57% Of Republicans Want Christianity As National Religion

[Nord Amour]

I doubt many of these people have thoroughly studied the Constitution, much less the Treaty of Tripoli. It has been made clear, time and time again since 1776 that the US is not founded upon the Christian religion.

Fortunately, I don't believe much damage can be done, even with a Republican-statist majority in Congress. This style of theocratic evangelism was already at its peak near the middle portion of the twentieth century. If it didn't have a foothold then, it likely will not anytime soon.

Much of this garbage is probably just being propagated to polarize the decline in religion, immigration, and social liberalism and libertarianism, among other things. It will quiet down eventually.

[The Cobalt Sky]

All I can say right now is I hope this never happens. Ever. If this becomes more widespread, I think there might be chances of a full blown theocratic party.

[Tekania]

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

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

It specifically prohibits that; it prohibits the state from respecting an establishment of religion. A national religion is specifically unconstitutional.

[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.

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.

I thought this was a civil discussion, where do you get off coming at me like that?

The "fear" of those things were relevant to the situation at hand. People didn't believe England was listening to them, so they just said no to everything British at the time. After winning the revolutionary war the people tried to make Washington king of America, but he said no and still ended up getting pressured into running for President at behest of the people. So I find it quite hard to believe that if a national religion of Christian Protestant origin had been proposed that everyone would of been up in arms burning churches. In fact I feel that at most if it was opposed by a majority they'd of handle it quite civilly.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

I thought this was a civil discussion, where do you get off coming at me like that?

The "fear" of those things were relevant to the situation at hand. People didn't believe England was listening to them, so they just said no to everything British at the time. After winning the revolutionary war the people tried to make Washington king of America, but he said no and still ended up getting pressured into running for President at behest of the people. So I find it quite hard to believe that if a national religion of Christian Protestant origin had been proposed that everyone would of been up in arms burning churches. In fact I feel that at most if it was opposed by a majority they'd of handle it quite civilly.

If you need a recommendation for a book with which to educate yourself, I recommend this one. The section called 'not by force or violence' should illuminate you about the religious conflicts going on during the era.

There were riots over which version of the bible was read in schools, there were church burnings, people were exiled from states for heresy against one sect of Christianity or another. This modern thing where Christians are fairly unified is really quite new.

The period after the Revolutionary War saw a lot of infighting between the various states and Christian denominations. Virginia, which was home to the largest portion of Anglicans loyal to the Church of England, was the scene of notorious acts of religious persecution against Baptists and Presbyterians. Anglicans physically assaulted Baptists, bearing theological and social animosity. In 1771, a local Virginia sheriff yanked a Baptist preacher from the stage at his parish and beat him to the ground outside, where he also delivered twenty lashes with a horsewhip. Similarly, in 1778, Baptist ministers David Barrow and Edward Mintz were conducting services at the Mill Swamp Baptist Church in Portsmouth, Virginia.[2] As soon as the hymn was given out, a gang of men rushed the stage and grabbed the two ministers, took them to the nearby Nansemond River swamp, and dunked and held their heads in the mud until they nearly drowned to death.

The Philadelphia Election Riot in 1742 was a riot by the Anglicans who sought to break the longstanding Quaker political dominance in Philadelphia. As up to one-third of the population were Germans, the Quakers had successfully courted their vote based on Quaker pacifism, seen by the Germans as protection from the draft and high taxes.[1]

Quaker domination was threatened by their declining share of the population, while the Anglican-based proprietary party, led by William Allen, sought to woo the German vote. From 1739 to 1740, efforts courting the German vote tripled the voter turnout.[1] Failing to win the favor of the German vote, Allen and his fellow Anglicans sought instead to amend the election process by reviving a 1739 election law that provided party-specific election inspectors.[2] Failing to secure a compromise, the two parties, hurdled towards confrontation on Election Day.[2]

Tensions came to a head on election day, October 1,[3] with Allen nominated in the election for inspector. Rumors claimed that the Quakers were attempting to bring large numbers of non-naturalized German immigrants to the polls and that the Anglicans were supporting bands of vigilantes to attack them.[1]

When the two parties were unable to agree on methods to supervise the election, a group of seventy sailors, shouting anti-Quaker oaths, cheering for Allen and wielding clubs attacked the Germans and Quakers assembled at the Courthouse to vote. In response to a hail of bricks, the Germans (and, uncharacteristically, perhaps some Quakers) responded with violence,[1] albeit defensive.[4]

With the sailors driven back, the Quakers retreated into the Courthouse, bolting the doors behind themselves. The Anglicans, apparently believing one or more of the sailors was being held hostage, regrouped to attack the Courthouse.[4]

A Quaker spokesman managed to convince the rioters that there were no hostages, somewhat quelling the violence. At this point, a number of Germans and Quakers, armed by the Sheriff to defend their rights,[4] counter-attacked the Anglicans, driving the attackers from the area and allowing the elections to proceed.[1][4]

[United Russian Soviet States]

I myself would like to see it as the national religion.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I myself would like to see it as the national religion.

Why? Not a big fan of the Bill Of Rights?

[Burleson 2]

I'm part of that 57%, and proud of it.

You're unconstitutional. Deportation is the only option.

Are you unaware of what an amendment is? And if you deport me, you're going to need to deport anyone that supports a gun ban, federal legalization of gay marriage, or obamacare.

[Allegan County]

The Republican Party would be completely respectable and admirable if they got rid of their religious fundamentalists.

[United Russian Soviet States]

I myself would like to see it as the national religion.

Why? Not a big fan of the Bill Of Rights?

I am a fan of the Bill of Rights, but I am also a devout Christian.

[Vekalse]

I support this, but I'd like to remain secularized. It helps the flow a lot better.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Why? Not a big fan of the Bill Of Rights?

I am a fan of the Bill of Rights, but I am also a devout Christian.

You do realize, of course, that you can continue to be a devout Christian without making it the national religion, right? And that making it such doesn't make you a better Christian?

Seriously, if you want Christianity to be the national religion, then you're not a fan of the Bill Of Rights as it stands. You just like the parts that you personally find useful or convenient.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

I am a fan of the Bill of Rights, but I am also a devout Christian.

Do you believe that Christianity demands that you impose it upon others?

[United Russian Soviet States]

I am a fan of the Bill of Rights, but I am also a devout Christian.

You do realize, of course, that you can continue to be a devout Christian without making it the national religion, right? And that making it such doesn't make you a better Christian?

Seriously, if you want Christianity to be the national religion, then you're not a fan of the Bill Of Rights as it stands. You just like the parts that you personally find useful or convenient.

I do realize that. I just don't want Christianity to fall in America.

I am a fan of the Bill of Rights, but I am also a devout Christian.

Do you believe that Christianity demands that you impose it upon others?

It does not.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

I do realize that. I just don't want Christianity to fall in America.

And you think that attempting to impose it with the rule of law is likely to prevent that?

If anything, that kind of attitude will hasten the end.

Do you believe that Christianity demands that you impose it upon others?

It does not.

Then why do you want to impose your religion upon others?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

You do realize, of course, that you can continue to be a devout Christian without making it the national religion, right? And that making it such doesn't make you a better Christian?

Seriously, if you want Christianity to be the national religion, then you're not a fan of the Bill Of Rights as it stands. You just like the parts that you personally find useful or convenient.

I do realize that. I just don't want Christianity to fall in America.

Do you believe that Christianity will fail without official state sponsorship?

[United Russian Soviet States]

I do realize that. I just don't want Christianity to fall in America.

And you think that attempting to impose it with the rule of law is likely to prevent that?

If anything, that kind of attitude will hasten the end.

It does not.

Then why do you want to impose your religion upon others?

People would not be forced to be Christian if it was the national religion.

I do realize that. I just don't want Christianity to fall in America.

Do you believe that Christianity will fail without official state sponsorship?

It may.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

And you think that attempting to impose it with the rule of law is likely to prevent that?

If anything, that kind of attitude will hasten the end.
Then why do you want to impose your religion upon others?

People would not be forced to be Christian if it was the national religion.

Do you believe that Christianity will fail without official state sponsorship?

It may.

That's an anti-Biblical stance. John 18:36.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

People would not be forced to be Christian if it was the national religion.
It may.

That's an anti-Biblical stance. John 18:36.

Not really. Establishing a national Religion wouldn't constitute a temporal "Kingdom of God"

[Yumyumsuppertime]

That's an anti-Biblical stance. John 18:36.

Not really. Establishing a national Religion wouldn't constitute a temporal "Kingdom of God"

Even given that (and that's a discussion that goes way more into hermeneutics than I feel like dealing with right now), assuming a serious possibility that Christianity will not survive without government help is certainly anti-Biblical, and not in accordance with the teachings of Jesus in that verse.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Not really. Establishing a national Religion wouldn't constitute a temporal "Kingdom of God"

Even given that (and that's a discussion that goes way more into hermeneutics than I feel like dealing with right now), assuming a serious possibility that Christianity will not survive without government help is certainly anti-Biblical, and not in accordance with the teachings of Jesus in that verse.

He's not saying that Christianity will evaporate completely. Just that it could in America.

That's not un-Biblical at all. America isn't some promised land of Christianity. (Some of us would argue quite the opposite)

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Even given that (and that's a discussion that goes way more into hermeneutics than I feel like dealing with right now), assuming a serious possibility that Christianity will not survive without government help is certainly anti-Biblical, and not in accordance with the teachings of Jesus in that verse.

He's not saying that Christianity will evaporate completely. Just that it could in America.

That's not un-Biblical at all. America isn't some promised land of Christianity. (Some of us would argue quite the opposite)

Saying that Christianity is so weak that it can't survive without state sponsorship is still un-Biblical.

[Idzequitch]

Here is my biggest problem with the GOP. It isn't that I disagree with their policies. (Though I do much of the time). It's that they have lot touch with reality. The USA is not a Christian nation, the USA never has been a Christian nation, and the USA never should be considered, officially or not, a Christian nation. What's ironic to me is that they love to cite the founding fathers' Christianity as a reason that the United States should adopt Christianity as its national religion, when the founding fathers abhorred the very idea of a state religion. They were the ones who separated church and state in America, and you're going to try to use them as an excuse to push your religion on the entirety of America? That position is ignorant at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.

[Fartsniffage]

He's not saying that Christianity will evaporate completely. Just that it could in America.

That's not un-Biblical at all. America isn't some promised land of Christianity. (Some of us would argue quite the opposite)

Saying that Christianity is so weak that it can't survive without state sponsorship is still un-Biblical.

And also makes no sense. Christianity is the state religion in England.....what are church attendances looking like in the UK?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

He's not saying that Christianity will evaporate completely. Just that it could in America.

That's not un-Biblical at all. America isn't some promised land of Christianity. (Some of us would argue quite the opposite)

Saying that Christianity is so weak that it can't survive without state sponsorship is still un-Biblical.

En totalum yes, as Mathew 16 clearly states. But in a certain regional Area? not at all. After all the Middle east way back when Christianity was a veritable force. Now it's practically wiped out. The Syriac Orthodox Church is most likely not going to exist in another 100 years.