57% Of Republicans Want Christianity As National Religion

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Eh, that's not ostensibly true. If they supported an Amendment that accomplished this, they would in fact be supporting the Constitution. Specifically Article V.

With this concession, you've automatically invalidated every argument ever made which uses an imperative to uphold the constitution as a warrant, as the constitution can be amended in limitless ways.

Well yes it can, but thanks to the Amendment Process, that's a very tall order.

You can uphold the Constitution as a warrant on Existing Law. But proposing a theoretical out come is "unconstitutional" isn't ostensibly true.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

True, but the problem is that in America, we have a powerful and influential lobby that would advocate that the national religion be enforced, and would advocate for said enforcement in very nasty ways.

Possibly, but I don't know how far they'd actually get. Considering they're already lobbying for it to be enforced regardless of official or not.

Yeah, but one of the reasons that they're not able to do so is the lack of any serious confusion regarding the intent of the 1st amendment, and how it needs to be interpreted in a diverse culture. Put something in there giving even a nod to cultural conformity, and we're (meaning non-Christians) screwed.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Which would directly violate a pre-existing Amendment. and as soon as things got that far the majority of Americans would take a step back say "WTF" and oppose it.

You think that an amendment that, say, "Christianity is the national religion" wouldn't make it significantly easier to pass laws restricting things for religious reasons? It doesn't interfere with anyone's religion to, for example, prohibit abortion under any and all circumstances. Or to have teacher led prayer if students who don't subscribe to the official religion are willing to mark themselves as being separate from the crowd. Or to invalidate marriages because two people are of the same sex.

No more than it already is. Passing and Upholding are two different things though.

Technically Congress can pass any bill it wants, and dare SCOTUS to strike it down. (Sorta happened with Jackson)

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Possibly, but I don't know how far they'd actually get. Considering they're already lobbying for it to be enforced regardless of official or not.

Yeah, but one of the reasons that they're not able to do so is the lack of any serious confusion regarding the intent of the 1st amendment, and how it needs to be interpreted in a diverse culture. Put something in there giving even a nod to cultural conformity, and we're (meaning non-Christians) screwed.

Hence my post earlier that if it even gave a nod in that direction I would reject it outright. But this is what the SCOTUS is for, to make those interpretations and distinctions.

[Stormaen]

There's a difference between a 'national religion' and a 'established religion'. Christianity is the de facto national religion of the United States anyway.

However, if they mean they want it as the established religion, I wonder if they'll be so keen to defend the constitution as they do when someone 'threatens' their second amendment rights? After all, the anti-establishment clause prohibits a state religion. Perhaps why they want a 'national religion', so as to get round that clause on technicalities.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

There's a difference between a 'national religion' and a 'established religion'. Christianity is the de facto national religion of the United States anyway.

However, if they mean they want it as the established religion, I wonder if they'll be so keen to defend the constitution as they do when someone 'threatens' their second amendment rights? After all, the anti-establishment clause prohibits a state religion. Perhaps why they want a 'national religion', so as to get round that clause on technicalities.

As we've been discussing the last 7 pages or so, an Amendment eliminates all those technicalities.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

You think that an amendment that, say, "Christianity is the national religion" wouldn't make it significantly easier to pass laws restricting things for religious reasons? It doesn't interfere with anyone's religion to, for example, prohibit abortion under any and all circumstances. Or to have teacher led prayer if students who don't subscribe to the official religion are willing to mark themselves as being separate from the crowd. Or to invalidate marriages because two people are of the same sex.

No more than it already is. Passing and Upholding are two different things though.

Technically Congress can pass any bill it wants, and dare SCOTUS to strike it down. (Sorta happened with Jackson)

Yes, but this adds an extra hurdle for SCOTUS. "Well, we're not establishing a religion, and we're not preventing the free exercise of others. We're just prohibiting things because they're prohibited by our currently popular interpretation of the official religion".

[Tarsonis Survivors]

No more than it already is. Passing and Upholding are two different things though.

Technically Congress can pass any bill it wants, and dare SCOTUS to strike it down. (Sorta happened with Jackson)

Yes, but this adds an extra hurdle for SCOTUS. "Well, we're not establishing a religion, and we're not preventing the free exercise of others. We're just prohibiting things because they're prohibited by our currently popular interpretation of the official religion".

Not really, SCOTUS can just say 1st Amendment, boom case closed. WHich is pretty much what they're doing anyway.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Yes, but this adds an extra hurdle for SCOTUS. "Well, we're not establishing a religion, and we're not preventing the free exercise of others. We're just prohibiting things because they're prohibited by our currently popular interpretation of the official religion".

Not really, SCOTUS can just say 1st Amendment, boom case closed. WHich is pretty much what they're doing anyway.

They CAN say that, but give the more conservative members an out, and....

[Keyboard Warriors]

With this concession, you've automatically invalidated every argument ever made which uses an imperative to uphold the constitution as a warrant, as the constitution can be amended in limitless ways.

Well yes it can, but thanks to the Amendment Process, that's a very tall order.

