Two-Thirds of Americans Don't Want an Amendment to make Christianity the Official US Religion

[himher 634]

You can spray all the gold paint you want over the dog doo pile but it still smells.

Modifying the constitution is being discussed.

If the constitution is in the way then the 1/3 who wish it modified want more than free and unrestricted practice of their own religion. My view, and it is just one view, is that though it glitters this probably isn't a good thing.

Edited April 7, 2013 by himher

[himher 634]

First off, we haven't been a country for 400 years. Start counting at July 3, 1776 for when we first declared our independence from King George.

Second, what does the Mayflower compact have to do with anything? I have ancestors in America that date back to Jamestown, and guess what they would tell you, if they could -- Somebody was already living here at the time.

And third, this:

Huh? You have been following the story, have you!

The pilgrims left from where and why? It was before 1776 and it was to escape religious persecution. Even if they wrote up a compact so that they could persecute other people later LOL the constitution was written, later, to protect the country from the hundreds of years of persecution under various churches (depending on where people immigrated from, name a country and by golly you can find some church beating or taxing or putting to death non-believers).

So if the constitution is in the way of this sudden new trend then I guess it probably isn't good

Edited April 7, 2013 by himher

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The pilgrims left from where and why? It was before 1776 and it was to escape religious persecution. Even if they wrote up a compact so that they could persecute other people later LOL the constitution was written, later, to protect the country from the hundreds of years of persecution under various churches (depending on where people immigrated from, name a country and by golly you can find some church beating or taxing non-believers.

So if the constitution is in the way of this sudden new trend then I guess it probably isn't good

Europeans found a great place to rid themselves of religious zealots and criminals, in the new world.

[himher 634]

Europeans found a great place to rid themselves of religious zealots and criminals, in the new world.

They had great ways to rid themselves of zealots and criminals in the old world too. Galileo (that nasty criminal and zealot) ran into the very thing that those troublesome ammendments might limit or prevent today.

Edited April 7, 2013 by himher

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Jeez what's next, an official "race" of the US ? Or an official "sexuality" ?

Because of course both of those are no different than naming an official "tree" or an official "bird" - how could it possibly harm anyone who's "different" ?????

[Danno 1,228]

First off, we haven't been a country for 400 years.

Second, what does the Mayflower compact have to do with anything?

And third, this:

Huh? You have been following the story, have you!

1. WE have been a nation for 400 years, you might mark the day at the declaration of independence ... but in doing so you admit the Confederacy wasn't in rebellion but rather independent.. when they declared it.

You can date events and documents but a nation is a collection of them all.

2.The Mayflower compact highlights our connection to the broad Christian faith, if you need more let me know.

3. The photo was of course only meaningful to those who lack any sense of History. Yes the Klan (like everyone) was made up of Christians but the fact is it was CHristians here and in Briton who brought an end to slavery (around much of the world) and made possible the advancement of civil rights.

Know I know you have a hard-on for the Klan but it must bother you that I could produce way more photos of the Klan wrapped in the American flag than you can of them in churches.

[Danno 1,228]

The pilgrims left from where and why? It was before 1776 and it was to escape religious persecution. Even if they wrote up a compact so that they could persecute other people later LOL the constitution was written, later, to protect the country from the hundreds of years of persecution under various churches (depending on where people immigrated from, name a country and by golly you can find some church beating or taxing or putting to death non-believers).

So if the constitution is in the way of this sudden new trend then I guess it probably isn't good

How did they "persecute others?"

You do realize there were States which had official denominations? (after 1776)

[himher 634]

1. WE have been a nation for 400 years, you might mark the day at the declaration of independence ... but in doing so you admit the Confederacy wasn't in rebellion but rather independent.. when they declared it.

You can date events and documents but a nation is a collection of them all.

2.The Mayflower compact highlights our connection to the broad Christian faith, if you need more let me know.

3. The photo was of course only meaningful to those who lack any sense of History. Yes the Klan (like everyone) was made up of Christians but the fact is it was CHristians here and in Briton who brought an end to slavery (around much of the world) and made possible the advancement of civil rights.

Know I know you have a hard-on for the Klan but it must bother you that I could produce way more photos of the Klan wrapped in the American flag than you can of them in churches.

Who cares about the Klan. Their time is past.

The church has a long and sordid history of abuse going back to Constantine. That abuse just isn't welcome here and the writings of the founding fathers clearly outline this as the purpose of that troublesome ammendment. The fact that practice of religion is protected outlines the commitment to respect for religious beliefs but the fact that the government is prohibited from taking a stand one way or the other outlines the commitment to protection from the excesses. If respect for the practice of religious beliefs is not enough for those who practice them then this is cause for mild concern.

[himher 634]

How did they "persecute others?"

You do realize there were States which had official denominations? (after 1776)

I didn't actually say they did.

You did however when you referenced the Salem trials. Your numbers were off and you really didnt tell the whole story but we will let that pass.

Some really cool stories reflecting life in early America under rule of the church:

In September, grand juries indicted eighteen more people, including Giles Corey. On September 19, 1692, Giles Corey refused to plead at arraignment, and was subjected to peine forte et dure, a form of torture in which the subject is pressed beneath an increasingly heavy load of stones, in an attempt to make him enter a plea.

After two days of peine fort et dure, Corey died, his chest crushed, without entering a plea. Though his refusal to plead is often explained as a way of preventing his possessions from being confiscated by the state, this is not true; the possessions of convicted witches were often confiscated, and the possessions of persons accused but not convicted were confiscated before a trial, as in the case of Corey's neighbour John Proctor and the wealthy Englishmen of Salem Town. Some historians hypothesize that Giles Corey's personal character, a stubborn and lawsuit-prone old man who knew he was going to be convicted regardless, led to his recalcitrance.

Some cool history about separation of church and state:

As noted earlier, the vast majority of Puritans who settled in the Massachusetts Bay Colony were non-separating Puritans. This meant that, while they disliked many of the practices of the Church of England, they refused to separate from the Church of England. This position led to squabbles with Separating Puritans.

Roger Williams, a Separating Puritan minister, attempted to become pastor of the church at Salem, but was blocked by Boston political leaders, who objected to his separatism. He thus spent two years with his fellow Separatists in the Plymouth Colony, but ultimately came into conflict with them and returned to Salem. There, he became pastor in May 1635, against the objection of the Boston authorities. Williams set forth a manifesto in which he declared that 1) the Church of England was apostate and fellowship with it was a grievous sin; 2) the Massachusetts Colony's charter falsely said that King Charles was a Christian; 3) that the colony should not be allowed to impose oaths on its citizens.

Williams' actions so outraged the Puritan leaders of the Massachusetts Bay Colony that they expelled him from the colony. In 1636, he founded the city of Providence, Rhode Island. Williams was one of the first Puritans to advocate separation of church and state and Rhode Island was one of the first places in the Christian world to recognize freedom of religion.

I was inaccurate in my earlier post. I earlier stated 400 years when actually the development/orgins of the principle of separation started 377 years ago. From the abuses of the church.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

1. WE have been a nation for 400 years,

Who is we? I have only been a part of this nation for the fifty some odd years I have been alive. Our nation was established during May of 1775, or was it 1776? ...on July 2nd, or July 3rd, or July 4th, or sometime in August, anyways, it is easy to look up.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_history.html

Edited April 7, 2013 by The Patriot

[Danno 1,228]

Who cares about the Klan. Their time is past.

The church has a long and sordid history of abuse going back to Constantine. That abuse just isn't welcome here and the writings of the founding fathers clearly outline this as the purpose of that troublesome ammendment. The fact that practice of religion is protected outlines the commitment to respect for religious beliefs but the fact that the government is prohibited from taking a stand one way or the other outlines the commitment to protection from the excesses. If respect for the practice of religious beliefs is not enough for those who practice them then this is cause for mild concern.

You seem to be confusing "institution" with acknowledgment.

You do get that this nation was based in large principle on Christian ideas, beliefs and tradition. Further more the vast majority of people have always been Christian. So it IS A CHRISTIAN NATION.

When we consider a Muslim country or the Muslim world.... does anyone stop and discount that generalization by pointing out there are Jews and CHristians there?

No.... because the mass of people, the culture and their laws reflect Islam.

Your argument is better founded to simply say "we are no longer a Christian Nation."

Your references to the Constitution are a little puzzling, when it simply says-

-prohibits Congress from infringing on people right to worship.

-Prohibits Congress from "establishing a religion.

How does some silly decree acknowledging, that our people and the basis for our law and culture is in large part due to the Christian faith (clearly more than any other) .. how does that establish a national religion or infringe on any one else's right to practice theirs?

Edited April 7, 2013 by Danno

[VanessaTony 3,567]

Jeez what's next, an official "race" of the US ? Or an official "sexuality" ?

Because of course both of those are no different than naming an official "tree" or an official "bird" - how could it possibly harm anyone who's "different" ?????

That is one of the most ridiculous things I've read in a long time.

It doesn't "harm" people and anyone who would think it does is being ridiculous. Having an official language encourages people to speak the same language as their country-men and inevitably brings people together. That doesn't stop people from being different, or speaking other languages... but it will aid in integration and feelings of comfort.

No-one has a problem with people maintaining their language, culture or identity, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be some degree of assimilation and speaking the "language of the country" would be the first step.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

That is one of the most ridiculous things I've read in a long time.

It doesn't "harm" people and anyone who would think it does is being ridiculous. Having an official language encourages people to speak the same language as their country-men and inevitably brings people together. That doesn't stop people from being different, or speaking other languages... but it will aid in integration and feelings of comfort.

No-one has a problem with people maintaining their language, culture or identity, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be some degree of assimilation and speaking the "language of the country" would be the first step.

I don't know what you're on about, but I am responding to the OP - which is about an official religion. So who cares what you think - you're off topic.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

2.The Mayflower compact highlights our connection to the broad Christian faith,

What? How many English Calvinists do you know? How is that a "broad" connection to the various Christian sects and denominations? There is a certain disagreement among the various "Christians" which of those are "real" Christians.

[Danno 1,228]

What? How many English Calvinists do you know? How is that a "broad" connection to the various Christian sects and denominations? There is a certain disagreement among the various "Christians" which of those are "real" Christians.

Of course and people who love Basket ball can't seem to agree which team has more game but.... no one confuses that which is the common denominator.