Are you open to the idea of America acknowledging Christianity as our official religion, making laws based on Christianity, yet still allowing other religions their freedom within the limits of our law?
Worst idea ever!
I see nothing wrong with Christianity being our official religion, in fact I think it's a great idea. But we shouldn't ever make laws based on that. Laws should always be the majority's opinions. So I really didn't have an accurate way of responding
Why should we even acknowledge an official religion?
And I don't think laws should be made based on the majority if the majority wants to oppress or discriminate.. Always making laws based on the majority is dangerous haha
I believe it's good to take a stand, and it's not like it would change much.
That doesn't sound very Democratic :P Would you want power to go to a minority then? That's a LOT more dangerous
I think establishing any religion as our official religion would go against what our country was intended to be.
And this is why we don't have a democracy... Lol
Yes. We should have an official state magic
I might riot in the streets if that happened.
the American Taliban would jump all over that
Would you fight for marriage equality for plural marriage?
Wow wrong poll
Not only no, but Hell no. That would be the one thing that would cause my move out of the country.
Look what you started!
Ok...I have a compromise. We do the Christian national church thing, but only the atheists get to pick which laws are written. Win?
no. no theocracy. in the words of Marc Ogeret (albeit translated from the french) disperse the ravens, which is french political slang for voting out theocrats from office.
Matt. That's a common misconception. It was "Disperse the RAVERS," and was referring the mad parties had in the Spanish Quarter.
I took french I know the translation, though I sense a joke.
Matt - have you been to Paris?
Ok...would have been funnier if I typed LATIN quarter instead of the Spanish quarter!
I can't say I have. why?
Considering nothing else than certain laws established from it would inherently restrict religious freedom, Hell no.
I'd never support a national religion, regardless of what it is.
I would fight this with every ounce of energy and every moment. Opposing this would become my life's work.
Same. If ANYTHING is un-American, saying yes to this is up there.
Agreed, no way would I allow this happen while I am still breathing, I would fight until I couldn't, to stop this from happening or to make it go away if it did.
I am a Christian. ELCA Lutheran to be exact, and I am 100% against this.
The Constitution forbids the establishment of an "official" religion.
It also says we have freedom of speech (which can be curtailed) and freedom to bear arms (which also can be curtailed).
How is restricting one amendment different from restricting any of them?
death to this country if this happened
A. Wouldnt work. B. Hell no. C. this is why no one takes the GOP seriously. Come on guys.
Come on 50% of the GOP**
LOL....well, it's not the 2nd so it doesn't matter.
What's your opinion of the UK?
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by
Itself." Thomas Jefferson
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished
in their short history." James Madison
I must also affirm that like Thomas Jefferson "I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.”
50% of republicans. That kinda pisses me off lol
My party is embarrassing me greatly...
I said no, but it wouldn't be such a big deal. Many if not most of European nations have a state religion;I don't hear much complaining about Great Britain's religious intolerance.
This is pretty horrifying tbh.
Yeah... It's one of those things where I just can't understand no matter how hard I try...
I'm not surprised. They are the evangelical party. The party of the Hucklebees and the Graham's and the Bachmann's.
Uhhhh.....curly, are you aware of why there is an Anglican Church, and a King James Bible?
just for the record as to why England proper has the Church of England here is a children's comedy show from the BBC explaining the matter. its also not a history we should want repeating on our shores
Well as of now, 52% of republicans and 48% of Protestant Christians have said this sounds like a good idea. I'd guess me getting this feeling from some people isn't too far reaching.
Considering I live in a predominantly conservative, baptist area..
Didn't mean to post that here lol
Anyone who thinks that would a great idea either haven't read the bible themselves and have only been told about the good things by others, or have an f'd up sense of morality.
No no no no no no no no
That's what we should have in this country damn it.
No way José
Growing up I always thought the idea of freedom of religion meant "go to whatever Christian church you wanted to". I still like that idea. Still pains me to know people who don't go to church at all, brings joy and peace and family
So anyone who isn't Christian ought not to have any guarantee freedom? That's messed up, man.
Like that is so crazy to me. I am a bit dumbfounded right now.
I never said they get no freedom. Do I think everyone would be better off if they went to some church? Yes. Hell even if you don't believe in Gif you can get other benefits of church.
Church doesn't work for everyone. Peace and family couldn't be farther away from what my church is. Besides that the concept of forcing religion on everyone is horrific.
Well you just said that you liked the idea of freedom of religion meaning you get to go to whatever Christian church you want to.
And no I don't think a church is the kind of place an atheist would enjoy frequenting.
The churches I have attended my whe life are like am extended family. They care about you, you have people to lean on in need, do fun things with, and grow with. I have also always enjoyed the services. Sings and lessons on life. All good whether you
Believe on God or not those things are all beneficial on this earth.
Then by all means have it available to all. But force it upon me, who can get social interaction in other ways that I prefer?
Bluerum, please compare and contrast your experiences as a Christian attending church with your other experiences as a Buddhist, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, atheist, etc. attending their temples/mosques. Give us a ranking of all religions you have tried out.
Take things do seriously, it's not like it would happen people, just nice to think about. :)
LOLOLOL GOPers! 2nd amendment is hollowed sacred ground, the first? About half of you couldn't give a squirt. Funny that.
To much of Christianity has been tainted by the prosperity gospel and other heresies for this to work.
No, I'm not open to that idea
That sounds awful. I sincerely hope it never happens but if it does I would have no problem moving.
You mean restoring the America our Founders knew? Sure!
Sorry. That was harsh.
“Lighthouses are more helpful than churches”-Benjamin Franklin
"...[T]he insertion [of 'Jesus Christ,' in preamble to the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom] was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian
"and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination." --Thomas Jefferson
No, Tom! I would *not* feel valued as an equal citizen, in such a country.
Alice, I apologize. I thought Jewish Americans were valued and comfortable in the America of our Founders. There must be something I'm not seeing. But I would certainly rather talk with you about it then those who mock my viewpoint.
they felt comfortable, largely because of statements such as the quotes I posted above. I daresay they probably would not have in a theocracy. I daresay government by theocratic muck rightfully deserves to be on a wall of shame. and that we would NOT
feel or be treated equally we'd be treated worse than the muck that makes up theocracy. and we know it, which is why we don't want one, nor many Christians, and certainly not other non christians
Yes, they were valued and welcomed, from my understanding of our history. As Matt says, it wasn't a theocracy. There was no official religion. The First Amendment specifies that there should never be one.
Read Hayley's question again, the part about making Christianity the official religion.
Alice, my take on it is that Christianity was the presumed religion of the great majority of Americans. A "majority consensus," if you will. The First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a State Church, as in Catholicism vs. Anglicanism, which
Yeah, let's ignore Quakers.
was why they had fled England in the first place. I really don't think that they had in mind Christianity in general when they wrote that clause. That's just how I read it. You see my point? (whether you agree or not)
Guys, I'm just trying to have a legit conversation with Alice here. A little slack, please?
were a majority of the founders, and Americans at the time christians? yes, that's just maths. Did the founders and writers of that clause mind christianity in the sense they liked it? depends on who you ask, but they didn't hate it. Did they want it
legislated, or one sect given preference over other sects and given preference over other religions, or just christianity in general given ANY preference over other religions? No. They didn't want theocracy, and they didn't want religious preference
from the government. and given statements like those of Madison's above, I REALLY don't think he'd look at the 22% who said yes favorably, not by any means. unfavorably yes, not favorably though
Of course, they were mostly Christians. That's simply a historical fact. But, if they had intended a generically Christian government (no specific church), that would have been very easy to include in the Constitution. There is a big difference ...
... between a "majority consensus" and a legislated doctrine.
