an official state religion..yikes

[sky otter]

yet another state i don't want to move to..sigh


North Carolina May Declare Official State Religion Under New Bill



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


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/north-carolina-religion-bill_n_3003401.html

[Pimander]

Bang goes the "secular" United States of America.  In fact, bang goes the word United if I understand this?

At this rate you'll end up being like the European Union.  I don't know whether that is a good thing or not.

[Anynonmouses]

Sky Otter--

Before I address your specific point I'd like to predicate my comments by describing the current de-facto REAL status of the United States Federal Government so you'll have a clearer understanding about why the diversion into RICO. I'll come full circle after the aside...

We currently have no legal federal government, nor do we have a legal President of the United States of America (see this link: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/18/nation/la-na-nn-arpaio-obama-birth-certificate-fraudulent-20120718 ) . What we have in Washington DC (District of Columbia) is a tight-nit organized crime family working for mob-style banksters. The entire lot should be tried under the existing RICO Act (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) of 1970:

Wikipedia Description--

"Under RICO, a person who is a member of an enterprise that has committed any two of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity." RICO also permits a private individual harmed by the actions of such an enterprise to file a civil suit; if successful, the individual can collect treble damages (damages in triple the amount of actual/compensatory damages).
When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone under RICO, he or she has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order or injunction to temporarily seize a defendant's assets and prevent the transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a performance bond. This provision was placed in the law because the owners of Mafia-related shell corporations often absconded with the assets. An injunction and/or performance bond ensures that there is something to seize in the event of a guilty verdict.
In many cases, the threat of a RICO indictment can force defendants to plead guilty to lesser charges, in part because the seizure of assets would make it difficult to pay a defense attorney. Despite its harsh provisions, a RICO-related charge is considered easy to prove in court, as it focuses on patterns of behavior as opposed to criminal acts.[4]
There is also a provision for private parties to sue. A "person damaged in his business or property" can sue one or more "racketeers". The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same. There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise; or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control over, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity; or the defendant(s) conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering activity; or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above. In essence, the enterprise is the illegal device of the racketeers. A civil RICO action, like many lawsuits based on federal law, can be filed in state or federal court.[5]
Both the federal and civil components allow the recovery of treble damages.
Although its primary intent was to deal with organized crime, Blakey said that Congress never intended it to merely apply to the Mob. He once told Time, "We don't want one set of rules for people whose collars are blue or whose names end in vowels, and another set for those whose collars are white and have Ivy League diplomas."[4]
[edit]RICO predicate offenses"

Since it is illegal to break federal law by supporting such criminals it is a clear a conflict of law to pay money (i.e., taxes or assets) to a known criminal enterprise. It is illegal to knowingly commit a felony, so...supporting a treasonous government (in this case a government acting on behalf of banksters in a treasonous manner) IS illegal--period, therefore those who refrain from paying taxes to said enterprise are within reasonable legal right and are justified in NOT paying taxes. Therefore...to now come full circle to addressing your specific point (as it relates to religion as well)...

SINCE we have no valid federal government, only a vaguely written governing federal document as a guide, states can do whatever the hell the citizens within those states decide they'd like to do, as long as the state's constitution does not specifically prohibit the same.

My argument is not for or against any specific religion. I truly don't care; people should be able to worship and otherwise do as they please as long as it harms no one else. Those who don't want a state religion are free to vote with their feet as well as a ballot, so...there is nothing to argue about beyond that. Let the chips fall where they may. Here is the next step, from Yours Truly--



Peace and Love,
JD

[Amaterasu]

I do believe that the OPPT (One People's Public Trust) may also offer additional support to the move to shed the system around Us.  My issue is with Who is trustee.  I claim "trustee" of Myself.  I willingly choose to cooperate in any Betterment Ethic-inspired move.

[EDIT to add: Link to info about OPPT: http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=3865.msg52035#msg52035 ]

We are now free - and I offer a suggestion of where We now may choose to go.

To You who might be "spooks" about here, consider that this absolves You of any responsibility to uphold oaths placed with the most of the former entities named on Dun and Bradstreet.  Then consider where You, too, could contribute without being toady.

Here are the links to where *I* suggest We go:

Analysis: http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=657.0
PLAN: http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=2759.0
Governance: http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=2103.0

Think about it, eh?

[deuem]

Hi Sky, what will they do next. I always thought state and church should be seperate. Works better that way. In Germany my friend told me he is taxed from his weekly pay for religion. WOW. If you work there you must pick a religion and donate the said percentage rather you want to or not. This is what I am told.
( this is a joke! -> ) I was thinking of starting a new religion of Deuem to make some extra cash.

By the way If I missed it, what religion did they pick?

Deuem, amen!

[micjer]

I did not know that Deuem.

That is apparantly not  a new tax.  Started in the 19 th century.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/german-court-warns-catholics-pay-church-tax-or-face-expulsion-8180811.html

The German state has collected a religious tax on individuals registered as Catholics, Protestants and Jews since the 19th century. The revenue is then funnelled back to the respective religious bodies.

The levy amounts to between eight and nine per cent of an annual income tax bill and for the Catholic Church it amounts to one of the biggest sources of funding worldwide.

[sky otter]

At this rate you'll end up being like the European Union

yeah i was kinda thinking the same thing

with the different states each running their own little bureaucracy..wow.
.won't that be better?....NOT..

well lets continue with another gem i found..
i won't get into the repugs and their no abortion stuff
except for that wonderful state that is going to let the voters decide..(really ? ? ? )
if 'personhood' starts at conception

egad..    my little cave isn't far enough away from these folk




Georgia town's mandatory gun ownership law is just 'symbolic'
Posted by Caitlin Dewey on April 2, 2013 at 5:03 pm

In another illustration of just how divisive gun control rhetoric has become, a small town in northern Georgia passed a measure yesterday requiring every household to have a gun and ammunition — despite the fact that the town has virtually no crime and no plans to enforce the law.

The five council members of Nelson, Ga., population 913, voted unanimously on the ordinance, WXIA reports. Councilman Jackie Jarrett told the Associated Press that most people in town already own guns and the ordinance was intended mostly as a "statement" on gun rights.
As far as statements go, it could be stronger. The ordinance exempts heads of households who have disabilities or have been convicted of a felony, as well as people who oppose gun ownership or cannot afford a gun. According to the text of the measure, it will provide for the "emergency management of the city" and "protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city."

But as AP reports, crime in Nelson is low — so low that the town only employs one police officer. Nelson's last homicide was more than five years ago. And Councilman Duane Cronic, who sponsored the measure, said he does not expect the bill to be enforced — which doesn't surprise observers. A March 29 column in Georgia's Columbus Ledger-Enquirer questioned how police could even hope to enforce the ordinance.

"Workplaces could require random testing of skin on hands for gunpowder residue," the column riffs. "Police could knock on a few doors and demand that those within present arms. Or maybe officers will just show up with warrants and search the homes themselves, being extra vigilant that nobody 'plants' a friend's or neighbor's borrowed gun just to pass inspection."

Despite the skepticism surrounding it, Nelson's "Family Protection Ordinance" is actually the latest in a series of toothless, symbolic measures proposed around the country. Spring City, Utah, approved a resolution in February that recommended residents keep firearms and attend new, city-sponsored gun safety classes. In Byron, Maine, a town official proposed a measure that would require guns in all household, but voters — all 50 of them — shot it down.

Nelson, like Spring City and Byron, is a small town. According to the Census Bureau's most recent estimates, fewer than one in four adults in Nelson have a college degree. Nearly 12 percent are veterans.

The city's ordinance is modeled on a similar law that has been on the books in nearby Kennesaw, Ga., for 30 years. Kennesaw police have made no attempt to enforce that law, according to AP.

Some legal experts argue that doing so would be illegal. In a March interview with U.S. News and World Report, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley called mandatory gun ownership laws "flagrantly unconstitutional and certifiably moronic."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/04/02/georgia-towns-mandatory-gun-ownership-law-is-just-symbolic/

.................................


North Dakota Voters to Decide Whether Life Begins at Conception
By Alyssa Newcomb
Mar 23, 2013 8:01pm

North Dakota voters will be asked in 2014 to decide whether life begins at the moment of conception, after state legislators passed two abortion bills that pro-choice supporters said could "regulate abortion out of existence."

As the bills head to Gov. Jack Dalrymple for his approval, protests are being planned around the oil-rich state for Monday.

The North Dakota Coalition for Privacy in Health Care has planned "Stand Up for Women"  rallies in Bismarck, Fargo and Minot to protest the package of bills that received final approval from legislators on Friday.

One of the measures that passed was a so-called personhood resolution that says a fertilized egg has the same right to life as a person. With the approval by the House, the decision on whether to add the wording to the state's constitution will be put before North Dakota voters in November 2014.

Along with the personhood resolution that will be put to a public vote next year, legislators agreed to ban abortion at 20 weeks except in the case of a medical emergency and will require all doctors who perform abortions to have admitting rights to a local hospital.

"This deals with the health and safety of women having abortions," state Rep. Vernon Laning, R-Bismarck said, according to the Bismarck Tribune.

In a state with only one abortion clinic — the Red River Women's Clinic in Fargo — the mandate would effectively "regulate abortion out of existence," according to the clinic's website.

"Admitting privileges are not easily come by under any circumstances, but more importantly, such a requirement gives hospitals the power to decide whether abortion is even available in the state," the clinic said in a statement.

Dalrymple, a Republican, has not indicated his stance on the bills, but it is possible that even if he vetoed them, there could be enough support in the legislature to override his decision.

The Arkansas Legislature passed a law banning almost all abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy earlier this month, over the veto of a Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe, who called it "unconstitutional."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/03/north-dakota-voters-to-decide-whether-life-begins-at-conception/

...........................

oh wait.. i forgot the gays...

regardless of your thoughts on any or all of these issues ..if you think any of us are or have been really free
think again

i do believe i am going to wave down the next passing ufo and hitch a ride



Ken Cuccinelli, Virginia Attorney General, Petitions To Uphold Anti-Sodomy Law
Posted: 04/03/2013 2:54 pm EDT  |  Updated: 04/03/2013 3:05 pm EDT

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/ken-cuccinelli-sodomy_n_3007731.html


Buddy Collins Confirmed By North Carolina Legislature To Education Board, Despite Anti-Gay Past
The Huffington Post  |  By Amanda Terkel Posted: 04/03/2013 1:19 pm EDT  |  Updated: 04/03/2013 1:24 pm EDT

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/buddy-collins-confirmed_n_3007068.html

[zorgon]

Well water disappearing will lead us back ful circle to the 20's dust bowl  so lets cycle everything

Bring Back Prohibition!
All right already with braying drunks and boozy breath.

This year marks the 80th anniversary of the repeal of prohibition. After surveying the blotto binge-fest which took place over the holidays on both sides of the Atlantic—to mention nothing of the soused housewives I saw reversing their Bentleys into one another in a Palm Beach supermarket parking lot—I am seriously wondering if the time hasn't come to un-repeal it?

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/doonan/2013/01/bring_back_prohibition_the_joys_of_sobriety_and_the_downsides_of_booze.html

[zorgon]

By the way If I missed it, what religion did they pick?

It would be Christian... but which sect?  Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Babtist, Evangalist...etc  etc..

I can see that causing an issue

[sky otter]

  OH WELL 




North Carolina House Speaker Kills Bill To Create State Religion
The Huffington Post  |  By John Celock Posted: 04/04/2013 4:12 pm EDT  |  Updated: 04/04/2013 4:33 pm EDT

The Republican speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives killed legislation on Thursday that aimed to establish an official state religion.

House Speaker Thom Tillis (R-Charlotte) announced Thursday afternoon that the bill would not be receiving a vote in the full House, effectively dropping the measure. Loretta Boniti, a reporter for News 14 Carolina, broke the news on Twitter, and it was confirmed in a breaking news alert posted on the home page of wral.com, a Raleigh-based television station. Tillis' decision followed several days of national media attention on the bill, which also said that the state government did not have to listen to federal court rulings and was exempt from the requirements of the First Amendment.

The bill, which was drafted by state Reps. Carl Ford (R-China Grove) and Harry Warren (R-Salisbury), was intended to address an issue in Rowan County, where the ACLU has filed a lawsuit against the county commission in an attempt to block commissioners from having a Christian prayer at the beginning of meetings.

The North Carolina measure responds to the ACLU suit by declaring that each state is "sovereign" and no federal court can prevent a state from "from making laws respecting an establishment of religion." Though Warren, one of the bill's authors, told HuffPost Live that the measure was not seeking to create a state religion, the drafted legislation would clearly allow for such an action.

The North Carolina bill seeks to play the First Amendment both ways. It says that the state is exempted from the establishment clause under the First Amendment, which establishes the "separation of church and state." The clause reads that "Congress shall make no law respecting an Establishment of Religion." But the North Carolina bill asserts that prohibition does not apply "to states, municipalities, or schools," and that North Carolina could establish a state religion. The bill then goes further, portraying this reasoning as a protection of the freedom of religion, including the state lawmakers' right to exercise their own religious beliefs.

In fact, in a series of cases stretching back nearly a century, the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment does cover state governments. Judicial precedent has held that any such proposals on the establishment of religion must have secular, legislative purpose; cannot inhibit or advance religion; and cannot be "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

An explanation on why Tillis decided to kill the measure was not posted and a Tillis spokesman was not immediately available for comment. The media firestorm regarding the legislation comes as Tillis is considering a bid for the U.S. Senate against Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) next year. Tillis was not a co-sponsor of the bill, which originally drew 11 GOP supporters, including Tillis' deputy, Majority Leader Edgar Starnes (R-Hickory) and House Appropriations Committee Chairman Justin Burr (R-Albemarle). Three additional Republicans had signed on as co-sponsors since the bill was first introduced on Monday. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/04/state-religion-bill-north-carolina_n_3016154.html

[Pimander]

Sanity prevails for a change.

[Littleenki]

In the words of the atypical denouncer of the various words of religions worldwide....



Sanity has prevailed, indeed.

Le

[kdog]

Well,then,I declare the Pegasus Consortium an official religion,as where it is tax exempt from any contribution that I might donate ,that is if I have any money to donate.

Father Zorgon,do you agree?Or do you prefer Pastor.

[zorgon]

Father Zorgon,do you agree?Or do you prefer Pastor.

Oh it would have to be Prior



Hallowed are the Ori

I mean if your gonna have a religion. might as well do it right 

[Littleenki]

PRC...a P.articlular R.osi C.rucian organization?