North Carolina May Declare Official State Religion Under New Bill

[Tgo01]

Sadly, this is not an Onion article. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/north-carolina-religion-bill_n_3003401.html)


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.

The North Carolina state constitution disqualifies those who do not believe in God from public office. The provision has been unenforcible since the 1961 Supreme Court decision in Torcaso v. Watkins, which prohibited such bans.

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

This isn't a bad joke is it? hahaha wow!

[Back]

Can we imagine something crazuer?

[Manamethis]

How long before they vote to bring back slavery?

[msconstrew]

How long before they vote to bring back slavery?

Well, if the Constitution doesn't affect them, then they don't even need to vote to do it!

[diethx]

Extra appropriate:

http://images.t-nation.com/forum_images/auto/r/786x0/a/9/a9779_ORIG-JesusFacepalm.jpg

[Tgo01]

How long before they vote to bring back slavery?

I'm torn on this. The bible says:

"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly."

Almost sounds like only people in Israel can own slaves.

Also there is this part:

"For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery."

Which sounds like slavery is bad.

Also:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. "

Which also sounds like slavery is bad.

[TheEschaton]

Well, Jesus said to turn the other cheek, but suggest that the death penalty is wrong and you'll get a buttload of neg rep, at least on this board. ;)

[Parkbandit]

Well, Jesus said to turn the other cheek, but suggest that the death penalty is wrong and you'll get a buttload of neg rep, at least on this board. ;)

If Jesus actually existed as he is portrayed in the Bible, then I would say he would be against the death penalty. He would also be against abortions as well.

[Tisket]

Well, Jesus said to turn the other cheek, but suggest that the death penalty is wrong and you'll get a buttload of neg rep, at least on this board. ;)

I think it's wrong and have stated as much before without repercussion. My need for vengeance in response to some horrific crime is outweighed by the chance, however negligible, that someone has been wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death.

[Atlanteax]

If Jesus actually existed as he is portrayed in the Bible, then I would say he would be against the death penalty. He would also be against abortions as well.

I'm not aware of how accurately "the Bible" series recently on the history channel followed the Bible, but it seems as tho Jesus would be *in support* of the death penalty .. as he knew (near-term prophecy) he'd be crucified, and die... and allowed events to unfold as 'willed'.

[TheEschaton]

If Jesus actually existed as he is portrayed in the Bible, then I would say he would be against the death penalty. He would also be against abortions as well.

Bizarre, I'm against both those things too. I know, I know, conservative streak in an otherwise liberal poster, weird.


I'm not aware of how accurately "the Bible" series recently on the history channel followed the Bible, but it seems as tho Jesus would be *in support* of the death penalty .. as he knew (near-term prophecy) he'd be crucified, and die... and allowed events to unfold as 'willed'.

If you think that translates into "support of the death penalty," you're delusional. He literally was iddqd, and knew how it was gonna play out. It's just his respawn time was 3 days instead of 30s.

[Latrinsorm]

South Carolinians everywhere breath a sigh of relief: no longer the dumbest Carolina.

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

1st in Flight, 48th in Education - Was that the Simpsons or Family Guy?

[msconstrew]

Family Guy. I can't believe you even had to ask that question.

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

Family Guy. I can't believe you even had to ask that question.

I don't spend a whole lot of time watching either of them, but thats immediately what I thought of reading this post. I beg your forgiveness for my grievous oversight and lack of situational awareness...

[Warriorbird]

South Carolinians everywhere breath a sigh of relief: no longer the dumbest Carolina.

They're running Mark Sanford again. It's a clever counter move.

[Jarvan]

Yes, Jesus would be against the death penalty. Then again, Jesus was supposed to be without sin, so in my opinion, it's kinda hard to make a valid judgement about any type of punishment if you have never sinned. Not to mention, Jesus was supposed to be the son of God. God as man, which would make him God. Prior to God becoming Jesus, God basically killed any person he wanted, for any reason, or no reason. Heck, look at Moses. The guy did what God told him to do, as far as I read in the bible, he didn't disobey God himself, but he was still denied the Promised land.

Let my people go.. no? Ok, all the first born of Egypt die then. Sounds to me like God was all for the death penalty.

[Back]

Yes, Jesus would be against the death penalty. Then again, Jesus was supposed to be without sin, so in my opinion, it's kinda hard to make a valid judgement about any type of punishment if you have never sinned. Not to mention, Jesus was supposed to be the son of God. God as man, which would make him God. Prior to God becoming Jesus, God basically killed any person he wanted, for any reason, or no reason. Heck, look at Moses. The guy did what God told him to do, as far as I read in the bible, he didn't disobey God himself, but he was still denied the Promised land.

Let my people go.. no? Ok, all the first born of Egypt die then. Sounds to me like God was all for the death penalty.

People like you scare me.

[msconstrew]

I think the OT Jewish god was pro-death penalty. But the NT touchy-feely Jesus god? No way.

[Back]

My favorite story about Jesus is that he beat the money changers with ropes.

[Wrathbringer]

I think the OT Jewish god was pro-death penalty. But the NT touchy-feely Jesus god? No way.

I see what you mean, but I can think of two instances off the top of my head where people were struck dead in the new testament, both of which occurred after Christ's resurrection and ascension under the dispensation of grace. I've always wondered about that.

[msconstrew]

I see what you mean, but I can think of two instances off the top of my head where people were struck dead in the new testament, both of which occurred after Christ's resurrection and ascension under the dispensation of grace. I've always wondered about that.

Hey, it's hard to break old habits, okay?!

[Latrinsorm]

Yes, Jesus would be against the death penalty. Then again, Jesus was supposed to be without sin, so in my opinion, it's kinda hard to make a valid judgement about any type of punishment if you have never sinned. Not to mention, Jesus was supposed to be the son of God. God as man, which would make him God. Prior to God becoming Jesus, God basically killed any person he wanted, for any reason, or no reason. Heck, look at Moses. The guy did what God told him to do, as far as I read in the bible, he didn't disobey God himself, but he was still denied the Promised land.

Let my people go.. no? Ok, all the first born of Egypt die then. Sounds to me like God was all for the death penalty.God never said killing was wrong. God said thou shalt not kill. God killing is okay (not like that, Nietzsche! *smite*), but unfortunately our Lord and Savior can only be President for another 3 years so we have to get rid of the death penalty by Jan 2017.

[Wrathbringer]

Yes, Jesus would be against the death penalty. Then again, Jesus was supposed to be without sin, so in my opinion, it's kinda hard to make a valid judgement about any type of punishment if you have never sinned. Not to mention, Jesus was supposed to be the son of God. God as man, which would make him God. Prior to God becoming Jesus, God basically killed any person he wanted, for any reason, or no reason. Heck, look at Moses. The guy did what God told him to do, as far as I read in the bible, he didn't disobey God himself, but he was still denied the Promised land.

Let my people go.. no? Ok, all the first born of Egypt die then. Sounds to me like God was all for the death penalty.

Moses did disobey God. When the people needed water, God told Moses to speak to the rock and water would flow. Moses was upset with the people and instead struck the rock with his staff and got water. Seems minor, but that was sin and so he was denied entry to the promised land. As for the "thou shalt not kill", in the hebrew language that word "kill" there implies premeditated murder, an important distinction that did not include killing in times of war or killing as the divinely prescribed punishment under the law. Having said that, I'm not sure where the Christian God would stand on capital punishment today, but Latrin's point that God alone as the righteous judge was the only entity worthy to decide who dies and why during biblical times seems to stand. As God is unchanging, it makes sense that this would still be the case today. The question then becomes "Is our law today divinely inspired or sanctioned by God?" I don't know, but I dig this kind of conversation.

[Gelston]

God never said killing was wrong. God said thou shalt not kill. God killing is okay (not like that, Nietzsche! *smite*), but unfortunately our Lord and Savior can only be President for another 3 years so we have to get rid of the death penalty by Jan 2017.

Technically, it is thou shalt not commit murder.

[Wrathbringer]

Technically, it is thou shalt not commit murder.

Right. This further (and rather helpful) clarification was made in later translations.

[Tisket]

God never said killing was wrong. God said thou shalt not kill.

He also said "Thou shall have no other gods before me". Which would lead one to believe there are other gods. We just aren't supposed to acknowledge them.

Hey, straight from God's mouth. I just report it like I see it.

[TheEschaton]

I see what you mean, but I can think of two instances off the top of my head where people were struck dead in the new testament, both of which occurred after Christ's resurrection and ascension under the dispensation of grace. I've always wondered about that.

Where exactly is this in the Bible?

[ClydeR]

Sadly, this is not an Onion article. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/north-carolina-religion-bill_n_3003401.html)

If the whole bill is the part quoted in the article, then I don't see a problem. It doesn't actually do anything.

[TheEschaton]

Technically, it is thou shalt not commit murder.

Technically, the King James edition added that because King James wanted to kill some people in defense of country. The ancient Hebrew word used in the 5th Commandment means "the intentional killing of," which says nothing about reason or mental state - just that you did it on purpose.

[Latrinsorm]

Technically, it is thou shalt not commit murder.Either way. God commands us, God does not pontificate on universal morality.

And because God is omnipotent and therefore superlogical, even if he did say "it is universally wrong to cause a human life to end" and then God did it, he would still be right to do so, and it would still be universally wrong to do so, and it's turtles all the way down. Murderous, omnipotent, infinitely good turtles (which are themselves infinite) (BWOOOOOOOOOOM).
He also said "Thou shall have no other gods before me". Which would lead one to believe there are other gods. We just aren't supposed to acknowledge them.

Hey, straight from God's mouth. I just report it like I see it.Of course there are other gods, false gods, the most famous of which is Baal, but only slightly less well known is Hilary Swank.

[Gelston]

Technically, the King James edition added that because King James wanted to kill some people in defense of country. The ancient Hebrew word used in the 5th Commandment means "the intentional killing of," which says nothing about reason or mental state - just that you did it on purpose.

KJV made it Thou Shalt not kill. Go grab one and look.

If you look at the Hebrew bible, it specifically lays out examples of lawful killing.

[TheEschaton]

I'm just using the NIV here, but later in Exodus, there's clarification on killing people as per the commandments. Disregarding the form of punishment as a separate argument, you can see clearly what Exodus considered "killing" as per the 5th Commandment:


“Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death. 13 However, if it is not done intentionally, but God lets it happen, they are to flee to a place I will designate. 14 But if anyone schemes and kills someone deliberately, that person is to be taken from my altar and put to death.

to compare to KJV:


12 “He that smiteth a man so that he die shall be surely put to death.
13 And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand, then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.
14 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbor to slay him with guile, thou shalt take him from Mine altar, that he may die.

You can see how the two differ from each other just in 3 verses. KJV has always been considered less authoritative. You're right though, NIV uses "murder" and KJV uses "kill." My bad. The intent is clarified in the very next chapter after the 10 Commandments.

[Gelston]

Actually, none of that makes sense... I know you said disregarding the punishment, but I think it serves to play a role in the interpretation. I am imagining it is purely intending murder, and not warfare and execution. If you put someone to death, you are in effect killing someone, and must then also be put to death.

I think a lot has been lost over the ages and also through the various translations.

[TheEschaton]

Except that the difference between the sin versus the punishment is that the latter is divinely authorized. I admit the punishment bit complicates things, but the idea is that only God has the right to kill people.