• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you vote for Christianity to be the official religion of the United States?

Do you favor/oppose an amendment making Christianity the official religion of the US

  • Total voters
    108
vasuderatorrent said:
I wasn't referring to this thread. I was referring to life in general. If you expect one thing and the opposite happens, this causes intense frustration. This applies to personal relationships more so than politics but it does still apply. It's better to align your expectations with reality as much as possible.

It is an aggravating life when you believe, "She should do this. He should do that. They shouldn't do that. Once you realize that humans will behave inappropriately at times you can minimize your frustration. All 7 billion people on this earth are not going to study your list of shoulds and shouldn'ts. Even if they did, they may forget from time to time.


The moral of the story. Sometimes people will do bad stuff. Sometimes people will do good stuff. Expect it.


Yes, this includes politicians. Sometimes they do good stuff. Sometimes they do bad stuff.

vasuderatorrent
Click to expand...

You're doing some weird thing where any opposition to literally any idea can be dismissed with "what, sometimes people believe things you don't and do things you don't like. Get over it."

It's a bastardized version of the idea that we should respect anyone's beliefs. To crib from Patton Oswalt, no you ****ing shouldn't. You acknowledge that other people are ****ty, and then you get in their face and say that's ****ty, and you're ****ty.

Because that's the only way ****ty people become less ****ty. Sometimes it doesn't work, but sometimes it does.

Other people will do stupid things for stupid reasons, but you know what? I'm going to tell them they're doing stupid things for stupid reasons. Deal with it.
 
Deuce said:
You're doing some weird thing where any opposition to literally any idea can be dismissed with "what, sometimes people believe things you don't and do things you don't like. Get over it."

It's a bastardized version of the idea that we should respect anyone's beliefs. To crib from Patton Oswalt, no you ****ing shouldn't. You acknowledge that other people are ****ty, and then you get in their face and say that's ****ty, and you're ****ty.

Because that's the only way ****ty people become less ****ty. Sometimes it doesn't work, but sometimes it does.

Other people will do stupid things for stupid reasons, but you know what? I'm going to tell them they're doing stupid things for stupid reasons. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a pretty good strategy. I think a better strategy would be to align your expectations with reality but this is fine. It sounds like it works well for you.

vasuderatorrent
 
AGENT J said:
1.) I dont but its what should be focused on and strived for at all costs and there are laws and rights to be followed.
2.) false actually i do
3.) not true either it has nothing to do with "Groups" I support more, it has to do with how rights work and my respect for that and people breaking the law. There were not rights infringed on of the business owners.
See if the patrons we black or women, or Christians etc i would support the LAW in that case just like i do now. The law was broken and religion isn't an excuses for that in this case by any means.

What would you have done in those cases? and would it be the same if the discrimination was against blacks, women or Christians? Do you want the law ignored/changed?

Im a Christian and I have a freedom of the religion but my religious rights are confined by the religious realm and where others rights start.
This is why i support and would fight for churches to always be allowed to discriminate which they always will be unless the constitution changes.

But at no time would I support St Anthony hospital denying my friend visitation or medical decisions for his wife because he is jewish or got married by a singing Elvis or magistrate.
At no time would i support Walmart kicking out by neighbors form the store simply because they were black
at no time would i support my uncle kicking people out of his public access garage simply because they were Muslims

and I myself would NEVER be dumb enough to open my own public business and break the law and illegally discriminate based on my own morals or bigoted views.
The rules work for ME just like they do for EVERYONE, in the public realm i must play by public rules.
Click to expand...

I doubt you'd even notice as you'd just call anyone who brought it up a conspiracy nut. ;)
 
X Factor said:
I doubt you'd even notice as you'd just call anyone who brought it up a conspiracy nut. ;)
Click to expand...

LOL nice! :2razz:

oh but i would though!
I would fight tooth and nail against it and be appalled at anybody even suggesting "churches" cant discriminate, luckily that battle doesnt exist or need me the constitution has my back.

you didnt vote yet or answer my question above that hurts my feelings ;) lol jk
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I really doubt anyone, no matter how religious, who has a good understanding of the Constitution, how our system of government works, and the dangers of mixing ONE religion with that government would day anything other than "absolutely not". I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish by this poll, J.
Click to expand...

Around a third of the country want this. And, ironically, it's that third that are most convinced that they have special knowledge and understanding of the Constitution, how our system of government works, and the dangers of NOT mixing one religion with that government.
 
