• 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
AGENT J said:
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
Click to expand...

I voted "Oppose" rather than "Strongly Oppose" for one reason only; that NO religion should be an official religion, not just Christianity.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...
Click to expand...
 
I vote "oppose" over "strongly oppose" .. because I think the word "strongly" doesn't matter.
 
Would not be supportive of this on a national level. Wouldn't really support it at a state level either, but would have less of an issue with it there. Even if was nominal in it's application it still would be a fundamental transformation of the governing principles the country was built on.
 
Absolutely not. We do not need (and hopefully do not collectively want) an official religion.
 
I strongly oppose the idea though if it didn't influence politics at all and stayed out of government then I would't really care all that much either.
 
I'm the guy who voted in favor.

Every state has a state song. Do any of you even know what your state song is, much less are required to sing it at any state functions? But such things are underpinnings to individual identity. If the city of Dearborn, Michigan wished to declare Islam its official city religion, I would have no problem with that, so long as no test was required to be employed by or to do business with the city. In fact, I would admire if they began city council meetings with a call to prayer.

Why? Because I believe that expressing our faith in God is not harmful to the character of a nation, and need not be suppressed in government business.
 
Deuce said:
Which brings up an interesting question:

Where's the line between having your religion inform your politics and writing religious laws?
Click to expand...

Either one is acceptable. That's why it's important to be an informed voter.

vasuderatorrent
 
I strongly oppose this idea and I am sure that it's not going to happen.
 
Van Basten said:
Totally unconstitutional. Not a chance and I'm a Christian.
Click to expand...

The question wasn't about making a law. The question was about changing the constitution. The constitution clearly describes the procedure for changing the constitution.

Current Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

New Amendment
Congress, all states and local governments shall respect the official religion of our nation which is Christianity. Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of Christianity; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The public practice of Islam should be discouraged by all bodies of government especially those practices that threaten the safety and traditions of our nation.
 
Last edited:
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...

But "moral beliefs" are a bit different when you can demonstrate harm caused by the other person's behavior. It's not purely a "That's wrong because I said so" situation, where religious beliefs sometimes are. I can demonstrate harm caused to myself and others by you dumping mercury into a supply of drinking water. Obviously something like "don't murder or steal" might have a religious basis for someone, but there's also an objective basis for saying that those things cause harm to others. Whereas "don't eat shrimp" doesn't have such a basis. "My book says so" is the only reason to support making that a law.

The argument against same-sex marriage collapses pretty hard when you remove the religious component, because then all you have is "I don't like it."

We've seen the effects of making purely religious-based rules into the laws of a nation. It rarely ends well.
 
Last edited:
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...

Environmentalists have failed pretty miserably by comparison. In this state, assisted suicide, SSM and drugs are illegal, pretty much entirely (at least when the laws were made) because of religion. The reason such an amendment would be insane is there are infinite number of interpretations of any given religion, and those change all the time. When the constitution was written, infant damnation was a popular belief.
 
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...

while i totally agree with you obviously there are some out there. I was curious if these people exist anywhere else. I couldnt agree MORE with the bolded part but obviously some dont feel the same so if there were any here i wanted to hear thier logic on what they think the benefits would be because i cant think of any.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I voted "Oppose" rather than "Strongly Oppose" for one reason only; that NO religion should be an official religion, not just Christianity.
Click to expand...

hmm not sure why that would influence your vote but i agree 100%. I only picked Christianity cause it is the majority and it was the subject of the polls and articles that inspired this thread.

but yes my answer for me is the same for all religions.
 
Deuce said:
Which brings up an interesting question:

Where's the line between having your religion inform your politics and writing religious laws?
Click to expand...

not sure you could "define" a line, its way to subjective but the obvious line is where you have no ability to separate the two. That would make for a horrible politician.
For example my religion makes me feel many different ways about things but if i was a politician when it comes to decisions I answer to the constitution/people not my own personal morals.
There are many things in religion that if allowed to leave the religious realm would infringe on many peoples rights and one must be able to realize that and understand it very clearly.

But again? as far as a clear cut line i think thats impossible to define as the opposite is also true, there are things in religion that line up perfectly with peoples rights also.
 
ChuckBerry said:
If the city of Dearborn, Michigan wished to declare Islam its official city religion, I would have no problem with that.
Click to expand...

But most Dearborn Arabs would - the majority of them are Christian, and have acute memory of the sectarian strife in their old countries (Lebanon, primarily). It is in large part our stridently secular system of government that enables people who "should be" at each others' throats live peacefully side by side.
 
Deuce said:
"My book says so" is the only reason to support making that a law.
Click to expand...

If you have been elected to office you can use any excuse you want to use or you can use no excuse at all.

"I feel like that is the best thing." is a sufficient reason for making a law.
"A giant pink mushroom was squeezing my bladder which made me sneeze." is also a sufficient reason for making a law.
"My book says so." is also a sufficient reason for making a law.

There is a stupid notion that exist out there that lawmakers are prohibited from using sources that offends their opponent. This is completely idiotic. Elected officials are elected to make laws. If their laws become foolish or oppressive this can be remedied by the courts or the next election.

You will be sorely disappointed if you expected elected officials to accept your "can'ts" and "not allowed to's". When people are elected they will always act in their best interest. Expect elected officials to act like humans because they are humans. Don't saddle yourself down with ridiculous expectations. Unmet expectations are the only cause of frustration and anger. Avoid the frustration. Quit believing that your political opponents must lose because you don't agree with their source(s) of inspiration.

vasuderatorrent
 
AGENT J said:
not sure you could "define" a line, its way to subjective but the obvious line is where you have no ability to separate the two. That would make for a horrible politician.
For example my religion makes me feel many different ways about things but if i was a politician when it comes to decisions I answer to the constitution/people not my own personal morals.
There are many things in religion that if allowed to leave the religious realm would infringe on many peoples rights and one must be able to realize that and understand it very clearly.

But again? as far as a clear cut line i think thats impossible to define as the opposite is also true, there are things in religion that line up perfectly with peoples rights also.
Click to expand...

Don't think you're absolute when it comes to rights, J. You have no problem infringing on the right to life and don't mind business owners religious rights being infringed if it benefits a group you support more.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
If you have been elected to office you can use any excuse you want to use or you can use no excuse at all.

"I feel like that is the best thing." is a sufficient reason for making a law.
"A giant pink mushroom was squeezing my bladder which made me sneeze." is also a sufficient reason for making a law.
"My book says so." is also a sufficient reason for making a law.

There is a stupid notion that exist out there that lawmakers are prohibited from using sources that offends their opponent. This is completely idiotic. Elected officials are elected to make laws. If their laws become foolish or oppressive this can be remedied by the courts or the next election.

You will be sorely disappointed if you expected elected officials to accept your "can'ts" and "not allowed to's". When people are elected they will always act in their best interest. Expect elected officials to act like humans because they are humans. Don't saddle yourself down with ridiculous expectations. Unmet expectations are the only cause of frustration and anger. Avoid the frustration. Quit believing that your political opponents must lose because you don't agree with their source(s) of inspiration.

vasuderatorrent
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
I 100% support it for several reasons, the chief among those are:

1. It would really PO the secular atheists

2. Official tree and official flower are so last century. It would really class up the place.

3. It would create new work and new jobs for printers of Constitutions.
 
X Factor said:
1.)Don't think you're absolute when it comes to rights, J.
2.)You have no problem infringing on the right to life
3.) don't mind business owners religious rights being infringed if it benefits a group you support more.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Cyrylek said:
But most Dearborn Arabs would - the majority of them are Christian, and have acute memory of the sectarian strife in their old countries (Lebanon, primarily). It is in large part our stridently secular system of government that enables people who "should be" at each others' throats live peacefully side by side.
Click to expand...

...and I advise no religious system of government. The OP question is about official religion, which I likened to state song, and perhaps state bird, etc. A part of cultural identity, not a framework for law in a democracy.
 
Deuce said:
As for disappointment and frustration, I feel like you're projecting a bit. I've been perfectly calm in this thread.
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
There should be no state religion or ideology, none.

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. The opposite holds true for the secular. We shouldn't have any national state ideology or religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom