• 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
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.

Then you'll be accusing generations of Americans, including its founding generation with being anti-American. You would also be accusing the original progressive liberals (on up) as being anti-American. Individualist precepts had enormous limits in terms of societal regulations, regardless of what conservatives or liberals want to believe.

Sure, we can call one thing or another excessive, but let's not pretend that somehow this is at all alien, or unaccepted in American practice. We do not even have to discuss some of the more heinous examples. We could demonstrate this with rather uncontroversial, forgotten statutes. Let's not contribute more foolishness to the American mythology, shall we?
 
Last edited:
Then you'll be accusing generations of Americans, including its founding generation with being anti-American. You would also be accusing the original progressive liberals (on up) as being anti-American. Individualist precepts had enormous limits in terms of societal regulations, regardless of what conservatives or liberals want to believe.

Sure, we can call one thing or another excessive, but let's not pretend that somehow this is at all alien, or unaccepted in American practice. We do not even have to discuss some of the more heinous examples. We could demonstrate this with rather uncontroversial, forgotten statutes. Let's not contribute more foolishness to the American mythology, shall we?

The foundation was laid to allow maximum freedom. When people forget that and pass unnecessary restraints on other people's lives, they are eventually thrown out, either by the courts or by the people. The idea of morality law is contrary to the idea of a free country, and contrary to the principles that this country was build on, as stated above. Your morality has no business in my life. My morality guides my life. Your morality guides yours. Anything else is an attack on the principle of freedom.
 
The foundation was laid to allow maximum freedom. When people forget that and pass unnecessary restraints on other people's lives, they are eventually thrown out, either by the courts or by the people. The idea of morality law is contrary to the idea of a free country, and contrary to the principles that this country was build on, as stated above. Your morality has no business in my life. My morality guides my life. Your morality guides yours. Anything else is an attack on the principle of freedom.

A selective reading of American history would build on the notion that somehow we have continuously improved, discarding such communitarian practices, even though we did not and still do not. It's not contrary to a free society. That was frequently the point of such practices. Rather than inhibit freedom, it was done so as to promote it-the good of society and the individuals found within.

The fact that you somehow seem to equate moral codes with theocratic practices just demonstrates your rather foolish analysis.
 
A selective reading of American history would build on the notion that somehow we have continuously improved, discarding such communitarian practices, even though we did not and still do not. It's not contrary to a free society. That was frequently the point of such practices. Rather than inhibit freedom, it was done so as to promote it-the good of society and the individuals found within.

The fact that you somehow seem to equate moral codes with theocratic practices just demonstrates your rather foolish analysis.

Okay, let's make this simple. From what does the government derive just authority to dictate moral codes?

Let's start there, since it's the very beginning. What gives the government this power?
 
Okay, let's make this simple. From what does the government derive just authority to dictate moral codes?

Let's start there, since it's the very beginning. What gives the government this power?

Salus populi suprema lex est from common law. It's the viewpoint that society and government were created to further the welfare of the public.
 
Im not sure how true/real the poll at the bottom is but it made me curious what people really think?


Would you favor or oppose a Constitutional amendment which would make Christianity the official religion of the United States?


Strongly favor
Favor
Either or is agreeable
Oppose
Strongly oppose






http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/toplines_churchstate_0403042013.pdf

With over 30,000 christian denoms in the world I wouldn't want to give the world superpower over to the wrong one...
 
With over 30,000 christian denoms in the world I wouldn't want to give the world superpower over to the wrong one...

Reminds me of the greatest religious joke of all time, by Emo Phillips:

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump.

I said, "Don't do it!"
He said, "Nobody loves me."
I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"
He said, "Yes."
I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?"
He said, "A Christian."
I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?"
He said, "Protestant."
I said, "Me, too! What franchise?"
He said, "Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."

I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.
 
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.

while what you state is true, there are those on the left who also want to dictate how people live, eat drink and how to think.........it goes both ways.
 
Would you favor or oppose a Constitutional amendment which would make Christianity the official religion of the United States?


Strongly favor
Favor
Either or is agreeable
Oppose
Strongly oppose

Strongly oppose. This is not a theocracy and I would never support such. I believe in peoples freedoms. Including the right to worship the deity/religion of your choice.
 
Salus populi suprema lex est from common law. It's the viewpoint that society and government were created to further the welfare of the public.

I don't see that, the way you put it forth.

our founding principle's are in the DOI, and easy to understand.
 
while what you state is true, there are those on the left who also want to dictate how people live, eat drink and how to think.........it goes both ways.

That's true. As far as I can tell, it's mostly fringe or minor. Things like the NY Mayor trying to ban large soda's. That's just one really, really stupid man, though, not a whole party. Well, as far as I ever notice, at least. There are a *lot* of radical fringe groups in what we call "the left" in the US, no doubt, but their influence is usually restricted to a half block radius in San Franciso, generally somewhere in the Mission District, or a student union at UCB.

