Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) on Wednesday criticized comments that Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) made on Sunday in which she called for ending the separation of church and state in the United States.
Boebert said in a speech at the Cornerstone Christian Center in Basalt, Colo., that she is “tired” of the principle and falsely claimed that the Founding Fathers did not intend to keep religion separate from government.
Kinzinger condemned Boebert’s comments and compared them to the views of the Taliban, the militant Islamic fundamentalist group that rules Afghanistan.
“There is no difference between this and the Taliban. We must oppose the Christian Taliban. I say this as a Christian,” he tweeted.
Boebert argued that the separation of church and state “junk” is not in the Constitution and was only in a letter that “means nothing like they say it does.”
She appeared to be referencing a letter that then-President Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Church Association in Connecticut. In the letter, Jefferson wrote that the American people had built “a wall of separation between Church and State.”
The constitutional interpretation of separation of church and state comes from the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
The Supreme Court applied this provision also to the states through the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which prohibits states from passing laws that restrict people’s “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
But the court has more recently signaled a willingness to allow religion in public spaces, striking down a law in Maine earlier this month that prevented religious schools from receiving tuition aid from public funds. It also ruled in favor of a high school football coach who was placed on leave for violating the school’s policy against staff encouraging students to engage in prayer.
Boebert argued that the church should direct the government, and not the other way around.
Boebert won the Republican nomination for reelection to her seat on Tuesday, after winning election to the House in 2020 and gaining a reputation as a far-right conservative with hard-line views,
Uncle Mark eats the rainbow • 5 hours ago • edited
It’s not like Bimbobert actually read any history books about our forefathers…or any actual books at all. Her kind will walk around with lil’ booklets of the Constitution and pocket Bibles and wave them in everyone’s faces…implying that they’ve actually read, let alone understand either of them.
Brian Green Uncle Mark eats the rainbow • 5 hours ago
And she obviously has never read The Bible, or she’d know her lies and calls for violence are in direct contrast to the teachings of Jesus. Did you ever see Beneath The Planet Of The Apes? She reminds me of those fucked up people who lived underground and worshiped a nuclear missile.
Gustav2 • 5 hours ago • edited
Here we have a Protestant wishing for a Medieval hierarchical (and patriarchal) structure where the church (the RCC) had control over government and the law. The very thing Madison, Jefferson, Washington, etc. didn’t want.
The not-so-quiet part about when Bobble-head says “church” is that she means Christian church. They’re fine with religious privilege, as long as it’s the right religion.
When Bobble-head says “church”, she means Christian Church. And when she says “Christian Church”, she means Evangelical Protestant Christian Church. And when she says “Evangelical Protestant Christian Church”. . .
Gregory In Seattle • 5 hours ago • edited
The phrase “wall of separation between church and state” comes from Thomas Jefferson who, as President, wrote a letter to the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptist Association dated January 1, 1802. They had written to President Jefferson with concerns about the First Amendment. The phrase was later used in two landmark Supreme Court rulings, Reynolds v. United States (1879) and Everson v. Board of Education (1947.) Reynolds held that “religious duty” (in this case, Mormon
requirement for polygamy) was not a defense against criminal charges. Everson held that states are bound to secure Constitutional rights, specifically that “Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion…” also applied to state legislatures.
So it surprises me not at all that the Dominionists, who usually fetishize the “original intent” of the Founders, are desperate to ignore this piece of original intent.
Scottie's Playtime 
