North Carolina may declare a state religion

Republican North Carolina state legislators have proposed allowing an official state religion in a measure that would declare the state exempt from the Constitution and court rulings."

They tried this over 150 years ago, and it didn't work.  I'm not quite ready to for the South to Rise Again.  NC is on their own as far as I'm concerned. 

This kind of nonsense, and AL re-electing Roy Moore, and the Memphis City Council and thousands of other local travesties of nitwitness are the reasons state and local governments have no business handling anything important.

So what's wrong, in a free Nation, if a state wants to declare an official State Faith such as Christianity or Judaism or Islam?  For those that are for this must also accept and realize that others may follow suite an choose a Religion apart from Christianity or maybe they would even choose NO religion and would that be alright?  

The thing that I do believe is that if North Carolina or any other State does decide to do this that it will not be in violation of the Constitution of the United States as this would be a State sponsored issue and not one of the Federal Government which the Constitution was to limit with respect to selecting a chosen religion.

I'll reiterate, from the article:

"Republican North Carolina state legislators have proposed allowing an official state religionin a measure that would declare the state exempt from the Constitution and court rulings."

Separation of church and state is a basic tenet that should be applied to all levels of government.  The measure, as described, is basically a secession from the union.

There are certain aspects of the Constitution that all States adhere to but with specific regards to the wording of the First Amendment and Religion it is fairly straightforward in that CONGRESS shall make no law and although the Constitution does extend certain aspects, of the Constitution, to be followed by all the States, the First Amendment applies specifically to Congress and their ability to enact laws. 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

To say that this amendment is for the States is to indicate no understanding of what the Constitution is and to whom it applies.  Each State has their own Constitution and Government to govern each States people and it's own laws so if North Carolina, by virtue of it's own legislatures wish to favor a certain religion by name it is their RIGHT and FREEDOM to do so. 

What they are prohibited from doing is something such as enacting Slavery for that would violate the 13th Amendment and all States signed on to that and that part of the Constitution does apply to all States and governs all states.

No State Legislatures, Democratic or Republican, can declare their State exempt from the Constitution for all States signed the Constitution and are bound by it.  It is possible for a State to vote to seceded from the Union but I have to admit I'm not as informed on that.  Still though no State can declare itself exempt from the Constitution or Federal Court Rulings in areas that apply to all the States.  That would be akin to a State refusing to extradite a prisoner across state lines or enact slavery.  No such clause or act is enacted by the Constitution regarding Religion except with restrictions upon Congress itself. 

Leaving aside the whole constitutional issue why would this be a good idea? Most of the religious folk at the founding of the country thought it wasn't. What exactly does it accomplish?

who wants to bet utah goes catholic!?!?

I actually agree.  Religion is a very personal thing and while I'm all for keeping it free for everyone to make that decision for themselves I do not think it is beneficial for a State Government or any Government to get involved.  It very well could be Islam or Buddhism or some other religion that a specific group of people, a State chooses to recognize.  Government has far more to be concerned with than to get involved in obvious divisive issues such as Religion so I agree but I also believe they are within their rights to do so it is just not, in my Opinion, beneficial for them to do so.

One thing though.  It could be a reaction to the perception that the Federal Government is trying to encroach upon their Religious freedoms.  Basically I don't know why they are doing it.

I think you'll find the nitwits in DC.

The US is about individual freedom, not about national conformity. 

Will we have to test that again? 

A commenter on a blog maintained by Rowan County newspaper, the Salisbury Post, offered this observation, which describes the numbskull legislator behind this silly bill about as well as anyone can:

"Small minded, arrogant, misinformed, uneducated in the history of world religions, racist, pitifully unaware, bigoted, blasphemous, stupid to the point of affecting the entire state. Just a few of the things he forgot to credit himself with. Small minds seeking big headlines."  

Salisbury is a lovely little city with a proud history. George Washington actually did sleep there more than once.  I have some friends in Rowan County who are absolutely sane, so I know that there are at least two people there who would concur in the above-quoted description.

It's already a no-go in the state legislature:

<<<RALEIGH — The Defense of Religion Act resolution filed by two Rowan County representatives will likely go through some changes — if it goes anywhere — in the N.C. General Assembly.The House Rules chairman said Wednesday that the bill won’t be considered in its current form.

*                   *                 *                    *                   *               *

The resolution is nothing more than political grandstanding, said Marci Hamilton, church-state expert at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York City. “Were they to pass this bill, it would be unconstitutional and nothing but the subject of litigation,” she said. “It would take the federal courts about five minutes to hold that it’s unconstitutional.”>>>

http://www.salisburypost.com/a...ense-of-religion-act

I wish them luck.  Their atavistic philosophy will result in an expensive and embarrassing defeat in the Courts, as it should.

How UnAmerican of them!  How typically Republican, these days.  They should be ashamed.

DF

the republican party has moved so far to the right, after the next elections, any elected republicans will place their hand on the constitution and swear to uphold the bible.