You can uphold the Constitution as a warrant on Existing Law. But proposing a theoretical out come is "unconstitutional" isn't ostensibly true.

Seeing as you're in danger of missing my point, let me reiterate. Republicans often oppose gun control, for a well-known example, on the context that it would be unconstitutional even though the constitution can be amended. Demanding a law which goes against the constitution has been previously regarded by Republicans as unconstitutional and something regarded as such has been deemed undesirable by Republicans. In fact, Republicans have actively argued against amending the constitution in the past and in the present in order to preserve the wishers of the founders. Now, we have 57% of Republicans according to this poll, demanding a law which goes against the constitution in it's current form. My point is that this indicated hypocrisy within the GOP. Would you agree?

[AiliailiA]

There's a difference between a 'national religion' and a 'established religion'. Christianity is the de facto national religion of the United States anyway.

However, if they mean they want it as the established religion, I wonder if they'll be so keen to defend the constitution as they do when someone 'threatens' their second amendment rights? After all, the anti-establishment clause prohibits a state religion. Perhaps why they want a 'national religion', so as to get round that clause on technicalities.

As a strong secularist who is also strongly for gun-control, I don't feel you're insulting me at all.

I'm pretty sure you're insulting someone though, by implying that establishmentarians are necessarily the gun-totin' type.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Well yes it can, but thanks to the Amendment Process, that's a very tall order.

You can uphold the Constitution as a warrant on Existing Law. But proposing a theoretical out come is "unconstitutional" isn't ostensibly true.

Seeing as you're in danger of missing my point, let me reiterate. Republicans often oppose gun control, for a well-known example, on the context that it would be unconstitutional even though the constitution can be amended. Demanding a law which goes against the constitution has been previously regarded by Republicans as unconstitutional and something regarded as such has been deemed undesirable by Republicans. In fact, Republicans have actively argued against amending the constitution in the past and in the present in order to preserve the wishers of the founders. Now, we have 57% of Republicans according to this poll, demanding a law which goes against the constitution in it's current form. My point is that this indicated hypocrisy within the GOP. Would you agree?

I would agree, (as I was merely splitting hairs, and even though they are arguing against laws, not amendments((they would reject the Amendment on principle, not on grounds of unconstitutionality))) but I would be insistent to acknowledge that hypocrisy is hardly unique to the Republican party. After all 43% of Democrats think the President should be able to override the SCOTUS. So yes I agree, but in context.


EDIT: Important, IMHO, to note that the article didn't mention how this end would be accomplished. The poll asked if they supported making it the National Religion, and the article assumes it would be via a Law. I'd be willing to suggest that at least some of those respondents understood how that end would come to be via Amendment, Though my faith in Republican Voters is possibly misplaced.

[AiliailiA]

Now, we have 57% of Republicans according to this poll, demanding a law which goes against the constitution in it's current form. My point is that this indicated hypocrisy within the GOP. Would you agree?

The poll was of Republican primary voters not of Republicans. Yumyum hasn't edited to fix the OP or title yet.

The respondents to the poll answered a question with no mention of laws to enforce an establishment of Christianity. To claim they "demanded a law" is to massively overstate their knowledge of or commitment to "establishing Christianity as a state religion".

Since the point of this thread seems to be scorning Republicans, yeah OK I'll agree. I wouldn't want to be off-topic or anything

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Now, we have 57% of Republicans according to this poll, demanding a law which goes against the constitution in it's current form. My point is that this indicated hypocrisy within the GOP. Would you agree?

The poll was of Republican primary voters not of Republicans. Yumyum hasn't edited to fix the OP or title yet.

The respondents to the poll answered a question with no mention of laws to enforce an establishment of Christianity. To claim they "demanded a law" is to massively overstate their knowledge of or commitment to "establishing Christianity as a state religion".

Since the point of this thread seems to be scorning Republicans, yeah OK I'll agree. I wouldn't want to be off-topic or anything

To be fair, republicans do have the tendency of walking into some political doors that say pull.

[AiliailiA]

...


EDIT: Important, IMHO, to note that the article didn't mention how this end would be accomplished. The poll asked if they supported making it the National Religion, and the article assumes it would be via a Law. I'd be willing to suggest that at least some of those respondents understood how that end would come to be via Amendment, Though my faith in Republican Voters is possibly misplaced.

You got in before me. With an edit.

The forum should have a rule against that.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

...


EDIT: Important, IMHO, to note that the article didn't mention how this end would be accomplished. The poll asked if they supported making it the National Religion, and the article assumes it would be via a Law. I'd be willing to suggest that at least some of those respondents understood how that end would come to be via Amendment, Though my faith in Republican Voters is possibly misplaced.

You got in before me. With an edit.

