Constitutional Absolutists
Only 30% of Republicans oppose making Christianity the national religion. Let that sink in for a second.
The poll found that 57 percent of Republicans “support establishing Christianity as the national religion” while 30 percent are opposed. Another 13 percent said they were not sure.
I cant find myself objecting to this entirely on the grounds of constitutionality.
the constitution, at one point, protected slavery and outlawed alcohol.
I consider my own feelings about gun and…. as far as the current SCOTUS is concerned, those views are outside of what the constitution allows… SO
JUST because a cornerstone idea of our nations founding directly contradicts what these morons want…. isnt, by itself, enough for me to object to….. not that there isnt plenty.
Ah…okay. That’s some convoluted ass logic, but perhaps we can agree that the founders appear to have envisioned a secular state. And that people who make grandiose claims about putting a premium on what the founders intended should give some perfunctory nod toward secularism.
And this is the group that wants to get rid of AP classes
And jumped onto the anti-vaxxer train once President Obama said he supported vaccines
Says this about cancer, “If you have cancer, which I believe is a fungus, and we can put a pic line into your body and we’re flushing with, say, salt water, sodium cardonate through that line and flushing out the fungus”
Doesn’t understand that… well, let’s just link to this bit of GOP brilliance:
How is that question rhetorical, and what point was he attempting to prove? That he’s a complete idiot?
An Idaho Republican committee is working on a measure to declare Idaho a Christian State.
I could go on all day.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,…”
I had to look it up after Ben’s attempt to gas-lamp me like that.
“After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all the territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.”
I use the argument that ‘just because the Constitution says so, doesnt mean it cant change” ALL THE TIME to argue gun regulation. I dont like to pick and choose principles for making a case for anything….. you cant possibly think i agree with this ridiculous idea.
of course the flip side is, we get these ding-bats to make that argument explicitly… that we CAN change what the Constitution says at it’s core… then, after we defeat this theocratic bullshit…. use it directly against them to enact sane gun regulation…. or pass an amendment giving equal rights to all consenting adults who wish to join their lives…
Taliban
Religion is a very personal matter. Everyone has their own non verifiable non falisifiable belief in some magic man. Why would any sane rational culture allow such nonsense to take over in any nationalistic manner
I agree with you Ben. When it comes to the 2A, winguts have this idea that the Constitution is inviolable, and that any challenge to their interpretation is treasonous. The rest of the document… fuck it.
The bit Jason quotes in the comment above is from the first sentence of the first amendment of the Bill of Rights. Religion is mentioned before freedom of speech, press, assembly and the redress of grievances. I’d argue that it’s more relevant than the roundabout way the Constitution protected slavery. For example Article 1 Sec IX:
“The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”
“such Persons”… hmmm… not very explicit. And in Section 2 Article I we see the formulation “other persons”. No explicit language used.
As for Alcohol… that was clearly an afterthought. 130 odd years later…
The religious bit was front and center, explicit, clear and I don’t see how it could even be debated at this point.
Anyhow, like Pandora said this is just silly talk anyhow. 90% of the US population isn’t literate enough to read the Constitution anyway. Maybe if they explained it via an E! Red Carpet show or maybe on TMZ.com. I couldn’t care less. The Consititution isn’t amended via a GOP poll.
The First Amendment is so long because it originally was three amendments, and the Bill of Rights 12 items long. The notion that they are listed in order of importance is non-historical and frankly stupid, unless you think not having to quarter troops in your house is more important than protection against search and seizure.
Geezer – Allow that the order of amendments doesn’t matter, and the rest of DG’s argument stands up well by itself.
DG – True enough that GOP polls don’t change the Constitution, but the mindset revealed by this poll is one of toxic idiocy.
Living in Sussex County I am STUNNED…that 43% are opposed or not sure. How long before they are purged from the party?
lol
Maybe Barbieri can swallow a book to see if it makes him smarter.
I’ll allow that the order isn’t necessarily by important. But I will say that at the time the bit about quartering soldiers in your home was pretty important
The order of the first ten amendments has nothing to do with importance; it was determined by the order in which they would have come in the Constitution had they been written into the original document rather than appended at the end. There was a debate over how to list them; a lot of people wanted them just pasted in where they would have gone; the “appenders” narrowly beat the “pasters.”
@Geezer:
The First Amendment was not three separate amendments. The original twelve amendments were the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, the 27th Amendment to the Constitution, and the following proposed amendment:
“After the first enumeration required by the first Article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which, the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.”
@Jason330:
Our founders did not envision a secular state. They did envision a secular federal government, however.
@All:
The First Amendment provides: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . .” This clause, i.e., the Establishment Clause, did not apply to the States originally. For example, Congregationalism was the official, state-supported religion of Massachusetts until the 1830s.
The Fourteenth Amendment, which (among other things) altered the relationship between the States and the federal government, provides: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” And in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), Judge Black, a First-Amendment absolutist and one of my favorite justices, wrote for the U.S. Supreme Court:
“The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.'”
In other words, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Establishment Clause.
That said, the Constitution can always be amended… though I, for one, would oppose any attempt to establish a national religion UNLESS the religion is Pastafarianism.
Aside from the constitutional issues, Christianity is not religion. There are Christian religions. Once the debate on a national religion began, the fighting would break out to name individual religions the true Christianity. Since Catholicism is the largest Christian religion in the U.S. the religious right would have to bow to the Catholic church. That would be the end of the desire to have a national religion.
Davy. Point taken.
My fairytale is better than your fairytale.
if we don’t adopt christianity as our national religion, the islamist marxist might do some bullshit executive order on his last day in office making ISLAM our national religion.
strike while the iron is hot I say.
He’s already making moves to enact his new world order with this save the brownie nonsense!
I’m selling Muslim prayer rugs. Put in the secret Rush code of 666 for your 10% discount. But gold and lifelock too
Over 50 percent of democrats believe in socialism
Over 50 percent of rusty dils don’t understand how to use capitalization.
^nice^
Where would conservatives be without the use of the false premise lol