Then again, it could be that it doesn't stand out as much to me because it's stuff I find less offensive.

Salus populi suprema lex est from common law. It's the viewpoint that society and government were created to further the welfare of the public.

That isn't in any way binding law in the United States. The government here gets it authority from the Constitution. Which article, or amendment, places personal morality under the regulatory discretion of the Government? Where does the government get power to regulate our personal moral decisions?
 
That's true. As far as I can tell, it's mostly fringe or minor. Things like the NY Mayor trying to ban large soda's. That's just one really, really stupid man, though, not a whole party. Well, as far as I ever notice, at least. There are a *lot* of radical fringe groups in what we call "the left" in the US, no doubt, but their influence is usually restricted to a half block radius in San Franciso, generally somewhere in the Mission District, or a student union at UCB.

Then again, it could be that it doesn't stand out as much to me because it's stuff I find less offensive.



That isn't in any way binding law in the United States. The government here gets it authority from the Constitution. Which article, or amendment, places personal morality under the regulatory discretion of the Government? Where does the government get power to regulate our personal moral decisions?

You know its use is based in the preamble and in the taxing and spending clause.
 
That's true. As far as I can tell, it's mostly fringe or minor. Things like the NY Mayor trying to ban large soda's. That's just one really, really stupid man, though, not a whole party. Well, as far as I ever notice, at least. There are a *lot* of radical fringe groups in what we call "the left" in the US, no doubt, but their influence is usually restricted to a half block radius in San Franciso, generally somewhere in the Mission District, or a student union at UCB.

Then again, it could be that it doesn't stand out as much to me because it's stuff I find less offensive.

I bet you anything he could lodge a series of complaints about policies and programs you support that you do not find "control how I live or think" but he does.
 
I bet you anything he could lodge a series of complaints about policies and programs you support that you do not find "control how I live or think" but he does.

And I bet I could explain how they're not based on morality, but on actual harm. For example, I think it's immoral to vote for Republicans. That doesn't mean I want to outlaw it. If I did want to outlaw it based on my personal moral view . . . then I'd be a Republican.
 
And I bet I could explain how they're not based on morality, but on actual harm. For example, I think it's immoral to vote for Republicans. That doesn't mean I want to outlaw it. If I did want to outlaw it based on my personal moral view . . . then I'd be a Republican.

No, you would be rationalizing long-standing programs or statutes on the basis of pure harm, rather than the morally-charged atmosphere which created it or sustained it. Moralsm does not somehow negate explanations of harm, but is rather connected to their rationale.
 
if government had moral authority to could run our very life's.

what to eat,drink, our speech, sleep with, our personal health, if or not we must practice a religious faith,....and on and on
 
No, you would be rationalizing long-standing programs or statutes on the basis of pure harm, rather than the morally-charged atmosphere which created it or sustained it. Moralsm does not somehow negate explanations of harm, but is rather connected to their rationale.

What? Either something can be regulated due to harm imposed on another person (or society as a whole -- such as banning private nuclear arsenals), or it can't. Welfare, for example, is a way to clean up a lot of the problems society faced before welfare: crime, panhandling, sanitation catastrophes, etc. Public education is necessary to sustain a first world country. What is banning gay marriage necessary for? What real problems does it cause -- and I mean problems that don't require a belief in magic to explain.

Edit. My 666th post was a minor bashing of fundi religion. Roofles.
 
"What?" Yes it is.

No, it's not. People can talk about whatever nonsense they desire as it is there right to do. Which means they can ask any questions towards whatever subject that comes to mind, as once again, they have the right to do so. They can even propose any amendment they desire and be entirely in line with the Constitution.
 
It is unconstitutional to even ask the question.

Surely you are trying to be irritating and you don't really believe that.


Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

vasuderatorrent
 
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.
Without looking it up my impression has always been that it was the bishops and theologians who defined Christianity in a series of conferences culminating in the Council of Nicaea and the Nicene Creed.

I do not know if the church was immediately given authority to form its own judicial system to enforce religious orthodoxy, but as I implied, such a system was in effect in Roman Catholic lands during the Middle Ages. This parallel system had jurisdiction even over royalty, and there were three cases I know of where royalty was forced into humiliating submission (cf Canossa, Henry ?I of England, John of England). You description is as far as I know correct in the Eastern Orthodox areas, where I believe the Church was usually subject to lay authority. In Russia, for example, the Czars eventually became the official supreme Church leaders. However, the two differing experiences show that neither was inevitable.



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.
I agree it is a stupid idea, regardless of how the details pan out.



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.
Those Bible-thumping crackpots can't help it, it's just the way they are.
 
I prefer the 1st amendment, thank you very much. I think we should learn a lesson from the Middle East that religion and state do not result in good things.
 
Back
Top Bottom