The forum should have a rule against that.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Seeing as you're in danger of missing my point, let me reiterate. Republicans often oppose gun control, for a well-known example, on the context that it would be unconstitutional even though the constitution can be amended. Demanding a law which goes against the constitution has been previously regarded by Republicans as unconstitutional and something regarded as such has been deemed undesirable by Republicans. In fact, Republicans have actively argued against amending the constitution in the past and in the present in order to preserve the wishers of the founders. Now, we have 57% of Republicans according to this poll, demanding a law which goes against the constitution in it's current form. My point is that this indicated hypocrisy within the GOP. Would you agree?

I would agree, (as I was merely splitting hairs, and even though they are arguing against laws, not amendments((they would reject the Amendment on principle, not on grounds of unconstitutionality))) but I would be insistent to acknowledge that hypocrisy is hardly unique to the Republican party. After all 43% of Democrats think the President should be able to override the SCOTUS. So yes I agree, but in context.


EDIT: Important, IMHO, to note that the article didn't mention how this end would be accomplished. The poll asked if they supported making it the National Religion, and the article assumes it would be via a Law. I'd be willing to suggest that at least some of those respondents understood how that end would come to be via Amendment, Though my faith in Republican Voters is possibly misplaced.

Hell, even if they want to do that, they're missing a HUGE point that the Founding Fathers understood all too well.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I would agree, (as I was merely splitting hairs, and even though they are arguing against laws, not amendments((they would reject the Amendment on principle, not on grounds of unconstitutionality))) but I would be insistent to acknowledge that hypocrisy is hardly unique to the Republican party. After all 43% of Democrats think the President should be able to override the SCOTUS. So yes I agree, but in context.


EDIT: Important, IMHO, to note that the article didn't mention how this end would be accomplished. The poll asked if they supported making it the National Religion, and the article assumes it would be via a Law. I'd be willing to suggest that at least some of those respondents understood how that end would come to be via Amendment, Though my faith in Republican Voters is possibly misplaced.

Hell, even if they want to do that, they're missing a HUGE point that the Founding Fathers understood all too well.

No one cares about the Founding Fathers. That's just rhetoric at this point.

Edit: I just noticed your quote. Tis brilliant.

[AiliailiA]

The poll was of Republican primary voters not of Republicans. Yumyum hasn't edited to fix the OP or title yet.

The respondents to the poll answered a question with no mention of laws to enforce an establishment of Christianity. To claim they "demanded a law" is to massively overstate their knowledge of or commitment to "establishing Christianity as a state religion".

Since the point of this thread seems to be scorning Republicans, yeah OK I'll agree. I wouldn't want to be off-topic or anything

To be fair, republicans do have the tendency of walking into some political doors that say pull.

While Democrats have a tendency of kicking cardboard boxes with "kick me" written on them, and getting sprayed with shit.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

To be fair, republicans do have the tendency of walking into some political doors that say pull.

While Democrats have a tendency of kicking cardboard boxes with "kick me" written on them, and getting sprayed with shit.

Seriously, half the issues the Republicans bring up are the political equivalent of lighting poo on fire on the Democrats porch and ringing the door bell.

[Keyboard Warriors]

EDIT: Important, IMHO, to note that the article didn't mention how this end would be accomplished. The poll asked if they supported making it the National Religion, and the article assumes it would be via a Law. I'd be willing to suggest that at least some of those respondents understood how that end would come to be via Amendment, Though my faith in Republican Voters is possibly misplaced.

EDIT: Important, IMHO, to note that the article didn't mention how this end would be accomplished. The poll asked if they supported making it the National Religion, and the article assumes it would be via a Law. I'd be willing to suggest that at least some of those respondents understood how that end would come to be via Amendment, Though my faith in Republican Voters is possibly misplaced.

[/quote]

To put this in perspective, this was only a claim that I made in order to give Tarsonis Survivors the benefit of the assumption that Republicans knew this would violate the constitution and would subsequently pass an amendment for the constitution. I appreciate that I used the term "law" here quite loosely, but this wasn't mean to be over-thought.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

To put this in perspective, this was only a claim that I made in order to give Tarsonis Survivors the benefit of the assumption that Republicans knew this would violate the constitution and would subsequently pass an amendment for the constitution. I appreciate that I used the term "law" here quite loosely, but this wasn't mean to be over-thought.

Unfortunately, over thinking is the nature of law and politics.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Yeesh, it's been forever since I've had such a pleasant, respectful, and enjoyable discussion over politics with such a diverse group. 'Tis Refreshing.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Hell, even if they want to do that, they're missing a HUGE point that the Founding Fathers understood all too well.

No one cares about the Founding Fathers. That's just rhetoric at this point.

Edit: I just noticed your quote. Tis brilliant.

That is an awful, cynical, and unfortunately accurate point.

And thanks.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

No one cares about the Founding Fathers. That's just rhetoric at this point.

Edit: I just noticed your quote. Tis brilliant.

That is an awful, cynical, and unfortunately accurate point.

And thanks.

'

The funny thing is, our Government is working exactly how the Founding Fathers wanted. They wanted it so congested and conflated that people would mostly ignore it and live their own lives and not rely on the state, while the States would more or less have the power to regulate themselves. This Emphasis on the National Government, is a post Civil War construction.