On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 14:58:32 -0400, Hank©
wrote:

On 4/6/2013 2:51 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 4/6/13 2:50 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 09:52:41 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,

says...

On Saturday, April 6, 2013 7:02:12 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:
"Is being out of your mind a job requirement for Republican
politicians?



"North Carolina wanted to violate the U.S. Constitution and
establish a

state religion, Arkansas rejected the Equal Rights Amendment,
Virginia

wants to ban sodomy (which the Supreme Court permits)... and other

GOP-dominated states are just as wacky.



"I long for the good old days of Dan Quayle, when we merely had to
deal

with amusing stupidity, not dangerous lunacy."





Have nice day.

Dr-Dr-Dr / 4 tax liens / 2 bankruptcies

There is nothing in the US Constitution that says the States cannot
create a state religion.

There's nothing in your brain that contains thought.

What part of the US constitution prevents a state from declaring a
state religion?



The first amendment and several rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Cite baby cite.

Stupid is as stupid does. You do stupid.

F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 4/6/13 9:52 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,

says...

On Saturday, April 6, 2013 7:02:12 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:
"Is being out of your mind a job requirement for Republican
politicians?



"North Carolina wanted to violate the U.S. Constitution and
establish a

state religion, Arkansas rejected the Equal Rights Amendment, Virginia

wants to ban sodomy (which the Supreme Court permits)... and other

GOP-dominated states are just as wacky.



"I long for the good old days of Dan Quayle, when we merely had to
deal

with amusing stupidity, not dangerous lunacy."





Have nice day.


There is nothing in the US Constitution that says the States cannot
create a state religion.



The First Amendment to the Constitution rules against an establishment
of religion. The U.S. Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court.

In 1947, the Supremes ruled the Establishment Clause inherent in the
first amendment applied to the states, ergo, NO state religion. And
later the Supremes ruled that individual states could not promote
religion.

States cannot create a "state religion."





Why did you carefully snip this?

Dr-Dr-Dr / 4 tax liens / 2 bankruptcies

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 14:58:32 -0400, Hank©
wrote:

On 4/6/2013 2:51 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 4/6/13 2:50 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 09:52:41 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,

says...

On Saturday, April 6, 2013 7:02:12 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:
"Is being out of your mind a job requirement for Republican
politicians?



"North Carolina wanted to violate the U.S. Constitution and
establish a

state religion, Arkansas rejected the Equal Rights Amendment,
Virginia

wants to ban sodomy (which the Supreme Court permits)... and other

GOP-dominated states are just as wacky.



"I long for the good old days of Dan Quayle, when we merely had to
deal

with amusing stupidity, not dangerous lunacy."





Have nice day.

Dr-Dr-Dr / 4 tax liens / 2 bankruptcies

There is nothing in the US Constitution that says the States cannot
create a state religion.

There's nothing in your brain that contains thought.

What part of the US constitution prevents a state from declaring a
state religion?



The first amendment and several rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Cite baby cite.

Stupid is as stupid does. You do stupid.

Some people should read this:

http://tinyurl.com/crdwpzo

Which in part states

According to The Huffington Post, the bill "was filed in response to a
lawsuit to stop county commissioners in Rowan County from opening
meetings with a Christian prayer," leading us to assume that the
religion they want to establish isn't Duke basketball. Could legislators
in North Carolina actually pull this off?

It's not likely. Rick Ungar of Forbes points to Lemon v. Kurtzman, the
U.S. Supreme Court case that established the "Lemon Test" for whether a
state law violates the First Amendment:

The law or state policy must have been adopted with a neutral or non-
religious purpose.
The principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor
inhibits religion.
The statute or policy must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of
government with religion. [Forbes]

Declaring an official religion doesn't seem to pass the test.