57% Of Republicans Want Christianity As National Religion

[Dinake]

This is the reason I support the Republicans over the Democrats.
That being said, I have no illusions that this will actually happen.

[Atlanticatia]

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.

Because society is becoming secular and there is no reason to keep all this ultra-religiosity in our national identity.

Only 60% of millennials are Christians, about 7-8% are from a non-Christian religion, and about one-third have no religion.
..And beyond affiliation statistics, only 40% of millennials say religion is important to their lives. Each generation is becoming more multicultural, more pluralistic, and more secular. Society is changing, and this trend will continue to progress.
About one-fifth of the overall population have no religion, and 8% have a non-Christian religion.

Not just religion, but Christianity in general, just isn't as relevant anymore in modern America. Granted, the US is far more overtly religious and Christian than Western Europe or the rest of the Anglo countries. But it's becoming more and more secular and diverse. It's not fair to say Christianity should be a national religion when it really isn't as important anymore. We must have an inclusive, multicultural society where everyone feels they have a right to be there: Christian, Jewish, Atheist, Agnostic, Muslim, Hindu, etc etc. It's frankly intolerant if you feel otherwise.

[Nerotysia]

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 why I love Canada. Canada is like America except without the extreme conservatism.

Over 80% of Americans claim to be Christian. Why should it trouble you that conservatives want to conserve their heritage against secularist encroachment?

Because certain parts of that heritage need to be destroyed for society to progress.

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.

Thank god those days are over.

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).

Proof, proof, and more proof, please. This is nothing but vague generalizations. Essentially this is a whole lot of nothing.

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.

Yes. And those virtues are in no way Christian.

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).

So, you are against progress then? Tell me, have you studied history?

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.

They're worthy of being discussed, because everything is worthy of being discussed. That doesn't mean anything.

[Kainesia]

If republicans get to heaven when they die there are a lot of camels that have gone through a lot of needles.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

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.

You can pretend that Christianity owns the concepts of liberty and equality, but it doesn't. And Christians have been some of the biggest opponents of both throughout history.

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).

The world is moving forward. A stagnant river becomes poisonous.

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.

You can discuss them in the public fora. We discuss them in the public fora all the time. That is literally what we are doing right now.

What you want is the right to impose your views unilaterally on others using everyone's resources.

Stop trying to equate the government not directly supporting you with censorship. It's a damned lie.

[Ripoll]

Doesnt fit with American principles, works for England not for us.

[Fartsniffage]

Doesnt fit with American princes, works for England not for us.

You're okay with having princes but not a national religion?

[Nerotysia]

Doesnt fit with American princes, works for England not for us.

How does it work for England?

[Fartsniffage]

Doesnt fit with American princes, works for England not for us.

How does it work for England?

Everyone just ignores it.

[Nerotysia]

How does it work for England?

Everyone just ignores it.

But how does that work in England? Saying it works implies that the country is benefited in some way.

[Othelos]

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

not if it's created as an amendment.

Which is a good idea because...?

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.

The poor get exemptions so that they don't have to....

[Ripoll]

Doesnt fit with American princes, works for England not for us.

How does it work for England?

aristocracy is embedded in their culture, as well as looking to a uniting monarch and such, of which are considered the head of the church, hence a national religion.

[Ripoll]

Doesnt fit with American princes, works for England not for us.

You're okay with having princes but not a national religion?

Principles*

[MERIZoC]

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 why I love Canada. Canada is like America except without the extreme conservatism.

Ha. Hahahaha. I don't think you've seen the Canadian PM.

[Nerotysia]

How does it work for England?

aristocracy is embedded in their culture, as well as looking to a uniting monarch and such, of which are considered the head of the church, hence a national religion.

How is aristocracy good? And I highly doubt Anglicanism acts as a unifying force. In fact for most of English history Anglicanism has been a source of division, not unity.

[Nerotysia]

This is why I love Canada. Canada is like America except without the extreme conservatism.

Ha. Hahahaha. I don't think you've seen the Canadian PM.

I don't think you've seen the tea party. Pardon me while I vomit.

[United Russian Soviet States]

It may.

How much confidence would you put in a religion that requires the approval of a government (A government which is 1,700 years its junior, no less) to survive?
If a religion needs the support of the government to survive, then that religion should die, not act as a parasite, sucking the life out of the government.

It will still survive. It just may loose public support here.

[Neutraligon]

How much confidence would you put in a religion that requires the approval of a government (A government which is 1,700 years its junior, no less) to survive?
If a religion needs the support of the government to survive, then that religion should die, not act as a parasite, sucking the life out of the government.

It will still survive. It just may loose public support here.

Then there is no point in making it the national religion.

[Othelos]

How much confidence would you put in a religion that requires the approval of a government (A government which is 1,700 years its junior, no less) to survive?
If a religion needs the support of the government to survive, then that religion should die, not act as a parasite, sucking the life out of the government.

It will still survive. It just may loose public support here.

Why would it be a good idea to set a national religion in the first place?

[United Russian Soviet States]

It will still survive. It just may loose public support here.

Why would it be a good idea to set a national religion in the first place?

So that morality can't die in a nation.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

So that morality can't die in a nation.

Morality is not dependent on any religion.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Why would it be a good idea to set a national religion in the first place?

So that morality can't die in a nation.

Not only is morality not dependent upon a religion, but immoral acts have historically been carried out in the name of state religions.

[Othelos]

Why would it be a good idea to set a national religion in the first place?

So that morality can't die in a nation.

People are inherently moral whether they have a religion or not. A laundry list of do's and don't's doesn't help anyone, except people who can't think for themselves.

[Northwest Slobovia]

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.

I finally got a chance to check some sources on this. I was going to go into a discussion of polling methodology, but I don't have to.

Being a sample of GOP primary voters is pretty much FUBAR in terms of saying anything. The Center for Democracy & Election Management a part of American University, publishes reports on primary turn out, such as this year's primaries. As they note, primary turnout is pathetic:



So, we're looking at very small, usually very motivated, sections of both big parties (8% of the GOP, 6% of the Democrats). And not only the really politically active parts of the parties, but the parts where there were primaries. The report mentions that only half the states even held state-wide primaries this year. From the lists given in the report and other sources, it seems the GOP held primaries in:

Alabama
Arkansas
Georgia
Mississippi
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
West Virginia

and 17 states outside the Bible Belt (the listed states are ones I consider in the Bible Belt; whoever made Wakipedia's map agrees).

So, um, a poll of 317 of likely very politically active Repubicans in a set of Bible-enriched states reveals a lot of them are in favor of a national religion. Color me surprised. But that doesn't make a good topic title, does it?


A little off topic: I hadn't realized primary turn-out was so low. I begin to understand why we have such extreme candidates to vote for in the general elections...

[Salus Maior]

Yes. And those virtues are in no way Christian.

Then you must know very little of Christianity. Or otherwise lack understanding of it.