It's interesting how you declare them to be UN-American.  I believe they are in keeping with our Nations Founders which were no doubt, a majority, of Religious People who drafted a Constitution which was respectful of what they considered man(kind)'s God Given Rights from a Creator/God.   There is much debate about were the founders religious people or not, did they believe in God or not, were they Christians or not.  While there are many that produce documents that can be construed to say one founder believed one way or another we can derive from who these men were some of their typical beliefs or who they acquainted themselves with.  

For instance it is no secret that several, possibly most were Mason's including Ben Franklin whom many clam that he was a "Free-Thinker".  Note that I am not equating Freemasonry with Christianity as I don't think that can be rightly done.  Many of  our Nation's documents and founders and leaders no doubt were influenced by personally held beliefs of these men and most were no doubt Masons or acquainted closely with Masons.  Although there is no direct evidence, as no one put in writing, that it was so, many believe that the Constitutions of the Free-Masons  (http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libraryscience/25/) had an influence on our own Constitution for within the Free-Mason's Constitution there was:

• Separation of Church and Government
• A system of Checks and Balances
• One Man One Vote

And the same thoughts are also found in the Nation's Constitution and also 13 of the 39 signers of the Constitution were Free Masons, including Ben Franklin but not Thomas Jefferson.  I tend to believe that the Masonic Constitution and beliefs did have a great effect on our Constitution but I also believe that the Moral/Natural Law did also.

One interesting part of this Masonic Constitution is the following:

I. Concerning GOD and RELIGION.

A Mason is oblig’d by his Tenure, to obey the moral Law ; and if he rightly understands the Art, he will never be a stu- pid Atheist, nor an irreligious Libertine. But though in an- cient Times Masons were charg’d in every Country to be of the Religion of that Country or Nation, whatever it was, yet ’tis now thought more expedient only to oblige them to that Religion in which all Men agree, leaving their particular Opinions to themselves ; that is, to be good Men and true, or Men of Honour and Honesty, by whatever Denominations or Persuasions they may be distinguish’d ; whereby Masonry becomes the Center of Union, and the Means of conciliating true Friendship among Persons that must else have remain’d at a perpetual Distance.

Interesting to see how the Free-Masons considered a person that was an Atheist.  Here too we see the seeds of keeping Religious beliefs from causing conflicts among each other or causing conflicts, thus keeping it separate to each person, but in no way is it a rejection of Religion or rejection of God but was not an endorsement of Christianity as the only Religion in fact there are many that say a person cannot be a Mason and a true Christian.

I am not an advocate that America was founded as a Christian nation but rather that many Christians and moral people were very involved in the founding of our Nation.  I think a far more palatable argument is that our nation was far more influence by the Freemasons than Christianity in general but that does not in any way mean that our nation was not set up and founded as a nation that honored and respected God as Creator and supreme Deity and that the respect that the Mason's gave Religion, all Religions, cannot be overlooked.  The importance was that no one denomination of "opinion" would become legislated as a national religion or belief and in that vein what North Carolina is doing is not what would be advised by the Founders but I don't see as non-American in any way.  Again there is no proof that this is so and that Freemasonry effected the Constitution we have today but I consider it an interesting possibility.

gb, the USA is neither a Christian nor a Masonic nation.  We enjoy freedom of religion.  That includes freedom from religion.
The 6th Article of the Constitution states that no religious test will be required for any office under the Constitution.  The First Amendment, in contrast to the First Commandment, says whatever gods, or no gods, you prefer are fine.
There's no reason to p*a*r*s*e it any farther.  No religion is acceptable as a "State" religion.  Who would you pick to choose your official religion?

DF

While there may be protections for whatever a person chooses to believe I think it's not too concealed what was thought of someone who denied God all together, such as atheism.   As for the Constitution's banishing any religious test I believe you are reading far too much into that but rather that no one specific set of beliefs was to be a rule for holding or gaining office. 

AS for Religious beliefs and the First Amendment, all too often the latter part of the instructions to Congress is forgotten or left out.  The instructions are:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

I'm curious as to how you interpret and what you believe is meant by "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof for surely, given it's context it refers to Religion itself.  If there was to be restrictions upon the "free exercise thereof" it wasn't inferred or given.  Therefore sharing of one's faith is surely an exercise of ones Religion if one is of the same belief as Bill where Christ's Great Commission is regarded as instructions to share of one's faith.  That being the case would not the move by the Pentagon or whoever petitioned the Pentagon to make sharing of faith akin to treason and a Court Martial offense is surely in violation of our Constitution's first amendment.  (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-P...hare-Christian-Faith)  All too many times many want to omit or forget the remainder of the instruction to Congress.  That is one of the charges to many Chaplains yet this individual wants to make it a Court Martial offense if they share their faith or do what they are put there to do.  Curious how you feel about that?

we already know that crust, that's the reason for the US House and Senate, That was common knowledge to the architects of the Constitution. I think maybe they said the same thing. it is certainly true of Alabama.

----------------

Crusty you have referred to  Memphis City Council again. The most

 pathetic bunch in the country, have you got your eye on Janis Fullilove?

____________________

Haven't lived there for about 30 years, now.  Don't follow them.  But they aren't unique.