After last night listening to a leader of some whiny assed group that now wants "so help me god" stiken form military oaths.
I would support such an amendment even more.
 
Deuce said:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

It would seem to me that the founding fathers specifically wanted to avoid making laws based solely in religion. Because pushing my religion onto somebody else with the force of law is a violation of their rights.

You're right: Laws that are "oppressive" sometimes have a remedy that isn't based on an election: the US constitution, and our court system.

So no: Congress can't do whatever they want for whatever reason they want.

As for disappointment and frustration, I feel like you're projecting a bit. I've been perfectly calm in this thread.
Click to expand...

FYI: Supreme Court decisions are rarely 9-0. Yes, people usurp power frequently and try to impose their will upon you. Just because you like what the constitution says about one subject doesn't mean you wouldn't vote against the constitution when you disagree with what it says on a different subject. You would utilize your power to impose your will upon others. That is what humans do. You are no exception.

Rights, smights, pepity lights. It's fun to watch a cool movie or read an inspiring book but cool movies or inspiring books often discard the ugliness of reality*.

vasuderatorrent

*Hollywood producers refuse to make a movie of Don Quixote because an American audience would hate it.
 
Last edited:
I voted "Strongly Oppose."

I am stickler for correct terminology, though.

beefheart said:
But...theocracies work SO well all over the world......LOL
Click to expand...

Theocracy is rule by religious authorities; it is not synonymous with state religion. Iran is a theocracy and Taliban Afghanistan was a theocracy. Howerver, numerous advanced European Democracies, such as the UK, Denmark, Norway and Sweden have, or until recently have had state religions. My father was from Denmark and I believe I recall him saying that priests were state employees.
 
Five percent here are "nuts" .
Christianity does not need this so-called support.
Does the 5% wish us to be another Iran ?
 
USViking said:
priests were state employees.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is that the people who want government involved with religion the most are the ones who trust government the least, yet they would have this happen, and only notice the problem with it after the fact.
 
Grendel said:
The funny thing is that the people who want government involved with religion the most are the ones who trust government the least, yet they would have this happen, and only notice the problem with it after the fact.
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt there are any US Biblethumpers who want the ministry to be employed, hence to a large extent controlled, by any government.
 
USViking said:
I seriously doubt there are any US Biblethumpers who want the ministry to be employed, hence to a large extent controlled, by any government.
Click to expand...

yet they would have this happen, and only notice the problem with it after the fact.

They want to intertwine religion and government. The end result will be government in charge of religion, not the other way around. The more involved with government it is, the more corrupt it will be. They're just too stupid to see the problem ahead of time. They have to wait until after it happens to see it. Just like always. No foresight, whatsoever.
 
Grendel said:
yet they would have this happen, and only notice the problem with it after the fact.

They want to intertwine religion and government. The end result will be government in charge of religion, not the other way around. The more involved with government it is, the more corrupt it will be. They're just too stupid to see the problem ahead of time. They have to wait until after it happens to see it. Just like always. No foresight, whatsoever.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "intertwine"? I see no reason to assume as you do that government will wind up with any more control over a designated state religion than it has now. In fact I think there as much a risk of religious authorities (Christian ones, that is) obtaining inappropriate power over the government as vice versa. That was the situation which obtained in Roman Catholic Europe certainly throughout the Middle Ages, and it is the situation today in much of the Islamic world, where the power of the mosque has increased enormously since the late 1970s, a trend which shows no sign of abating.
 
USViking said:
What do you mean by "intertwine"? I see no reason to assume as you do that government will wind up with any more control over a designated state religion than it has now. In fact I think there as much a risk of religious authorities (Christian ones, that is) obtaining inappropriate power over the government as vice versa. That was the situation which obtained in Roman Catholic Europe certainly throughout the Middle Ages, and it is the situation today in much of the Islamic world, where the power of the mosque has increased enormously since the late 1970s, a trend which shows no sign of abating.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why "zero" is the tolerable level of mixing government and religion. If "Christianity" is our official religion, then what defines "Christianity". Once this is an issue of law, then it's an issue for lawyers to sort out. That's exactly what happened in Rome in 325. So then you'll have a mix of lawyers, politicians, special interest groups and priest arguing over what's "official" Christianity. And I guarantee you that will be step 2. They already do that in the churches. Once it's law, it just adds lawyers to the debate.

It's just a gigantically stupid idea, and would most likely end up being some kind of politically correct "Christianity" that becomes the official American Religion.

