• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

North Dakota defeats theocratic amendment

BenBurch

Gatekeeper of The Left
BenBurch
Joined
Sep 27, 2007
Messages
37,538
Location
The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/364016/group/homepage/

FARGO – North Dakota voters are happy with their current level of religious freedom, defeating Measure 3 in Tuesday’s election.

In complete but unofficial results as of 12:30 a.m., 36 percent voted yes and 64 percent voted no.

Those tallies included 60,129 yes votes and 107,186 no votes.

The measure was heavily voted down in Cass County with the no votes garnering 72 percent to 28 percent for the yes votes.

Measure 3 would have amended Article I of the North Dakota Constitution by adding: “Government may not burden a person’s or religious organization’s religious liberty.”

<SNIP>
Click to expand...

I think may be a signal that the tea dragger agenda isn't doing as well as the evil people who steer it want us to believe. ND is a "solid red" state on most if not all electoral projections, but if you can get this result there, the sermon isn't playing with the choir.
 
Seems like it was rather unneeded and vague. What was the worst consequence of this law? Someone could claim that his religion requires him to shoot minorities and rape little girls?
 
kookbreaker said:
Seems like it was rather unneeded and vague. What was the worst consequence of this law? Someone could claim that his religion requires him to shoot minorities and rape little girls?
Click to expand...

On the surface, the amendment seems redundant, offering no additional protection over the Constitution's First Amendment.

And it certainly doesn't seem like something pro-religion, so what's going on?


Ok, it was sponsored by Catholics, so is probably oriented around Obama's new regulations and mandates requiring they pay for things they find immoral.


And opponents spread FUD, as is sadly typical, "Opponents said Measure 3 was worded vaguely, could lead to “freedom of religion” being used as a defense in criminal cases and was unnecessary as religious freedom is not threatened here."
 
Last edited:
I'm at a loss as to what motivated it in the first place. Do the Tea Party types think they are being oppressed for their religious beliefs?
 
They also overwhelmingly defeated a ballot measure that would have eliminated property taxes. That would have devastated the state.

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_n...reject-measure-to-abolish-property-taxes?lite

Supporters of the proposal called property taxes among the most regressive and argued that North Dakota's booming oil economy has produced low unemployment levels and hefty budget surpluses that would make the transition easier.
"The surplus makes it easy for us to fund whatever revenue might be lost when the measure passes," said Charlene Nelson, chairwoman of the group that proposed the measure.
Click to expand...
Ah yes. The times are good, so they will always be good theory of economics.


Nelson said earlier that the group did not expect the measure to be approved by voters, but they would try again next year if lawmakers fail to approve broad-based tax changes.
Click to expand...
So your anti-tax group decided to waste taxpayer money on an initiative you did not expect to get approved?
 
BenBurch said:
Catholics don't want to have to pay for insurance that might pay for any sort of birth control. That would be the #1 issue they were trying for.
Click to expand...

Next they will actually have to save womens lives in there hospitals even if an abortion is what is needed. Instead of letting them die as their religion dictates.
 
kookbreaker said:
Seems like it was rather unneeded and vague. What was the worst consequence of this law? Someone could claim that his religion requires him to shoot minorities and rape little girls?
Click to expand...
'Religious liberty' to refuse medical care that runs counter to religious dogma, or to refuse service to Sons of Ham, idolaters, Christ killers, and so forth would have been 'protected'. Possibly could have been weaseled in as a criminal defense to violent actions.

Meaning that the taxpayers in ND would have been footing the bill for losing equal rights lawsuits in *federal* court had it passed.
 
Last edited:
crimresearch said:
'Religious liberty' to refuse medical care that runs counter to religious dogma, or to refuse service to Sons of Ham, idolaters, Christ killers, and so forth would have been 'protected'. Possibly could have been weaseled in as a criminal defense to violent actions.

Meaning that the taxpayers in ND would have been footing the bill for losing equal rights lawsuits in *federal* court had it passed.
Click to expand...

And let's not forget the Rastafarian angle, no more locking up people and confiscating their property because you find ashed remnants or seeds in their ashtray,...unless, of course, you're going to open the flood-gates of determining what is a "real" religion, and what is not.
 
Trakar said:
And let's not forget the Rastafarian angle, no more locking up people and confiscating their property because you find ashed remnants or seeds in their ashtray,...unless, of course, you're going to open the flood-gates of determining what is a "real" religion, and what is not.
Click to expand...

Look at the saga of the Federal attempt at this, the RFRA;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act

Basically the same thing.

Overturned in the SC. Not sure if same grounds would apply to a State though.
 
BenBurch said:
Look at the saga of the Federal attempt at this, the RFRA;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act

Basically the same thing.

Overturned in the SC. Not sure if same grounds would apply to a State though.
Click to expand...

Overturned because Congress overreached in attempting to control state legislation. It says it still applies at the federal level because Congress can set its own rule to hamper itself. Or regulatory agencies. Or something. Hmm. I wonder why it didn't forbid the contraceptive rule?
 
Last edited:
Beerina said:
Overturned because Congress overreached in attempting to control state legislation. It says it still applies at the federal level because Congress can set its own rule to hamper itself. Or regulatory agencies. Or something. Hmm. I wonder why it didn't forbid the contraceptive rule?
Click to expand...

Probably because the church had already acknowledged that such didn't unduly burden them, as it was a fairly widespread practice that the church went along with long before Obama ever thought about running for Senate, yet alone president.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom