If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wisconsin Gazette)   Holy cow. Third of Americans support Christianity as official religion   (wisconsingazette.com) divider line 248
    More: Interesting, Americans, Christianity, churches, North Carolina Republicans, school prayer  
•       •       •

4905 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Apr 2013 at 12:28 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



248 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-04-08 11:18:50 AM  
They might as well worship cows. They sure as hell aren't worshipping Christ.
 
2013-04-08 11:18:51 AM  
Meaning 66% of Americans don't... I'm OK with that.
 
2013-04-08 11:24:32 AM  
Which one?
 
2013-04-08 11:29:52 AM  
I don't think they thought their cunning plan through...not that they ever have.
 
2013-04-08 11:31:41 AM  

James!: Which one?


The correct one.
 
2013-04-08 11:38:37 AM  

James!: Which one?


The one that follows the version of the Bible written a short 1600 years after Christ.
 
2013-04-08 11:40:14 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: James!: Which one?

The correct one.


Ah, so snake handling.
 
2013-04-08 11:44:54 AM  
I say this doesn't go far enough.  The pledge of allegence should be replaced with 5 minutes of speaking in tongues.
 
2013-04-08 11:46:14 AM  
And roughly the same number of Americans gave a big-ole "thumbs-up" to our previous administration during the entirety of its term.
 
2013-04-08 11:49:56 AM  

James!: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: James!: Which one?

The correct one.

Ah, so snake handling.


You'd better be handling the right types of snakes, tho', you heathen!
 
2013-04-08 11:50:00 AM  
So 33% of American's think this makes 'merica better than them muslin nations?
 
2013-04-08 11:53:01 AM  
So one-third of Americans don't believe in the 1st amendment.  I bet most of those also vehemently defend the existence of the 2nd amendment.
 
2013-04-08 11:56:39 AM  
Kind of hard to call them "Americans" in that case.
 
2013-04-08 11:57:57 AM  

Diogenes: Kind of hard to call them "Americans" in that case.


But you can call them Republican.
 
2013-04-08 12:01:13 PM  

ThatGuyGreg: Meaning 66% of Americans don't... I'm OK with that.


This.
 
2013-04-08 12:03:17 PM  

ThatGuyGreg: Meaning 66% of Americans don't... I'm OK with that.


66.6%, hilariously appropriate.
 
2013-04-08 12:06:01 PM  

ThatGuyGreg: Meaning 66% of Americans don't... I'm OK with that.


I'm not.  That's offensively low.  I'm sure every one of those morons also spouts shiat about how the Founding Fathers knew everything and wanted us to be a Christian country.

Of course, they can never answer this question: why didn't they?  There was absolutely nothing stopping them from directly declaring that.  They did no such thing and made sure it wasn't possible to.
 
2013-04-08 12:06:53 PM  

SilentStrider: They might as well worship cows. They sure as hell aren't worshipping Christ.


Done in one.
 
2013-04-08 12:07:00 PM  

violentsalvation: ThatGuyGreg: Meaning 66% of Americans don't... I'm OK with that.

66.6%, hilariously appropriate.


Not to spoil the irony, but with single digit precision, it would properly be rounded up to 66.7%
 
2013-04-08 12:07:50 PM  

violentsalvation: ThatGuyGreg: Meaning 66% of Americans don't... I'm OK with that.

66.6%, hilariously appropriate.


What are the odds!
 
2013-04-08 12:09:17 PM  

nekom: violentsalvation: ThatGuyGreg: Meaning 66% of Americans don't... I'm OK with that.

66.6%, hilariously appropriate.

Not to spoil the irony, but with single digit precision, it would properly be rounded up to 66.7%


HEATHEN
 
2013-04-08 12:14:58 PM  
Well, they think what they believe in is christianity, anyway
 
2013-04-08 12:15:17 PM  

Bontesla: nekom: violentsalvation: ThatGuyGreg: Meaning 66% of Americans don't... I'm OK with that.

66.6%, hilariously appropriate.

Not to spoil the irony, but with single digit precision, it would properly be rounded up to 66.7%

HEATHEN


Jebus doesn't like single digit precision.
 
2013-04-08 12:21:36 PM  

MrBallou: Bontesla: nekom: violentsalvation: ThatGuyGreg: Meaning 66% of Americans don't... I'm OK with that.

66.6%, hilariously appropriate.

Not to spoil the irony, but with single digit precision, it would properly be rounded up to 66.7%

HEATHEN

Jebus doesn't like single digit precision.


I understand he was a well rounded individual.
 
2013-04-08 12:25:18 PM  

MrBallou: Bontesla: nekom: violentsalvation: ThatGuyGreg: Meaning 66% of Americans don't... I'm OK with that.

66.6%, hilariously appropriate.

Not to spoil the irony, but with single digit precision, it would properly be rounded up to 66.7%

HEATHEN

Jebus doesn't like single digit precision.


God hates decimals.
 
2013-04-08 12:28:02 PM  
Where's the "Obvious" tag?
 
2013-04-08 12:31:53 PM  
Only a third of Americans?

/in before they cry persecution, I suppose
 
2013-04-08 12:32:04 PM  
It would be hilarious since about 90% of that 33% would be all pissed off if it did happen since the government would choose the "wrong" kind of Christianity according to them.
 
2013-04-08 12:32:20 PM  
I believe in Odhinn and Thor. So that's one who doesn't agree with Christianity.
 
2013-04-08 12:32:29 PM  
Why do a third of Americans hate the Constitution?  Why are they so disrespectful of the Founding Fathers?
 
2013-04-08 12:32:55 PM  

I_Am_Weasel: MrBallou: Bontesla: nekom: violentsalvation: ThatGuyGreg: Meaning 66% of Americans don't... I'm OK with that.

66.6%, hilariously appropriate.

Not to spoil the irony, but with single digit precision, it would properly be rounded up to 66.7%

HEATHEN

Jebus doesn't like single digit precision.

I understand he was a well rounded individual.


Nice.
 
2013-04-08 12:33:26 PM  
Meh; it will never happen. Just like making English the official language won't ever happen or making the foot the official measurement won't ever happen.

/ I still want to know how many leagues are in a Rhode Island
 
2013-04-08 12:33:37 PM  
that's disturbing

i wonder how that would break down by denomination, and if they'd have been cool with a different denomination then theirs as the official?
 
2013-04-08 12:33:50 PM  

MrBallou: Bontesla: nekom: violentsalvation: ThatGuyGreg: Meaning 66% of Americans don't... I'm OK with that.

66.6%, hilariously appropriate.

Not to spoil the irony, but with single digit precision, it would properly be rounded up to 66.7%

HEATHEN

Jebus doesn't like single digit precision.


He didn't get hung up on that kind of detail.
 
2013-04-08 12:34:01 PM  
www.tillhecomes.org
 
2013-04-08 12:34:15 PM  

nekom: violentsalvation: ThatGuyGreg: Meaning 66% of Americans don't... I'm OK with that.

66.6%, hilariously appropriate.

Not to spoil the irony, but with single digit precision, it would properly be rounded up to 66.7%


Not enuf sig figs
 
2013-04-08 12:34:17 PM  
Hey, Take my vote back.
I thought the poll said O-Fecal.
 
2013-04-08 12:34:23 PM  
Why would America need an official religion? How about you worship what you want and leave everyone else the fark alone? Does that work for you?
 
2013-04-08 12:34:38 PM  
i105.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-08 12:34:46 PM  
 Over ma dead body.

hypnozombie
/and they best kill it twice to be damn sure.
 
2013-04-08 12:35:09 PM  
Hey, 18% believe that the sun orbits the earth. Another 18% believe the President is the anti-Christ. IOW, you can get a sizable minority to agree to any idiotic thing that strikes your fancy. Video at 11.
 
2013-04-08 12:35:19 PM  
I'm not a christian and I don't see this as a problem.

We have official trees, birds, songs, pies, etc.  Adding religion is just another one of those things.

Now, someone who gets upset over these trivialities, now those people are the problem.
 
2013-04-08 12:35:38 PM  

Flappyhead: Why do a third of Americans hate the Constitution?  Why are they so disrespectful of the Founding Fathers?


Stupidity, a lack of education, and willful ignorance, I mean we are talking about religious people here.

The real question is, how can christianity be the official religion when Bill O'Reilly told me christianity isn't a religion, it's a philosophy?

http://atheism.about.com/b/2012/12/19/bill-oreilly-christianity-is-n ot -a-religion-its-a-philosophy.htm
 
2013-04-08 12:35:56 PM  
Headline would have been better if we were a heavily Hindu nation. Oh well.
 
2013-04-08 12:36:18 PM  
"The most effectual means of preventing [the perversion of power into tyranny are] to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes." --Thomas Jefferson: Diffusion of Knowledge Bill, 1779. FE 2:221, Papers 2:526

Republican's think their guns will prevent tyranny.......sad that their ignorance is what allows it.
 
2013-04-08 12:36:33 PM  
As long as it's not 50.1% of 2/3rds of the states, we're good.


/Original intent, my ass...
 
2013-04-08 12:36:34 PM  
Which "Christianty" are they talking about? Catholics? Baptists? Jehovah's Witness'? They hate each other. We could be like Northern Ireland only bigger.
 
2013-04-08 12:37:34 PM  
Hey - has anyone mocked the religious yet?
 
2013-04-08 12:38:09 PM  
It's funny that the people who scream the loudest against Sharia Law in the United States would be ok with it with a simple name change, like calling it Jesus Law.
 
2013-04-08 12:39:06 PM  

olddeegee: Which "Christianty" are they talking about? Catholics? Baptists? Jehovah's Witness'? They hate each other. We could be like Northern Ireland only bigger.


We already are, only less bomby and more derpy.
 
2013-04-08 12:39:44 PM  
The Founding Fathers have a significant beef with this idea.
 
2013-04-08 12:39:51 PM  
So farking what?

Which domestic beer sells more than any other beer year after year by a wide margin in the USA?

Bud Light.
 
2013-04-08 12:39:55 PM  

PainInTheASP: And roughly the same number of Americans gave a big-ole "thumbs-up" to our previous administration during the entirety of its term.


Exactly. And 1/3 of Germans would like Hitler back.

There is always one third of your population that is batshiat. No matter what.
 
2013-04-08 12:40:26 PM  

kryhme: I'm not a christian and I don't see this as a problem.

We have official trees, birds, songs, pies, etc.  Adding religion is just another one of those things.


That was my first thought, yeah.  "Official Religion" doesn't mean the same thing as, "A government within the tenets of...."  How it's phrased means a lot.
 
2013-04-08 12:40:31 PM  
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-04-08 12:40:42 PM  

Publikwerks: It's funny that the people who scream the loudest against Sharia Law in the United States would be ok with it with a simple name change, like calling it Jesus Law.


Somehow I doubt that.

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.35By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."  -John 13:34-35

I think Jesus Law woud rather freak them out if they actually "studied it up"
 
2013-04-08 12:41:02 PM  

Publikwerks: It's funny that the people who scream the loudest against Sharia Law in the United States would be ok with it with a simple name change, like calling it Jesus Law.


THIS!!!
 
2013-04-08 12:41:33 PM  

wxboy: So one-third of Americans don't believe in the 1st amendment.  I bet most of those also vehemently defend the existence of the 2nd amendment.


It says that slightly more than a third of U.S. adults favor establishing Christianity as an official religion of their state.  The 1st Amendment only prohibits Congress from establishing a religion.  It was not intended to prevent state establishments.
 
2013-04-08 12:41:36 PM  
When I moved to Canada, I had relatives warn me that Christ could not save me if I left God's country (the US).

I actually called my 90 year old grandma a "stupid farking coont" and don't get any Christmas cards. C'est la vie.

//Canada, though Godless, is nice.
 
2013-04-08 12:41:59 PM  
Holy cow. Third of Americans support Christianity as official religion are homeschooled and obviously learn nothing of the Constitution.

/I personally delight in the anti-intellectualism of the Right.
 
2013-04-08 12:42:02 PM  

Kali-Yuga: The real question is, how can christianity be the official religion when Bill O'Reilly told me christianity isn't a religion, it's a philosophy?


He's Catholic.  A not-unsubstantial part of that particular 33% would also say that disqualifies him as a "True Christian."
 
2013-04-08 12:42:36 PM  

olddeegee: Which "Christianty" are they talking about? Catholics? Baptists? Jehovah's Witness'? They hate each other. We could be like Northern Ireland only bigger.


Yes but only the Catholics and Episcopalians have any real experience as a state religion (maybe Presbyterians, too). Oh and Mormons, if you consider a state to be a state.

Strong probably our friends who polled wanting a state religion would go with Hitler's neutral Protestant Church.

The suspicion is that if the government has a religion, these guys don't feel the need to do any of that religious stuff yourself and the whole weekend is free.
 
2013-04-08 12:42:40 PM  
News Flash... the average American is stoopid as fark.

/NSS
 
2013-04-08 12:43:02 PM  
Apropos of nothing, John Lennon's statement is still correct.
 
2013-04-08 12:43:24 PM  
Sort of want. The blow back would be amazing, and these gluttonous sloths know nothing of true persecution.
 
