57% Of Republicans Want Christianity As National Religion

[Dyakovo]

The first amendment doesn't allow for the establishment of a national religion.

It doesn't prohibit it either.

Yes, it does.

[Prezelly]

It doesn't prohibit it either. The first amendment protects the people's right to believe what they want. The nation can still have a national religion

Read again:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"

Sorry my memory is a little rusty, I forgot that was there. I guess it does prohibit it

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Why is it important to acknowledge this?

I don't know, maybe just as important to recognize that there is a national tree or national animal.

Yes, but having a national tree or national animal is simply a matter of symbolism, not belief. Having a national religion means that that religion is the very underpinning of one's society.

[Ifreann]

Why is it important to acknowledge this?

I don't know, maybe just as important to recognize that there is a national tree or national animal.

So, not in the slightest?

[Othelos]

I don't know, maybe just as important to recognize that there is a national tree or national animal.

Yes, but having a national tree or national animal is simply a matter of symbolism, not belief. Having a national religion means that that religion is the very underpinning of one's society.

And it would cause religious infighting, which is a big reason as to why the founding fathers wanted to prevent it in the first place.

[Worldly Philosophers]

Ah, that'll be fun. We'll be able to rise up in an avenging flame to destroy them once and for all. Hee hee. Ha. Ha, ha ha ha. HA HA HA HA. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That is an interesting number, though. I wonder what has prompted them to grow into this opinion over the years - I don't really know anyone who wants theocracy anymore.

[Prezelly]

I don't know, maybe just as important to recognize that there is a national tree or national animal.

Yes, but having a national tree or national animal is simply a matter of symbolism, not belief. Having a national religion means that that religion is the very underpinning of one's society.

Not really. A society doesn't have to be supported by it's majority religion. It just usually is, and if the point is that making it the national religion would set it up as such, I think it is safe to assume that it is already ingrained into many in the US

[United North Atlantic States]

Read again:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"

Sorry my memory is a little rusty, I forgot that was there. I guess it does prohibit it

[Othelos]

Yes, but having a national tree or national animal is simply a matter of symbolism, not belief. Having a national religion means that that religion is the very underpinning of one's society.

Not really. A society doesn't have to be supported by it's majority religion. It just usually is, and if the point is that making it the national religion would set it up as such, I think it is safe to assume that it is already ingrained into many in the US

But religion (more specifically christianity) is on the decline in the US, and it looks to continue that way. A third of millenials don't consider themselves christians, which is much higher than in older generations.

[Prezelly]

Not really. A society doesn't have to be supported by it's majority religion. It just usually is, and if the point is that making it the national religion would set it up as such, I think it is safe to assume that it is already ingrained into many in the US

But religion (more specifically christianity) is on the decline in the US, and it looks to continue that way. A third of millenials don't consider themselves christians, which is much higher than in older generations.

At the moment it is still the majority, and still ingrained in society. I'm not saying I support this, I'm saying it doesn't matter

[Salandriagado]

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 most certainly does break the first amendment, though.

not inherently. Most theocratic societies are hellholes for anyone who doesn't fit in perfectly. ex, Saudi Arabia, Iran.

In the US, there are clauses set up in the constitution to prevent things like that. However it is possible. Unlikely I'd say

There is one clause. It's the same one that bans national religions.

not inherently. Most theocratic societies are hellholes for anyone who doesn't fit in perfectly. ex, Saudi Arabia, Iran.

In the US, there are clauses set up in the constitution to prevent things like that. However it is possible. Unlikely I'd say

It very explicitly bans national religions.

[Othelos]

But religion (more specifically christianity) is on the decline in the US, and it looks to continue that way. A third of millenials don't consider themselves christians, which is much higher than in older generations.

At the moment it is still the majority, and still ingrained in society. I'm not saying I support this, I'm saying it doesn't matter

It does matter, though...

[Prezelly]

At the moment it is still the majority, and still ingrained in society. I'm not saying I support this, I'm saying it doesn't matter

It does matter, though...

That's an opinion, we wont really know because it wont happen

[Ostroeuropa]

To be fair to them, 57% is pretty good.
No seriously.

They are a right wing religious party.
57% is pretty good.
That's 43% who understand seperation of church and state at least to the minimum degree. Almost half the party is bare-bones secularist.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

But religion (more specifically christianity) is on the decline in the US, and it looks to continue that way. A third of millenials don't consider themselves christians, which is much higher than in older generations.

At the moment it is still the majority, and still ingrained in society. I'm not saying I support this, I'm saying it doesn't matter

I think that in places like Sweden and England, where they've seen the results of religious oppression and warfare in an up-close and personal manner, state religions are tolerable due to the fact that nobody wants to make a big deal out of them, and the societies are heavily secular anyway. However, in America, we have groups of enormously influential religious conservatives who would take a state religion as an excuse to enforce all sorts of nonsense. They're already powerful enough. I don't want to give them another tool to use.

[Prezelly]

At the moment it is still the majority, and still ingrained in society. I'm not saying I support this, I'm saying it doesn't matter

I think that in places like Sweden and England, where they've seen the results of religious oppression and warfare in an up-close and personal manner, state religions are tolerable due to the fact that nobody wants to make a big deal out of them, and the societies are heavily secular anyway. However, in America, we have groups of enormously influential religious conservatives who would take a state religion as an excuse to enforce all sorts of nonsense. They're already powerful enough. I don't want to give them another tool to use.

There is enough opposition to this that nothing drastic will happen, at least without consequence.
In today's society I find it unlikely that the US will fall into repression found like that in the old English and Swedish times

[Othelos]

I think that in places like Sweden and England, where they've seen the results of religious oppression and warfare in an up-close and personal manner, state religions are tolerable due to the fact that nobody wants to make a big deal out of them, and the societies are heavily secular anyway. However, in America, we have groups of enormously influential religious conservatives who would take a state religion as an excuse to enforce all sorts of nonsense. They're already powerful enough. I don't want to give them another tool to use.

There is enough opposition to this that nothing drastic will happen, at least without consequence.

Really? Because they've been trying to close all the abortion clinics via loopholes, and it's working in many states. They're also repealing protections for LGBT people as a backlash against same-sex marriage being legalized. Christian conservatives are also trying to re-frame (read: change) american history to center around 'american exceptionalism', which always has some religious undertones. This would just give them more ammo.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I think that in places like Sweden and England, where they've seen the results of religious oppression and warfare in an up-close and personal manner, state religions are tolerable due to the fact that nobody wants to make a big deal out of them, and the societies are heavily secular anyway. However, in America, we have groups of enormously influential religious conservatives who would take a state religion as an excuse to enforce all sorts of nonsense. They're already powerful enough. I don't want to give them another tool to use.

There is enough opposition to this that nothing drastic will happen, at least without consequence.
In today's society I find it unlikely that the US will fall into repression found like that in the old English and Swedish times

And yet it's not a fight we should have to have in the first place. A national religion would only serve to encourage them to reach even farther. I'm not sure that you're aware of just how influential the Dominionists are.

[Prezelly]

There is enough opposition to this that nothing drastic will happen, at least without consequence.
In today's society I find it unlikely that the US will fall into repression found like that in the old English and Swedish times

And yet it's not a fight we should have to have in the first place. A national religion would only serve to encourage them to reach even farther. I'm not sure that you're aware of just how influential the Dominionists are.

I am, but their opposition I believe is just as powerful

[Yumyumsuppertime]

And yet it's not a fight we should have to have in the first place. A national religion would only serve to encourage them to reach even farther. I'm not sure that you're aware of just how influential the Dominionists are.

I am, but their opposition I believe is just as powerful

So there's no reason to give them any more tools, and more influence as a result. There is nothing to be gained by it. There is possibly much to lose. Seriously, a national religion for a nation like America is simply an awful idea. We're too immature as a people to be able to approach that with any sense of perspective or practicality.

[Fera Insula]

Had this been proposed back in the 1700s maybe this would of been a good idea. It would of been a way to unite the peoples, them being mainly Christian Protestants, the problem with it now is that America is much to diverse. Not everyone is Christian, and not every Christian sect is in agreement with one another. Placing a national religion will only divide the nation not unite it.

[Norstal]

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?

54% of Republicans think Obama is Muslim.

So even if you are all about Jesus, you're still a Muslim.

[Salus Maior]

Can't do it. Constitution says nope.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Had this been proposed back in the 1700s maybe this would of been a good idea. It would of been a way to unite the peoples, them being mainly Christian Protestants, the problem with it now is that America is much to diverse. Not everyone is Christian, and not every Christian sect is in agreement with one another. Placing a national religion will only divide the nation not unite it.

In the 1700s this would have led to riots and church burnings.

It was the fear of those things that led the founders to write the first amendment as they did.

Read a history book.

[Norstal]

Had this been proposed back in the 1700s maybe this would of been a good idea. It would of been a way to unite the peoples, them being mainly Christian Protestants, the problem with it now is that America is much to diverse. Not everyone is Christian, and not every Christian sect is in agreement with one another. Placing a national religion will only divide the nation not unite it.

In the 1700s this would have led to riots and church burnings.

It was the fear of those things that led the founders to write the first amendment as they did.

Read a history book.

Third time I mentioned this, but English Civil War, people. That's what would've happened.