57% Of Republicans Want Christianity As National Religion

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Repealing the bit that says that Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of a religion seems advisable if one wishes to establish a national religion.

No if they repeal the Establishment clause then holy balls there will be a string of religious based laws like you have never seen. Ten Commandments on every street post. Monuments to Jesus on every national park. 10 hours mandatory prayer in schools a Day. The free exercise clause would be all but lame.

If you keep the Establishment Clause and have a National Religion amendment. You get your religion and the Gov't still can't step on your rights.

You'd have two contradictory amendments. That seems ill-advised.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

No if they repeal the Establishment clause then holy balls there will be a string of religious based laws like you have never seen. Ten Commandments on every street post. Monuments to Jesus on every national park. 10 hours mandatory prayer in schools a Day. The free exercise clause would be all but lame.

If you keep the Establishment Clause and have a National Religion amendment. You get your religion and the Gov't still can't step on your rights.

You'd have two contradictory amendments. That seems ill-advised.

Weren't you paying attention earlier? Two conflicting amendments is hardly new. That's where the supreme court makes its pretty interesting interpretations. When you have two conflicting Amendments, then you find the legal ramifications in the penumbras of the two amendments. Kind of like how we have a constitutional right to privacy. (you can thank Scalia for that one btw)

[Yumyumsuppertime]

You'd have two contradictory amendments. That seems ill-advised.

Weren't you paying attention earlier? Two conflicting amendments is hardly new. That's where the supreme court makes its pretty interesting interpretations. When you have two conflicting Amendments, then you find the legal ramifications in the penumbras of the two amendments. Kind of like how we have a constitutional right to privacy. (you can thank Scalia for that one btw)

I'd prefer to not add to the problem unnecessarily, thanks, and in a manner that could seem insulting or alienating to those of differing beliefs.

[Aethrys]

You'd have two contradictory amendments. That seems ill-advised.

Weren't you paying attention earlier? Two conflicting amendments is hardly new. That's where the supreme court makes its pretty interesting interpretations. When you have two conflicting Amendments, then you find the legal ramifications in the penumbras of the two amendments. Kind of like how we have a constitutional right to privacy. (you can thank Scalia for that one btw)

... You're literally supporting the creation of a situation that deliberately leaves constitutional rights decisions up to nothing more than the whimsy of the current SCOTUS bench. "These two amendments say the exact opposite things so I'm going to base my ruling based on whatever I damn well please, and who's going to be able to question my decision effectively?"

[Camelza]

Thank god that 57% of the Republicans aren't the majority of US citizens.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Weren't you paying attention earlier? Two conflicting amendments is hardly new. That's where the supreme court makes its pretty interesting interpretations. When you have two conflicting Amendments, then you find the legal ramifications in the penumbras of the two amendments. Kind of like how we have a constitutional right to privacy. (you can thank Scalia for that one btw)

... You're literally supporting the creation of a situation that deliberately leaves constitutional rights decisions up to nothing more than the whimsy of the current SCOTUS bench. "These two amendments say the exact opposite things so I'm going to base my ruling based on whatever I damn well please, and who's going to be able to question my decision effectively?"

Constitutional rights are already up to the whims of the SCOTUS. "Dread Scott" "Plessy vs Fergusson" Ring any bells?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Weren't you paying attention earlier? Two conflicting amendments is hardly new. That's where the supreme court makes its pretty interesting interpretations. When you have two conflicting Amendments, then you find the legal ramifications in the penumbras of the two amendments. Kind of like how we have a constitutional right to privacy. (you can thank Scalia for that one btw)

I'd prefer to not add to the problem unnecessarily, thanks, and in a manner that could seem insulting or alienating to those of differing beliefs.

Well yeah, it's a useless gesture that would probably cause more harm than good. (I'm Catholic, not to popular on the Religious Right) I'm just saying that there's a way to do it.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I'd prefer to not add to the problem unnecessarily, thanks, and in a manner that could seem insulting or alienating to those of differing beliefs.

Well yeah, it's a useless gesture that would probably cause more harm than good. (I'm Catholic, not to popular on the Religious Right) I'm just saying that there's a way to do it.

Because a silly and counterproductive way is still a way.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Well yeah, it's a useless gesture that would probably cause more harm than good. (I'm Catholic, not to popular on the Religious Right) I'm just saying that there's a way to do it.

Because a silly and counterproductive way is still a way.

.......have you read the ACA?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Because a silly and counterproductive way is still a way.

.......have you read the ACA?

Has anyone?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

.......have you read the ACA?

Has anyone?