2013-04-08 12:43:29 PM  

CrazyCracka420: [www.tillhecomes.org image 570x387]


I like the cut of your jib.
 
2013-04-08 12:44:34 PM  

Kali-Yuga: Flappyhead: Why do a third of Americans hate the Constitution?  Why are they so disrespectful of the Founding Fathers?

Stupidity, a lack of education, and willful ignorance, I mean we are talking about religious people here.

The real question is, how can christianity be the official religion when Bill O'Reilly told me christianity isn't a religion, it's a philosophy?

http://atheism.about.com/b/2012/12/19/bill-oreilly-christianity-is-n ot -a-religion-its-a-philosophy.htm


Actually to be fair, most religions do contain a lot of philosophy. Even someone who does not believe that Jesus was the son of god might say that they are a fan of his teachings. Love thy neighbor, let he who is without sin cast the first stone, etc. In some ways, I argue that Buddhism is a philosophy and not a religion. It has no creation myth, which seems to me to be the defining thing between a religion and a philosophy.
 
2013-04-08 12:44:45 PM  
To be fair, you can always find a 1/3 of the populace to support something stupid.
 
2013-04-08 12:44:54 PM  

SkinnyHead: wxboy: So one-third of Americans don't believe in the 1st amendment.  I bet most of those also vehemently defend the existence of the 2nd amendment.

It says that slightly more than a third of U.S. adults favor establishing Christianity as an official religion of their state.  The 1st Amendment only prohibits Congress from establishing a religion.  It was not intended to prevent state establishments.


So, if states can establish a state religion, we could potentially see Jesusland running from the border of Texas in the west to the eastern seaboard south of the Mason-Dixon line.
 
2013-04-08 12:44:55 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Sort of want. The blow back would be amazing, and these gluttonous sloths know nothing of true persecution.


Odhinn demands sacrifices!
 
2013-04-08 12:44:59 PM  
 
2013-04-08 12:45:00 PM  

SkinnyHead: wxboy: So one-third of Americans don't believe in the 1st amendment.  I bet most of those also vehemently defend the existence of the 2nd amendment.

It says that slightly more than a third of U.S. adults favor establishing Christianity as an official religion of their state.  The 1st Amendment only prohibits Congress from establishing a religion.  It was not intended to prevent state establishments.


What's that other one....the 14th maybe? What's that one do?
 
2013-04-08 12:45:20 PM  

violentsalvation: ThatGuyGreg: Meaning 66% of Americans don't... I'm OK with that.

66.6%, hilariously appropriate.


I'll be honest, I was not expecting that.
 
2013-04-08 12:47:31 PM  
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
 
2013-04-08 12:48:56 PM  

Jake Havechek: So farking what?

Which domestic beer sells more than any other beer year after year by a wide margin in the USA?

Bud Light.


FINALLY, someone has the balls to say what's really the cause of all that's wrong with this country.
 
2013-04-08 12:49:29 PM  

Name_Omitted: Publikwerks: It's funny that the people who scream the loudest against Sharia Law in the United States would be ok with it with a simple name change, like calling it Jesus Law.

Somehow I doubt that.

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.35By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."  -John 13:34-35

I think Jesus Law woud rather freak them out if they actually "studied it up"


I wasn't saying change Sharia law. I was saying just re-brand it Jesus' Code. Do a control -h and replace "Muhammad" with "Jesus" and "Allah" with "God".
 
2013-04-08 12:49:49 PM  
Fights to make homosexuality illegal. Check.
Believe women are incapable of making decisions about their own bodies. Check.
Rejects all other religions as false. Check.
Wants religion to be the basis for civil law. Check.

No, I was referring to Muslim Extremists, why would you be thinking "Republicans?"
 
2013-04-08 12:49:53 PM  
Name_Omitted:

Somehow I doubt that.

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.35By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."  -John 13:34-35

I think Jesus Law woud rather freak them out if they actually "studied it up"



But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. (Luke 22:36 )

But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me (Luke 19:27)

Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it. (Matthew 10:34-39)

I have come to cast fire upon the Earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism* to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! 51 Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; 52 for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father* against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. (Luke 12:49-53)
 
2013-04-08 12:50:36 PM  
"...and 19 percent [were] "not sure."

How the hell can you be "not sure" about something like that?  Seriously, 1/5 of the people surveyed can't figure out whether they want a religious state or not??

That's some scary shiat,man....
 
2013-04-08 12:50:47 PM  
Hasten the Rapture!  That way maybe those of us left behind will get a break from this crap.
 
2013-04-08 12:52:23 PM  
www.godsboard.com
 
2013-04-08 12:53:21 PM  

voodoolady: SkinnyHead: wxboy: So one-third of Americans don't believe in the 1st amendment.  I bet most of those also vehemently defend the existence of the 2nd amendment.

It says that slightly more than a third of U.S. adults favor establishing Christianity as an official religion of their state.  The 1st Amendment only prohibits Congress from establishing a religion.  It was not intended to prevent state establishments.

What's that other one....the 14th maybe? What's that one do?


The Due Process Clause of the 14th says that no state may deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.  A state establishment of Christianity would not deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, would it?
 
2013-04-08 12:53:54 PM  
In related news, 1/3 of Americans haven't a clue about their own founding documents.
 
2013-04-08 12:54:03 PM  

nekom: Actually to be fair, most religions do contain a lot of philosophy. Even someone who does not believe that Jesus was the son of god might say that they are a fan of his teachings. Love thy neighbor, let he who is without sin cast the first stone, etc. In some ways, I argue that Buddhism is a philosophy and not a religion. It has no creation myth, which seems to me to be the defining thing between a religion and a philosophy.



Philosophy provides questions that may never be answered, Religion provides answers that may never be questioned.
 
2013-04-08 12:55:33 PM  
That's an awful lot of christians that think christianity shouldn't be the official religion.
 
2013-04-08 12:56:08 PM  

ISO15693: Hey - has anyone mocked the religious yet?


No.

Mocking wanna-be theocrats only looks like "mocking the religious" to the wanna-be theocrats themselves, and they are insane, evil, and stupid, so who cares?
 
2013-04-08 12:57:08 PM  
I would strongly oppose this. I will not live under a theocracy. Muslim or Christian...I would oppose either controlling my government.
 
2013-04-08 12:58:14 PM  
I am a Christian and also among the 33% who think declaring Christianity as the official religion of the U.S. as a terrible idea.

I don't ever want to see one religion "selected by the government" over all others.  That idea frightens me...
 
2013-04-08 12:59:19 PM  
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.

Now piss off.
 
P0e
2013-04-08 12:59:45 PM  
Here's the thing that truly frustrates me about the Christian Right in the united states.  They treat the bible and the constitution with the same disrespect   They'll focus in on one very specific passage and then ignore and reject any other pieces that contradict them.  If the passages on homosexuality really are that bad, so are the ones right next to it that prohibit eating shellfish, shaving, and wearing blended fabrics.  Why aren't they pushing for those things as well?  Yes, people should be able to own guns, but we also have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness.  Gun violence is a violation of those non-amendment rights.
Its so frustrating that they think that they should be allowed to only follow the parts of law/religion that they like.
 
2013-04-08 01:00:32 PM  
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."  Carlin

The number of the beast shall be 6, 6, and 7, rounded to the nearest tenth.
 
2013-04-08 01:00:44 PM  

ModernLuddite: //Canada, though Godless, is nice.


And by "nice" he means frozen 8 months a year. No thanks.
 
2013-04-08 01:00:46 PM  
Simple way to stop that. Tell all the Baptists and Lutherians they have to convert to Catholicism and vice versa and tell the same thing to the Pentacostals and Mormons. The epic head explosions would stop that in a jiffy.
 
2013-04-08 01:00:54 PM  
Never happen. The whole thing will fall apart when christians realize they hate other types of cristians too much.

/Nonsense... those people aren't REAL christians...
 
2013-04-08 01:02:05 PM  

Kali-Yuga: Philosophy provides questions that may never be answered, Religion provides answers that may never be questioned.


It's all good and it's all in fun. Now get in the pit and try to love someone.
 
2013-04-08 01:03:07 PM  

Galileo's Daughter: SkinnyHead: wxboy: So one-third of Americans don't believe in the 1st amendment.  I bet most of those also vehemently defend the existence of the 2nd amendment.

It says that slightly more than a third of U.S. adults favor establishing Christianity as an official religion of their state.  The 1st Amendment only prohibits Congress from establishing a religion.  It was not intended to prevent state establishments.

So, if states can establish a state religion, we could potentially see Jesusland running from the border of Texas in the west to the eastern seaboard south of the Mason-Dixon line.


North Carolina was going to try just that
http://www.wral.com/proposal-supports-state-religion-in-north-caroli na /12296876/

"SECTION 1. The North Carolina General Assembly asserts that the Constitution of the United States of America does not prohibit states or their subsidiaries from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.

SECTION 2. The North Carolina General Assembly does not recognize federal court rulings which prohibit and otherwise regulate the State of North Carolina, its public schools or any political subdivisions of the State from making laws respecting an establishment of religion."

It died though
http://www.wral.com/state-religion-proposal-dies-in-house/12305444/
 
2013-04-08 01:03:29 PM  

ModernLuddite: I actually called my 90 year old grandma a "stupid farking coont" and don't get any Christmas cards. C'est la vie.


Wow - you are a precious little peach aren't ya?
 
2013-04-08 01:03:44 PM  
SkinnyHead:  The 1st Amendment only prohibits Congress from establishing a religion.  It was not intended to prevent state establishments.

Did your GED not cover Article VI?
 
2013-04-08 01:04:16 PM  

SkinnyHead: voodoolady: SkinnyHead: wxboy: So one-third of Americans don't believe in the 1st amendment.  I bet most of those also vehemently defend the existence of the 2nd amendment.

It says that slightly more than a third of U.S. adults favor establishing Christianity as an official religion of their state.  The 1st Amendment only prohibits Congress from establishing a religion.  It was not intended to prevent state establishments.

What's that other one....the 14th maybe? What's that one do?

The Due Process Clause of the 14th says that no state may deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.  A state establishment of Christianity would not deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, would it?


Yes. It makes the Bill of Rights applicable to the States.
 
2013-04-08 01:04:41 PM  

FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 640x325]



I'll let this guy sum it up:

http://youtu.be/8rh6qqsmxNs
 
2013-04-08 01:06:03 PM  

Billy Bathsalt: "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."  Carlin

The number of the beast shall be 6, 6, and 7, rounded to the nearest tenth.


/Shakes fist at Billy Bathsalt. . .
 
2013-04-08 01:06:32 PM  
This is the precisely the same turd of the people that bangs on about the Constitution and then chooses to interpret it to mean the exact opposite of what it was clearly intended to mean and what it clearly says.

Well-regulated militia=Wild, Wild West free-for-all

No law respecting an Establishment of Religion=Obligatory Establishment of the Christian Religion aka Kristian Amerka-ka-ka.

Natural born American=the scion of one or more American citizens, whether born in the USA or abroad, who have lived at least x percent of their life in America before the age of 18=The candidate we like (McCain, born in Panama), but not the candidate we don't like (Obama, born in Hawaii)

And don't for God's sake remind them of the 10th Amendment, the 14th Amendment, etc. They're not quite ready for black people to have the vote. Well, black people and women. Black people, women, gays, liberals, moderates, socialists, social democrats, trade unionists, statists, poor people, non-Christians, atheists, etc. To make a long list short, the vote should belong to the same minority class of landed Whigs and Tories that enjoyed it prior to the Revolution and shortly thereafter.

Government of the People, by the Classes and for the Classes.

They spend their whole political careers trying to prove that the Constitution was a mistake. They very nearly succeed by simply existing.
 
2013-04-08 01:08:47 PM  
Religion is the natural enemy of democracy.

Besides... if government could make/pass laws on religion that would make the head person in charge of dictating and directing religion Obama.

Are you ready to make Obama the American pope. I can't believe that that 1/3 thought this through all the way.
 
2013-04-08 01:09:06 PM  

God's Hubris: Believe women are incapable of making decisions about their own bodies. Check.


This argument/point is far from the truth.

Those who are Pro-life arent against a woman making decisions about her own body.  Pro-lifers believe the unborn baby (fetus) is a living being - and that's who they wish to protect.  Most Pro-lifers would care less if a woman wanted to go out and:

Get tattoos
Get piercings/body modifications
Get cosmetic surgery
Get a hysterectomy
Or anything else for that matter...

...except dont hurt the baby inside of them.
 
2013-04-08 01:09:10 PM  

SkinnyHead: voodoolady: SkinnyHead: wxboy: So one-third of Americans don't believe in the 1st amendment.  I bet most of those also vehemently defend the existence of the 2nd amendment.

It says that slightly more than a third of U.S. adults favor establishing Christianity as an official religion of their state.  The 1st Amendment only prohibits Congress from establishing a religion.  It was not intended to prevent state establishments.

What's that other one....the 14th maybe? What's that one do?

The Due Process Clause of the 14th says that no state may deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.  A state establishment of Christianity would not deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, would it?


