57% Of Republicans Want Christianity As National Religion

[Tarsonis Survivors]

unless an amendment is passed.

And even I as a Christian am opposed to it.

See, the problem with an amendment is that then Christianity and the government will be more intertwined. With how intolerant America has been throughout its history I just don't buy this won't gain them any benefits. I cannot for the life of me see the fucking point of doing it other than fucking people over with their stupid tripe and idiotic intolerance.

I agree, it's a waste of everyone's time and money, and hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of ever becoming codified. But simply laying blanket claims of 57% of Republicans hate the Constitution is bullshit.

[The Archregimancy]

It's not even a fraction of Republicans, but rather people who voted in a Republican Primary.


What makes me laugh is the idea that wanting things that aren't necessarily constitutional is somehow unique to the Republican Party.

Its not just, "not necessarily constitutional" , its plainly unconstitutional as it goes against the part mentioning the separation of Church

You could, just about, maybe, just possibly, if feeling particularly contrarian, and if a Republican strict constitutionalist, make an argument that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" doesn't refer to the establishment of religion per se, but to the establishment of a state church, in that its state predecessors - notably the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom - were as much about disestablishing the existing single state church than removing any recognition from religion, especially since those fire-breathing magicians known as the 'founding fathers' would have assumed the natural predominance of Christianity within their social context. You would then argue that recognising Christianity as a national religion is not the same as establishing a state church, and is therefore constitutional.

It would, mind, be an extraordinarily fatuous argument that would demonstrate that the person making it hadn't actually properly read Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, and was therefore likely also misreading the intent of Fisher Ames' Establishment Clause (come now, you all know the Establishment Clause was written by Fisher Ames) - but it maybe, just maybe, offers a means by which you could attempt to make the argument while attempting to remain within the boundaries set by the First Amendment.

If you were so inclined. And if you wanted to ignore over 200 years of legal precedent stating otherwise.

Which I'm most definitely not.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Only if you either have no knowledge of the Constitution or don't give a fuck about it.

The Constitution can be amendmend or changed, it is not a problem. Every patriotic American should know of the culture of the US.

It can, and it certainly won't happen for something like this. 2/3 of both houses and 3/4ths of the states are not going to agree to it.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

It will be the best to put this issue on a referendum. Unfortunately, the liberals are to scared of the people if they raise their voice. It is cynicall considering how do they love to claim they are democrats.

Tyranny by majority is also not democratic.

[Jaselvania]

The Constitution does not, anywhere, have the words "Separation of Church and State". It's just not in there.

That being said, it explicitly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", so this entire thread seems moot. Which might explain why it has devolved into a mash-up of "Your politics/religion/viewpoint/country SUCKS"

unless an amendment is passed.

That Amendment would have to then repeal the FIRST line of the FIRST Amendment to the Constitution, and is about as likely to get to a vote as I am to win 5 consecutive powerball lotteries.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Its not just, "not necessarily constitutional" , its plainly unconstitutional as it goes against the part mentioning the separation of Church

You could, just about, maybe, just possibly, if feeling particularly contrarian, and if a Republican strict constitutionalist, make an argument that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" doesn't refer to the establishment of religion per se, but to the establishment of a state church, in that its state predecessors - notably the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom - were as much about disestablishing the existing single state church than removing any recognition from religion, especially since those fire-breathing magicians known as the 'founding fathers' would have assumed the natural predominance of Christianity within their social context. You would then argue that recognising Christianity as a national religion is not the same as establishing a state church, and is therefore constitutional.

It would, mind, be an extraordinarily fatuous argument that would demonstrate that the person making it hadn't actually properly read Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, and was therefore likely also misreading the intent of Fisher Ames' Establishment Clause (come now, you all know the Establishment Clause was written by Fisher Ames) - but it maybe, just maybe, offers a means by which you could attempt to make the argument while attempting to remain within the boundaries set by the First Amendment.

If you were so inclined. And if you wanted to ignore over 200 years of legal precedent stating otherwise.

Which I'm most definitely not.

The Capital building did act as a church for a bit...

[Tarsonis Survivors]

unless an amendment is passed.

That Amendment would have to then repeal the FIRST line of the FIRST Amendment to the Constitution, and is about as likely to get to a vote as I am to win 5 consecutive powerball lotteries.

This is false. There is no requirement for the Amendment to repeal any part of the First Amendment.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

It will be the best to put this issue on a referendum. Unfortunately, the liberals are to scared of the people if they raise their voice. It is cynicall considering how do they love to claim they are democrats.

Tyranny by majority is also not democratic.

something about wolves and sheep

[Norstal]

It will be the best to put this issue on a referendum. Unfortunately, the liberals are to scared of the people if they raise their voice. It is cynicall considering how do they love to claim they are democrats.

>Accuses liberals of generalizing.
>Generalizes liberals.

[Dyakovo]

And?

And . . . he said "its plainly unconstitutional as it goes against the part mentioning the separation of Church"
So I correctly pointed out that the Constitution does not, anywhere, have the words, or mention of, "Separation of Church and State". It's a phrase taken somewhat out of context by the SCOTUS, not something explicitly stated in The Constitution of the United States.

Actually, it's not taken out of context at all, nor does it matter that it isn't explicitly stated in the constitution.

[Sensual Boy by Klaus]

Don't an equal number of Muslims support Sharia law and passively tolerate fundamentalist groups?

[Roski]

Only if you either have no knowledge of the Constitution or don't give a fuck about it.

The Constitution can be amendmend or changed, it is not a problem. Every patriotic American should know of the culture of the US.

the Culture of the United States is invading foriegn nations and pitifully attempting to rise up the nations around it economically. The american "culture" isn't inherently Christian, and if we use the official membership of the Republican Party as relevant, then only 5% of this country want's christianity as the national religion.

10/10 would prove wrong again

[Soldati Senza Confini]

And?

And . . . he said "its plainly unconstitutional as it goes against the part mentioning the separation of Church"
So I correctly pointed out that the Constitution does not, anywhere, have the words, or mention of, "Separation of Church and State". It's a phrase taken somewhat out of context by the SCOTUS, not something explicitly stated in The Constitution of the United States.

Explain how

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Doesn't mean "Separation of Church and State".

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Don't an equal number of Muslims support Sharia law and passively tolerate fundamentalist groups?

huh?

[Jaselvania]

That Amendment would have to then repeal the FIRST line of the FIRST Amendment to the Constitution, and is about as likely to get to a vote as I am to win 5 consecutive powerball lotteries.

This is false. There is no requirement for the Amendment to repeal any part of the First Amendment.

So an Amendment to the supreme LAW of the United States of America could blatantly ignore the 1st line in the first amendment of that supreme law, which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"?

I know that we've gotten used to our government overtly ignoring the Constitution on a daily basis, but even this seems like a stretch. Then again, I'm surprised and horrified time and again by this massively overreaching bureaucracy so who knows . . .

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Only if you either have no knowledge of the Constitution or don't give a fuck about it.

The Constitution can be amendmend or changed, it is not a problem. Every patriotic American should know of the culture of the US.

Every American knows of the culture of the U.S.

Shit, I'm an immigrant and I know of the culture of the U.S.

Don't be surprised if I say U.S. Culture is all talk.

[Jaselvania]

And . . . he said "its plainly unconstitutional as it goes against the part mentioning the separation of Church"
So I correctly pointed out that the Constitution does not, anywhere, have the words, or mention of, "Separation of Church and State". It's a phrase taken somewhat out of context by the SCOTUS, not something explicitly stated in The Constitution of the United States.

Explain how

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Doesn't mean "Separation of Church and State".

Because it means that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It is written pretty clearly.

Just because some judge issued an edict that, when we read those words, what we should REALLY be reading is "Separation of Church and State" - - - doesn't change the words themselves.

[The Rebel Alliances]

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?

While I am not surprised at all. I am not getting "If you're not all about Jesus, then you're not really an American". I believe that the majority of Republicans who voted that way may believe it is the best way to recognize that the United States is vastly populated by, and historically has been populated by Christians. And I am doubting if it did become the 'National Religion' it would be the equal of having the Bald Eagle as the National Bird, meaning it would have no actual weight to it aside from trivia. I also doubt that the Republicans who answered this way was thinking "I really hate Muslims and Jews, they are not real Americans. That is only for Christians, Christianity 2016!" as I said, I do believe that they were more along the lines of believing it to be the next step to placing "In God We Trust" on the currency, and I dont see that as harming others to worship how they please.

[Roski]

Explain how



Doesn't mean "Separation of Church and State".

Because it means that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It is written pretty clearly.

Just because some judge issued an edict that, when we read those words, what we should REALLY be reading is "Separation of Church and State" - - - doesn't change the words themselves.

but that's literally the same fucking thing.

"The United States Government cannot recognize or ban a religion"
"The United States Government cannot operate under laws that would be considered recognizing a religion"

[Tarsonis Survivors]

This is false. There is no requirement for the Amendment to repeal any part of the First Amendment.

So an Amendment to the supreme LAW of the United States of America could blatantly ignore the 1st line in the first amendment of that supreme law, which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"?

I know that we've gotten used to our government overtly ignoring the Constitution on a daily basis, but even this seems like a stretch. Then again, I'm surprised and horrified time and again by this massively overreaching bureaucracy so who knows . . .

Conflicting aspects of the Constitution is hardly new. When an apparent contradiction in the constitution exists the SCOTUS get's to pull out its special glossy paper and write some really interesting case law.

In this case the 28th Amendment that establishes the national religion as Christianity could co exist with the First Amendment. The Official Religion would be Christianity, while the 1st Amendment would prohibit the Congress from making any Law that respects any one religion, including the official religion. Which would basically turn the 28th amendment into a symbolic gesture.

Is it petty, meaningless, and a waste of everyone's time and energy? Yes.

But it's also doable, and that's the point I'm making.

[Jaselvania]

And . . . he said "its plainly unconstitutional as it goes against the part mentioning the separation of Church"
So I correctly pointed out that the Constitution does not, anywhere, have the words, or mention of, "Separation of Church and State". It's a phrase taken somewhat out of context by the SCOTUS, not something explicitly stated in The Constitution of the United States.

Actually, it's not taken out of context at all, nor does it matter that it isn't explicitly stated in the constitution.

No, it DOES matter, the intent of the words as written is pretty clear. If we want to clearly establish "Separation of Church and State" as Supreme law of the United States then we should amend the Constitution to say just that.

[Desperate Measures]

Explain how



Doesn't mean "Separation of Church and State".

Because it means that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It is written pretty clearly.

Just because some judge issued an edict that, when we read those words, what we should REALLY be reading is "Separation of Church and State" - - - doesn't change the words themselves.

This hurts.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Because it means that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It is written pretty clearly.

Just because some judge issued an edict that, when we read those words, what we should REALLY be reading is "Separation of Church and State" - - - doesn't change the words themselves.

This hurts.

John Marshall and Thomas Jefferson disagree.

[Roski]

This hurts.

John Marshall and Thomas Jefferson disagree.

Breaking News, Thomas Jefferson wanted seperation of the church and state

[Desperate Measures]

This hurts.

John Marshall and Thomas Jefferson disagree.

Disagree with what? MY pain? What do they know of it??? *chugs Excedrin*