And I know you are trying to just talk to me, but after all, this is SOH. :)
Anyway, I happen to agree with Matt's points.
I know. I like Matt too, and I don't dislike DO. But people who interrupt a calm,, reasonable private discussion should realize that they are, indeed, interrupting.
Your points make sense, but I don't think they felt it necessary to place a reference
to Christianity in the Constitution any more than they felt it necessary to specify that the President should be male. It was simply assumed at the time.
Oh, nonsense. This is NOT a private conversation. If you want to have a private conversation, invite someone to go elsewhere.
Ok, do you think it would be wrong to have a female President now?
Alice, answering that question would cost me the rest of my day. I have deeply held theological beliefs that I would be happy to share with you, but they would take us totally off the subject at hand. Let's reserve that discussion for another time.
1. you never specified to Alice in your first statement. 2. You're posting this on a public forum, if you want to have a private conversation might I suggest somewhere else.
3. I can't read, so 1. no longer applies. 2. still stands.
DO, Susan - this is the only social media site I use. I realize there is no code of etiquette for online communications, but there probably should be one. And as one who has taught Speech Communications, I consider interruptions to be "interference,"
like radio static. If we are reluctant to interrupt a conversation in a live social setting, I am naïve enough to believe that we should be reluctant online also. Call me an idealist. :o)
Interrupting is part of online conversation. I have no clue how long it will take for you or anyone else to type something it could take you 2 minutes, it could take you a day because you leave to do other things. People get interrupted on here it's
"Radio static." Lovely. I'm going to try to refrain from saying the rest of the things I'm thinking right now and just say adios.
I just assumed it was an open conversation
Susan, I apologize. I did not mean to insult you or anyone. "Radio static" was simply meant to illustrate that the "interference" was accidental rather than intentional. And "interference" is a term with a specific meaning in communications theory.
So I can understand how my meaning was easily misinterpreted. Again, I'm sorry. I just have this idealistic wish that people would look at a conversation thread before joining it & think whether their contribution is really needed. Silly, I guess. :)
Absolutely not. If it were to happen, I leave the country. We won't miss each other.
frankly, I can't even say what I'd rather have happen to myself than a theocracy, its too graphic for this app.
If we ever do that, I'll have to leave.
Sounds horrendous. I'd become a terrorist... Okay, maybe not. I would just leave such a terrible nation.
A theocracy? No thanks...
I don't care
I care, and I am Christian who opposes this. Come on, EB, you care! :)
EB dgaf! she's got her pie/cake and is ready for anything.
Poli- if you care, I care!
I would fight to the death before I let that happen
We would be facing Mecca
We would be worshiping a meteorite?
Kinda against the foundation of our nation,
If "O" uses executive privilege
What is this? Someone look another republican said no!!
MJ I agree people shouldn't be overly partisan, whole saying that anyone who said yes is IMO quite wrong. I will remind you of your rather partisan comment on moderateGOP's poll this morning though
That poll was asking for a partisan answer. It was dems vs. reps. This poll was not.
Knowing mod I think he wanted an objective answer
His Q was. Which party is based more of EMOTION?
Democrats or Republican where the two choices
Yes I'm well aware of the question. In saying knowing mod, who DOES know when and when not to be partisan, probably was looking for civilized discussion, not Parisian banter and verse
I voted in that poll and explained why I voted the way I did. If it comes out partisan that was because of the nature of the poll
No. The second that happened, I would leave. No matter what religion it was.
You mean Congress making laws respecting establishments of religion.
That may be prohibited somewhere...
Absolutely not. By establishing an official religion that our laws would be based on, we'd be taking away the idea of true freedom of religion. All people of all religions should be equal with none of higher status. It's personal, not political.
The direct answer is no. Try asking the question another way. Are you open to the idea of acknowledging the most opposite and offensive religion to your own, no matter which that might be, as our official religion and making laws based on it?
I know this is directed at hayley but would you mind if I used this?
No Matt, I don't mind at all. Go ahead.
No. Religion is a personal choice. Picking one for the whole country isn't right.
You can, pick baptist or Lutheran or catholic or episcopalian or many if the other denominations I can't think of. Whatever Christian church you want to go to. Just go, let's shut down the cities in Sunday for church
And for all the non Christians?
For the non Christians just go to church and enjoy the music, the extended family, and the good life lessons. There is other good stuff to get from church besides just God and the Bible
Yeah. I'm just going to go down to my synagogue, talk to a ranbi,then mail you one of my many pocket sized constitutions with Amendment I underlined, bolded, italicized, AND highlited with a list of influential non Christians, including a Jewish
Who helped this nation get loans on his own credit at the very beginning of this country, and without those loans the nation very well may have gone under, his only reward was a very posthumous postage stamp. I have no issue with people being of a
Different religion. Apparently you and 17% of others who responded on this poll do not.
I have job issue with Jews, they believe in the same God.
Funny then that you'd want to force us to go to church. Same with atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jain's, Zoroastrian's, Sikhs, and everyone else and that other than church's you want towns closed. Of it wasn't for the fact what
I'd rather have instead of this bastion of freedom being turned I to a theocracy was so R or X rated, I'd say it. But since I wish not to upset anyone I won't
I don't see the problem, church is good for people, brings joy and happiness. Brings people together and helps them to do good unto others, what's the harm in that
You keep drinking the kool aid. Not all churches are good & bring everyone together. Jim Jones. Kids molested by priests. Insisting on tithing. It's not only close-minded but just plain rude to think your religion is right for everyone.
if someone wants to go to a church voluntarily be my guest. but your view is no different than someone wanting to require say attendance of all people, muslim or not at mosque, jew or not at synagogue, or Hinu or not at a temple dedicated to Vishnu
or Ganesh. I'm sure you'd view all of those attempts as wrong. At the very least I know I would. If you want a christian theocracy, I'll build you a time machine, pick your medieval nation. You want religious freedom? stay here. you try and make THIS
country a theocracy, any real american would stand up against that, from the most liberal to the most conservative. And frankly, I will say what I'd rather have happen than have this bastion of freedom, including religious freedom made a theocracy
and I wish for the gore and explicitness of the following (especially to Tony). I'd rather die a martyr to freedom than live under religious tyranny. I'm pretty sure every founder would do the same than see their creation turn into theocratic muck
Wow, you took that way to extremely.
not really. you're the on wanting theocracy, I'm merely stating its no different if a different religion did what you're wanting. Sure, you could say being willing to die instead of facing that is extreme. I actually changed what I was going to say,
but considering you actually WANT forced church attendance, and have no issue with a theocracy, I'm willing to be extreme in order to protect religious freedom in the face of any such action by any theocrat.
Everything needs to be equal on the law. Even everything in the Noble Lie
freedom of religion within the boundaries of another religion is not freedom
A Christian conservative
Stole my comment, there, I see.
thank you, sincerely, a non christian
I think that a Christian Theocracy would be great, but freedom of religion would have to be assured.
the other problem would be deciding which Christian beliefs to build laws around. and how far the Christian lawmaking could go.
How the hell would theocracy "be great"?
What the fuck would a Christian theocracy even look like? there are so many different sects of Christians that follow different parts of the bible that it would be a complete and utter mess.
well, the more I think about it, the worse it seems. so I'd like to retract that statement. I guess I'm just wishing that everyone held my same values and beliefs, it's a little bit draining to explain and defend them as often as I do.
deus, that's one of the questions I but forward in my original post.
and it's one reason why I've changed my mind.
We tried a makeshift Christian theocracy once. It's known for its huge success actually. Ever hear of the inquisition? Religion and politics always work well together.
I thought you were serious for a second Talk, I was like "No!! Where did he go wrong?"
lol no worries buddy. I strongly oppose theocratic governments. Separation of church and state is a beautiful thing.