and hypocrisy of a red state making a law that goes against the freedom and small government that they constantly gripe about. I take it that you're implying that red states are racist, sexist, etc? If so then I will laugh, because actually, in a lot of ways, I feel like those are exactly how the blue states generally are. How does a law that takes power away from the federal government, and awards it to the state and local governments, conflict with a small government/freedom philosophy?
State government is still government. Just because the state is the one oppressing you instead of the federal government, doesn't mean you're suddenly free or that it's better. In fact, that's one of the best things about the federal government; it can protect the poor, minorities, and disenfranchised from idiotic old white men that want to force their "Christian" values on everyone under the guise of "state government = freedom".
Oh, and I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of states that allow you to be fired/evicted for being gay are red. I'm also pretty sure that the states that have attempted to institute forced vaginal ultrasounds or refuse to enact equal pay for women laws are red. Oh, and I'm also pretty sure that the vast majority of states that have seriously entertained trying to force schools to teach creationism in science classes by law are red states.
But go ahead, tell us all about how these southern states are actually liberating, freedom loving, and not anti-intellectual and how progressives are actually evil freedom haters.
Edit: I mean don't get me wrong. Conservatives can be perfectly smart and have cohesive, intelligent ideas. You've consistently shown us that you can have that kind of respectable conservative viewpoint throughout these forums. The problem is that I've grown increasingly cynical throughout my experience of U.S. politics. I keep hearing people say, "Those guys don't represent the Republican party!", and yet the vast majority of faces (and voters) of the Republican party are either racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-intellectual, or just plain fucking stupid. The Republican party and the message they send (and the crap that their voter base is indoctrinated with and regurgitates) is the problem, not the ideology itself.
So enlighten us. Tell us why it is theoretically o.k. for NC to say F*** you to the Supreme Court and federal laws/precedent, and also explain why it is a) advantageous and b) morally acceptable to set up a state religion, because I'm not buying it. Even from the constitutional point of view, yes the Supreme Court wasn't given the power of judicial review in the constitution itself, but hundreds of years of precedent sets the standard.
|
@sc2superfan
What are some positives in your opinion for having a state religion. I'm biased but I cannot think of a single one.
|
There's only one, moral paternalism. The Christians are concerned with other people's souls, and thus if they have to force people to be saved they will because it is for their own good.
|
State religion is not only bad for the state, its bad for religion.
|
Like I'm reading more and more about this and its just coming off as sounding dumber and dumber. Like its not passed or even voted on but some bullshit that a guy put ahead as a resolution to be voted on beacuse of some bigger bullshit thats going on in a small country commissioners meeting.
It died this very afternoon, Like it was never seriously a thing and there are far worse things that can be dug up on the blue side of the country for this stuff. Like obama being the only guy in the room saying that they should kill babies that are born but were intended to be aborted.
|
NYTimes: U.S. Added Only 88,000 Jobs in March; Unemployment Dips to 7.6%.
That's a lower than expected jobs increase, coupled with a fall in the unemployment rate, meaning that the labor force participation likely dropped again.
This is the first jobs report since the sequester. This is the fewest jobs in 9 months. For reference, last month added 268,000 jobs. It is very likely that the sequester is to blame for the abnormally lackluster numbers.
|
WASHINGTON — President Obama next week will take the political risk of formally proposing cuts to Social Security and Medicare in his annual budget in an effort to demonstrate his willingness to compromise with Republicans and revive prospects for a long-term deficit-reduction deal, administration officials say. In a significant shift in fiscal strategy, Mr. Obama on Wednesday will send a budget plan to Capitol Hill that departs from the usual presidential wish list that Republicans typically declare dead on arrival. Instead it will embody the final compromise offer that he made to Speaker John A. Boehner late last year, before Mr. Boehner abandoned negotiations in opposition to the president’s demand for higher taxes from wealthy individuals and some corporations. Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/us/social-programs-face-cutback-in-obama-budget.html
So Obama is re-proposing the final offer he made to Boehner, which include Social Security cuts, amongst many other cuts in an attempt to sound serious, and thereby restart budget negotiations with Republicans.