Why fundies would even think about allowing that to happen would be beyond me if I hadn't already seen, time and time again, that they have an absolute and complete lack of foresight.
 
honestly i'm not sure. on one hand i say yes, i'm a christian and i believe that by creating a world power that is openly christian it would expand god more. But on the other hand i'm seeing so many of other peoples opinions and saying no or not right now, because the constitution says we have freedom of religion. but making a national religion, not only do we deny the existence of all other religions in our country, but we also begin to shove religion and government together and that's something we've been trying to separate since almost the beginning. i don't know
 
vasuderatorrent said:
FYI: Supreme Court decisions are rarely 9-0. Yes, people usurp power frequently and try to impose their will upon you. Just because you like what the constitution says about one subject doesn't mean you wouldn't vote against the constitution when you disagree with what it says on a different subject. You would utilize your power to impose your will upon others. That is what humans do. You are no exception.

Rights, smights, pepity lights. It's fun to watch a cool movie or read an inspiring book but cool movies or inspiring books often discard the ugliness of reality*.

vasuderatorrent

*Hollywood producers refuse to make a movie of Don Quixote because an American audience would hate it.
Click to expand...

Nihilism doesn't make for a good debate on any subject. Perhaps a different forum would suit you better.
 
No, I would prefer it if we could keep our demographic options open.
 
X Factor said:
No, but neither do I support the notion that religious people be precluded from politics or precluded from using their religion to inform their politics.
Click to expand...

It wasn't, initially. Up through the early 19th century, states had official churches.
 
Fiddytree said:
It wasn't, initially. Up through the early 19th century, states had official churches.
Click to expand...

Rhode Island used to have a law on the books that required you to read the Geneva Translation of the Bible to your children 4 hours per day.

Puritans left England to set up theocracies not to avoid them.

vasuderatorrent
 
X Factor said:
No, but neither do I support the notion that religious people be precluded from politics or precluded from using their religion to inform their politics.
Click to expand...

They aren't.

digsbe said:
I am strongly strongly strongly against the state limiting religious freedom and the ability to vote for religious individuals on issues they feel strongly about.
Click to expand...

They aren't.

X Factor said:
Why does there have to be a line? People try to enforce their moral beliefs on others all the time. Environmentalists are a good example.
Click to expand...

Environmental protections are in place to protect people's rights. For example, you can't dump poison into a stream running through your yard, since it runs to my yard next. By polluting your property, you're also polluting mine. The law preventing that is to protect me from harm caused by your action, not to enforce someone's morality.

You trying to enforce your moral beliefs on others is just evidence that you aren't practicing your religion in a meaningful way. Your religion is about how you live, not about how other people live. If you're obsessing with how you think other people should live their lives, then you aren't spending that energy considering how you are living your own life. Further, you have not right to limit other people's freedom to follow their own moral code, so long as it doesn't harm anyone else. What you want is an authoritarian society that is the exact antithesis of a free country.
 
Grendel said:
You trying to enforce your moral beliefs on others is just evidence that you aren't practicing your religion in a meaningful way. Your religion is about how you live, not about how other people live. If you're obsessing with how you think other people should live their lives, then you aren't spending that energy considering how you are living your own life. Further, you have not right to limit other people's freedom to follow their own moral code, so long as it doesn't harm anyone else. What you want is an authoritarian society that is the exact antithesis of a free country.
Click to expand...

We have always instituted moral codes into local, state, and federal statutes and regulations. It's all a matter of degree, but it hardly is counteractive to our country's ideology.
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
We have always instituted moral codes into local, state, and federal statutes and regulations. It's all a matter of degree, but it hardly is counteractive to our country's ideology.
Click to expand...

certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech

Anything that abridges those rights is anti-American. Morality laws abridge those rights, generally. I have the right to pursue happiness, and, so long as it doesn't harm you, you have no natural right to interfere with that. That means that I'm free to live my life my way, whether you like it or not, so long as it does you no harm. The problem with right-wingers is that they want to tell everyone else how to live. They don't understand that they have no just authority to do so. You don't have to like the way I live. You only have to like the way you live. If I like to smoke pot, have gay sex, drink alcohol, eat transfat, smoke cigarettes, and sleep with women outside of marriage, that's not any of your business. You live your life. I live my life. That's what freedom is. Rightwingers are opposed to that. They want to control other peoples lives -- generally because they can't control their own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom