Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: Kootenai County Republican Central Committee declare Idaho a Christian state

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154

    Kootenai County Republican Central Committee declare Idaho a Christian state

    The proposal seeks that Idaho be “formally and specifically declared a Christian state,” guided by a Judeo-Christian faith reflected in the U.S. Declaration of Independence where all authority and power is attributed to God, the resolution reads.

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/r...ristian-state/

    Supporters, meanwhile, say they only want to foster the type of political atmosphere that would make James Madison and Thomas Jefferson proud.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ian-declarati/
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    836
    I'm an anomaly among right wing conservatives in that I hold no delusions about invisible bullies who live in the sky and I don't take marching orders from ancient books of ridiculous fairy tales.

    Don't these idiots know the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document and has no enforcement value? Even if it did, it only mentions "Natures God" in deist abstract. No mention of Jesus is found. No words such as "God", "Lord" "Jesus" "Christ" (or "Democracy" as a matter of fact) are found in the supreme law of our land, The United States Constitution.

    What is contained is the First Amendment which mentions "no law respecting an establishment of religion" as well as Article 6, paragraph 3 which states "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

    I always thought George Carlin was a jerk, but I agreed when he said "Keep your religion to yourself!"

  3. #3
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430

    'Christian state' bid bedeviled

    Quote Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
    "Keep your religion to yourself!"
    One could say the same to you, and George.

    Posted: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:00 am | Updated: 9:24 am, Thu Feb 26, 2015.

    JEFF SELLE/jselle@cdapress.com

    COEUR d'ALENE - An attempt to declare Idaho a "Christian state" was nixed by the local Republican Party.

    http://www.cdapress.com/news/politic...72f1321ef.html

    "Thomas Jefferson

    SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; DIPLOMAT; GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA; SECRETARY OF STATE; THIRD PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

    The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.

    The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses.

    I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others.

    I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."

    http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissue...es.asp?id=8755
    Last edited by SovereigntyOrDeath; 02-28-2015 at 10:10 AM.
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Jesus didn't have good things to say about those who think it's important to trumpet their faith.

    And that's all this is: a smug, gloaty, echo-chambery trumpeting of faith.

  5. #5
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Jesus didn't have good things to say about those who think it's important to trumpet their faith.
    Do you have a cite on the subject? A parable or quote from the bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    And that's all this is: a smug, gloaty, echo-chambery trumpeting of faith.
    No, I think it has to do with establishing rule of law based on JudeoChristian values.

    No gay marriage. No abortion, etc, etc, etc.....or maybe it's just a taunt for some islamic terrorist to try something here with a very well armed citizenry.

    For the record, I don't agree with the proposal.....
    Last edited by SovereigntyOrDeath; 02-28-2015 at 02:06 PM.
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by SovereigntyOrDeath View Post
    Do you have a cite on the subject? A parable or quote from the bible?
    Matthew 6:5

    It says, basically, that those who proclaim their faith for the purpose of being observed by others shall receive no further reward than the mere fact of having been observed. I think even we atheists can agree with that one.

    I stand by my original assessment 100%.
    Last edited by marshaul; 02-28-2015 at 02:59 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    836
    Quote Originally Posted by SovereigntyOrDeath View Post
    Do you have a cite on the subject? A parable or quote from the bible?
    Who cares? And who cares about quotes from the Founders. They have no legal authority. Only the US constitution does, and it is clear that there is to be no established religion. PERIOD! What those Bozos tried to do in Idaho was a middle finger to the First Amendment and to anyone who believes (or doesn't believe at all) differently than them. Would you really have a theocracy here? Look how great it works in the mid-east. Would you be for Detroit having Islam as an official religion? How about Judaism for the entire state of Florida?

    I would take up arms to protect your right to believe and worship as you please, but when you try to force those beliefs on anyone else or establish a "state religion" guess who becomes the enemy then?

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
    Who cares? And who cares about quotes from the Founders. They have no legal authority. Only the US constitution does, and it is clear that there is to be no established religion. PERIOD! What those Bozos tried to do in Idaho was a middle finger to the First Amendment and to anyone who believes (or doesn't believe at all) differently than them. Would you really have a theocracy here? Look how great it works in the mid-east. Would you be for Detroit having Islam as an official religion? How about Judaism for the entire state of Florida?

    I would take up arms to protect your right to believe and worship as you please, but when you try to force those beliefs on anyone else or establish a "state religion" guess who becomes the enemy then?
    Agreed.

  9. #9
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Matthew 6:5

    It says, basically, that those who proclaim their faith for the purpose of being observed by others shall receive no further reward than the mere fact of having been observed. I think even we atheists can agree with that one.

    I stand by my original assessment 100%.
    Not the reason for them doing it, so your cite does not apply.