Any guess on what's going to happen? My bet is nothing. Zero compromise from Republicans.
For the record, almost $4 trillion has been cut under Obama, and as a result, the budget has already been more or less balanced over 10 years. Of that, ~$2.5 trillion is from spending cuts, ~$0.6 is from tax increases, and the rest is from interest savings.
|
On April 04 2013 12:29 Souma wrote:Didn't realize this was a problem in any states. It will obviously get struck down by the courts. Show nested quote +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 two lawmakers who filed the bill, state Reps. Harry Warren and Carl Ford, did not immediately return calls Wednesday from NBC News. The American Civil Liberties Union sued last month to stop the Rowan County Commission from opening meetings with Christian prayers. One of those prayers declared that “there is only one way to salvation, and that is Jesus Christ,” the ACLU said. 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.” North Carolina scholars also cast doubt on the bill. “It has elements of not being American,” Gary Freeze, a professor of politics and history at Catawba College, told The Salisbury Post. “I think it goes far beyond religion and frankly doesn’t have a lot to do with North Carolina or tradition.” Another professor at the college, Michael Bitzer, told the newspaper that 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.” http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/03/17584491-first-amendment-doesnt-apply-here-nc-lawmakers-push-bill-for-state-religion?lite
Wasn't the constitution written precisely to avoid this kind of stuff? One of the basic premises behind establishing the US as a republic with no official religion was to avoid the tyranny of monarchs and the corrupt clergy in Europe. This goes against the very essence of America, one of its core principles. Also, this should absolutely appall anyone who is in favour of small government.
Sounds borderline treasonous tbh.
And also the First Amendment does not and should not prevent states from favoring some religions over others, or even the federal government from favoring some religions over others.
Could you clarify this a bit? The language used seemed fairly unequivocal, respect no establishment of religion, no religious test shall ever be required to hold political office, a wall of separation etc.
|
On April 05 2013 22:29 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2013 12:29 Souma wrote:Didn't realize this was a problem in any states. It will obviously get struck down by the courts. 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 two lawmakers who filed the bill, state Reps. Harry Warren and Carl Ford, did not immediately return calls Wednesday from NBC News. The American Civil Liberties Union sued last month to stop the Rowan County Commission from opening meetings with Christian prayers. One of those prayers declared that “there is only one way to salvation, and that is Jesus Christ,” the ACLU said. 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.” North Carolina scholars also cast doubt on the bill. “It has elements of not being American,” Gary Freeze, a professor of politics and history at Catawba College, told The Salisbury Post. “I think it goes far beyond religion and frankly doesn’t have a lot to do with North Carolina or tradition.” Another professor at the college, Michael Bitzer, told the newspaper that 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.” http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/03/17584491-first-amendment-doesnt-apply-here-nc-lawmakers-push-bill-for-state-religion?lite Wasn't the constitution written precisely to avoid this kind of stuff? One of the basic premises behind establishing the US as a republic with no official religion was to avoid the tyranny of monarchs and the corrupt clergy in Europe. This goes against the very essence of America, one of its core principles. Also, this should absolutely appall anyone who is in favour of small government. Sounds borderline treasonous tbh.
The whole resolution from the start was all about making it so that NC would reject any federal laws or court rulings effect any of the churches in NC.
Literally Some lady in the back country objected to people saying "in jesus name, amen" and the end of their invocations at public meetings". Now the Crazies are rilled up that shes gona call obama and make some goon sit in their meeting and make sure that theres no god in our government and they'll lockup any god fearing christian who dares.
Plus this is the US south. a little treason isn't that much to them after everythings thats happened.
And to your edit the bill of rights was very vague. The whole separation of church and state really isn't in the constitution its just the common agreement that it echoes what "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means in practice.
|
Sounds like the plan to lock up the federal agents who were going to confiscate everyone's guns. Must be exhausting to live in such a binary world.
|
Quite the opposite actually. Never trusting the government and always over-reacting negatively to anything you see come out of it is a pretty simple life. Just collect your unemployment, drink some moonshine, smoke some pot and complain about those crazy liberals that do nothing all day but do drugs and drink on the governments dollar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