You know what's explicitly in the Constitution? The judicial branch, and their responsibility of interpreting it in relation to court cases. The application of the Bill of Rights to the states, particularly the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, has been nailed down as solidly as anything in American law.
 
2013-04-08 01:10:03 PM  

Sticky Hands: It's all good and it's all in fun. Now get in the pit and try to love someone.


Is the bigotry, violence and misogyny that religion has caused on a global scale for the last couple thousand years "all good" and "all in fun"?  Religion is the most divisive and destructive force on the planet.
 
2013-04-08 01:11:14 PM  

Kali-Yuga: Flappyhead: Why do a third of Americans hate the Constitution?  Why are they so disrespectful of the Founding Fathers?

Stupidity, a lack of education, and willful ignorance, I mean we are talking about religious people here.

The real question is, how can christianity be the official religion when Bill O'Reilly told me christianity isn't a religion, it's a philosophy?

http://atheism.about.com/b/2012/12/19/bill-oreilly-christianity-is-n ot -a-religion-its-a-philosophy.htm


LOL, yeah the whole Jesus as a secular philosopher bit damn near gave me a laughter induced hernia years ago.  You'd think an ex altar boy would know better.
 
2013-04-08 01:11:29 PM  

SMB2811: North Carolina was going to try just that
http://www.wral.com/proposal-supports-state-religion-in-north-caroli na /12296876/

"SECTION 1. The North Carolina General Assembly asserts that the Constitution of the United States of America does not prohibit states or their subsidiaries from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.

SECTION 2. The North Carolina General Assembly does not recognize federal court rulings which prohibit and otherwise regulate the State of North Carolina, its public schools or any political subdivisions of the State from making laws respecting an establishment of religion."

It died though
http://www.wral.com/state-religion-proposal-dies-in-house/12305444/


I'm in Georgia, which is pretty much Jesusland already, but that is weapons-grade stupid there.  They planned on ignoring the 1st amendment because they just didn't like it?  Wow.
 
2013-04-08 01:12:02 PM  
I wonder how the pole would change if the language expressed was that the church with the largest number of American adherents would be the Official Church of the US, see census based chart:

Catholic - 68.5 million
Southern Baptist - 16.1 million
Methodist - 7.8 million
Mormons - 6 million
Church of Christ - 5.5 million
National Baptist - 5 million
Lutheran - 4.5 million

So it looks like the US is going Papist!
 
2013-04-08 01:12:30 PM  
So 33% of Americans enjoy the thought of wiping their ass with the Constitution of the United States, then?

Gee. I wonder if this was a Freedom of Speech or Second Amendment issue, how many posters would be frothing at the mouth to come after it.

Or, for that matter, how many would be frothing at the mouth if we were talking renewing prohibition!
 
2013-04-08 01:15:16 PM  

ModernLuddite: When I moved to Canada, I had relatives warn me that Christ could not save me if I left God's country (the US).

I actually called my 90 year old grandma a "stupid farking coont" and don't get any Christmas cards. C'est la vie.

//Canada, though Godless, is nice.


The scene that played in my head was of you as Tourettes Guy talking to her on the phone about religion.
 
2013-04-08 01:16:38 PM  

Kali-Yuga: Religion is the most divisive and destructive force on the planet.


Followed up by which BBQ is better, Soda vs Pop, and the great toilet paper hanging debate.

Just being silly, I do agree 100% with that statement
 
2013-04-08 01:17:38 PM  
You know, the Puritans came to the New World specifically to get away from their religion-run country.
 
2013-04-08 01:19:18 PM  

areeves79: Kali-Yuga: Religion is the most divisive and destructive force on the planet.

Followed up by which BBQ is better, Soda vs Pop, and the great toilet paper hanging debate.

Just being silly, I do agree 100% with that statement


Don't forget pizza toppings. Even the Buddy Bears who always get along couldn't agree what toppings they wanted on their pizza.
 
2013-04-08 01:20:24 PM  

madgonad: I wonder how the pole would change if the language expressed was that the church with the largest number of American adherents would be the Official Church of the US, see census based chart:

Catholic - 68.5 million
Southern Baptist - 16.1 million
Methodist - 7.8 million
Mormons - 6 million
Church of Christ - 5.5 million
National Baptist - 5 million
Lutheran - 4.5 million

So it looks like the US is going Papist!


If government can establish religion. They control religion.

As head of state. Obama is our pope.
 
2013-04-08 01:22:58 PM  

SquiggsIN: madgonad: I wonder how the pole would change if the language expressed was that the church with the largest number of American adherents would be the Official Church of the US, see census based chart:

Catholic - 68.5 million
Southern Baptist - 16.1 million
Methodist - 7.8 million
Mormons - 6 million
Church of Christ - 5.5 million
National Baptist - 5 million
Lutheran - 4.5 million

So it looks like the US is going Papist!

but we all know that there's a huge difference between average Catholic and "American Catholic" ... granted there are the papacy-toe-the-liners but, all of us know a lot of Catholics who consider the Pope to be more of a cute figurehead than a literal representative of their god on earth.  Are there more 'strict' Catholics in this country or more Catholics who think the churches stance on gender/sexuality, birth control, papal infallibility, etc.  is outdated at best and idiotic at worst?


The is variation across the adherents of all religions. My point is that you can't make 'Christianity' the official state religion because there is too much variation. Even declaring Protestantism the state religion would span everything from liberal Presbyterians to conservative Baptists to whatever Mormons currently are. Other nations that have an official religion identify a specific church. Sweden's official state religion is Lutheranism. Money from the government actually goes to the church. If we are going to choose a state religion based upon the dominant church in the US it would have to be Catholicism. I'm sure that people that were all for it in this poll (I spelled it right this time) would be changing their mind once they knew this.
 
2013-04-08 01:23:38 PM  
This country was never founded as a Christian nation.  Rather, it was founded on the judeo-christian philosophy.  Key elements of that were the supremacy of the rule of law, the equality of citizens before the law, and individual property rights for persons of any class.  Given that those were terribly radical ideas in that day, they weren't perfectly executed.  Slavery still existed.  Women had not achieved equality (although they were better treated under Judaism than many other societies of the day.  But the Jews understood that laws subject to the caprices of rulers would inevitably lead to tyranny.

The philosophical basis of Christianity is noble and worth pursuing.  But the founding fathers were acutely aware of the dangers of establishing any particular religion as the official religion.  Since the Reformation, Europe had been torn apart by religious schisms.  So they wisely chose to adopt the philosophy without being constrained by the religion.

It would be a mistake to change their vision.
 
2013-04-08 01:23:57 PM  
Having a set of values in common means that society, not an increasingly militarized police force, enforces good behavior.

Civilization: try it!
 
2013-04-08 01:25:29 PM  

mbillips: You know what's explicitly in the Constitution? The judicial branch, and their responsibility of interpreting it in relation to court cases. The application of the Bill of Rights to the states, particularly the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, has been nailed down as solidly as anything in American law.


So in other words, the prohibition against a state establishment of religion is not specifically found in the constitution, it is something that has been invented by the judicial branch.  So the 1/3 of Americans who would support a state establishment are not going against the constitution itself, they are going against what they see as a misinterpretation of the constitution by the judicial branch.
 
2013-04-08 01:28:09 PM  
The poll found 16 percent opposed, 31 percent strongly opposed and 19 percent "not sure."

There's that damn 47% again!  Why do these people hate Jesusmerica??
 
2013-04-08 01:28:16 PM  

SkinnyHead: mbillips: You know what's explicitly in the Constitution? The judicial branch, and their responsibility of interpreting it in relation to court cases. The application of the Bill of Rights to the states, particularly the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, has been nailed down as solidly as anything in American law.

So in other words, the prohibition against a state establishment of religion is not specifically found in the constitution, it is something that has been invented by the judicial branch.  So the 1/3 of Americans who would support a state establishment are not going against the constitution itself, they are going against what they see as a misinterpretation of the constitution by the judicial branch.


No. It is in the Constitution. It's in the 14th Amendment.

Additionally, you kind of go into some sort of self-defeating logic because the Constitution gives the judicial branch the power to interpret laws. That you or I disagree with their interpretation doesn't make it unconstitutional.
 
2013-04-08 01:29:50 PM  

ISO15693: Hey - has anyone mocked the religious yet?


Why? It's like mocking the retarded...not very nice.
 
2013-04-08 01:31:00 PM  

SkinnyHead: mbillips: You know what's explicitly in the Constitution? The judicial branch, and their responsibility of interpreting it in relation to court cases. The application of the Bill of Rights to the states, particularly the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, has been nailed down as solidly as anything in American law.

So in other words, the prohibition against a state establishment of religion is not specifically found in the constitution, it is something that has been invented by the judicial branch.  So the 1/3 of Americans who would support a state establishment are not going against the constitution itself, they are going against what they see as a misinterpretation of the constitution by the judicial branch.


Damn, elchip, that was so derpy that it took me full circle and got rid of the headache I got from a different thread!  Thanks, man!
 
2013-04-08 01:31:18 PM  

SkinnyHead: mbillips: You know what's explicitly in the Constitution? The judicial branch, and their responsibility of interpreting it in relation to court cases. The application of the Bill of Rights to the states, particularly the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, has been nailed down as solidly as anything in American law.

So in other words, the prohibition against a state establishment of religion is not specifically found in the constitution, it is something that has been invented by the judicial branch.  So the 1/3 of Americans who would support a state establishment are not going against the constitution itself, they are going against what they see as a misinterpretation of the constitution by the judicial branch.


Many, many things you enjoy and take for granted are "not specifically in the constitution". Would you be so quick to give them up if it meant making Christianity the national religion by ignoring everything the judicial branch has set into law? Why do you want a national religion, anyway? You're not being oppressed, you're not being persecuted, you can worship perfectly fine without forcing it on the entire country.
 
2013-04-08 01:32:03 PM  
Suck it, you atheist Europeans.  Brace yourselves for when the Muzzies own your land.
 
2013-04-08 01:32:19 PM  

Mr. Right: This country was never founded as a Christian nation.  Rather, it was founded on the judeo-christian philosophy.  Key elements of that were the supremacy of the rule of law, the equality of citizens before the law, and individual property rights for persons of any class.



No it was founded on the Enlightenment philosophy of men like Locke, Montesquieu, Rosseau  and others. Only one of the founding fathers can be considered a christian, John Jay.  Jefferson and the rest were deists and no fans of christianity. In no sense whatsoever was this country founded as or based on any christian ideas.

"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it."
-Thomas Jefferson , letter to Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814-
 
2013-04-08 01:32:29 PM  

SkinnyHead: mbillips: You know what's explicitly in the Constitution? The judicial branch, and their responsibility of interpreting it in relation to court cases. The application of the Bill of Rights to the states, particularly the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, has been nailed down as solidly as anything in American law.

So in other words, the prohibition against a state establishment of religion is not specifically found in the constitution, it is something that has been invented by the judicial branch.  So the 1/3 of Americans who would support a state establishment are not going against the constitution itself, they are going against what they see as a misinterpretation of the constitution by the judicial branch.


They are also idiots that think this will put them in a position to dictate to others, as opposed to giving me the authority to dictate to them.
 
2013-04-08 01:34:01 PM  

Mr. Right: This country was never founded as a Christian nation.  Rather, it was founded on the judeo-christian philosophy.  Key elements of that were the supremacy of the rule of law, the equality of citizens before the law, and individual property rights for persons of any class.  Given that those were terribly radical ideas in that day, they weren't perfectly executed.  Slavery still existed.  Women had not achieved equality (although they were better treated under Judaism than many other societies of the day.  But the Jews understood that laws subject to the caprices of rulers would inevitably lead to tyranny.

The philosophical basis of Christianity is noble and worth pursuing.  But the founding fathers were acutely aware of the dangers of establishing any particular religion as the official religion.  Since the Reformation, Europe had been torn apart by religious schisms.  So they wisely chose to adopt the philosophy without being constrained by the religion.

It would be a mistake to change their vision.


The US wasn't founded on Judeo-anything. The Founding Fathers were a mix of scholars, deists, and men of great faith. They all brought something to the party. Washington, Franklin and Jefferson were obvious Deists. Hell, Jefferson edited Jesus and miracles out of the Bible! There weren't any JEWS to be found. In fact, many of the Founders would be considered anti-Semitic based upon their positions and interactions with European financial structures that were heavily Jewish. The term Judeo-Christian came into use AFTER WW2 and the Holocaust.
 
2013-04-08 01:35:52 PM  
Line forms to the left
education-portal.com
 
2013-04-08 01:39:57 PM  
The poll, conducted April 3-4 and surveying 1,000 people

I'd like to know how many of those 1000 people identify themselves as Christian.
 
2013-04-08 01:43:04 PM  

voodoolady: SkinnyHead: mbillips: You know what's explicitly in the Constitution? The judicial branch, and their responsibility of interpreting it in relation to court cases. The application of the Bill of Rights to the states, particularly the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, has been nailed down as solidly as anything in American law.

So in other words, the prohibition against a state establishment of religion is not specifically found in the constitution, it is something that has been invented by the judicial branch.  So the 1/3 of Americans who would support a state establishment are not going against the constitution itself, they are going against what they see as a misinterpretation of the constitution by the judicial branch.

No. It is in the Constitution. It's in the 14th Amendment.

Additionally, you kind of go into some sort of self-defeating logic because the Constitution gives the judicial branch the power to interpret laws. That you or I disagree with their interpretation doesn't make it unconstitutional.


But people are free to point out where they think that Supreme Court was wrong.  There is nothing in the 14th that says that states cannot establish a religion.  The purpose of the Establishment Clause was to protect existing state establishments.  It is illogical to say that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Establishment Clause so as to prohibit state establishments when the purpose of the Establishment Clause was to protect state establishments.
 
2013-04-08 01:43:16 PM  

madgonad: So it looks like the US is going Papist!


Just the hipsters.
/Papist Blue Ribbon
 
2013-04-08 01:44:03 PM  
Just TRY forcing me into a church and praying to Republican Jeebus! I'll be muttering verses from the Necronomicon under my breath.
 
2013-04-08 01:45:16 PM  





 
2013-04-08 01:45:32 PM  

voodoolady: SkinnyHead: mbillips: You know what's explicitly in the Constitution? The judicial branch, and their responsibility of interpreting it in relation to court cases. The application of the Bill of Rights to the states, particularly the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, has been nailed down as solidly as anything in American law.

So in other words, the prohibition against a state establishment of religion is not specifically found in the constitution, it is something that has been invented by the judicial branch.  So the 1/3 of Americans who would support a state establishment are not going against the constitution itself, they are going against what they see as a misinterpretation of the constitution by the judicial branch.

No. It is in the Constitution. It's in the 14th Amendment.

Additionally, you kind of go into some sort of self-defeating logic because the Constitution gives the judicial branch the power to interpret laws. That you or I disagree with their interpretation doesn't make it unconstitutional.


Constitutionality aside, it's a God-damn bad idea.

Can't you just picture the Baptists and Methodists going at it like the shiates and Sunnis?
 
2013-04-08 01:45:56 PM  

cwheelie: Line forms to the left
[education-portal.com image 450x385]


Yes, yes it does:
 
2013-04-08 01:46:49 PM  

MrBallou: shiates


Filter pwned: shiates.
 
2013-04-08 01:47:24 PM  
So "christianity" is something that can be an official religion?

I would actually love to see this happen just to see these dumb shiats get pissed off when it winds up not being their brand of Christianity that becomes official. Oh, sorry Methodists and baptists your churches are now banned, only Lutheranism is allowed now.
 
2013-04-08 01:48:20 PM  

MrBallou: MrBallou: shiates

Filter pwned: shiates.


Criminy. How do you say "people who follow the Shia Branch of Islam"?
 
2013-04-08 01:49:50 PM  
I want all you Atheist, Muslim, Jew and whatever else.

I will die on the end of my brothers bayonet before I let this happen.
 
2013-04-08 01:52:11 PM  

SkinnyHead: voodoolady: SkinnyHead: mbillips: You know what's explicitly in the Constitution? The judicial branch, and their responsibility of interpreting it in relation to court cases. The application of the Bill of Rights to the states, particularly the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, has been nailed down as solidly as anything in American law.

So in other words, the prohibition against a state establishment of religion is not specifically found in the constitution, it is something that has been invented by the judicial branch.  So the 1/3 of Americans who would support a state establishment are not going against the constitution itself, they are going against what they see as a misinterpretation of the constitution by the judicial branch.

No. It is in the Constitution. It's in the 14th Amendment.

Additionally, you kind of go into some sort of self-defeating logic because the Constitution gives the judicial branch the power to interpret laws. That you or I disagree with their interpretation doesn't make it unconstitutional.

But people are free to point out where they think that Supreme Court was wrong.  There is nothing in the 14th that says that states cannot establish a religion.  The purpose of the Establishment Clause was to protect existing state establishments.  It is illogical to say that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Establishment Clause so as to prohibit state establishments when the purpose of the Establishment Clause was to protect state establishments.


Absolutely we can point out where we think the court is wrong. I think Kelo v. New London was decided incorrectly, for example. But there might be a difference between thinking one case being decided incorrectly and thinking that 100 years of precedent is unconstitutional. And establishing a state religion deprives a person of liberty.
 
2013-04-08 01:55:32 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Just TRY forcing me into a church and praying to Republican Jeebus! I'll be muttering verses from the Necronomicon under my breath.


Why under your breath?
 
2013-04-08 01:55:45 PM  
If this surprises you...you've never visited the right wing blogosphere.
 
2013-04-08 01:56:19 PM  
On the bright side, "On a related question, 58 percent of those surveyed said the constitution probably prohibits establishing an official state religion."
 
2013-04-08 01:58:57 PM  

nekom: Kali-Yuga: Flappyhead: Why do a third of Americans hate the Constitution?  Why are they so disrespectful of the Founding Fathers?

Stupidity, a lack of education, and willful ignorance, I mean we are talking about religious people here.

The real question is, how can christianity be the official religion when Bill O'Reilly told me christianity isn't a religion, it's a philosophy?

http://atheism.about.com/b/2012/12/19/bill-oreilly-christianity-is-n ot -a-religion-its-a-philosophy.htm

Actually to be fair, most religions do contain a lot of philosophy. Even someone who does not believe that Jesus was the son of god might say that they are a fan of his teachings. Love thy neighbor, let he who is without sin cast the first stone, etc. In some ways, I argue that Buddhism is a philosophy and not a religion. It has no creation myth, which seems to me to be the defining thing between a religion and a philosophy.


Religion is a learned behavior and a lifestyle choice.
/sometimes, it's just plain ol' mental illness.
 
2013-04-08 02:01:01 PM  

SkinnyHead: voodoolady: SkinnyHead: mbillips: You know what's explicitly in the Constitution? The judicial branch, and their responsibility of interpreting it in relation to court cases. The application of the Bill of Rights to the states, particularly the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, has been nailed down as solidly as anything in American law.

So in other words, the prohibition against a state establishment of religion is not specifically found in the constitution, it is something that has been invented by the judicial branch.  So the 1/3 of Americans who would support a state establishment are not going against the constitution itself, they are going against what they see as a misinterpretation of the constitution by the judicial branch.

No. It is in the Constitution. It's in the 14th Amendment.

Additionally, you kind of go into some sort of self-defeating logic because the Constitution gives the judicial branch the power to interpret laws. That you or I disagree with their interpretation doesn't make it unconstitutional.

But people are free to point out where they think that Supreme Court was wrong.  There is nothing in the 14th that says that states cannot establish a religion.  The purpose of the Establishment Clause was to protect existing state establishments.  It is illogical to say that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Establishment Clause so as to prohibit state establishments when the purpose of the Establishment Clause was to protect state establishments.


Even if it were not strictly constitutional, that doesn't mean it's not pants on head retarded.
 
2013-04-08 02:02:55 PM  

FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 640x325]


Hahahaha...came to post the same thing!

/stupid people be stupid
///stupid people also tend to be poor
////poor, stupid people cause most of our problems
//rich, psycho's cause the rest
 
2013-04-08 02:04:09 PM  

SkinnyHead: The purpose of the Establishment Clause was to protect existing state establishments.  It is illogical to say that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Establishment Clause so as to prohibit state establishments when the purpose of the Establishment Clause was to protect state establishments.


Were there any existing state establishments left when the 14th went into effect?
 
2013-04-08 02:04:40 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Many, many things you enjoy and take for granted are "not specifically in the constitution". Would you be so quick to give them up if it meant making Christianity the national religion by ignoring everything the judicial branch has set into law? Why do you want a national religion, anyway? You're not being oppressed, you're not being persecuted, you can worship perfectly fine without forcing it on the entire country.


I don't want a national religion. That's prohibited by the 1st Amendment.  1/3 of Americans said they support a state establishment.  State establishments are not prohibited by the 1st Amendment.  The 14th Amendment incorporates individual rights, like free exercise of religion.  The Establishment Clause, which was designed to protect state establishments, is not an individual right.  That's why it makes no sense to incorporate the Establishment Clause.  A state establishment still could not force anyone to worship, because that would violate an individual's right of free exercise of religion.
 
2013-04-08 02:06:52 PM  

ThatGuyGreg: Meaning 66% of Americans don't... I'm OK with that.


This. America doesn't have an "official religion" for a friggin' reason - that whole "freedom" concept.

nocturnal001: Even if it were not strictly constitutional, that doesn't mean it's not pants on head retarded.


And, this, basically.
 
2013-04-08 02:10:07 PM  
no worries heathens.. as the Latino population continues to grow and represents an ever increasing percentage of the overall population, Christianity will remain the dominant religion in these United States for many more millenia.
 
2013-04-08 02:10:49 PM  
Sweet.  Then let's do something crazy, like elect a Mormon to president and force everyone to convert to Mormonism.
 
2013-04-08 02:15:28 PM  

ThatGuyGreg: Meaning 66% of Americans don't... I'm OK with that.


I don't care if 99.99% are for it.  The Bill of Rights makes it damned clear that This Is Not Something That Any Power Of Government Can be Used To Do.  It is Off Limits.  It is stated this way so that no majority, no matter how populous, can use the lethal power of government to impose on a minority.

It cannot be done under the present form of government without going through the amendment process, or outright declaring that we're done with this Constitution thing and we're just making up as we go along.

It cannot be done any more than it is possible to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms, or compel someone to testify against themselves, or to conduct searches without probable cause, or deprive people of property without due process of law, or deny a speedy trial, or... or...

Huh.

I guess the revolution won't start until troops are being quartered in your homes in peacetime, because apparently we're waiting for a full ten out of ten before we declare the federal government to be in rebellion against the nation.  Nine out of ten, and we eat chips and watch TV.
 
2013-04-08 02:15:30 PM  

SkinnyHead: Keizer_Ghidorah: Many, many things you enjoy and take for granted are "not specifically in the constitution". Would you be so quick to give them up if it meant making Christianity the national religion by ignoring everything the judicial branch has set into law? Why do you want a national religion, anyway? You're not being oppressed, you're not being persecuted, you can worship perfectly fine without forcing it on the entire country.

I don't want a national religion. That's prohibited by the 1st Amendment.  1/3 of Americans said they support a state establishment.  State establishments are not prohibited by the 1st Amendment.  The 14th Amendment incorporates individual rights, like free exercise of religion.  The Establishment Clause, which was designed to protect state establishments, is not an individual right.  That's why it makes no sense to incorporate the Establishment Clause.  A state establishment still could not force anyone to worship, because that would violate an individual's right of free exercise of religion.


Think you misunderstand state religion. "State", especially in this case, means national.

Yes, I know the US is made up of 50 states but that is actually a bit of a misnomer from when they were seen as independent sovereign areas. That ended when the States became federally joined.
 
2013-04-08 02:17:36 PM  

Kali-Yuga: No it was founded on the Enlightenment philosophy of men like Locke, Montesquieu, Rosseau and others. Only one of the founding fathers can be considered a christian, John Jay. Jefferson and the rest were deists and no fans of christianity. In no sense whatsoever was this country founded as or based on any christian ideas.


madgonad: The US wasn't founded on Judeo-anything. The Founding Fathers were a mix of scholars, deists, and men of great faith. They all brought something to the party. Washington, Franklin and Jefferson were obvious Deists. Hell, Jefferson edited Jesus and miracles out of the Bible! There weren't any JEWS to be found. In fact, many of the Founders would be considered anti-Semitic based upon their positions and interactions with European financial structures that were heavily Jewish. The term Judeo-Christian came into use AFTER WW2 and the Holocaust.


You're going to have to define founding fathers.  At least four of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were full time Christian Ministers.  Amongst other signers, a bunch were Episcopalians, several were Presbyterians, Baptists, and Quakers. All Christian religions, last I checked.   Many of these same men were at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and the religious affiliations of that body were quite similar to the signers.

And, while the term Judeo-Christian had not yet been minted, the philosophy had certainly been established, regardless of what it was called.  There is a reason that the 10 Commandments are enshrined in the Supreme Court - they are a substantial basis of American Law.

All those men of the Enlightenment whose philosophy the founders adopted?  Locke was a baptized member of the Church of England, Montesquieu was a Catholic (although not devout), and Rousseau was a Calvinist.  Try as you may, you cannot deny the influence of Biblical philosophy on the founding of this country.  God's existence is a subject of debate.  The existence of what could be referred to as God's Laws is beyond dispute.  It is that philosophy that influenced our founding.  Not the religion.
 
2013-04-08 02:19:06 PM  

joeflood: Sweet.  Then let's do something crazy, like elect a Mormon to president and force everyone to convert to Mormonism.


I for one, welcome our magical underpants wearing overlords.


Although for my money, nothing beats scientology crazy.  That would really screw with foreign nations.
 
2013-04-08 02:23:08 PM  

voodoolady: Absolutely we can point out where we think the court is wrong. I think Kelo v. New London was decided incorrectly, for example. But there might be a difference between thinking one case being decided incorrectly and thinking that 100 years of precedent is unconstitutional. And establishing a state religion deprives a person of liberty.