I don't even think the people who wrote it have, I was just pointing out how silly and counterproductive things are hardly foreign to our government.

[Idzequitch]

Overreaction much? Look, yes it's silly. No, it doesn't call for anything as drastic as you suggest. Honestly, your suggestion only takes credibility away from the reasonable arguments here.

... What am I suggesting exactly? That those who wish to impose an oppressive theocratic worldview on others are in opposition to human liberty? I'd hardly call that suggestion drastic.

You're suggesting that some well-meaning, though obviously mislead, individuals should be considered enemies of the entire human race. Didn't you read what you typed?
I mean, I'm on your side, a state religion in the USA is a terrible idea. I disagree with them, but there's no need to be unreasonably harsh on the other side.

[Aethrys]

... You're literally supporting the creation of a situation that deliberately leaves constitutional rights decisions up to nothing more than the whimsy of the current SCOTUS bench. "These two amendments say the exact opposite things so I'm going to base my ruling based on whatever I damn well please, and who's going to be able to question my decision effectively?"

Constitutional rights are already up to the whims of the SCOTUS. "Dread Scott" "Plessy vs Fergusson" Ring any bells?

Generally speaking justices need to have well reasoned arguments and legal precedent and so on and so forth supporting their decisions, if they'd like to avoid causing general unrest and a loss of faith in the justice system and so on. It's a bit harder to question them in the situation you propose. I mean they could flip a damn coin and who'd be able to argue it was flawed?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Has anyone?

I don't even think the people who wrote it have, I was just pointing out how silly and counterproductive things are hardly foreign to our government.

It's certainly complex, but I don't think that it's counterproductive. Regardless, though, should we shouldn't encourage such things.

[Nazi Flower Power]

So are you guys going to give up the pretense of caring about the founding fathers and what they thought?

Having a national religion does not infringe on the freedom of others to have their own religion

It's still a violation of the 1st amendment.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Constitutional rights are already up to the whims of the SCOTUS. "Dread Scott" "Plessy vs Fergusson" Ring any bells?

Generally speaking justices need to have well reasoned arguments and legal precedent and so on and so forth supporting their decisions, if they'd like to avoid causing general unrest and a loss of faith in the justice system and so on. It's a bit harder to question them in the situation you propose. I mean they could flip a damn coin and who'd be able to argue it was flawed?

I could. Say the 28th ammendment established Kabbalah as the national religion. The Establishment Clause would still prohibit Congress from passing any Laws that respected an establishment of religion including the national religion The 28th amendment would then simply be a formality. The National Religion would be Kabbalah in the same way the National Bird is the Eagle. It's "official" but doesn't really mean anything.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Having a national religion does not infringe on the freedom of others to have their own religion

It's still a violation of the 1st amendment.

not if it's created as an amendment.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I don't even think the people who wrote it have, I was just pointing out how silly and counterproductive things are hardly foreign to our government.

It's certainly complex, but I don't think that it's counterproductive. Regardless, though, should we shouldn't encourage such things.

Getting poor people health insurance by taxing the shit out them if they don't buy health insurance? Oh yeah that's not counterproductive at all.

[Aethrys]

Generally speaking justices need to have well reasoned arguments and legal precedent and so on and so forth supporting their decisions, if they'd like to avoid causing general unrest and a loss of faith in the justice system and so on. It's a bit harder to question them in the situation you propose. I mean they could flip a damn coin and who'd be able to argue it was flawed?

I could. Say the 28th ammendment established Kabbalah as the national religion. The Establishment Clause would still prohibit Congress from passing any Laws that respected an establishment of religion including the national religion The 28th amendment would then simply be a formality. The National Religion would be Kabbalah in the same way the National Bird is the Eagle. It's "official" but doesn't really mean anything.

... Sorry, not following. In that situation it's very clear that the establishment clause is being violated, making the proposed 28th amendment unconstitutional as it goes against the already existing first amendment. I admit my knowledge of constitutional law is not extensive enough to say whether or not one can amend amendments, if so I'd think altering the first amendment would be required, or if not an amendment to repeal the first amendment in it's entirety, followed by another to grant congress the power to establish a national religion.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I could. Say the 28th ammendment established Kabbalah as the national religion. The Establishment Clause would still prohibit Congress from passing any Laws that respected an establishment of religion including the national religion The 28th amendment would then simply be a formality. The National Religion would be Kabbalah in the same way the National Bird is the Eagle. It's "official" but doesn't really mean anything.

... Sorry, not following. In that situation it's very clear that the establishment clause is being violated, making the proposed 28th amendment unconstitutional as it goes against the already existing first amendment. I admit my knowledge of constitutional law is not extensive enough to say whether or not one can amend amendments, if so I'd think altering the first amendment would be required, or if not an amendment to repeal the first amendment in it's entirety, followed by another to grant congress the power to establish a national religion.

A. Yes one can alter, and/or repeal amendments. Example Amendment 21, and Amendment 18.

B. The Constitution cannot by definition be Unconstitutional. An amendment to the Constitution cannot be unconstitutional. It's not even logical.

C. The Establishment Clause would not be violated as it specifically refers to Congress making Laws. An Amendment is not a Law it is a change/addition to the Constitution.

EDIT: Even if you wanted to argue that an Amendment Violated earlier parts of the Constitution, it wouldn't matter. No court, not even the SCOTUS has the power to strike down any part of the Constitution.

[Nazi Flower Power]

I could. Say the 28th ammendment established Kabbalah as the national religion. The Establishment Clause would still prohibit Congress from passing any Laws that respected an establishment of religion including the national religion The 28th amendment would then simply be a formality. The National Religion would be Kabbalah in the same way the National Bird is the Eagle. It's "official" but doesn't really mean anything.

... Sorry, not following. In that situation it's very clear that the establishment clause is being violated, making the proposed 28th amendment unconstitutional as it goes against the already existing first amendment. I admit my knowledge of constitutional law is not extensive enough to say whether or not one can amend amendments, if so I'd think altering the first amendment would be required, or if not an amendment to repeal the first amendment in it's entirety, followed by another to grant congress the power to establish a national religion.

If a new amendment contradicts an existing part of the constitution, then the new amendment takes precedence. There is still text in the constitution about stuff like slavery and prohibition, but it's no longer applicable because it was cancelled out by later amendments.

[United Prefectures of Appia]

While the US was built on Christian principles the separation of church and state was clear.

And what Christian principles would you be referring to I'm curious? If you mean thou shall not steal, kill, bare false witness, then I hate to tell you that these golden rules have long predated the Abrahamic religion.

[Solansica]

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?

There is the United States of Canada where all the secularists live, and there is Jesusland where the rest of us Americans (and a majority of us conservatives) live.

This is categorical mistake as it doesnt specify what is meant. Wanting Christianity to be (or remain) the national religion by virtue of most Americans claiming to be Christian is a very different question from asking if we want the established religion (church) to be a particular denomination (like the Church of England is to Parliament). If clarified most Conservatives would not support it).

Over 80% of Americans claim to be Christian. Why should it trouble you that conservatives want to conserve their heritage against secularist encroachment? There was a time (in my lifetime) where prayer and Bible reading daily exercised in the public schools. Until recently the Platform of the Democratic party invoked the name of God, whereas the GOP platform still does.

Before the cultural revolution of the 60s, one could say, God in America and nearly everyone knew that meant the God of the Bible. It was assumed that the ethical virtues of Jesus Christ (Love God with your whole being; love your neighbor as much as you love yourself; and treat others the way you yourself would want to be treated) were the American standards for civic virtue--not to mention work hard, keep your nose clean, and keep it out of other people's business (also Biblical). That our Founders considered the concepts of truth, justice and peace necessary to carry out the civic virtue that translated into Liberty and Equality was agreed by both Democrats and Republicans. And America was the better for it.

Conservatives are by nature conservative, changing little. We tend to react or respond only when encroached upon. Progressives by nature are given to radical change, and America has changed much in the past 40 years. When I was a child, JFK was considered slightly to the left and LBJ was far left. Today, Rush Limbaugh who holds nearly identical views to JFK is considered lunatic right, and people like McCain who hold similar policy issues to LBJ are considered "Right-Wing." Those of us who truly are right-wing (Barry Goldwater-Ron Paul types) are not even on the spectrum anymore).

What i find disturbing is that Secularists cannot stand the thought that I may be thinking that God, the 10 Commandments, The Golden rule and Protestant work ethic are pretty neat things worthy to be discussed in the public fora.

[Nerotysia]

Repealing the bit that says that Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of a religion seems advisable if one wishes to establish a national religion.

No if they repeal the Establishment clause then holy balls there will be a string of religious based laws like you have never seen. Ten Commandments on every street post. Monuments to Jesus on every national park. 10 hours mandatory prayer in schools a Day. The free exercise clause would be all but lame.

If you keep the Establishment Clause and have a National Religion amendment. You get your religion and the Gov't still can't step on your rights.

Unfortunately the USSC and decades of precedents disagree with you. A national church is unnecessary and archaic.

[Bandwagon]

It seems like the Westboro Baptist Church have taken over America.