57% Of Republicans Want Christianity As National Religion

[Tarsonis Survivors]

John Marshall and Thomas Jefferson disagree.

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

...yeah, that's pretty much what I said.

Jefferson is the one who coined Separation of Church and State, did he not?

[The Archregimancy]

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...

Even more specifically, from its foundation through to shortly after the Civil War, church services - originally rotated through Protestant denominations, but including Catholics from 1826 - were held in the Capitol on Sundays, with even strict separationist Thomas Jefferson riding over from the Executive Mansion to attend the services in the House of Representatives.

Which is historically accurate, but I'm not sure is wholly germane to my point about how - purely hypothetically - a distinction might be made between a national religion and a state religion, unless your argument is that permitting church services in a US government building is a de facto precedent for recognition of a national religion as distinct from an established religion.

If that was your argument, then it's a shame you chose not to make it. But if you want to try, the Library of Congress has done your research for you.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

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

Even more specifically, from its foundation through to shortly after the Civil War, church services - originally rotated through Protestant denominations, but including Catholics from 1826 - were held in the Capitol on Sundays, with even strict separationist Thomas Jefferson riding over from the Executive Mansion to attend the services in the House of Representatives.

Which is historically accurate, but I'm not sure is wholly germane to my point about how - purely hypothetically - a distinction might be made between a national religion and a state religion, unless your argument is that permitting church services in a US government building is a de facto precedent for recognition of a national religion as distinct from an established religion.

If that was your argument, then it's a shame you chose not to make it. But if you want to try, the Library of Congress has done your research for you.

I just meant that suggests they weren't about removing any mention of religion.

[Knockturn Alley]

This hurts.

John Marshall and Thomas Jefferson disagree.

I don't think you are allowed to deliberately mis-quote and make edits like that

[Jaselvania]

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"

No, it is NOT the same f'ing thing, and that is my point. The 1st Amendment very clearly forbids an official establishment of religion. No where does It require strict “separation”—implying exclusion—of religion and/or religious persons from public affairs of state (gov't). In fact, this adoption of the strict "Separation of Church and State" directly opposes the protection of the “free exercise” of religion IN THE SAME AMENDMENT.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

John Marshall and Thomas Jefferson disagree.

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

They disagree with your objection to his reasoning, as they share the same thought process as he.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

John Marshall and Thomas Jefferson disagree.

I don't think you are allowed to deliberately mis-quote and make edits like that

Huh? What? I didn't edit anything...

[Bezkoshtovnya]

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"

No, it is NOT the same f'ing thing, and that is my point. The 1st Amendment very clearly forbids an official establishment of religion. No where does It require strict “separation”—implying exclusion—of religion and/or religious persons from public affairs of state (gov't). In fact, this adoption of the strict "Separation of Church and State" directly opposes the protection of the “free exercise” of religion IN THE SAME AMENDMENT.

It is also forbidden from putting one faith over another or otherwise favoring one over the other. Incorporating one religion's beliefs into law certtiably violates that.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

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"

No, it is NOT the same f'ing thing, and that is my point. The 1st Amendment very clearly forbids an official establishment of religion. No where does It require strict “separation”—implying exclusion—of religion and/or religious persons from public affairs of state (gov't). In fact, this adoption of the strict "Separation of Church and State" directly opposes the protection of the “free exercise” of religion IN THE SAME AMENDMENT.

It forbids making Laws. An Amendment is not the same as a Law. It's a change, or an addition to the Constitution. Amendments are not beholden to previous amendments. Because A, the Constitution can't nullify itself, and B. There's no court with Jurisdiction to strike down Amendments to the constitution.

[Knockturn Alley]

I don't think you are allowed to deliberately mis-quote and make edits like that

Huh? What? I didn't edit anything...

Oh wait, sorry my bad, for a moment I thought you cut-pasted a reply from somewhere else...

[The Wolven League]

You clearly have not seen American TV, talked with Americans, or viewed American Internet.


The nation is dominated by violent and pious Christians, and it's truly sad to see religion oppressed.

Yes, those violent Christians, with their frequent beheadings and burning people alive stuff! And their treatment of women! Recruiting and selling them as sex slaves for their holy war is just disgusting! http://www.clarionproject.org/news/isis-issues-orders-mosul-give-over-girls-sex-jihad
Not to mention their threats to throw gays off of the leaning tower of Pizza http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2963229/ISIS-vow-Rome-throw-homosexuals-leaning-tower-PIZZA.html

We really should do something about these violent Christians, right!?

We really should. Every religion has extremists. Your points about the Muslims are irrelevant, since those are not in the US nor is it all of the Muslim population in the region, not even close. And I think you are ignoring that Christians committed far worse crimes in the Crusades.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Huh? What? I didn't edit anything...

Oh wait, sorry my bad, for a moment I thought you cut-pasted a reply from somewhere else...

I don't for give you. Kneel before Zod! KNEEEEELL!

[Jaselvania]

John Marshall and Thomas Jefferson disagree.

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

BREAKING NEWS: The “wall of separation” phrase used to claim separation of church and state comes from a letter President Thomas Jefferson wrote a dozen years after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified. The phrase is NOT mentioned in the Constitution’s text or in any of the debates leading to its ratification.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Yes, those violent Christians, with their frequent beheadings and burning people alive stuff! And their treatment of women! Recruiting and selling them as sex slaves for their holy war is just disgusting! http://www.clarionproject.org/news/isis-issues-orders-mosul-give-over-girls-sex-jihad
Not to mention their threats to throw gays off of the leaning tower of Pizza http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2963229/ISIS-vow-Rome-throw-homosexuals-leaning-tower-PIZZA.html

We really should do something about these violent Christians, right!?

We really should. Every religion has extremists. Your points about the Muslims are irrelevant, since those are not in the US nor is it all of the Muslim population in the region, not even close. And I think you are ignoring that Christians committed far worse crimes in the Crusades.

The Muslims committed the exact same atrocities as the Crusaders. And by the time the Roman Catholic Church had even called a Crusade, Muslims had already spent 400 years conquering 2/3'rds of the Christian world.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

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

BREAKING NEWS: The “wall of separation” phrase used to claim separation of church and state comes from a letter President Thomas Jefferson wrote a dozen years after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified. The phrase is NOT mentioned in the Constitution’s text or in any of the debates leading to its ratification.

I,... I don't even know what side you're on anymore.

[The Wolven League]

We really should. Every religion has extremists. Your points about the Muslims are irrelevant, since those are not in the US nor is it all of the Muslim population in the region, not even close. And I think you are ignoring that Christians committed far worse crimes in the Crusades.

The Muslims committed the exact same atrocities as the Crusaders. And by the time the Roman Catholic Church had even called a Crusade, Muslims had already spent 400 years conquering 2/3'rds of the Christian world.

Muslims did go on jihad, but at least they didn't go around beheading Muslims in their mosques and burning Jews alive in their synagogues like the Crusaders did when they conquered Jerusalem. And also, Christians had previously conquered 2/3 of the Pagan world.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

The Muslims committed the exact same atrocities as the Crusaders. And by the time the Roman Catholic Church had even called a Crusade, Muslims had already spent 400 years conquering 2/3'rds of the Christian world.

Muslims did go on jihad, but at least they didn't go around beheading Muslims in their mosques and burning Jews alive in their synagogues like the Crusaders did when they conquered Jerusalem. And also, Christians had previously conquered 2/3 of the Pagan world.

... Yes they did. They burnt churches murder Christians and Jews. Raped and pillaged, the whole 9 yards. What revisionist history are you smoking?

Also: Roman Pagans conquered 2/3rds of the Pagan world. The Roman Empire had conquered virtually the entire Pagan World long before the edict of Milan, let alone the council of Nicea.

[Chaunceys]

How exactly would Christianity become a national religion? Wouldn't that contradict "separation between church and state". Then again look at our money and the pledge school children say everyday.

[Ifreann]

There is a difference between the country and the stated religion of the people of the country. There is more to a culture than the stated religion of the people of the country. How many countries in Europe have Christian majorities as large or larger than the US? And yet they are all different in their cultures both from the US and from each other.


I find it just as hard to believe that having won so great a victory as establishing Christianity as the official religion of the US that they would fail to capitalise upon it, whatever form that victory took.

A. I think you're making the mistake of assuming Christianity is a homogenous concept, it is not.

What an amusing thing to have pointed out to me, as an Irish person. I assume you are familiar with the occasional sectarian tensions that have existed between Catholics and Protestants in my country.

And there are many facets of culture, religion being one of those facets. That facet of American Culture, is largely Christian. I don't get why this is such a hard concept to understand.

It is not at all. Indeed, that is what I said from the start when you said that America is "Culturally Christian".

A. The Nation is Culturally Christian.

No it isn't. America has a lot of Christians in it, and obviously that has influenced its culture(to the extent that so large a nation can be said to have a single culture). But so have many, many other things.