That's questionable.  As long as everyone has the right of free exercise, a state establishment cannot compel anyone to believe or worship.  A person who sees a cross on a state building has not been deprived of liberty.
 
2013-04-08 02:23:16 PM  

SkinnyHead: Keizer_Ghidorah: Many, many things you enjoy and take for granted are "not specifically in the constitution". Would you be so quick to give them up if it meant making Christianity the national religion by ignoring everything the judicial branch has set into law? Why do you want a national religion, anyway? You're not being oppressed, you're not being persecuted, you can worship perfectly fine without forcing it on the entire country.

I don't want a national religion. That's prohibited by the 1st Amendment.  1/3 of Americans said they support a state establishment.  State establishments are not prohibited by the 1st Amendment.  The 14th Amendment incorporates individual rights, like free exercise of religion.  The Establishment Clause, which was designed to protect state establishments, is not an individual right.  That's why it makes no sense to incorporate the Establishment Clause.  A state establishment still could not force anyone to worship, because that would violate an individual's right of free exercise of religion.


You're right about the 1st Amendment not preventing a State from establishing a state religion, and I think a lot of people miss/don't realize that. Nonetheless, the 14th Amendment does. It just sounds to me that you disagree with the Court's interpretation that a state religion would effect a person's liberty or subject them to different treatment. But like you said, we are allowed to disagree with the Court. I disagree with some of the Court's rulings that the first clauses of amendments don't have meaning, but, just to repeat myself, that doesn't make their interpretation unconstitutional.
 
2013-04-08 02:24:30 PM  

SkinnyHead: voodoolady: Absolutely we can point out where we think the court is wrong. I think Kelo v. New London was decided incorrectly, for example. But there might be a difference between thinking one case being decided incorrectly and thinking that 100 years of precedent is unconstitutional. And establishing a state religion deprives a person of liberty.

That's questionable.

..

To you apparently. But it's pretty much accepted by everyone else.
 
2013-04-08 02:26:25 PM  

pciszek: Were there any existing state establishments left when the 14th went into effect?


I don't think so.
 
2013-04-08 02:26:54 PM  
Our law is most certainly not based on 10 commandments.

I am the LORD thy God: nope... nothing in law stating that.

Thou shalt have no other gods: nope unconstitutional

No graven images or likenesses: nope unconstitutional

Not take the LORD's name in vain: free speach

Remember the sabbath day: nothing in law about that.

Honour thy father and thy mother: nothing in law about that.

Thou shalt not kill: ooh finally... although this is a pan-region law. Plus we do have executions.

Thou shalt not commit adultery: nope... not in law.

Thou shalt not steal: universal mankind religion.

Thou shalt not bear false witness: not usually a law except to authorities.

Thou shalt not covet: nope not a law. Goes against the American dream.


So out of 10 commandments... more are unconstitutional than are applied. How the hell can anyone say our laws are based on 10 commandments.
 
2013-04-08 02:28:09 PM  

CleanAndPure: Our law is most certainly not based on 10 commandments.

I am the LORD thy God: nope... nothing in law stating that.

Thou shalt have no other gods: nope unconstitutional

No graven images or likenesses: nope unconstitutional

Not take the LORD's name in vain: free speach

Remember the sabbath day: nothing in law about that.

Honour thy father and thy mother: nothing in law about that.

Thou shalt not kill: ooh finally... although this is a pan-region law. Plus we do have executions.

Thou shalt not commit adultery: nope... not in law.

Thou shalt not steal: universal mankind religion.

Thou shalt not bear false witness: not usually a law except to authorities.

Thou shalt not covet: nope not a law. Goes against the American dream.


So out of 10 commandments... more are unconstitutional than are applied. How the hell can anyone say our laws are based on 10 commandments.


In Maryland, adultery is a crime.
 
2013-04-08 02:28:22 PM  

SkinnyHead: Keizer_Ghidorah: Many, many things you enjoy and take for granted are "not specifically in the constitution". Would you be so quick to give them up if it meant making Christianity the national religion by ignoring everything the judicial branch has set into law? Why do you want a national religion, anyway? You're not being oppressed, you're not being persecuted, you can worship perfectly fine without forcing it on the entire country.

I don't want a national religion. That's prohibited by the 1st Amendment.  1/3 of Americans said they support a state establishment.  State establishments are not prohibited by the 1st Amendment.  The 14th Amendment incorporates individual rights, like free exercise of religion.  The Establishment Clause, which was designed to protect state establishments, is not an individual right.  That's why it makes no sense to incorporate the Establishment Clause.  A state establishment still could not force anyone to worship, because that would violate an individual's right of free exercise of religion.


It would still make one religion sovereign over all others, something that this country was NOT intended to do.
 
2013-04-08 02:36:52 PM  
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-04-08 02:41:21 PM  
i246.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-08 02:42:09 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Just TRY forcing me into a church and praying to Republican Jeebus! I'll be muttering verses from the Necronomicon under my breath.


Klaatu Barada Necktie
 
2013-04-08 02:42:36 PM  

voodoolady: You're right about the 1st Amendment not preventing a State from establishing a state religion, and I think a lot of people miss/don't realize that. Nonetheless, the 14th Amendment does. It just sounds to me that you disagree with the Court's interpretation that a state religion would effect a person's liberty or subject them to different treatment. But like you said, we are allowed to disagree with the Court. I disagree with some of the Court's rulings that the first clauses of amendments don't have meaning, but, just to repeat myself, that doesn't make their interpretation unconstitutional.


I realize we are bound by what the Supreme Court says.  But there is argument to be made that it makes no sense to incorporate the Establishment Clause.  At least one Supreme Court Justice thinks so, anyway.
 
2013-04-08 02:44:20 PM  
If no rights are infringed by establishing a state religion, what exactly is the point of establishing a state religion?
 
2013-04-08 02:45:35 PM  
The purpose of the Establishment Clause was to protect existing state establishments.

i935.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-08 02:46:35 PM  

CleanAndPure: So out of 10 commandments... more are unconstitutional than are applied. How the hell can anyone say our laws are based on 10 commandments.


Because people are f*cking uneducated fools.  We live in a nation where one of the major political parties mocks science and considers education elitist.  They also happen to be the pro-religion party.

And "dumb" and "religious" are the primary attributes of their voting bloc.
 
2013-04-08 02:50:24 PM  
Surprised it's that low. I live in the northeast and I know people who want a theocracy.
 
2013-04-08 03:07:05 PM  
I live in the UK, where we have an official state religion (Anglicanism). Our bishops are apportioned seats in the House of Lords (equivalent to your Senate).  Conversely, our government gets to pick who will be bishops in our church.  Our head of state, Elizabeth II, is also the high priestess of our official state religion.

It's great.  I love living in a theocracy.  I know that whatever happens, I won't have to suffer the shame and indignity of knowing that my head of state is a catholic. I feel sorry for you yanks that don't appreciate how wonderful it is.
 
2013-04-08 03:12:44 PM  
I'm sure it's been said already, but the actual take-away from this is that 33% of people living in the United States of America aren't members of it's social contract apparently.
 
2013-04-08 03:22:45 PM  

CleanAndPure: Remember the sabbath day: nothing in law about that.


I take it you have never lived in Massachusetts.  Fortunately, the fines haven't been updated to reflect inflation, and some businesses are willing to pay them.

Thou shalt not kill: ooh finally... although this is a pan-region law. Plus we do have executions.

...of which "Christians" are the biggest supports.

Thou shalt not commit adultery: nope... not in law.

Still a law in some places.  Rarely enforced.
 
2013-04-08 03:23:26 PM  
Remember when we had an official religion in the US? Good times.

aislingrunswithunicorns.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-04-08 03:33:52 PM  

Overfiend: God's Hubris: Believe women are incapable of making decisions about their own bodies. Check.

This argument/point is far from the truth.

Those who are Pro-life arent against a woman making decisions about her own body.  Pro-lifers believe the unborn baby (fetus) is a living being - and that's who they wish to protect.  Most Pro-lifers would care less if a woman wanted to go out and:

Get tattoos
Get piercings/body modifications
Get cosmetic surgery
Get a hysterectomy
Or anything else for that matter...

...except dont hurt the baby inside of them.


What is the intersection between these "Pro-lifers" and those that are opposed to a woman learning about / receiving birth control? I could respect the "protect the baby" argument if it didn't so often look more like medieval slut-shaming.
 
2013-04-08 03:40:22 PM  
"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." (Mark 12:17)

Even Jesus wants separation of church and state.
 
2013-04-08 03:44:50 PM  

madgonad: I wonder how the pole would change if the language expressed was that the church with the largest number of American adherents would be the Official Church of the US, see census based chart:

Catholic - 68.5 million
Southern Baptist - 16.1 million
Methodist - 7.8 million
Mormons - 6 million
Church of Christ - 5.5 million
National Baptist - 5 million
Lutheran - 4.5 million

So it looks like the US is going Papist!


40-60 million agnostics, atheists or 'no religious affiliation'.
5-6 million Jews
Another 5 million Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus.

Yeah, this ain't gonna fly.
 
2013-04-08 03:50:20 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-08 03:53:55 PM  

HazMatt: Overfiend: God's Hubris: Believe women are incapable of making decisions about their own bodies. Check.

This argument/point is far from the truth.

Those who are Pro-life arent against a woman making decisions about her own body.  Pro-lifers believe the unborn baby (fetus) is a living being - and that's who they wish to protect.  Most Pro-lifers would care less if a woman wanted to go out and:

Get tattoos
Get piercings/body modifications
Get cosmetic surgery
Get a hysterectomy
Or anything else for that matter...

...except dont hurt the baby inside of them.

What is the intersection between these "Pro-lifers" and those that are opposed to a woman learning about / receiving birth control? I could respect the "protect the baby" argument if it didn't so often look more like medieval slut-shaming.


I agree - many people who claim to be Pro-life are so against contraception (when that could prevent pregnancy, thereby no need for an abortion) it makes no sense.

Many Pro-lifers are also rabid Death Penalty proponents - which, again, makes no sense...
 
2013-04-08 04:00:14 PM  
"You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.' "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. "If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. "Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. "Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you." - Matthew 5:38-42

How can you have 'Christian Nation' and follow the teachings of Christ? The first jack hole who came in could take whatever they wanted and you are prohibited from stopping him (in fact it are asked to give more than demanded of you) by the teachings of your Savior.

These people are clueless hypocrites (like most "Christians") who don't follow what the guy actually said, but rather a dogma they pieced together from the parts they wish to abide by (persecuting gays for example).
 
2013-04-08 04:17:26 PM  
They'll never agree on denomination...

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.
 
2013-04-08 04:22:10 PM  
So 33% want to defer responsibility for their actions and put faith in a patchwork of outright inventions and a zombie Jewish messiah to get them off the ethical hook and rationalize their narcissistic tendencies?

I expected it to be higher.
Good work, America -- you may be coming around after all...
 
2013-04-08 04:29:12 PM  

eggrolls: Catholic - 68.5 million
Southern Baptist - 16.1 million
Methodist - 7.8 million
Mormons - 6 million
Church of Christ - 5.5 million
National Baptist - 5 million
Lutheran - 4.5 million

So it looks like the US is going Papist!

40-60 million agnostics, atheists or 'no religious affiliation'.
5-6 million Jews
Another 5 million Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus.


Where do the megachurches fit into this accounting?  They seem to be run as private businesses rather than being affiliated with any one denomination.
 
2013-04-08 04:36:32 PM  

SkinnyHead: State establishments are not prohibited by the 1st Amendment.


You can keep saying that until the cows come home and it still won't be true.

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.

Would you actually argue that a state could stifle free speech or freedom of the press? Because there's no distinction between those and the establishment clause. You could not be more wrong in your line of reasoning.
 
2013-04-08 04:39:14 PM  
Does this mean they want a Department of Christianity?  A Secretary of Religion?  A bureaucracy to codify and regulate worship?

WTF does "official" mean??
 
2013-04-08 04:43:08 PM  

James!: I say this doesn't go far enough.  The pledge of allegence should be replaced with 5 minutes of speaking in tongues.


I'm okay with this.

Also, we should have more stones lying around in Congress just in case.
 
2013-04-08 04:44:01 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Does this mean they want a Department of Christianity?  A Secretary of Religion?  A bureaucracy to codify and regulate worship?

WTF does "official" mean??


You know how your state has an official State Flower?  Kinda like that.
 
2013-04-08 04:48:27 PM  
That figure seems really low?
 
2013-04-08 04:48:35 PM  

randomjsa: Would you actually argue that a state could stifle free speech or freedom of the press? Because there's no distinction between those and the establishment clause. You could not be more wrong in your line of reasoning.


Before the 14th amendment, states could and did stifle free speech.  You could be jailed for making public anti-slavery speeches in some states, for example.  The 14th amendment crammed the bill of rights down the states' throats, no matter what SkinnyHead says.
 
2013-04-08 04:50:04 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Does this mean they want a Department of Christianity?  A Secretary of Religion?  A bureaucracy to codify and regulate worship?

WTF does "official" mean??


10% tithe straight from the top of your paycheck to Westboro Baptist or whatever version of religion gets picked.
 
2013-04-08 04:51:44 PM  

I_C_Weener: You know how your state has an official State Flower?  Kinda like that.


In light of recent events, Colorado and Washington need to choose a few more official state things.
 
2013-04-08 04:58:02 PM  
Crowd member to Adlai Stevenson "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!"
Stevenson: "That's not enough, madam, I need a majority."
 
2013-04-08 05:04:01 PM  
Mr. Right:  There is a reason that the 10 Commandments are enshrined in the Supreme Court - they are a substantial basis of American Law.

Sorry but you lose what little credibility you may have had with this statement regardless of how broadly you want to define the term "founding fathers."

The first four commandments are expressly forbidden by our Constitution. Of the ten, only two are expressly illegal, and even then only under certain circumstances, these happen to be the same laws which exist in every other culture and have since long before christianity was invented. Our laws have a basis in Code of Hammurabi and The Magna Carta.
 
2013-04-08 05:04:59 PM  

Mr. Right: There is a reason that the 10 Commandments are enshrined in the Supreme Court - they are a substantial basis of American Law.


Really? What laws are based on:

1st: "Thou shall have no other gods before me:

2nd: "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

3rd: "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.

4th: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy."

5th: "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you."

7th: "You shall not commit adultery.

10th: "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's." 3 out of 10.


The only commandments that have any laws "based" on then are: Thou shall not kill, Thou shall not steal and arguably Thou shall not bear false witness.  Frankly, killing, stealing and lying were frowned on before the 10 commandments, I'm sure.
 
2013-04-08 05:08:36 PM  

Mr. Right: Try as you may, you cannot deny the influence of Biblical philosophy on the founding of this country.


No? Could, oh, say Thomas Jefferson?:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

The Treaty of Tripoli


Ah, what the fark did he know about the founding of this country?
 
2013-04-08 05:12:53 PM  

I_C_Weener: Lionel Mandrake: Does this mean they want a Department of Christianity?  A Secretary of Religion?  A bureaucracy to codify and regulate worship?

WTF does "official" mean??

You know how your state has an official State Flower?  Kinda like that.


Other than establishing a state flower isn't forbidden by the Constitution.
 
2013-04-08 05:14:50 PM  

Stone Meadow: Hey, 18% believe that the sun orbits the earth.


Technically the idea that the sun orbits the earth and that the earth orbits the sun are equally true. The math is just much easier to work with in the latter case.

/Actually I'm the center of the universe, and everything moves around me.
 
2013-04-08 05:19:36 PM  
Religious Right.

"I don't trust the damn government to do anything right!"
"I want the government involved in my religion"

Whaaaa?
 
2013-04-08 05:21:06 PM  

Mr. Right: Try as you may, you cannot deny the influence of Biblical philosophy on the founding of this country.


Maybe you can't...

In any case, there was one source that influenced the Founders waaaaaaay more than anything biblical: the Roman Republic.  Designed entirely by pagans.

The Founders, and the ancient Romans had much better ideas about governing than anything in the bible BY FAR.
 
2013-04-08 05:27:14 PM  

nocturnal001: Religious Right.

"I don't trust the damn government to do anything right!"
"I want the government involved in my religion"

Whaaaa?


They don't understand that inviting Washington into your church and taking your church to Washington are the same exact thing.
 
2013-04-08 05:29:41 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Mr. Right: Try as you may, you cannot deny the influence of Biblical philosophy on the founding of this country.

Maybe you can't...

In any case, there was one source that influenced the Founders waaaaaaay more than anything biblical: the Roman Republic.  Designed entirely by pagans.

The Founders, and the ancient Romans had much better ideas about governing than anything in the bible BY FAR.


To say nothing of the fact that the Christian concepts of laws and morality were not invented by Christianity at all.  It's obvious that things like "don't steal" and "don't kill people" were the norm for pretty much any human society.  We even see some of these moral concepts in primates, or even lower animals such as rats.

The Bible = Captain Obvious, except for the dumb shiat rules like "no meat on fridays" or "don't shave your beard".
 
2013-04-08 05:30:57 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop: /Actually I'm the center of the universe, and everything moves around me.


Technically, so is everywhere else, but that's another issue.

/but you knew that
 
2013-04-08 05:53:28 PM  

Kali-Yuga: Sorry but you lose what little credibility you may have had with this statement regardless of how broadly you want to define the term "founding fathers."


FarkinHostile: Really? What laws are based on:


The Ten Commandments are the most recognizable set of laws from the Bible.  Were they adopted verbatim?  Of course not.  Doesn't change the fact that the philosophy was used.

You reference the Code of Hammurabi.  You do realize that it was codified almost 1000 years after the Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt, within 40 years of which the Hebrews had the Ten Commandments and the laws of Leviticus?  No Biblical fragments from that era are preserved, probably owing to the fact that the Israelites were taken into captivity and their Temple destroyed twice in the ensuing years.  There's a better chance that the Code of Hammurabi was based on the 5 books of the Pentatuch than the other way around.

The Magna Carta, by the way, was written by the English while they were still Catholic.  Christianity was the official religion of the Crown from about the 6th century - or about 600 years before the Magna Carta.  You don't suppose their religion had any influence on the writers do you?

Why does the left expend so much effort attempting to discredit any Judeo-Christian philosophical influence on our laws?  I agree that too many fundamentalists try to put too much religion into government and that is wrong.  A lot of the interpretations by various religions and sects are questionable at best. But facts are still facts.  The Bible was a predominant influence in much of Western Civilization.
 
2013-04-08 06:02:20 PM  

FarkinHostile: Mr. Right: Try as you may, you cannot deny the influence of Biblical philosophy on the founding of this country.

No? Could, oh, say Thomas Jefferson?:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

The Treaty of Tripoli


Ah, what the fark did he know about the founding of this country?


You'll note that the treaty specifically states that it was not founded on the Christian religion.  It never eschewed the philosophical roots.  There is a difference, as noted by Jefferson himself.  The Jefferson Bible, which is widely criticized by Christians, only cut out what Jefferson thought to be supernatural actions.  He was actually a fan of the moral and ethical teachings of Christ.

If you read the rest of the paragraph of the Treaty, Jefferson is basically being obsequious to the Muslims in Tripoli.  Probably something to do with trying to make sure the Barbary Pirates didn't confiscate any more of our ships and enslave any more of our sailors.  Given that we were about as far from a global superpower as a country could be in those days, it may have been the better part of valor.
 
2013-04-08 06:05:17 PM  

Mr. Right: The Ten Commandments are the most recognizable set of laws from the Bible. Were they adopted verbatim? Of course not. Doesn't change the fact that the philosophy was used.


What variation of "Thou shall have no other gods before me" is American law? If there was one, it would be against the very first amendment of the constitution. I could do that with 7 of the 10 commandments. They are worthless. The other 3 are common in EVERY culture/society on the face of the planet. Seriously. If that meets your criteria for "substantial basis of American Law." I cannot help you.

Yes, Christianity has a strong cultural influence in the US. Obviously. But it's not the basis of our laws, it's not the basis of morality, nor should it ever be allowed to be.
 
2013-04-08 06:09:29 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Remember when we had an official religion in the US? Good times.

[aislingrunswithunicorns.files.wordpress.com image 404x499]


Where can I get a ladder hat?
 
2013-04-08 06:10:08 PM  

Mr. Right: FarkinHostile: Mr. Right: Try as you may, you cannot deny the influence of Biblical philosophy on the founding of this country.

No? Could, oh, say Thomas Jefferson?:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

The Treaty of Tripoli


Ah, what the fark did he know about the founding of this country?

You'll note that the treaty specifically states that it was not founded on the Christian religion.  It never eschewed the philosophical roots.  There is a difference, as noted by Jefferson himself.  The Jefferson Bible, which is widely criticized by Christians, only cut out what Jefferson thought to be supernatural actions.  He was actually a fan of the moral and ethical teachings of Christ.

If you read the rest of the paragraph of the Treaty, Jefferson is basically being obsequious to the Muslims in Tripoli.  Probably something to do with trying to make sure the Barbary Pirates didn't confiscate any more of our ships and enslave any more of our sailors.  Given that we were about as far from a global superpower as a country could be in those days, it may have been the better part of valor.



So they were just taking the piss then?

Hmmm, seems like if these guys really felt that we were a Christian nation they would have let God handle it.  Right?  Doesn't seem like they had much in the way of faith then does it?

Mr. Right: Kali-Yuga: Sorry but you lose what little credibility you may have had with this statement regardless of how broadly you want to define the term "founding fathers."

FarkinHostile: Really? What laws are based on:

The Ten Commandments are the most recognizable set of laws from the Bible. Were they adopted verbatim? Of course not. Doesn't change the fact that the philosophy was used.

You reference the Code of Hammurabi. You do realize that it was codified almost 1000 years after the Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt, within 40 years of which the Hebrews had the Ten Commandments and the laws of Leviticus? No Biblical fragments from that era are preserved, probably owing to the fact that the Israelites were taken into captivity and their Temple destroyed twice in the ensuing years. There's a better chance that the Code of Hammurabi was based on the 5 books of the Pentatuch than the other way around.

The Magna Carta, by the way, was written by the English while they were still Catholic. Christianity was the official religion of the Crown from about the 6th century - or about 600 years before the Magna Carta. You don't suppose their religion had any influence on the writers do you?

Why does the left expend so much effort attempting to discredit any Judeo-Christian philosophical influence on our laws? I agree that too many fundamentalists try to put too much religion into government and that is wrong. A lot of the interpretations by various religions and sects are questionable at best. But facts are still facts. The Bible was a predominant influence in much of Western Civilization.



So before the 10 commandments do you think human societies allowed people to murder and steal from each other?
 
2013-04-08 06:10:22 PM  

Mr. Right: FarkinHostile: Mr. Right: Try as you may, you cannot deny the influence of Biblical philosophy on the founding of this country.

No? Could, oh, say Thomas Jefferson?:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

The Treaty of Tripoli


Ah, what the fark did he know about the founding of this country?

You'll note that the treaty specifically states that it was not founded on the Christian religion.  It never eschewed the philosophical roots.  There is a difference, as noted by Jefferson himself.  The Jefferson Bible, which is widely criticized by Christians, only cut out what Jefferson thought to be supernatural actions.  He was actually a fan of the moral and ethical teachings of Christ.

If you read the rest of the paragraph of the Treaty, Jefferson is basically being obsequious to the Muslims in Tripoli.  Probably something to do with trying to make sure the Barbary Pirates didn't confiscate any more of our ships and enslave any more of our sailors.  Given that we were about as far from a global superpower as a country could be in those days, it may have been the better part of valor.


Actually, I agree with all of this. Yet Christianity is based on the philosophical roots of other ancient societies/communities/religions. Too often citing the 10 commandments as a basis of American law is a tactic by fanatics to push a religious agenda on us.

/I am also fan of the moral and ethical teachings of Christ.
//Wish more Christians were
 
2013-04-08 06:13:28 PM  
Mr. Right:
The Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt
[citation needed]

No Biblical fragments from that era are preserved.... probably

No evidence exists, so we should assume your guesses aren't just reinforcing your confirmation bias about christianity?
 
2013-04-08 06:27:01 PM  
One more thing.  If it is true, as people claim that our whole nation was founded on Christian ideals then what do you want? You already won didn't you? Do you need that stamp that says "my religion is government approved' so badly?
 
2013-04-08 06:40:49 PM  

Mr. Right: You reference the Code of Hammurabi.  You do realize that it was codified almost 1000 years after the Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt,


No, I do not "realize" that.  The Code of Hammurabi dates to 1772 BCE. People who believe that the Exodus really happened place it hundreds of years later, while most secular historians do not think it happened at all.
 
2013-04-08 06:59:50 PM  

Kali-Yuga: Mr. Right:
The Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt
[citation needed]

No Biblical fragments from that era are preserved.... probably

No evidence exists, so we should assume your guesses aren't just reinforcing your confirmation bias about christianity?


Does any of the Bible predate the Babylonian captivity?  I mean, besides the parts copied from older, non-Jewish sources during the Babylonian captivity, such as the creation story.
 
2013-04-08 07:00:28 PM  
How about this... We ask God.

If he descends from heaven in his glory that cannot be mistaken for anyone else and tells us which religion he chooses as "the religion of the USA" then we go with that. No questions, no debates, that will be it for ever and ever.

If he doesn't show in three days, we can take that as an absolute "No farking way". Okay? Let's go, say it with me...

"Hey God! What religion do you want us to follow as "The religion of the USA"? If you don't show up in three days, we'll have to take your answer to be "not any religion at all". Please let us know quickly! Thank you. (Amen.)"

It's all in the Lord's hands.
 
2013-04-08 07:45:17 PM  
And they agreed against making such a choice when they filled out their Civil Service forms.
 
2013-04-08 07:46:11 PM  
... because, constitutionally, attempting to force the endorsement of a national, state or county religion is an act of war.  People who do so can be shot.
 
2013-04-08 07:46:59 PM  

abhorrent1: Why would America need an official religion? How about you worship what you want and leave everyone else the fark alone? Does that work for you?


LMAO, have you been to America?
 
2013-04-08 07:52:51 PM  
America doesn't need an "official religion" for the same reason Yemen doesn't need a constitutional right to bear arms--it's already ingrained in our society far deeper than words on paper could effect.

As long as atheists and followers of non-Christian religions stay politically marginalized, it doesn't matter what the government letterhead says.
 
2013-04-08 08:24:09 PM  

Overfiend: HazMatt: Overfiend: God's Hubris: Believe women are incapable of making decisions about their own bodies. Check.

This argument/point is far from the truth.

Those who are Pro-life arent against a woman making decisions about her own body.  Pro-lifers believe the unborn baby (fetus) is a living being - and that's who they wish to protect.  Most Pro-lifers would care less if a woman wanted to go out and:

Get tattoos
Get piercings/body modifications
Get cosmetic surgery
Get a hysterectomy
Or anything else for that matter...

...except dont hurt the baby inside of them.

What is the intersection between these "Pro-lifers" and those that are opposed to a woman learning about / receiving birth control? I could respect the "protect the baby" argument if it didn't so often look more like medieval slut-shaming.

I agree - many people who claim to be Pro-life are so against contraception (when that could prevent pregnancy, thereby no need for an abortion) it makes no sense.

Many Pro-lifers are also rabid Death Penalty proponents - which, again, makes no sense...


You will also find they have huge hard-ons for guns and war, too. And they really love censorship of any arts depicting sexual matters or language (violence is fine for them,).
And support the Koch bros types 100% for getting rid of OSHA regulations.

Nasty individuals.
 
2013-04-08 08:28:36 PM  
Did none of you actually read the article? The poll response was that 33% would support Christianity being the official religion of their state, not of the United States. If Utah wants to make Mormon the official state religion and put it in the record books with the official state bird, the California Gull, that would be up to them.
 
2013-04-08 08:39:07 PM  

MarkEC: Did none of you actually read the article?


What website did you think you came to today?
 
2013-04-08 08:43:00 PM  
Hmmm, I would have thought God would have responded already.

It's not like he actually has to think about it. He already knows. He's all knowing.
Maybe it's all about "presentation". Perhaps catch us when we're all awake, to make sure we all see it at the same time...
because he can. He's God after all.

I'm sorry. I get impatient. I guess I should have said three hours, because... you know... he can do a lot of shiat in three days.
Is this too much to ask- "What do YOU want, and tell us all at one time?" from the spirit who created all the galaxies from nothing in one big bang?
 
2013-04-08 08:50:00 PM  
FarkinHostile:

Actually, I agree with all of this. Yet Christianity is based on the philosophical roots of other ancient societies/communities/religions. Too often citing the 10 commandments as a basis of American law is a tactic by fanatics to push a religious agenda on us.

No, just one: Judaism.

/I am also fan of the moral and ethical teachings of Christ.
//Wish more Christians were


I'm not.  He only advocated the positive aspect of the Golden Rule:  "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."  He whipped a bunch of tax collectors in the temple, and they ultimately returned the favor by whipping him and then nailing him to a tree so he couldn't do it again.  I'm a fan of Confucius (long before Christ came around):  "Don't do unto others what you don't want done to you."
 
2013-04-08 08:53:17 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Does this mean they want a Department of Christianity?  A Secretary of Religion?  A bureaucracy to codify and regulate worship?

WTF does "official" mean??


3.bp.blogspot.com
I can understand why the word might confuse some.
 
2013-04-08 09:06:50 PM  

MarkEC: Did none of you actually read the article? The poll response was that 33% would support Christianity being the official religion of their state, not of the United States. If Utah wants to make Mormon the official state religion and put it in the record books with the official state bird, the California Gull, that would be up to them.


How does that invalidate anything said here? If the federal govt. can not establish a state religion due to the 1st, then the states can not do it either.
 
2013-04-08 09:35:25 PM  
The 1st as written does not limit the states. The 14th establishes that the rights in the constitution can't be violated by the states. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is not a right of the citizens, it is a function that is denied to the congress. A state naming an official state religion would be no more burdensome on anyone than the state having an official state bird. Is there a Farker out there that wouldn't want to see the FSM as their state's official state deity?
 
2013-04-08 09:46:52 PM  

Day_Old_Dutchie: Overfiend: HazMatt: Overfiend: God's Hubris: Believe women are incapable of making decisions about their own bodies. Check.

This argument/point is far from the truth.

Those who are Pro-life arent against a woman making decisions about her own body.  Pro-lifers believe the unborn baby (fetus) is a living being - and that's who they wish to protect.  Most Pro-lifers would care less if a woman wanted to go out and:

Get tattoos
Get piercings/body modifications
Get cosmetic surgery
Get a hysterectomy
Or anything else for that matter...

...except dont hurt the baby inside of them.

What is the intersection between these "Pro-lifers" and those that are opposed to a woman learning about / receiving birth control? I could respect the "protect the baby" argument if it didn't so often look more like medieval slut-shaming.

I agree - many people who claim to be Pro-life are so against contraception (when that could prevent pregnancy, thereby no need for an abortion) it makes no sense.

Many Pro-lifers are also rabid Death Penalty proponents - which, again, makes no sense...

You will also find they have huge hard-ons for guns and war, too. And they really love censorship of any arts depicting sexual matters or language (violence is fine for them,).
And support the Koch bros types 100% for getting rid of OSHA regulations.

Nasty individuals.



Not all of them. I am Pro-life and I want to ban the death penalty.I am against censorship of art. I may hate Piss Christ and think its full of hate but I believe in the artists right and the public to see - if they choose. Also pro contraception!
 
2013-04-08 10:11:37 PM  
I bet it was higher than 1/3 just after 9/11, when many tried to tie together Christianity with patriotism.
 
2013-04-08 10:38:06 PM  

Mouser: America doesn't need an "official religion" for the same reason Yemen doesn't need a constitutional right to bear arms--it's already ingrained in our society far deeper than words on paper could effect.

As long as atheists and followers of non-Christian religions stay politically marginalized, it doesn't matter what the government letterhead says.


Nice to see your retarded shiat isn't limited to one thread.

MarkEC: Did none of you actually read the article? The poll response was that 33% would support Christianity being the official religion of their state, not of the United States. If Utah wants to make Mormon the official state religion and put it in the record books with the official state bird, the California Gull, that would be up to them.


I don't want any of the states making any religion the official one for them. The country was founded on not allowing one religion to be hailed as the best, leave it at that. It's up there with allowing individual states to decide whether to treat American citizens equally in the stupidity tier.
 
2013-04-08 11:05:48 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: You know, the Puritans came to the New World specifically to get away from their religion-run country because they got thrown the hell out of Europe for being a bunch of insufferable theocratic pricks, which was subsequently proven when their brothers-in-arms overthrew the legitimate government of Great Britain and turned it into a proto-dominionist "Democratic Republic" dictatorship until the legitimate King and non-religionationalist members of Parliament had to stage a counter-coup...and further proven when the Massachusetts Colony became one of the decidedly worse theocratic colonial governments to the point that the Pennsylvania Colony was founded SPECIFICALLY as a refugee colony founded by Friends, deists, and pretty much anyone who was literally in some cases running for their lives.  (As a side note, it's largely the Pennsylvania experience as well as that of Virginia deists and Baptists that led to the whole damn concept of the Bill of Rights, seeing as the excesses of the more theocratic colonies were VERY much in living memory of the Founding Fathers.)


Corrected that for you, extensively:

a) The Puritans were part of a movement that pretty much felt that not only the Protestant Reformation but the CoE splitting from the Catholic Church weren't far enough--that NO Christian church was sufficiently pure other than them--and were hardline Calvinists who were increasingly hostile to the British government to the point they were becoming a frank national security risk...basically imagine ALL the NARasites and dominionists in the US explicitly supporting not only the overthrow of the legitimate government of the US because they WON'T set up a theocracy but believed they HAD to take on the general tactics of the Army of God terrorists so that Jesus could begin his millennial reign, and you get the idea.

(And yes, that was pretty much political Puritanism in a nutshell--they were actually a sort of proto-Christian Reconstructionist group who believed that a "Christian Emperor" had to be installed as a sort of regent for Christ so as to establish the Holy Millennium.)

b) By the time that the Mayflower sailed, the tensions between the CoE and the "Reformed" churches (including the Puritans) was starting to become (to put it mildly) irreconcilable--there were already major protests over the fact that the Church of England (and the King in right of his role as head of the CoE) explicitly allowed sporting events on Sundays and the fact the King had told the Puritans that they had a rather large stick up their collective arses, not to mention their sense that the King was becoming all too friendly towards those Catholics in Spain (instead of wiping them out to the last man, woman, and child) and they were also plenty pissed that the King had not purged the CoE of everything they saw of as "Catholic and pagan influence" (things like, oh, religious holidays and the like--the first "War on Christmas", so to speak, was actually launched by religionationalists).

(Of course, the first fractures between the CoE proper and the Puritans were around even before then--probably as early as 1550 with Queen Elizabeth (the First, not Her Highness of the Royal Spanner).  The Puritans pretty much started out as a hyperfundamentalist, hyper-anti-Catholic branch of the CoE that became increasingly extremist.)

c) The one group of Puritans that a lot of folks like to mention--the Pilgrims, which were actually a group that had forked from the CoE proper--were actually not so much run from England as that the pastor behind the Pilgrims was defrocked by the CoE (for violation of canon laws), proceeded to set up shop in Amsterdam in the Netherlands, moved to Leiden a year later after a VERY major pissing-war-bordering-on-frank-religious-shooting-war with another Puritan pastor ALSO serving the British expatriate population, and finally realising that they were actually rather sick of the Goddamned Dutch they petitioned for (and received) the land grant for Plymouth Colony...whereupon landing, they were incapable of coexisting with the Narrangassett First Nation and other First Nations and launched themselves a right proper Indian War.  Oh, and one of their founding acts (along with that of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, with which it merged in the 1690s) was to make it fundamentally (pun intended) illegal to not be a Puritan, and of course Christmas was also illegal.
(For that matter, so was Thanksgiving after a while; the modern holiday in the US is largely a post-Civil War creation based on an extremely romanticised image of the initial relations between the Pilgrims and the Narrangassett.)

With the Massachusetts Bay Colony in particular (which was pretty explicitly set up as a Plan B in case a planned steeplejack of the British government failed, as I'll note below) there wasn't even anything resembling a pretense of "religious freedom"--it was set up very explicitly as a Puritan-run theocracy, and in fact there were even documented pissing wars between "separatist" Puritans (who wanted to leave the CoE altogether) and "non-separatists" (who just wanted to steeplejack the CoE and turn the whole goddamn thing into a Calvinist church that your average Southern Baptist could point at and rightfully call Farked Up).  The Rhode Island colony (and the state of Rhode Island) actually came into being as a result of at least two of these internecine pissing wars, with the "exiled" packing up and founding Their Own Damn Colony.

Oh, and pretty much one of the BIG Indian wars of the period was pretty much the direct result of the Puritans of Massachusetts Bay Colony pulling their own version of "New Tribes Mission" conversion-at-gunpoint shenanigans--apparently to them, "Passing on tradition via oral history" equaled "Not having the culture of a dog", and it was the plan of one of the head pastors to essentially round up the First Nations into "Praying Towns" where they'd be forced to convert and be "acculturated" into Western European ways and culture.  Suffice it to say that the First Nations in question objected rather strenuously to the concept...that is, when entire towns didn't die of the farking smallpox and yellow fever and manitou-only-knows what other plagues the Puritans were carrying.

d) I am also Not Farking Kidding about the Puritans eventually being seen rightfully as a major National Security Risk by the British government.  Massachusetts Bay Colony was actually founded as a sort of early bench-head and staging area for what would become known as the English Civil War (basically as a Plan B in case Glorious Reform and Revolution did not win out)--this became a sufficient concern (especially by 1640 or so when the Puritans were ACTIVELY talking about overthrowing the King of England) that immigration was actually cut off to the Colonies.

It did NOT help matters that pretty much everyone involved was being a mess of farktardedness--Charles I promoting essentially a Unitary Monarchy (which ironically would lead directly to the American Revolution when Parliament gained CONSIDERABLY more power after the Restoration and pretty much demanded that the Colonies start paying their fair share for defense due to proxy wars being fought with the French with various First Nations being used as the proxies), Parliament itself suffering essentially a steeplejacking by Puritan MPs, and the Puritans themselves promoting a conspiracy theory that Charles I was not only getting Too Goddamn Friendly With That Papist Lady In France but that the King was secretly planning to re-establish the Catholic Church as the state church of England.  (That last--basically the Age of Exploration-era version of a "birther controversy"--pretty much lit the fuse for what was to come.)

