57% Of Republicans Want Christianity As National Religion

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Well if America embraced true Christianity, aka Roman Catholicism, I would be okay with it.

#Papal States of America 2015

I'm all about it

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Pretty much what it says on the tin. In a poll by Public Policy Polling, and in response to the question "Would you support or oppose establishing Christianity as the national religion?" (Q17), 57% of Republicans interviewed stated that they supported this idea.

Do note that caveat. The sample they looked at isn't the greatest:

PPP surveyed 316 Republican primary voters from February 20th to 22nd. The margin of error for the survey is +/- 5.5%. This survey was conducted through automated telephone interviews and interviews over the internet to voters who don’t have landline phones.

316 people is pretty small for a national survey, primary voters -- for which primary, the midterms? -- are not necessarily represenative of the whole party, and worst, it's a sample of whoever didn't hang up on yet another robopoll.

Which is covered by the margin of error. Those without landline phones were interviewed online.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I meant once passed by Congress and sent to the States for ratification. I don't know, maybe you can't challenge a proposed amendment. It does strike me that such a proposal would die a quick death in committee.

The President can veto it, and the states can as well. 66% of states have to go along with it. Once it becomes law the only way to challenge it is to bring it as a law suit but the caveat is that it has to be a specific case, i.e it affects you in some tangible, discernable way. You can't challenge something because you dislike it.

No, once and Amendment is passed, there is no court with Jurisdiction to overturn it. There is no Court with Jurisdiction to which you can file your case.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Do note that caveat. The sample they looked at isn't the greatest:


316 people is pretty small for a national survey, primary voters -- for which primary, the midterms? -- are not necessarily represenative of the whole party, and worst, it's a sample of whoever didn't hang up on yet another robopoll.

Which is covered by the margin of error. Those without landline phones were interviewed online.

It also depends which Repblicans where. Here in NC Republicans would probably respond: HELL YEAR MURICA PEW PEW PEW.

Republicans in Northern California would probably have an aneurysm

[AiliailiA]

To establish a religion, it wouldn't be necessary to make a new Amendment specifying which religion or even specifically empowering the Congress to establish a religion.

Strike out the phrase "any establishment of religion" which prevents Congress from doing so.

Much like if you wanted to completely ban guns. You don't need an amendment saying "no citizen can have a gun". Just modify or abolish the 2nd, then Congress can ban guns ... and later unban them if Congress changes its confused little mind.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Which is covered by the margin of error. Those without landline phones were interviewed online.

It also depends which Repblicans where. Here in NC Republicans would probably respond: HELL YEAR MURICA PEW PEW PEW.

Republicans in Northern California would probably have an aneurysm

These sorts of polls tend to go national, otherwise their results would largely be useless, and no one would pay them.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

To establish a religion, it wouldn't be necessary to make a new Amendment specifying which religion or even specifically empowering the Congress to establish a religion.

Strike out the phrase "any establishment of religion" which prevents Congress from doing so.

Much like if you wanted to completely ban guns. You don't need an amendment saying "no citizen can have a gun". Just modify or abolish the 2nd, then Congress can ban guns ... and later unban them if Congress changes its confused little mind.

Except you need an amendment to repeal or modify an existing amendment. Case in point 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

To establish a religion, it wouldn't be necessary to make a new Amendment specifying which religion or even specifically empowering the Congress to establish a religion.

Strike out the phrase "any establishment of religion" which prevents Congress from doing so.

Much like if you wanted to completely ban guns. You don't need an amendment saying "no citizen can have a gun". Just modify or abolish the 2nd, then Congress can ban guns ... and later unban them if Congress changes its confused little mind.

In order to change the Constitution in that manner, you would need an amendment. That's what it means to amend something.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

#Papal States of America 2015

I'm all about it

I made that flag myself!

One day. One day.

[Wanderjar]

The President can veto it, and the states can as well. 66% of states have to go along with it. Once it becomes law the only way to challenge it is to bring it as a law suit but the caveat is that it has to be a specific case, i.e it affects you in some tangible, discernable way. You can't challenge something because you dislike it.

A President's veto can be overturned.

Yes but that requires 2/3rds majority and oddly enough seems to very rarely happen.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

A President's veto can be overturned.

Yes but that requires 2/3rds majority and oddly enough seems to very rarely happen.

I dunno, Republicans are gonna try on the Keystone XL


EDIT: Also, in the Amendment Process, an Amendment never goes to the Desk of the President. It goes to the States.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

yea what's the whole deal with the keystone pipeline? is it good or bad? I know it affects Canada in some way but I don't understand the controversy.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I'm all about it

I made that flag myself!

One day. One day.

After the Nuclear Winter, When I emerge to remake the United States, that will be my flag.

[Farnhamia]

I meant once passed by Congress and sent to the States for ratification. I don't know, maybe you can't challenge a proposed amendment. It does strike me that such a proposal would die a quick death in committee.

The President can veto it, and the states can as well. 66% of states have to go along with it. Once it becomes law the only way to challenge it is to bring it as a law suit but the caveat is that it has to be a specific case, i.e it affects you in some tangible, discernable way. You can't challenge something because you dislike it.

The President's signature is not required for an amendment proposal. Depending on how the amendment was written, it might be challengeable on the basis of damage. Again, I don't know and you don't know, either, since it's never happened.

[Nebalon]

Happily no one really gives a fuck what they want.

Uhm Republicans actually have the majority right now, so there's that .

Christianity is already the national religion anyway. Even if you don't think that the country is a country founded on Christian principles, as is your right, the country is statistically mostly christian, and obviously the culture, laws, and customs are going to reflect that

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Happily no one really gives a fuck what they want.

Uhm Republicans actually have the majority right now, so there's that .

Christianity is already the national religion anyway. Even if you don't think that the country is a country founded on Christian principles, as is your right, the country is statistically mostly christian, and obviously the culture, laws, and customs are going to reflect that

Right. You just have to make sure that these laws have a secular purpose, and not just a religious one.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

The President can veto it, and the states can as well. 66% of states have to go along with it. Once it becomes law the only way to challenge it is to bring it as a law suit but the caveat is that it has to be a specific case, i.e it affects you in some tangible, discernable way. You can't challenge something because you dislike it.

The President's signature is not required for an amendment proposal. Depending on how the amendment was written, it might be challengeable on the basis of damage. Again, I don't know and you don't know, either, since it's never happened.

As I've said, there's no court that has Jurisdiction to hear challenges against the Constitution. Constitution is supreme law of the land. There's no direct challenging it. The only way to challenge an Amendment is to repeal it with another Amendment.

[AiliailiA]

I know it's cheap to attack the source, but this PPP poll really smells off.

46 to 65 years old: 46%
Older than 65: 26%

There's no methodology published on PPP's site. The sample is mentioned as "316 Republican primary voters"

I think the key is that (unlike the OP presents it) this isn't a poll of Republican voters. It's a poll of Republican primary voters.

That's relevant for PPP's purpose (voting intention to pick a Republican candidate) but the OP is misrepresenting it as what all Republicans think.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Uhm Republicans actually have the majority right now, so there's that .

Christianity is already the national religion anyway. Even if you don't think that the country is a country founded on Christian principles, as is your right, the country is statistically mostly christian, and obviously the culture, laws, and customs are going to reflect that

Right. You just have to make sure that these laws have a secular purpose, and not just a religious one.

Fucking Lemmon.....

[Tarsonis Survivors]

yea what's the whole deal with the keystone pipeline? is it good or bad? I know it affects Canada in some way but I don't understand the controversy.

Eh, there's a thread on that I'm sure.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Right. You just have to make sure that these laws have a secular purpose, and not just a religious one.

Fucking Lemmon.....

That could sting.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Fucking Lemmon.....

That could sting.

yeah but pain is all i respond to these days.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

I made that flag myself!

One day. One day.

After the Nuclear Winter, When I emerge to remake the United States, that will be my flag.

Only if I get to be Vice President

[AiliailiA]

To establish a religion, it wouldn't be necessary to make a new Amendment specifying which religion or even specifically empowering the Congress to establish a religion.

Strike out the phrase "any establishment of religion" which prevents Congress from doing so.

Much like if you wanted to completely ban guns. You don't need an amendment saying "no citizen can have a gun". Just modify or abolish the 2nd, then Congress can ban guns ... and later unban them if Congress changes its confused little mind.

Except you need an amendment to repeal or modify an existing amendment. Case in point 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment.

Yes?

I didn't say Congress can establish a religion as the constitution is now. I said that to establish a religion all that's necessary is to remove a clause of the first amendment. Then Congress could establish a religion.

Whether it could enforce it's "federal religion" on the states ... for the general welfare or such ... well I expect that would got to the courts.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I know it's cheap to attack the source, but this PPP poll really smells off.

46 to 65 years old: 46%
Older than 65: 26%

There's no methodology published on PPP's site. The sample is mentioned as "316 Republican primary voters"

I think the key is that (unlike the OP presents it) this isn't a poll of Republican voters. It's a poll of Republican primary voters.

That's relevant for PPP's purpose (voting intention to pick a Republican candidate) but the OP is misrepresenting it as what all Republicans think.

A 2013 poll by YouGov came up with similar results.