57% Of Republicans Want Christianity As National Religion

[Jaselvania]

WRONG. Only people who think they're smarter then everyone else have trouble realizing that your smarty-pants interpretation of words that aren't there DOESN'T MATTER. The Constitution is clear as day and doesn't need to be "interpreted" for us "idiots".

"The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction, and no excuse for interpolation or addition."

Except it does matter. It will be interpreted because the SCOTUS has that authority. In fact they used that authority to give itself that authority.

"In fact they used that authority to give itself that authority" Ughhh. That power is not theirs to grant themselves. Hamilton even wrote about this:

"Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former."

[Tarsonis Survivors]

The Constitution of the US states that there's a Supreme Court that's tasked with interpreting the wording of the Constitution whenever a doubt may arise, iirc.

It kinda doesn't. Judicial Review came later.

John Marshall employed judicial review to give the SCOTUS the power of Judicial Review.

[Jaselvania]

1. I'm not making a point "about Muslims", I'm making a point that there are people today using a religion in FAR WORSE and more violent ways then Christians in the US.
2. Yes, yes they are in the US. http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/donald-r-may/2014-09-27/first-us-isis-beheading-oklahoma
3. I'm re-reading what I wrote but I'm failing to see where I said, or even implied, that it was "all of the Muslim population in the region". I've lived "there" & have friends "there". So please don't make-up words or implied intent for me, k? Thanks . . .

Oh, and last but not least . . . .

4. No, I'm not ignoring the completely irrelevant fact that almost 1000 years ago the Christians possibly committed terrible acts in the Crusades (which, btw, was a defensive war against Islamic conquest. Just saying.) Your use of "far worse crimes" is a silly overstatement since neither you or I can even start to comprehend with rational thought crimes worse then burning a man alive.

...fileting his skin off and then burning him alive?

Please dont!

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Except it does matter. It will be interpreted because the SCOTUS has that authority. In fact they used that authority to give itself that authority.

"In fact they used that authority to give itself that authority" Ughhh. That power is not theirs to grant themselves. Hamilton even wrote about this:

"Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former."

Right they have the Authority to view Laws, but vested in that authority is the power to interpret the Constitution.

[Insaeldor]

My comment was directed directly at the OP and not anything you or anyone else had previously posted in the thread. So why would I read the thread when I'm responding to the OP which I've read already?

Cause literally 90% of this thread is arguing about why what you said isn't true.

Well myyy bad, sorry for having an opinion on this matter that you guys don't agree with. If would be so kind as to explain your reasoning as to why my statement is wrong I'd gladly try to add to this debate.

[Hebalobia]

I'll look upon that as a reminder to go check my stock of 7.62 mm ammo.

I believe it.

They believe they have the "truth" and they have no problem with forcing that "truth" onto everyone else. The American Family Association (AFA) is a perfect example of the way these people think. They recently put together a "Anti-Christian" version of the SPLC hate map of groups it claims are openly bigoted against Christians. In their words:

"These groups are deeply intolerant towards the Christian religion. Their objectives are to silence Christians and to remove all public displays of Christian heritage and faith in America.

A common practice of these groups is threatening our nation’s schools, cities and states. By threat of lawsuit, they demand prayer removed from schools and city council meetings, Ten Commandments monuments stricken from courthouses and memorial crosses purged from cemeteries and parks."

But what they did was simply mark the location of every organization that they disagree with or disagrees with them. In the words of Right Wing Watch the AFA "just listed every atheist, humanist, or freethinker organization it could find, as well as the state chapters of national organizations such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, SPLC, the Human Rights Campaign, and GLSEN."

Now, if you want to claim any of these organizations are bigoted toward Christians, then you need to provide specific evidence about each group as the SPLC does for the groups it identifies as hate groups rather than wave your hands in the air and broad brush them with a bunch of unsupported assertions.

Or at least that's what honest people would do.

[Christo et Ecclesiae]

I'm not defending the Republican party, but 316 Republicans over the course of 2 days of polling is not an accurate representation of the whole number of people within the party by any means. Considering there are 30.7 million registered republicans, I think this is a rather bad perception of the entire party. According to the footnote, basically anyone could claim they were Republican; in some states, anyone can vote in primaries regardless of political affiliation. Its fair to say this was not conducted in a good way.


"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. "

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I'll look upon that as a reminder to go check my stock of 7.62 mm ammo.

I believe it. These people are ignorant, bigoted and hateful.

They believe they have the "truth" and they have no problem with forcing that "truth" onto everyone else. The American Family Association (AFA) is a perfect example of the way these people think. They recently put together a "Anti-Christian" version of the SPLC hate map of groups it claims are openly bigoted against Christians. In their words:

"These groups are deeply intolerant towards the Christian religion. Their objectives are to silence Christians and to remove all public displays of Christian heritage and faith in America.

A common practice of these groups is threatening our nation’s schools, cities and states. By threat of lawsuit, they demand prayer removed from schools and city council meetings, Ten Commandments monuments stricken from courthouses and memorial crosses purged from cemeteries and parks."

But what they did was simply mark the location of every organization that they disagree with or disagrees with them. In the words of Right Wing Watch the AFA "just listed every atheist, humanist, or freethinker organization it could find, as well as the state chapters of national organizations such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, SPLC, the Human Rights Campaign, and GLSEN."

Now, if you want to claim any of these organizations are bigoted toward Christians, then you need to provide specific evidence about each group as the SPLC does for the groups it identifies as hate groups rather than wave your hands in the air and broad brush them with a bunch of unsupported assertions.

Or at least that's what honest people would do.

So when the SPLC does it, it's okay?