    Nice try though.
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  10. #10
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
    And who cares about quotes from the Founders.They have no legal authority. Only the US constitution does
    Really? They wrote the bloody thing

    Quote Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
    and it is clear that there is to be no established religion. PERIOD! What those Bozos tried to do in Idaho was a middle finger to the First Amendment and to anyone who believes (or doesn't believe at all) differently than them. Would you really have a theocracy here? Look how great it works in the mid-east. Would you be for Detroit having Islam as an official religion? How about Judaism for the entire state of Florida?

    I would take up arms to protect your right to believe and worship as you please, but when you try to force those beliefs on anyone else or establish a "state religion" guess who becomes the enemy then?
    Clam down and take a breath. It seems you overlooked my last sentence. let me repeat:

    Quote Originally Posted by SovereigntyOrDeath View Post
    For the record, I don't agree with the proposal.....
    Carry On.
    Last edited by SovereigntyOrDeath; 03-01-2015 at 01:39 AM.
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by SovereigntyOrDeath View Post
    Not the reason for them doing it, so your cite does not apply.

    Nice try though.
    You're talking about about the Kootenai Republicans? Yeah, that's exactly why they're doing it.

    I have supreme confidence in my prior assessment.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    836
    Quote Originally Posted by SovereigntyOrDeath View Post
    Really? They wrote the bloody thing.
    So does anything they said or wrote afterwards hold any legal authority?

    Nope.

  13. #13
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
    So does anything they said or wrote afterwards hold any legal authority?

    Nope.
    never said it did. their opinions however holds water to interpret what they meant.
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  14. #14
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    You're talking about about the Kootenai Republicans? Yeah, that's exactly why they're doing it.

    I have supreme confidence in my prior assessment.
    Wrong.

    Their motives are to prevent gay marriage here.
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by SovereigntyOrDeath View Post
    Wrong.

    Their motives are to prevent gay marriage here.
    Non sequitur alert!

    I continue to stand by my assessment.

  16. #16
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Non sequitur alert!

    I continue to stand by my assessment.
    And I by mine.

    I am sure your opinion is right compared to little old me who has first hand knowledge about the committee in my town.

    carry on.
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by SovereigntyOrDeath View Post
    And I by mine.

    I am sure your opinion is right compared to little old me who has first hand knowledge about the committee in my town.

    carry on.
    What, so politicians can't lie about their motivations?

    What you propose as their motivation doesn't even sort of make sense.

  18. #18
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
    I'm an anomaly among right wing conservatives in that I hold no delusions about invisible bullies who live in the sky and I don't take marching orders from ancient books of ridiculous fairy tales.
    Apparently you've adopted the same disregard for others as is typical among left-wing atheists. There are civil ways to express disagreement with others' beliefs. Give them a try, you might get better responses.


    Quote Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
    What is contained is the First Amendment which mentions "no law respecting an establishment of religion" as well as Article 6, paragraph 3 which states "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
    And as originally written, adopted, and applied, the 1st amendment prevented congress from enacting any law regarding an establishment of religion. That means congress could not declare a national religion. Nor could congress prohibit the several States from having their own, official, State religions. A modest history of State funded churches can be read on the official congressional website. This website also has some nice, plain language history of the matter.

    "First, we need to remember that when the First Amendment was drafted, most of the newly independent states of the United States already had established churches. ....

    "Second, we need to recognize that the ratification of the First Amendment did not change any of this. It guaranteed only that the federal government would not establish an official national church or pass any laws interfering with a person’s religious practice. The states were left free to make their own rules about religion."

    Atheists who are ignorant of their history and attempt to diminish the role of religion among the founders and drafters are no less silly than believers who are ignorant and attempt to over-state the role of religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
    I always thought George Carlin was a jerk, but I agreed when he said "Keep your religion to yourself!"
    No. And be glad that so many didn't keep their religion to themselves.

    The revolution was stoked in terms of religious beliefs. They were carefully expressed to avoid sectarian disagreement. But the multiple references to Nature's God, Divine Judge, and Creator are clear. As is the language of the pro-revolutionary propaganda. Thomas Paine compared conquering tyranny to conquering hell. He writes of times that are trying to men's souls. Patrick Henry writes of "a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us," as well as " An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts " in his "War Inevitable" speech.

    Our notion of all men being created equal is a Christian view of men standing equal before God as He is no respecter of persons. It stands in direct contrast to all evidence we see of the physical man being highly varied in abilities, virtues, and desires.

    Abolition in both England and the USA was built upon the religious belief that all men are brothers, another Christian theme.

    It was the Reverend MLK who most advanced civil rights in the 60s with his language of Christian scripture and appeals to the religious convictions of his countrymen.

    Admittedly, in a pluralistic society, "The Bible says..." is not, of itself, reason to pass any given law. But neither should Biblical or other religiously based or informed beliefs be banished from the public square in any regard.

    A just and moral populace is as vital to functioning and free republic as is an educated populace. And religion is a major component of morality for most people.

    For intelligent men, religious beliefs are as welcomed into the public square as any secular beliefs. At the end of the day, religion will inform and influence how people conduct themselves. So we are well advised to be familiar with the motivation...not to mention seeking the wisdom that comes from centuries and millennia of organized religious thoughts and conduct.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  19. #19
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
    So does anything they said or wrote afterwards hold any legal authority?

    Nope.
    It is entirely common for Judges including those sitting on the Supreme Court to look to the words of the drafters to understand original intent as they apply constitutional language to the particulars of various cases. Or at least, those who are not hostile to the Constitution (on any given issue) will do so. Without original intent we have no constitution, we merely have what a few robed lawyers want, cloaked in constitutional language.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  20. #20
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Matthew 6:5

    It says, basically, that those who proclaim their faith for the purpose of being observed by others shall receive no further reward than the mere fact of having been observed. I think even we atheists can agree with that one.
    Always fun to see an atheists presume to tell Christians what they believe. Especially when it involves cherry picking a single scripture out of context.

    Mathew 6:5 must be taken in context of Mathew 5:16

    " Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."

    We might also look to Mark 3:4, Luke 6:9, and Mathew 12:12 where Christ teaches that it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath, despite certain laws or traditions that limit work on that day.

    Personally, I don't see any virtue in the proposed resolution.

    But I do see great benefit in States being selective and careful about which relationships they officially encourage and recognize with marriage benefits. I do not see anything in original intent nor even best sociology to suggest that States should grant marriage benefits to homosexual couples. I do believe homosexual couples (or triples or whatever number) have every right to live their private lives without fear of criminal prosecution. But I don't believe they have any right to force society to grant official recognition nor legal benefits to those private relationships.

    Of course, as a libertarian/anarchist/volunteerist, you are opposed to government being involved at all in the recognizing of marriages or granting marriage benefits, aren't you?

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    Always fun to see an atheists presume to tell Christians what they believe.
    No more fun than it is to see Christians presume to declare atheists' religion for them, or declare what the religion of the government that is also composed of atheists is, or whatever the hell pedantic description you'd apply.

    If religionists -- of any type whatsoever -- don't want me to "presume" to analyze their faith, then they can just go ahead and keep it private, as it belongs in the first place. The second that religion is declared, by government, for an entire county (much less state), it's entirely fair game for me to tell you what it says.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    836
    If a Christian state is declared, which form of Christianity is it? Do these people want the U.S. to be like Ireland? There are enough things that divide us, why complicated more with asinine (and unconstitutional) ideas like this?

  23. #23
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613
    This country was founded by people with deep seated Judeo/Christian beliefs. Fortunately they saw the wisdom in separating the government from endorsing/sponsoring one belief system over another. That did not preclude their personal beliefs though.
    http://www.jewishworldreview.com/030..._03_30_04.php3

    Except as it may apply directly to OC or RKBA, religion is more than a little bit off topic for this forum.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  24. #24
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Believers are not diminished by non-believers. Why do non believers care in the first place.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Believers are not diminished by non-believers. Why do non believers care in the first place.
    Is this a serious question? Try putting yourself in the other guy's shoes for a minute.

    Public policy affects all of us. Let's pretend this has nothing to do with anything but same-sex marriage; if a ban on same-sex marriage is proposed for practical concerns (family cohesion or whatever), these can be debated on their merits by all affected parties. (For instance, advocates for permitting same-sex marriage might point out that straight couples have high divorce rates, single parenthood is increasing, and two same-gender parents must be better for a kid than only one parent. And that prohibiting same-sex marriage doesn't actually prevent gays from acquiring kids through various means; it merely prohibits them from raising these children in a two-parent household which benefits from the stability supposedly proffered by the legally-recognized commitment that is marriage.)

    But the instant religionists decide to switch to religious justification (presumably because they're aware that their practical justifications fall short), those of us who are atheists – and who, yet, are every bit as subject to rules which are now fundamentally religious in nature – are essentially excluded from providing input related to that justification. You can see how this works in this very thread, with Charles wondering how atheists presume to opine on a matter which is now one of public policy.

    Since we're not "permitted" by those with faith to provide input on the nature of that faith (for the superficially logical reason that we don't actually share that faith), we have no recourse but to simply attack the imposition of religion into the public sphere.

    I might point out that, unlike the Kootenai Republicans, the founders were (for the most part) men of intelligence and character who foresaw exactly this and thus carefully segregated religion from the public sphere.

    I hope you can understand a little better now.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •