Michigan And North Carolina Republicans Enact Un-Constitutional Theocratic Laws

Advertisements

constitution-burning
There is no doubt among any sane, semi-informed, or even minimally educated American that this country was founded as a secular nation and the Founding Fathers intended that religion, especially Christianity, had no place in government. In fact, according to an Episcopalian minister’s sermon in 1831; “Among all of our Presidents, from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion.” Still, Republicans and their evangelical base claim that America, as well as the Constitution, is founded on Christianity, and that the Founders intended the hateful religion to inform the laws of the land. This absurd assertion is regardless that with unanimous consent of the entire United States Senate, then-President and Founding Father John Adams stated emphatically that, “The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”

Today, more so than at any time in the nation’s history, evangelical Republicans are on a crusade to base the nation’s laws on the Christian religion to discriminate against Americans who do not fall into the mold of a religious Republican. Every day it is becoming glaringly apparent that for evangelical Republicans the most important requirement for serving in government is being mendacious as well as an evangelical bigot. It really is inconsequential which Republican one listens to, or to which agenda they are addressing, they take lying profusely as Christian public servants nearly as seriously as their devotion to the Koch brothers and consider it as sacrosanct as adhering to their bible’s Ten Commandments; something Michigan Governor Rick Snyder lived up to this week.

Despite claiming that in no way does he support any iteration of an evangelical “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” (RFRA) for his devoted subjects and oppressed peasants alike, megalomaniac tyrant Snyder signed into Michigan law a three-bill religious package that can accurately be described as a sacred evangelical RFRA for taxpayer-funded Christian adoption agencies.

Advertisements

Rick Snyder, as much of a Christian theocrat as he is a tyrannical Koch acolyte, said that he signed the theocratic edict into law because “The state has made significant progress in finding more forever homes for Michigan kids in recent years and that it wouldn’t be possible without the public-private partnerships that facilitate the adoption process. We are focused on ensuring that as many children are adopted to as many loving families as possible regardless of their makeup.” What Snyder omitted is that “we,” meaning Michigan evangelical Republicans and Christian fanatics, only want to ensure that children are adopted to loving families so long as “their makeup” does not include same-sex couples and likely Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, Hindus, Buddhists or Heathens.  Like every religious Republican RFRA, there is no mention of gays, races, or other religions to give evangelicals the greatest scope possible to discriminate against any group that fails to adhere closely to religious right beliefs.  Obviously, in signing this bill, Snyder reveals that besides being a dirty, filthy lying Republican, he is a typically-bigoted fundamentalist Christian.

There is no possible way that either Snyder or evangelical Republican legislators are concerned with “finding more forever homes for Michigan kids” while signing a state-sponsored theocratic prohibition on gay couples, or African Americans, or Muslims adopting Michigan kids. As a typical Republican religious fanatic, Snyder also revealed his naked contempt for the U.S. Constitution because he signed into law a bill permitting government-funded adoption agencies to use religion to discriminate against gay, or “other,” couples that fail to conform to the agency’s religious beliefs. Regardless how anyone assesses yet another Republican theocratic law, imposing religious requirements on a taxpayer-funded agency is establishing religion and although not for long, it is still a gross violation of the “Establishment Clause” of the First Amendment.

It is not just the opinion of this column either. In stating the glaringly obvious, the preponderance of the new law’s critics say it amounts to government-sanctioned theocratic discrimination against gay couples and compared it to a previous religious edict in Indiana that had to be softened after a backlash from Americans who comprehend that this is still America and not Taliban-controlled Afghanistan; at least not yet. In fact, North Carolina evangelical Republicans did their best to hasten America’s lurch toward a Taliban-like theocracy with a sneak-attack vote to override a gubernatorial veto of another evangelical edict allowing biblical cover to violate the law, and the U.S. Constitution.

Early in the morning on Thursday last, with a limited number of legislators present because many, including some Republicans opposed to overriding Governor McCrory’s veto, were attending their children’s high-school graduations, a small number of legislators “present” succeeded in overriding an earlier gubernatorial veto of what is known as Senate Bill 2. Senate Bill 2 is now North Carolina law and it means that the state’s evangelical civil magistrates can now refuse to perform any lawful marriage, including same-sex marriages, if they complain that doing their government job violates their religion; or if they simply disapprove of the couple seeking to marry in a civil ceremony.

S.B. 2 started out like every other red state’s evangelical Religious Freedom Restoration Act that gives evangelicals expansive power to impose their religion on the public.  After a substantial public outcry that was not unlike those against other theocratic laws in “family-value” conservative states, evangelical Republicans devised what they called a “compromise” to stop marriages that evangelicals hate by empowering religious magistrates to disregard their jobs according to their religious righteous indignation.

As noted by the executive director of Equality North Carolina, Christopher Sgro, the compromise “legislation is in some ways even worse than Indiana’s, because magistrates are taxpayer-funded government employees.” It is a fact that was not lost on many legislators, including some Republicans, who were unable to attend the stealth override vote by design of Republican bigots.

According to assembly woman Mary Price Harrison (D-Greensboro), “They gaveled us right to order, and they didn’t allow any time for debate.” North Carolina’s legislature can an override a veto with three-fifths of “present and voting” members; Thursday morning’s vote was 69-41, or 62.7 percent. SB2 had originally passed the assembly by 67-43, which was only 61 percent and failed to override the governor’s veto.

So evangelical Republicans waited until they knew a substantial number of legislators would not be present to enact a religious law; one allowing evangelical government employees to “recuse” themselves from doing the job North Carolina taxpayers are paying them to do as civil magistrates and perform lawful civil marriages. The law actually says, “Every magistrate has the right to ‘recuse from performing all lawful marriages’ based on sincerely held religious objection.” That means an evangelical magistrate can recuse from the law and refuse to perform same-sex, interracial, and inter-faith marriages even though that is precisely what North Carolina taxpayers are paying them to do.

It is beyond comprehension that in the 21st Century, after 218 years as a secular nation, Republicans are crusading, and having a measure of success in the states, to enact Christian theocracy as the law of the land. It is particularly egregious because Republicans are using “religious freedom” as the tool to impose their bastardized version of Christianity on the nation by legislative fiat; something the Founding Fathers sought to ensure would never plague the nation they intended to remain forever secular.

Sadly, until the people rise up, especially so-called “good Christians,” and put a stop to America’s thirty-year lurch toward a Taliban-like oppressive and tyrannical theocracy, Republicans will continue passing laws that force taxpayers to pay evangelical extremists to discriminate against other Americans based solely on one religion. It is something the Founding Fathers railed against but none more than James Madison who said, “What influence, in fact, have Christian establishments had on civil society? They have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny.” This week in Michigan and North Carolina the Christian establishment of evangelical Republicans took a giant step toward cementing political tyranny with two separate theocratic edicts under the guise of restoring religious freedom that no American would have ever thought was possible in a secular liberal democracy; particularly the nation’s Founders.

57 Replies to “Michigan And North Carolina Republicans Enact Un-Constitutional Theocratic Laws”

  1. I don’t have to read the article. I live here and it ain’t pretty. Backward is not accurate. Its far worse than that.

  2. These laws will be recinded as soon as the feds show some teeth. State rights? Sure. But just as long as they don’t contradict federal laws. If the red states want another civil war, they can have one – and they will lose just like the first one.

    2016 is going to sharpen the lines, and the religious right is going to find itself on the wrong side.

  3. How do they get away with defying the Constitution? Christian extremists in America bear no resemblance to Christianity from the Bible, with the amount of hate, greed, deceitful existence they savor.

  4. I’m stunned & sincerely terrified of what has become of the state of Michigan. I didn’t vote for Engler & I certainly didn’t vote for this schmuck. Words fail…..

  5. I live in North Carolina and I am totally fed up with these legislators. Never in my lifetime did I think I would live in a state with such wicked and backward people making these kinds of decision. I will do my part to help same sex marriage continue by going on line and becoming an ordained minister. I will let it be known that there are good citizens who will refuse to accept the laws of discrimination and bigotry in our state. It’s a small thing to do, but I feel so strongly about people’s rights to marry whomever they choose, I will for darn sure carry through with my plan.

  6. I’m against any theocratic laws, it’s unconstitutional, but I’m also disgusted by the author of this article calling Christianity a ‘hateful religion’. And Moongrim, as stupid as the evangelicals are, they are small beer compared to the muslims.

  7. You could become an ordained minister of the First Church of Cannabis! Thanks to Fuerhrer Pense’s RFRA, we now have that church! We will find out how that goes on July 1st! BTW, Goober Pense is livid about the PRIDE parades here in Indiana. He can’t even say the words! LOL

  8. I’m not sure how to stop this run away train! A higher education is a must or start classes in high school. Exposing people to diversity, all races and religions should be included in education. Teaching understanding and tolerance of people of different cultures, learning their religion should be added to the curriculum.

  9. There is no difference between the Islamist and Christian religions in the sense that each demands adherents convert others, and that those who worships the gods that demand that outcome will lie, hate, murder and commit war to accomplish that goal. The hatred is brutally obvious, the lies fill our media. Murder? anyone that needs killing to preserve gods, and war, well, bush was a Christian, right? He killed a million people, and the right deifies him. It should be observed that lying hatred murder and war are tools of the devil, and those who wield them today for acquisition of power are no better than the Christian devil.

  10. “God” damn the entire “Satanic” (demon-possessed) Republican Party and all of their truly evil, mentally-ill, sick, “elite” 1% masters!!!

  11. Your disgusted by the author calling Christianity a hatefull religion but you paint all muslims with the same brush. If all christians are judged by your example I’d say hatefull or stupid pretty much sums it up to a tee!

  12. Or for $25, I think it is, you can also become a minister of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It Is a registered church. I’m thinking of joining.

  13. Francie, Islam IS a VERY hateful religion. You will NEVER find any verses in the New Testament where Christ calls for the murder or enslavement of ANYONE in his name. The same can NOT be said for Muhammad and the Qur’an. THAT is the HUGE difference between the two religions. Here is a sample of the bigotry and murder found in the Qur’an, educate yourself…

    Quran (8:12) – I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them

    Quran (8:39) – And fight with them (non-Muslims) until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah

    Quran (9:29) – Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

    WAKE UP…

  14. Did you catch the author being pretty clear about:

    “It is particularly egregious because Republicans are using “religious freedom” as the tool to impose their bastardized version of Christianity”

  15. Charlie you did not look very hard. Here is 2 verses of many in the New Testament about non-believers.

    2 John 1:9-11 Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.

    2 Chronicles 15:12-13 And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul, but that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman.

    Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

  16. However, no matter what is written in the Bible or the Quaran or any other religiously inspired book – the United States was founded as a secular nation to welcome all who seek liberty, freedom and justice for all. Now, there were & are bumps in this road on the way to our pursuit of happiness. And, we know that happiness for one person is not the same for another. This would include religions different from our own.

    The problem is we have people who are religious zealots who want to enact laws that mirror their beliefs & have nothing to do with the Constitution of the USA, even if they say it is. Once down this road there is nothing to stop religious Zealots of other faiths to follow suit.

    Be careful what you wish for as it can be turned against you.

  17. Jesus was a radical socialist who was against the status quo. Followers of “The Way” were communists, sharing everything.

    Our Founders and Framers deliberately founded a secular nation. They remembered their ancestors and others who suffered persecution and death.

    The right-wing has co-opted the word “Christian.” The gop has allowed them and the tea party to ride on their coat tails – echoing their push for power.

    Hobby Lobby is planning to open a large so-called Christian Center in Washington D.C. How dare they! Why are they allowed to have an imposing structure in the location where our representatives meet to conduct affairs of our secular nation? They are desecrating our Constitution.

    We are not a christian nation, but a nation deliberately founded as secular to allow you, me and all the free practice of religion.

    All religion — no faith has a place in politics. Belief is personal not political. There must be separation of church and state in our nation or we perish.

  18. Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom.
    Thomas Jefferson

    I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.
    -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789

    Oh Look Le Hunt- there goes the WAAAAHHHmbulance! Hop on.

  19. Granted Le Hunt, in America, the Muslim is small potatoes.

    But not elsewhere. Where do we draw the line in dealing with the messes that we helped to create?

  20. My point was a person should not be judged on which religion they belong, but by their actions. Christian and muslim texts were written thousands of years ago, how you interpret their meaning in this day and age is what matters. I don’t buy the whole theory of “my god is true, sorry about yours”, being spouted by any religion.

  21. My point was a person should not be judged on which religion they belong, but by their actions.

    If their religion that’s supposed to be all so wonderful, doesn’t stop them from doing stupid things- then why be in it?

    Furthermore- it’d be also nice if we could see their fellow religionists stop judging them favorably just because of their religious choice…

    …and indeed judge them by their actions.

    But invariably- many will hide behind their religion when they’re caught.

    Witness- the Duggars.

  22. I see you were homeschooled and flunked that. First you cannot use taxpayer funds for a particular religious beliefs see the 1st amendment. Second the SCOTUS ruled in Loving VS. Virginia violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Next time actually read the Constitution and all of it

  23. So, you are assuming that all Magistrates will refuse to marry same-sex couples? I think you are wrong, plenty will have no problem with it; even some who consider themselves conservative. But, go ahead and get your certificate. I think it is a good idea to not force anyone to do something against their beliefs. I wouldn’t ask an Imam to bless a pork barbecue; apparently you think that the Imam should have no say if they happen to be a civil servant.

    It’s well and good forcing people to do things they are against due to their religion or beliefs; until, of course, you are expected to do something you do not believe is right or moral.

  24. You are an dumbass. Marriage is a civil meaning government. Equal protection under the law. If you are an government employee then you have no choice. If your goat herding beliefs prevent you from carrying out your duties then stop receiving tax payer salary. That is all

  25. Well, let’s see, if Magistrate A has issues performing a marriage due to religious or moral beliefs but Magistrate B performs the marriage because he/she has no such problem; how were tax funds spent to promote a religion? No one is being denied a service by this law. Loving VS Virginia violated equal protection because the Lovings were legally married in Washington DC and not only had their legal out-of-state marriage NOT recognized by Virginia, but were actually charged and convicted for violating Virginia’s Unconstitutional law prohibiting interracial marriage in the state.

    How is this the same?

  26. Head hits desk. If you are employed by the government you perform your Constitutional duties. No one gives a shit if you worship the god of rat shit. Before you get married where do you go to get a license? Not the church of the sky god but to your county office. Now if your grifting ass church don’t want to preform the marriage that is their right but your lunatic beliefs cannot interfere with the functions of the government. This shit aint rocket science

  27. Again, how is anyone being denied equal treatment under the law if there are Magistrates who will still perform the ceremony? To violate equal protection, the law would have to say that no civil magistrate may perform a marriage/civil union ceremony for someone of a particular group. That is not what is happening.

  28. I don’t give a rats ass if 99 will preform it. If one who is taking taxpayer money refuse then it is wrong and unconstitutional.

  29. Your argument is beyond weak. If I were a Muslim, I wouldn’t take a job that involved blessing pork. If your religious convictions are very important to you, you should probably take that into consideration before choosing a career path. If you would be unable to complete the duties and responsibilities of the job because of your religious convictions, you should find a different line of work, one in which your principles would not be compromised.

    If, in the alternative, you choose to enter into a profession which clashes with your religion, you should be prepared to put your personal feelings aside and do your job.

    You can’t have it both ways, even if you try to blame it on either God or “Godless” Liberals, you have only yourself to blame.

  30. So, gay marriage has been legal in SC for about seven months. A person who took a position as a civil magistrate 10 years ago should now be FORCED to violate their Constitutionally-protected religious beliefs to accomodate the new law? The Supreme Court has heard cases related to state benefits and found in favor of the a person’s First Amendment Rights. Further it would violate the concept of reasonable accomodation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

  31. Again, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says that employers must make reasonable accomodation for religious beliefs.

  32. What if you took the food inspection job in the “Chicken Inspection unit” 15 years ago and yesterday someone decided to fold the pork and chicken inspection units into one? Remember, gay marriage passed in SC in Nov 2014; I would bet that 99.9% of the magistrates on the job have been well before Nov 2014. Also, there is that little Civil Rights act that says you can’t force a person to do work that violates their religious beliefs.

    No one will not get married because of this law, it is protecting peoples’ civil rights and Constitutional Freedoms. The couple would never even know that a magistrate passed them over to another who has no religious or moral objections. What is the problem?

  33. Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division (1981) and Sherbert v. Verner (1963). The Thomas vs. Review Board case is directly used on the Federal EEOC website as an example of an unlawful employment practice under the Civil Rights Act.

    http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/wysk/workplace_religious_accommodation.cfm

    3. What are some common religious accommodations sought in the workplace?

    •a Christian pharmacy employee needs to be excused from filling birth control prescriptions , or a Jehovah’s Witness seeks to change job tasks at a factory so that he will not have to work on producing war weapons;

  34. LOL, “Bigots like me”, I fully support gay marriage! Just, unlike you, I also fully support the Constitutional and Civil Rights of everyone else also.

    Frankly, you are the one coming-off as bigoted; bigoted against people with religious beliefs. Unfortunately for you, that is their protected Right under the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act.

  35. You do know that Federal and State employees are equally protected under the Constitution and Civil Rights Act, right?

  36. Look for the last time the government cannot discriminate against its citizens. You posted a link about walgreens or some bullshit but I asked for a link where a government employee because of some lunacy can discriminate

  37. Please post a link where a government employee can discriminate. You are beginning to remind me of another asshole who was shown the door because of ignorance

  38. If you are a conscientious objector, you have to announce that up front. You can’t go onto the battlefield and just desert. You’ll be shot. If you *voluntarily* become a clerk of the court, JP, or magistrate, you undertake to perform all the lawful duties pertaining thereto. If you refuse, you’ll be fired.

  39. read through all the comments by this person Doc something. seems to me Dj you are trying to argue with Robert again. Is HE still lurking around?

  40. Sigh, apparently you have a reading comprehension problem. Per the US EEOC according to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 employers (including governments) must give reasonable accommodation to employees for religious beliefs. If a Civil Magistrate has religious objections to gay marriage, they can not be forced or fired if an alternative is available (like a co-worker who has no objections). No Government discrimination has occurred, the couple still gets married by a Civil Magistrate. THAT is the law; it is a codification of the First Amendment Right to Freedom of Religion. In my opinion, SC needs this law because they would face Civil Rights violations and lawsuits if they tried to force employees to do things against their religious beliefs. So, show your great intellect and mastery of language and the law by calling me a few more names. BTW, people like you are the reason that gay marriage isn’t law everywhere, rude and insulting will cause many people to fight, just because.

  41. The First Amendment religion and speech clauses (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech”) protect individuals against restrictions imposed by the government, not by private entities, and therefore do not apply to rules imposed on private sector employees by their employers. The First Amendment, however, does protect private sector employers from government interference with their free exercise and speech rights. Moreover, government employees’ religious expression is protected by both the First Amendment and Title VII. See Guidelines on Religious Exercise and Religious Expression in the Federal Workplace (Aug. 14, 1997) (available at http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/New/html/19970819-3275.html). For example, a government employer may contend that granting a requested religious accommodation would pose an undue hardship because it would constitute government endorsement of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

    Since when is a civil marriage a religion?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.