AZ Republican State Senator Demands Bill Forcing People Attend Church

Can you say Theocracy boys and girls?

Psychosis is such a sad and misunderstood condition…

Just another conservative Republican who would declare her reverence for the Constitution without knowing a thing about it or who corrupt what it says or has been interpreted to mean:

“[A]t the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee
of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say: ‘Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions,-I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of therights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of
those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced
he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.’ Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.” Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1878).

“Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. “In the words of
Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to
erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’” Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 16, citing Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164.

“This Court first reviewed a challenge to state law under the Establishment Clause in Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 67 S.Ct. 504, 91 L. Ed. 711 (1947).1 Relying on the history of the Clause, and the Court’s prior analysis, Justice Black outlined the considerations that have become the touchstone of Establishment Clause jurisprudence: Neither a State
nor the Federal Government can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither a State nor the Federal Government, openly or secretly, can participate in the affairs of any religious organization and vice versa. “In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of
separation between church and State.’ ”Everson, 330 U.S., at 16, 67 S.Ct., at 511 (quoting Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164, 25 L. Ed. 244 (1878)). The dissenters agreed: “The Amendment’s purpose … was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form
of public aid or support for religion.” 330 U.S., at 31–32, 67 S.Ct., at 519–520 (Rutledge, J., dissenting, joined by Frankfurter, Jackson, and Burton, JJ.); accord, Lee v. Weisman, 505 US 577, 599-600 (1992).

Instead of just paying lip service to their fealty to the Constitution and putting words into the mouths of Founding Fathers who never themselves uttered such words, conservatives should try to learn what our glorious Constitution actually says and means according the a steady stream of Supreme Court decisions. They have no right to corrupt the Constitution to suit their religious self-absorption.

may i bring my gun to church?

I vote for mandatory education of politicians in regards to the founders religious views. Each member would be gifted a copy of the Jefferson bible to begin with. After that the well-documented quotes of Benjamin Franklin and other forefathers on their astute perception of religion and how it’s NOT to be misinterpreted would be correctly disseminated. It’s worth a try. However, legislators time and again misinterpret to “weaponize” religious worship for their own ends. I find it difficult to discount that politicians, regardless of education, are the least intelligent among us.

again the spin…this woman was being sarcastic about mandatory voting…stop the spin people..and to think that if we have mandatory voting it will put SANE people in the gov’t. Ridiculous…mandatory voting without voter ID will allow ANYONE, citizen or not to vote..good for Dems huh? And please make it clear that having a voter ID does not in any way prevent minorites or the elderly to vote. If you want to get your SS check..guess what..you need ID…if you want to open a bank acct…you need ID…anywhere you..guess what..you need ID. ..so stop the nonsense…you are spinning and hurting the minorities more than helping them.

So what happens when you get a Jew or a Muslim who worship on Friday and Saturday?

I find it absolutely fascinating (disgusting but fascinating)
that a Politician that claims to be christian, is Advocating Sharia Law.

i was under the impression that
A: this was a democracy Not a Theocracy
and B: the christians don’t believe in the muslim laws..

so here’s a question. since the tax laws prohibit churches to be involved politics or lose their tax free status.. which church does she plan on having everyone attend and are they OK with losing their tax free status.. she might want to check on that before she goes all taliban wannabe on the country…

Church does not equal morals.

The worst erosion from which we suffer is the erosion of intelligence by arrogant conservative dimwits like Senator Sylvia Allen. The United States Supreme Court has, in three cases dating back to 1878, decided that the purpose of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was to build or erect a wall separating Church and State, according
to no less an authority than Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, whose group
crafted that clause. Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947); Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1878); accord, Lee v. Weisman, 505 US
577, 599-600 (1992). Moreover, in the first of those cases, the High Court explained that the Establishment Clause bars a state from forcing or influencing a person to go to church (or to remain away from church):

“The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this:
NEITHER A STATE NOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Can set up a church. Neither can
pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. NEITHER [A STATE NOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT] CAN FORCE NOR INFLUENCE A PERSON TO GO OR TO REMAIN AWAY FROM CHURCH AGAINST HIS WILL or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’” Everson, supra, 330 U.S. at 15-16 (capital letters used for emphasis).

Why do self-absorbed imbeciles, especially Christian extremists, who proclaim their undying fealty to the United States Constitution know so little about what it says or means?