By the 1620s, the "debates" were in fact so lively that the Puritan-run Parliament basically had become the Parliament Of No in regards to pretty much any policies needed to run the country (including raising taxes, with or without representation); this had even descended into frank fisticuffs and death threats in Parliament (with one non-Puritan MP actually requesting the 17th Century equivalent of a restraining order against a Puritan MP from the King, and the head of the House of Commons being literally held down by other MPs at another point so the Puritan members of Parliament could issue an Official Condemnation Statement against the King).

The problem of Puritans steeplejacking (non-Puritan) CoE congregations had become serious enough by the 1630s and 1640s that Charles I reissued the statement that Sports Were Not Verboten On The Sabbath (the so-called Book of Sports) and ordered CoE churches to read it in their congregations--the idea being that Puritan churches would not do this, and thus be identified; he also ordered CoE churches to ramp UP the levels of ceremony that the Puritans objected to (essentially as a form of Royal Trolling).  The Ecclesiastical courts for the CoE were eventually given the right to formally try Puritans by the 1630s (by this time, the Puritans were politically powerful enough that there were calls for outlawing the theatre on the Puritan end and royals were PERFORMING theatre on the other end) and eventually culminating in the formation of the Star Chamber as a sort of Special Tribunal for trying the politically powerful...and the trial of a Puritan author for writing a "THEATRE IS FULL OF THE DEBBIL" screed RIGHT as the first royal was performing in a masque.

(This whole Star Chamber thing would of course later end up very infamous in English common parlance, basically as a synonym for a kangaroo court.)

Chuck, of course, was not only engaging in fits of Religious Trolling with the Puritans but the Presbyterian Church in Scotland, and managed to cause a Scottish Revolution in the process; the King then had to call a special session of Parliament to approve putting down the Scottish Rebellion which led to what is now called the Long Parliament (because, legally anyways, it was technically in session from 1640-ish to 1660 in a single session).

Of course, the reason said Parliament was legally (if not de facto) in session for 20 years is that in the 1640s Charles I decided to reform the Confession of Faith, which led to a resolution in Parliament which was basically "Dear Charles: You are a bad person and should feel bad for hanging around with naughty, naughty Papist scum", which led to King Chuck telling Parliament to Go Forth And Fark Themselves, which led to the Puritans banding together with the Presbyterians, which led to the Puritan-led parts of Parliament essentially launching a coup-de-etat against the King on grounds he was being Too Goddamn Friendly To Catholics (and also in the process purged Parliament of any MPs who had military ranks in the King's Army unless they signed up to the New Model Army, thus purging Parliament of royalists), which led to a theocratic dictatorship being established (including the legitimate leadership of what was left of the CoE itself being banned from government chambers), which led to the King being forced to abdicate, which eventually (after more than one attempt to pretty much lock out the Presbyterians unless they were allowed to be steeplejacked) led to Scotland saying "fark this, we were better off with the King", which led to another war which resulted in Charles I being charged with high treason and sentenced to OFF WITH HIS HEAD and a major purge of Parliament of anyone who disagreed with a minor act of regicide, which led to a worsening of the theocracy including an extremely strict government censorship scheme where pretty much most works outside of the Bible were functionally banned and an attempt to head off Charles II proclaiming himself a pretender to the throne and all fun including holidays and theatre becoming illegal as the Cromwells set themselves up as the Puritan equivalent of Kim Il Sung Et Al and a particularly nasty bout of ethnic cleansing against the Irish who had committed the Unforgivable Sin of being Terminally Catholic and finally culminating in yet another war in which the Scots basically save England and restore its legitimate government.  The Colonies, of course, did not exactly want to accept that the Puritans Had Been Pwned, and more than a few spots in the Colonies actually became safe havens for those who had killed the King and set up a proto-Republic of Gilead.

And pretty much even after that there were still attempts by Puritan-linked groups to overthrow the legitimate government afterwards, including a group called the Fifth Monarchists who would be nowadays described as a dominionist, Christian Reconstructionist, apocalyptic group which had some disturbingly influential membership (including the head of the British East India Company, arguably the most powerful corporation in the world at the time) and which believed the king was essentially an agent of the Devil and that the government of the Cromwells was a regent for Jesus--whose imminent return was expected after the seven-year reign of the Antichrist starting in 1666.  (Of note, the Fifth Monarchists were some of the central power behind the overthrow of the British government--much like NARasites and Christian Reconstructionists are the "deep core" of the modern dominionist movement.)
 
2013-04-08 11:12:53 PM  

Great Porn Dragon: Keizer_Ghidorah: You know, the Puritans came to the New World specifically to get away from their religion-run country because they got thrown the hell out of Europe for being a bunch of insufferable theocratic pricks, which was subsequently proven when their brothers-in-arms overthrew the legitimate government of Great Britain and turned it into a proto-dominionist "Democratic Republic" dictatorship until the legitimate King and non-religionationalist members of Parliament had to stage a counter-coup...and further proven when the Massachusetts Colony became one of the decidedly worse theocratic colonial governments to the point that the Pennsylvania Colony was founded SPECIFICALLY as a refugee colony founded by Friends, deists, and pretty much anyone who was literally in some cases running for their lives.  (As a side note, it's largely the Pennsylvania experience as well as that of Virginia deists and Baptists that led to the whole damn concept of the Bill of Rights, seeing as the excesses of the more theocratic colonies were VERY much in living memory of the Founding Fathers.)

Corrected that for you, extensively:

a) The Puritans were part of a movement that pretty much felt that not only the Protestant Reformation but the CoE splitting from the Catholic Church weren't far enough--that NO Christian church was sufficiently pure other than them--and were hardline Calvinists who were increasingly hostile to the British government to the point they were becoming a frank national security risk...basically imagine ALL the NARasites and dominionists in the US explicitly supporting not only the overthrow of the legitimate government of the US because they WON'T set up a theocracy but believed they HAD to take on the general tactics of the Army of God terrorists so that Jesus could begin his millennial reign, and you get the idea.

(And yes, that was pretty much political Puritanism in a nutshell--they were actually a sort of proto-Christian Reconstructionist group who b ...


And this is why religion is pointless.
 
2013-04-08 11:33:55 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Mouser: America doesn't need an "official religion" for the same reason Yemen doesn't need a constitutional right to bear arms--it's already ingrained in our society far deeper than words on paper could effect.

As long as atheists and followers of non-Christian religions stay politically marginalized, it doesn't matter what the government letterhead says.

Nice to see your retarded shiat isn't limited to one thread.

MarkEC: Did none of you actually read the article? The poll response was that 33% would support Christianity being the official religion of their state, not of the United States. If Utah wants to make Mormon the official state religion and put it in the record books with the official state bird, the California Gull, that would be up to them.

I don't want any of the states making any religion the official one for them. The country was founded on not allowing one religion to be hailed as the best, leave it at that. It's up there with allowing individual states to decide whether to treat American citizens equally in the stupidity tier.


Go read some state constitutions sometime. Most go farther in their civil rights than the Fed.
 
2013-04-09 12:05:42 AM  
A third of Americans are farking stupid.
 
2013-04-09 12:11:24 AM  
Looks like Fat Ass had a field day trolling this thread.  No one could actually be that stupid.
 
2013-04-09 12:36:47 AM  

The Bruce Dickinson: [www.godsboard.com image 600x250]


People who feed Christians to lions hate lions.  There needs to be a lion rights movement.
 
2013-04-09 12:44:48 AM  

Billy Bathsalt: "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."  Carlin

The number of the beast shall be 6, 6, and 7, rounded to the nearest tenth.


667 is the number of the neighbor of the beast
 
2013-04-09 12:50:43 AM  
Toplines and some crosstabs released.

Most interesting-seeming thing in the crosstabs is low numbers of Hispanics saying church-state separation has gone too far, and high saying there's too much religion in politics. Sounds like a bad sign for any GOP hopes for major gains over immigration reform.

No sampling methodology details; looks to be internet-based random sample, about middle of the pack in terms of accuracy for the last POTUS race.
 
2013-04-09 01:16:44 AM  

abb3w: Toplines and some crosstabs released.


*whispers* hey, those tables were released a few days ago. This LGBT site just did a shiatty job at giving you the data except for the broad overview.
 
2013-04-09 01:22:42 AM  

Mr. Right: Kali-Yuga: Sorry but you lose what little credibility you may have had with this statement regardless of how broadly you want to define the term "founding fathers."

FarkinHostile: Really? What laws are based on:

The Ten Commandments are the most recognizable set of laws from the Bible.  Were they adopted verbatim?  Of course not.  Doesn't change the fact that the philosophy was used.

You reference the Code of Hammurabi.  You do realize that it was codified almost 1000 years after the Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt, within 40 years of which the Hebrews had the Ten Commandments and the laws of Leviticus?  No Biblical fragments from that era are preserved, probably owing to the fact that the Israelites were taken into captivity and their Temple destroyed twice in the ensuing years.  There's a better chance that the Code of Hammurabi was based on the 5 books of the Pentatuch than the other way around.
.

That twice twice as retarded that the most retarded things said by Fat Ass and bevets combined. Throw in the subtlety of Whoopty and you've got whargarbl of earth shattering proportions.
 
2013-04-09 02:08:38 AM  

Stone Meadow: ModernLuddite: //Canada, though Godless, is nice.

And by "nice" he means frozen 8 months a year. No thanks.


The most southern point in Canada is south of the California/Oregon border.
 
2013-04-09 02:42:07 AM  

Bucky Katt: Billy Bathsalt: "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."  Carlin

The number of the beast shall be 6, 6, and 7, rounded to the nearest tenth.

667 is the number of the neighbor of the beast


668 is the number of the neighbor of the beast.
667 is the number of the guy who lives across the street from the beast.
 
2013-04-09 02:58:42 AM  

Bucky Katt: Mr. Right: Kali-Yuga: Sorry but you lose what little credibility you may have had with this statement regardless of how broadly you want to define the term "founding fathers."

FarkinHostile: Really? What laws are based on:

The Ten Commandments are the most recognizable set of laws from the Bible.  Were they adopted verbatim?  Of course not.  Doesn't change the fact that the philosophy was used.

You reference the Code of Hammurabi.  You do realize that it was codified almost 1000 years after the Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt, within 40 years of which the Hebrews had the Ten Commandments and the laws of Leviticus?  No Biblical fragments from that era are preserved, probably owing to the fact that the Israelites were taken into captivity and their Temple destroyed twice in the ensuing years.  There's a better chance that the Code of Hammurabi was based on the 5 books of the Pentatuch than the other way around.
.
That twice twice as retarded that the most retarded things said by Fat Ass and bevets combined. Throw in the subtlety of Whoopty and you've got whargarbl of earth shattering proportions.


Blame the Sumerians. I'll bet they disseminated their own religious beliefs on tablets since they have the oldest known written language. After that all hell broke loose with copy cat religions cropping up with the need to document their own unwitnessed  myths from the tales of old now that writing had been invented.


I will however adopt their creation story as the only plausible story for being created by some form of a god,  "the gods originally created humans as servants for themselves, but freed them when they became too much to handle."

/ah fark it, there is no hope for the human race
 
2013-04-09 08:47:38 AM  

doyner: James!: Which one?

The one that follows the version of the Bible written a short 1600 years after Christ.


Ah. Commissioned by the gay anti-smoking nut who was scared that witches were giving him the ghey and making his peener hard for young guys.
 
2013-04-09 08:50:04 AM  

Tenatra: This LGBT site just did a shiatty job at giving you the data except for the broad overview.


The Huffington Post did a mediocre job too, and it was their damn poll.

So do most news outlets... though Nate Silver seems to have more people looking further down than used to.
 
2013-04-09 09:39:48 AM  

Farxist Marxist: Stone Meadow: ModernLuddite: //Canada, though Godless, is nice.

And by "nice" he means frozen 8 months a year. No thanks.

The most southern point in Canada is south of the California/Oregon border.


One tiny sliver of land does not make up for the rest of the country. Besides, notice that it's also due east of Chicago, where I spent a miserable decade one year right after college frozen into my apartment and at work. Peeps assured me..."Oh, it's not much further north of NorCal...you'll LOVE it!"

Bastids!
 
2013-04-09 09:56:36 AM  

Stone Meadow: Farxist Marxist: Stone Meadow: ModernLuddite: //Canada, though Godless, is nice.

And by "nice" he means frozen 8 months a year. No thanks.

The most southern point in Canada is south of the California/Oregon border.

One tiny sliver of land does not make up for the rest of the country. Besides, notice that it's also due east of Chicago, where I spent a miserable decade one year right after college frozen into my apartment and at work. Peeps assured me..."Oh, it's not much further north of NorCal...you'll LOVE it!"

Bastids!


That's why I'm in California. Can't stand the cold.
/Canadian
//Born in the arctic.
 
2013-04-09 10:22:18 AM  

Farxist Marxist: That's why I'm in California. Can't stand the cold.
/Canadian
//Born in the arctic.


Indeed. My inflexible standard is if I can grow oranges, limes and grapefruit. If I can't, the place is too cold.
 
2013-04-09 11:56:29 PM  

ThatGuyGreg: Meaning 66% of Americans don't... I'm OK with that.


The Emperor Constantine wants a word.
 
Displayed 248 of 248 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report