North Carolina May Declare Official State Religion Under New Bill

North Carolina May Declare Official State Religion Under New Bill
By John Celock
Huffington Post

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.

The bill, filed Monday by two GOP lawmakers from Rowan County and backed by nine other Republicans, says each state "is sovereign" and courts cannot block a state "from making laws respecting an establishment of religion." The legislation was filed in response to a lawsuit to stop county commissioners in Rowan County from opening meetings with a Christian prayer, wral.com reported.

The religion bill comes as some Republican-led states seek to separate themselves from the federal government, primarily on the issues of guns and Obamacare. This includes a proposal in Mississippi to establish a state board with the power to nullify federal laws.

The North Carolina bill's main sponsors, state Reps. Carl Ford (R-China Grove) and Harry Warren (R-Salisbury), could not be reached for comment on Tuesday, The Salisbury Post reported. Co-sponsors include House Majority Leader Edgar Starnes (R-Hickory). Another is state Rep. Larry Pittman (R-Concord), who in February introduced a state constitutional amendment that would allow for carrying concealed weapons to fight federal "tyranny."

The bill says the First Amendment only applies to the federal government and does not stop state governments, local governments and school districts from adopting measures that defy the Constitution. The legislation also says that the Tenth Amendment, which says powers not reserved for the federal government belong to the states, prohibits court rulings that would seek to apply the First Amendment to state and local officials.

The bill reads:

SECTION 1. The North Carolina General Assembly asserts that the Constitution of the United States of America does not prohibit states or their subsidiaries from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.

SECTION 2. The North Carolina General Assembly does not recognize federal court rulings which prohibit and otherwise regulate the State of North Carolina, its public schools, or any political subdivisions of the State from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.

I like how the sponsors of this bill conveniently forget about the 14th Amendment.

Yeah

Bryant wrote:I like how the sponsors of this bill conveniently forget about the 14th Amendment.

Oh the dreaded "Recontruction Amendment". If ever there was an amendment that needs to go, it is the 14th.

Anyway here it is:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


Nothing about religion. I guess one could stretch article one into a half decent argument. Once again, one must read the document in the spirit in which it was written and not in the spirit of today. This amendment dealt with one thing and one thing only. State sponsored religion, while wrong, is not what the 14th deals with.

Marconius wrote:

Bryant wrote:I like how the sponsors of this bill conveniently forget about the 14th Amendment.

Oh the dreaded "Recontruction Amendment". If ever there was an amendment that needs to go, it is the 14th.

Anyway here it is:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


Nothing about religion. I guess one could stretch article one into a half decent argument. Once again, one must read the document in the spirit in which it was written and not in the spirit of today. This amendment dealt with one thing and one thing only. State sponsored religion, while wrong, is not what the 14th deals with.

While you are correct that the 14th Amendment says nothing about religion, that isn't where it comes into play. The authors of the bill asserted that the limitations of government actions delineated in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States can not be applied to state laws because of a strange reading of the 10th Amendment. One of the purposes of the 14th Amendment was to clearly express that the rights granted to the People in the US Constitution must be observed by the states. The 14th Amendment undoes the legislatures argument.

Bryant wrote:

While you are correct that the 14th Amendment says nothing about religion, that isn't where it comes into play. The authors of the bill asserted that the limitations of government actions delineated in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States can not be applied to state laws because of a strange reading of the 10th Amendment. One of the purposes of the 14th Amendment was to clearly express that the rights granted to the People in the US Constitution must be observed by the states. The 14th Amendment undoes the legislatures argument.

Yes!!! Exactly. The 14th does nothing at all except affirm the DC power grab that went on in the mid-1800's. This one amendment is a cornerstone for the rise of Federal power and control.

Winners not only write history.......they write policy first.

I think this is freakin hilarious. Is ok for activst judges in California and other states to defy DOMA and the will of the people, and start marrying gay couples on the grounds that States can pretty much do what they like, but not ok for NC to do what they want. (I mean, we all know Southerners are a buncha hicks anyway...right?) Ie..."We can marry fags but you better not hang the Ten Commandments in School or pray". Thats what's going on here.

Look here...if states begin defying DOMA, then they can take your guns from you, establish their own religion and theoretically defy the Emancipation Proclamation. This is what happens when the law is ignored.

This is probably gonna get tossed out...but the irony is amusing in a sad way.

Do you know how many laws we have that atent enforced? Which is wh every time a new one is proposed, i stop and ask, do we really neeed a new law, or can the problem be solved by enforcement of existing laws. I understand the premise behind the 14th, basically insuring the same rights granted under the fed const, regardless of state or locale. How could this be accomplished without it?

Dennis324 wrote:I think this is freakin hilarious. Is ok for activst judges in California and other states to defy DOMA and the will of the people, and start marrying gay couples on the grounds that States can pretty much do what they like, but not ok for NC to do what they want. (I mean, we all know Southerners are a buncha hicks anyway...right?) Ie..."We can marry fags but you better not hang the Ten Commandments in School or pray". Thats what's going on here.

Look here...if states begin defying DOMA, then they can take your guns from you, establish their own religion and theoretically defy the Emancipation Proclamation. This is what happens when the law is ignored.

This is probably gonna get tossed out...but the irony is amusing in a sad way.

DOMA only said that the Federal Government would not recognize gay marriage, not that the states could not recognize gay marriage. The states couldn't defy DOMA if they wanted to as the legislation has no bearing on the states. More over, gay marriage doesn't violate your, mine, or any one else's Constitutional rights. There is NOTHING in the US Constitution that band same sex marriage. There is something in the US Constitution that explicit prohibits state religion. While I respect you, that argument is complete bunk.

Marconius wrote:

Bryant wrote:

While you are correct that the 14th Amendment says nothing about religion, that isn't where it comes into play. The authors of the bill asserted that the limitations of government actions delineated in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States can not be applied to state laws because of a strange reading of the 10th Amendment. One of the purposes of the 14th Amendment was to clearly express that the rights granted to the People in the US Constitution must be observed by the states. The 14th Amendment undoes the legislatures argument.

Yes!!! Exactly. The 14th does nothing at all except affirm the DC power grab that went on in the mid-1800's. This one amendment is a cornerstone for the rise of Federal power and control.

Winners not only write history.......they write policy first.

Why was the 14th passed? What has going on in many parts of the south? I don't think its fair to paint the 14th as a cynical power grab by the Federal government. It was a response to the lack of rights granted by many states (the root of this problem dated back well before the Civil War, there were some major cases tried in New England that examined the relation between state activities and Federal rights).

Bryant wrote:

Dennis324 wrote:I think this is freakin hilarious. Is ok for activst judges in California and other states to defy DOMA and the will of the people, and start marrying gay couples on the grounds that States can pretty much do what they like, but not ok for NC to do what they want. (I mean, we all know Southerners are a buncha hicks anyway...right?) Ie..."We can marry fags but you better not hang the Ten Commandments in School or pray". Thats what's going on here.

Look here...if states begin defying DOMA, then they can take your guns from you, establish their own religion and theoretically defy the Emancipation Proclamation. This is what happens when the law is ignored.

This is probably gonna get tossed out...but the irony is amusing in a sad way.

DOMA only said that the Federal Government would not recognize gay marriage, not that the states could not recognize gay marriage. The states couldn't defy DOMA if they wanted to as the legislation has no bearing on the states. More over, gay marriage doesn't violate your, mine, or any one else's Constitutional rights. There is NOTHING in the US Constitution that band same sex marriage. There is something in the US Constitution that explicit prohibits state religion. While I respect you, that argument is complete bunk.

DOMA restricts Federal marriage benefits. It also restricts inter-state marriage recognition to man and woman. It also codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits (a Federal benefit), immigration, and the filing of joint tax returns. This is what so many are fighting about though they dont want to talk about it publically.

Why should this matter to the average person? Social security is already strained to the breaking point. Furthermore many people have insurance policies that they have to pay for each month. When you add in more and more people who are paying on joint policies, then when they have to file on those extra policies....everyone's premiums go up. Also when 1 member of a gay marriage dies, now the other member would have the right to draw upon SSI and many many other benefits...on a system that is already close to failing due to lack on money going into the system.

If one dies, the spouse can draw SSI benefits. Thats less money available to everyone else. If one dies, the spouse can also collect on the insurance policy and that means everyone else's premiums will inevitably rise.

There are also benefits to filing joint tax returns. Benefits individuals dont get.

For many gay couples...its always been about money. Its not really about the Constitution. They're just trying to use that to get their way.

But here's the thing. If you allow gay couples to marry, (targeting just gay couples), then you have to take a look at the 14th amendment (Equal Protection Clause) which says no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Therefore, you must allow anyone to marry anytime for any reason. A person can have multiple wives now. A person can also marry a close relative! (You can marry your brother, sister, father, mother, etc). You open the door also for child brides like they have in other places. Some nut could even marry his dog or cat! (And you know some idiot would try it).

It would be a gross misuse of the 14th amendment (enacted to protect blacks after the civil war), but people are already claiming it as their right to gay marriage. The 14th was never intended to do this.

Dennis324 wrote:

Bryant wrote:

Dennis324 wrote:I think this is freakin hilarious. Is ok for activst judges in California and other states to defy DOMA and the will of the people, and start marrying gay couples on the grounds that States can pretty much do what they like, but not ok for NC to do what they want. (I mean, we all know Southerners are a buncha hicks anyway...right?) Ie..."We can marry fags but you better not hang the Ten Commandments in School or pray". Thats what's going on here.

Look here...if states begin defying DOMA, then they can take your guns from you, establish their own religion and theoretically defy the Emancipation Proclamation. This is what happens when the law is ignored.

This is probably gonna get tossed out...but the irony is amusing in a sad way.

DOMA only said that the Federal Government would not recognize gay marriage, not that the states could not recognize gay marriage. The states couldn't defy DOMA if they wanted to as the legislation has no bearing on the states. More over, gay marriage doesn't violate your, mine, or any one else's Constitutional rights. There is NOTHING in the US Constitution that band same sex marriage. There is something in the US Constitution that explicit prohibits state religion. While I respect you, that argument is complete bunk.

DOMA restricts Federal marriage benefits. It also restricts inter-state marriage recognition to man and woman. It also codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits (a Federal benefit), immigration, and the filing of joint tax returns. This is what so many are fighting about though they dont want to talk about it publically.

Why should this matter to the average person? Social security is already strained to the breaking point. Furthermore many people have insurance policies that they have to pay for each month. When you add in more and more people who are paying on joint policies, then when they have to file on those extra policies....everyone's premiums go up. Also when 1 member of a gay marriage dies, now the other member would have the right to draw upon SSI and many many other benefits...on a system that is already close to failing due to lack on money going into the system.

If one dies, the spouse can draw SSI benefits. Thats less money available to everyone else. If one dies, the spouse can also collect on the insurance policy and that means everyone else's premiums will inevitably rise.

There are also benefits to filing joint tax returns. Benefits individuals dont get.

For many gay couples...its always been about money. Its not really about the Constitution. They're just trying to use that to get their way.

But here's the thing. If you allow gay couples to marry, (targeting just gay couples), then you have to take a look at the 14th amendment (Equal Protection Clause) which says no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Therefore, you must allow anyone to marry anytime for any reason. A person can have multiple wives now. A person can also marry a close relative! (You can marry your brother, sister, father, mother, etc). You open the door also for child brides like they have in other places. Some nut could even marry his dog or cat! (And you know some idiot would try it).

It would be a gross misuse of the 14th amendment (enacted to protect blacks after the civil war), but people are already claiming it as their right to gay marriage. The 14th was never intended to do this.

This is getting too off topic. This thread is about the relation between the first amendment, the 14th amendment, and state religion. If you want to discuss you views on the legality and legal implications of same sex marriage (an interesting and important topic), please create a new thread.

Meh...I'm tired of talking about this too.

Lets talk about fishing instead!