7.62? You won't even get in range to use it accurately against me and my 5.56

[Fartsniffage]

It kinda doesn't. Judicial Review came later.

John Marshall employed judicial review to give the SCOTUS the power of Judicial Review.

But you agree that SCoTUS should have that power?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Cause literally 90% of this thread is arguing about why what you said isn't true.

Well myyy bad, sorry for having an opinion on this matter that you guys don't agree with. If would be so kind as to explain your reasoning as to why my statement is wrong I'd gladly try to add to this debate.

Using the First amendment against the application of non Christian law, and proposing an Amendment to establish Christianity as the national religion are not functionally hypocritical.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

John Marshall employed judicial review to give the SCOTUS the power of Judicial Review.

But you agree that SCoTUS should have that power?

Absolutely.

[Jaselvania]

WRONG. Only people who think they're smarter then everyone else have trouble realizing that YOUR INTERPRETATION DOESN'T MATTER. The Constitution is clear as day and doesn't need to be "interpreted" for us "idiots".

The Constitution of the US states that there's a Supreme Court that's tasked with interpreting the wording of the Constitution whenever a doubt may arise, iirc.

"The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction, and no excuse for interpolation or addition."

Are those words written in the Constitution, or is that your or somebody else's interpretation?

Sorry, forgot to attribute that to Justice Joseph Story as part of his opinion in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee.

[The Sons of Adam]

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.

This strikes me as troubling. While it's no surprise that the GOP has leaned ever more right over the past few decades, and has pandered particularly to the religious right during that period of time in a mad scramble for votes, I find it disturbing that a majority of people in the party are so openly disdainful of the Constitution. Previously, the rhetoric was at least hidden behind a veil of "We respect everyone's right to believe as they wish". Now it's more of a "If you're not all about Jesus, then you're not really an American".

Thoughts?

I'm starting to like Republicans.

[Insaeldor]

Well myyy bad, sorry for having an opinion on this matter that you guys don't agree with. If would be so kind as to explain your reasoning as to why my statement is wrong I'd gladly try to add to this debate.

Using the First amendment against the application of non Christian law, and proposing an Amendment to establish Christianity as the national religion are not functionally hypocritical.

How so? Again that dependent on who you are talking to. Not to mention while a good portion of people of people who wish to establish christianity as an official religion do in fact want some sort of religious laws. Now some dont and that fine my statement was a catch all generalization. But in the establishment of Christianity as a national religion would go against one of the central tenets of this nation and its reasoning for being founded first as a set of British colonies and then as an independent nation and that is that America was founded as a place for people of all faiths to come and practice there faith and establishing christianity as an official religion would go against this founding notion of religious blindness or rather acceptence of all faiths for all to practice any faith they wish as it shows America as a Christian nation and not a nation of all faiths as it was intended to be by the founding fathers.

[Tsuken]

I am simultaneously surprised and not. No doubt this is right in their mind because the national religion would be Christianity. Wonder what they would think if the national religion was Hinduism.

[Caninope]

they interviewed only 316 republicans by the article. Are they seriously going to say 57% of a party with over 30 million members is in favor of making christianity the state religion while interviewing less than 1% of the party?

316 is not exactly a small population, and accuracy of a poll depends exclusively on the sample size, not on the population size.

[Caninope]

Right, but that wouldn't make it unconstitutional. It would simply make it not part of the Constitution, and therefore irrelevant.

A proposed amendment is a bill in Congress. Congress is prohibited from passing a bill respecting the establishment of religion by the First Amendment.

No one would have any standing to challenge it, for the sole reason that it wouldn't have the force of law.

[Caninope]

"The poll was conducted among 316 Republicans from Feb. 20-22."

...I wouldn't really trust this poll considering the small sample size.

The sample size isn't that small, actually.

[Esternial]

Unfortunately, just because you want somethings doesn't mean it's going to happen.

This is both why we can't have nice things and why the world doesn't get infinitely worse.

[Dyakovo]

Wrong.The separation of church and state is clearly established without the words appearing in the text. Only idiots Who don't comprehend common law legal systems and/or don't realize that that is the type of legal system in place in the US have any trouble with the concept.

Why does everyone have to pick on Scalia....

Because he's a partisan hack?

[Risottia]

The Constitution of the US states that there's a Supreme Court that's tasked with interpreting the wording of the Constitution whenever a doubt may arise, iirc.

It kinda doesn't. Judicial Review came later.

Oi, sorry.

[Jute]

And I'm saying an Amendment is needed any way.

Yes, let's just throw out freedom of religion and brainwash our children with religious propoganda! We are fundamentalist Protestantism, you will be indoctrinated, resistance is futile.

Did you create that account just to make that comment?

[Arcturus Novus]

I am simultaneously surprised and not. No doubt this is right in their mind because the national religion would be Christianity. Wonder what they would think if the national religion was Hinduism.

Well, Big Mac sales would go down considerably...

[Jute]

I am simultaneously surprised and not. No doubt this is right in their mind because the national religion would be Christianity. Wonder what they would think if the national religion was Hinduism.

Well, Big Mac sales would go down considerably...

I think that wouldn't even be a bad thing, would it?

[Nazi Flower Power]

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.

This strikes me as troubling. While it's no surprise that the GOP has leaned ever more right over the past few decades, and has pandered particularly to the religious right during that period of time in a mad scramble for votes, I find it disturbing that a majority of people in the party are so openly disdainful of the Constitution. Previously, the rhetoric was at least hidden behind a veil of "We respect everyone's right to believe as they wish". Now it's more of a "If you're not all about Jesus, then you're not really an American".

Thoughts?

57% of Republicans are fucked up.