So perhaps you can tell me what is so hard to understand about the concept.

B. No, they would capitalize on it, what I'm saying is they wouldn't net any gains off it.

The very premise is that the Republicans have successfully amended the US Constitution. How could they possibly have that much political power and not make gains?

---

Yeah these 57 % of people will take their country down with them

57% of Republicans, which is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of people.

Specifically Republican primary voters, who are the people who determine, by a FPTP vote, I imagine, which Republicans will be running for office.

---

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.

Oh yes, it's the fault of liberals who would not support this move that it is not being put to the people. Certainly not the fault of those conservatives who would support it and thus would logically be the only ones who would actually put it to the people.

[Busen]

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.

Tyranny by majority is a stupid and flawed concept invented by a guy named Torqueville. That majoriy you are refering is not a monolit grupe and that makes that argument flawed.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

A. I think you're making the mistake of assuming Christianity is a homogenous concept, it is not.

What an amusing thing to have pointed out to me, as an Irish person. I assume you are familiar with the occasional sectarian tensions that have existed between Catholics and Protestants in my country.

And there are many facets of culture, religion being one of those facets. That facet of American Culture, is largely Christian. I don't get why this is such a hard concept to understand.

It is not at all. Indeed, that is what I said from the start when you said that America is "Culturally Christian".

No it isn't. America has a lot of Christians in it, and obviously that has influenced its culture(to the extent that so large a nation can be said to have a single culture). But so have many, many other things.

So perhaps you can tell me what is so hard to understand about the concept.

B. No, they would capitalize on it, what I'm saying is they wouldn't net any gains off it.

The very premise is that the Republicans have successfully amended the US Constitution. How could they possibly have that much political power and not make gains?

---

57% of Republicans, which is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of people.

Specifically Republican primary voters, who are the people who determine, by a FPTP vote, I imagine, which Republicans will be running for office.

---

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.

Oh yes, it's the fault of liberals who would not support this move that it is not being put to the people. Certainly not the fault of those conservatives who would support it and thus would logically be the only ones who would actually put it to the people.

Because unless they do in fact repeal the Establishment clause, to which they have no need, the Establishment Clause will still be binding. The Courts will still stand in their way. Just because they got an amendment passed by the states doesn't mean the courts are gonna disregard established precedent.

It's all a moot point anyway, they never will pass an amendment.

[Desperate Measures]

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

They disagree with your objection to his reasoning, as they share the same thought process as he.

huh. Now I'm actually reading up on it.

[Busen]

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

Yes, of course it is inherently Christian. Protestant ethics has a lot of influence on the people, it is one of the reasons why many Americans hate states interventions in economy whereas the southern Catholic continent has an opposite opinion.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

How exactly would Christianity become a national religion? Wouldn't that contradict "separation between church and state". Then again look at our money and the pledge school children say everyday.

Not if they got an amendment, which seems to be the crux of the argument now.

[Jaselvania]

Yes, those violent Christians, with their frequent beheadings and burning people alive stuff! And their treatment of women! Recruiting and selling them as sex slaves for their holy war is just disgusting! http://www.clarionproject.org/news/isis-issues-orders-mosul-give-over-girls-sex-jihad
Not to mention their threats to throw gays off of the leaning tower of Pizza http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2963229/ISIS-vow-Rome-throw-homosexuals-leaning-tower-PIZZA.html

We really should do something about these violent Christians, right!?

We really should. Every religion has extremists. Your points about the Muslims are irrelevant, since those are not in the US nor is it all of the Muslim population in the region, not even close. And I think you are ignoring that Christians committed far worse crimes in the Crusades.

1. I'm not making a point "about Muslims", I'm making a point that there are people today using a religion in FAR WORSE and more violent ways then Christians in the US.
2. Yes, yes they are in the US. http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/donald-r-may/2014-09-27/first-us-isis-beheading-oklahoma
3. I'm re-reading what I wrote but I'm failing to see where I said, or even implied, that it was "all of the Muslim population in the region". I've lived "there" & have friends "there". So please don't make-up words or implied intent for me, k? Thanks . . .

Oh, and last but not least . . . .

4. No, I'm not ignoring the completely irrelevant fact that almost 1000 years ago the Christians possibly committed terrible acts in the Crusades (which, btw, was a defensive war against Islamic conquest. Just saying.) Your use of "far worse crimes" is a silly overstatement since neither you or I can even start to comprehend with rational thought crimes worse then burning a man alive.