57% Of Republicans Want Christianity As National Religion

[Tarsonis Survivors]

If it was 57% of some major political party in the U.S. wanting Islam as the National Religion, there would be a shitstorm.

Relevancy?

[Dyakovo]

Wanting a National Religion =/= hating the Constitution.

Yes, it really does.

[Ifreann]

Basically does, though.

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.

Understanding how to change the constitution =/= not hating it.

---

America, as every young girl, is a bit excessive when it comes to public display of her emotions. Just look how openly possessive she is towards her new boyfriend Mexico.

Both Britian and America were refered to as girls. I didn't know nations could be lesbians

All nations are lesbians.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Wanting a National Religion =/= hating the Constitution.

Yes, it really does.

So you can see me,...
As I stated earlier, supporting an Amendment to the Constitution to establish a national religion is not hating the Constitution, it's in fact supporting the Constitution, specifically Article V.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Understanding how to change the constitution =/= not hating it.

---

Both Britian and America were refered to as girls. I didn't know nations could be lesbians

All nations are lesbians.

Wanting to change it =/= hating it.

[Ifreann]

Understanding how to change the constitution =/= not hating it.

---

All nations are lesbians.

Wanting to change it =/= hating it.

Indeed. But wanting to change so key a part of the constitution in order to impose a national religion rather does suggest that they hate it.

[Dyakovo]

Yes, it really does.

So you can see me,...

No, I can't.

As I stated earlier, supporting an Amendment to the Constitution to establish a national religion is not hating the Constitution, it's in fact supporting the Constitution, specifically Article V.

As Iffy just pointed out, just because they understand how to change the Constitution does not mean they don't hate how it is now.

[Kelinfort]

"57% of Republicans want a theocracy? Those darned Americans! , *laugh reel*
"57% of Muslims want a theocracy? BLOCK THE PORTS, SINK THE SHIPS, SEND THEM HOME!!!"

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Wanting to change it =/= hating it.

Indeed. But wanting to change so key a part of the constitution in order to impose a national religion rather does suggest that they hate it.

Not to be rude, but your fallacy is false dilemma.


If they're goal was to force everyone into one religion, you'd have an argument, but that isn't necessarily the case.

As I think you said earlier, declaring a national religion could be as harmless as declaring a national bird. And it more or less would be as even if the 28th amendment to the Constitution, was: "The officially recognized national religion of the United States shall hence forth be Christianity" the 1st Amendment would still apply, making it impossible for Congress to make any law that respects said national religion.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

So you can see me,...

No, I can't.

As I stated earlier, supporting an Amendment to the Constitution to establish a national religion is not hating the Constitution, it's in fact supporting the Constitution, specifically Article V.

As Iffy just pointed out, just because they understand how to change the Constitution does not mean they don't hate how it is now.

And as I pointed out, wanting to change one small piece of it doesn't meant they hate it as it is now.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

"57% of Republicans want a theocracy? Those darned Americans! , *laugh reel*
"57% of Muslims want a theocracy? BLOCK THE PORTS, SINK THE SHIPS, SEND THEM HOME!!!"

Who said anything about a theocracy?

[Gauthier]

If it was 57% of some major political party in the U.S. wanting Islam as the National Religion, there would be a shitstorm.

Relevancy?

It's a point made to anyone who's going to downplay this poll result as being trivial.

[Desperate Measures]

Indeed. But wanting to change so key a part of the constitution in order to impose a national religion rather does suggest that they hate it.

Not to be rude, but your fallacy is false dilemma.


If they're goal was to force everyone into one religion, you'd have an argument, but that isn't necessarily the case.

As I think you said earlier, declaring a national religion could be as harmless as declaring a national bird. And it more or less would be as even if the 28th amendment to the Constitution, was: "The officially recognized national religion of the United States shall hence forth be Christianity" the 1st Amendment would still apply, making it impossible for Congress to make any law that respects said national religion.

But the ammo that would give the nations religious conservatives - it would turn to crap very quickly.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Not to be rude, but your fallacy is false dilemma.


If they're goal was to force everyone into one religion, you'd have an argument, but that isn't necessarily the case.

As I think you said earlier, declaring a national religion could be as harmless as declaring a national bird. And it more or less would be as even if the 28th amendment to the Constitution, was: "The officially recognized national religion of the United States shall hence forth be Christianity" the 1st Amendment would still apply, making it impossible for Congress to make any law that respects said national religion.

But the ammo that would give the nations religious conservatives - it would turn to crap very quickly.

Until the SCOTUS activates its iron dome and intercepts all religious conservative ordinance.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Relevancy?

It's a point made to anyone who's going to downplay this poll result as being trivial.

Yes but now you're arguing Culture vs law, instead of Law vs Law, moving the goal posts a bit.

[Kelinfort]

"57% of Republicans want a theocracy? Those darned Americans! , *laugh reel*
"57% of Muslims want a theocracy? BLOCK THE PORTS, SINK THE SHIPS, SEND THEM HOME!!!"

Who said anything about a theocracy?

Establishing a religion inherently suggests a theocracy. Not to mention, such a change would mean public prayer in schools, religious educational subsidies, and other mixings of Church and State. Just look at their quotes:

http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_Wa ... liban.html

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Who said anything about a theocracy?

Establishing a religion inherently suggests a theocracy. Not to mention, such a change would mean public prayer in schools, religious educational subsidies, and other mixings of Church and State. Just look at their quotes:

http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_Wa ... liban.html

No, there are plenty of countries that have an official religion and are not theocracies.

Great Britain being one of them.


Quotes taken out of context by a biased source are meaningless.

[Dyakovo]

Indeed. But wanting to change so key a part of the constitution in order to impose a national religion rather does suggest that they hate it.

Not to be rude, but your fallacy is false dilemma.


If they're goal was to force everyone into one religion, you'd have an argument, but that isn't necessarily the case.

As I think you said earlier, declaring a national religion could be as harmless as declaring a national bird. And it more or less would be as even if the 28th amendment to the Constitution, was: "The officially recognized national religion of the United States shall hence forth be Christianity" the 1st Amendment would still apply, making it impossible for Congress to make any law that respects said national religion.

Considering the fact that we've had a Republican president state relatively recently that he didn't think that atheists should be considered citizens, I wouldn't call it a false dilemma.

[Larrylykinsland]

Why don't we take all religion and push it somewhere else?

[Kelinfort]

Establishing a religion inherently suggests a theocracy. Not to mention, such a change would mean public prayer in schools, religious educational subsidies, and other mixings of Church and State. Just look at their quotes:

http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_Wa ... liban.html

No, there are plenty of countries that have an official religion and are not theocracies.

Great Britain being one of them.



Quotes taken out of context by a biased source are meaningless.

Does the UK enforce prayer in schools? Or subsidise religious education? Nope.

Yeah, these quotes are so out of context. It's a Herculean effort to determine what they mean!

[Desperate Measures]

Why don't we take all religion and push it somewhere else?

I think Canada would get upset.

[Ifreann]

Indeed. But wanting to change so key a part of the constitution in order to impose a national religion rather does suggest that they hate it.

Not to be rude, but your fallacy is false dilemma.


If they're goal was to force everyone into one religion, you'd have an argument, but that isn't necessarily the case.

Isn't it? Have I been hearing of some other Republican Party that has, in many various ways, sought to enforce their Christian beliefs on the people of their nation?

As I think you said earlier, declaring a national religion could be as harmless as declaring a national bird. And it more or less would be as even if the 28th amendment to the Constitution, was: "The officially recognized national religion of the United States shall hence forth be Christianity" the 1st Amendment would still apply, making it impossible for Congress to make any law that respects said national religion.

Unless, of course, the 28th Amendment removed the Establishment Clause from the 1st Amendment and thus empowered Congress to establish a national religion.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Not to be rude, but your fallacy is false dilemma.


If they're goal was to force everyone into one religion, you'd have an argument, but that isn't necessarily the case.

As I think you said earlier, declaring a national religion could be as harmless as declaring a national bird. And it more or less would be as even if the 28th amendment to the Constitution, was: "The officially recognized national religion of the United States shall hence forth be Christianity" the 1st Amendment would still apply, making it impossible for Congress to make any law that respects said national religion.

Considering the fact that we've had a Republican president state relatively recently that he didn't think that atheists should be considered citizens, I wouldn't call it a false dilemma.

*Regarded as citizens. Sounds like more of a slant than an actual cry for them to be striped of their citizenship and deported.

[Dyakovo]

No, I can't.

As Iffy just pointed out, just because they understand how to change the Constitution does not mean they don't hate how it is now.

And as I pointed out, wanting to change one small piece of it doesn't meant they hate it as it is now.

Wrong.
The establishment clause isn't just a small piece of the constitution (unless your sole criteria for determining that is word count - which is a moronic standard), it being part of what makes up the concept of separation of church and state in constitutional law makes it a cornerstone of one of the founding principles of the nation.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Not to be rude, but your fallacy is false dilemma.


If they're goal was to force everyone into one religion, you'd have an argument, but that isn't necessarily the case.

Isn't it? Have I been hearing of some other Republican Party that has, in many various ways, sought to enforce their Christian beliefs on the people of their nation?

As I think you said earlier, declaring a national religion could be as harmless as declaring a national bird. And it more or less would be as even if the 28th amendment to the Constitution, was: "The officially recognized national religion of the United States shall hence forth be Christianity" the 1st Amendment would still apply, making it impossible for Congress to make any law that respects said national religion.

Unless, of course, the 28th Amendment removed the Establishment Clause from the 1st Amendment and thus empowered Congress to establish a national religion.

A. The Nation is Culturally Christian. Establishing a National Religion doesn't force people to convert to Christianity. As I said, the official religion of GB is Anglicanism, but no one is required to be Anglican.

B. In which case I would object as fervently as anyone.