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

[Danno 1,228]

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.

When you read these accounts, one of the things we often fail to do is, judge these people by the times they lived in.

The simply fact that this poor guy had a trial and some measure of rights at all was virtually unknown in the world with few exceptions.

Punishments were down right torture, "THIS WAS THE WORLD" at the time, to judge historical acts and figures by a contemporary standard is disingenuous.

In fact this is why we celebrate people and movement in history... not because they were typical but because they were game changers.

And for every incident that you can name of what we would today consider abuse.... I could name a thousand of people acting out their faith by starting hospitals, poor-houses, poverty societies, Schools,

Universities, orphanages, Art studios even whole cities and towns. etc, etc,etc.

[Danno 1,228]

danno has the armor of christ. you guys don't stand a chance.

I just play the role of counter-balance.

[decocker 7,198]

I just play the role of counter-balance.

how humble.

[himher 634]

Ahhh, you updated, a bit.

It's the churches fault that people are sent to death row?

Those same people also set up a system whereby the rights of the convicted are carefully observed which is one reason if I ask you to give me a list of innocent people executed, you would have a hard time doing so.

As far as I know it takes all members of the jury to put someone on death row....

are you suggesting every member on those juries are faithful Christians? Not one "back slider" or doubter to share the blame as well?

No, I don't. I will also respectfully say that I do not think that it is the fault of the Churches or the fundamental Church beliefs and teachings that led to the Salem witch trials or to the Inquisition or to the Crusades or to the wars between Catholics and Protestants either.

Churches / religions / sects of beliefs are made up of people however and those people wish or need leaders. Leaders can be good or bad. It is often but not always the case that leadership is held by those who wish power for the sake of power and it is in this that so many times those in power, in order to facilitate more power, engage in horrific practices in the NAME of the religion or sect which they lead and in this the ability to do so was recognized as MUST be limited.

Those who DO engage in these practices NEVER are actually following the fundamental teachings of their belief sets while they do these things yet they are somehow able to convince the followers that these things are what God or name the diety wishes.

Edited April 7, 2013 by himher

[himher 634]

When you read these accounts, one of the things we often fail to do is, judge these people by the times they lived in.

The simply fact that this poor guy had a trial and some measure of rights at all was virtually unknown in the world with few exceptions.

Punishments were down right torture, "THIS WAS THE WORLD" at the time, to judge historical acts and figures by a contemporary standard is disingenuous.

In fact this is why we celebrate people and movement in history... not because they were typical but because they were game changers.

And for every incident that you can name of what we would today consider abuse.... I could name a thousand of people acting out their faith by starting hospitals, poor-houses, poverty societies, Schools,

Universities, orphanages, Art studios even whole cities and towns. etc, etc,etc.

True but the same downright torture and bloodshed in the name of the church shows up back in 337 AD all the way to the 1990's so which time period is best appropriate to judge? It does not require modification of the Constitution to act out one's faith in starting hispitals, poor-houses, poverty societies, schools, or food banks but it will require modification of the Constitution to allow the Church (to be fair ANY) religion to apply their laws and dole out punishments and taxes and determine who can or will live or die based on the litmus test of what are considered official beliefs. So I am wondering if all of the good is possible now and none of the bad is possible now why the need to tweak the Constitution?

Edited April 7, 2013 by himher

[himher 634]

I just play the role of counter-balance.

LOL - if typing while hunched over a boiling pot with a great big gas-powered turbine-driven stirrer is defined as counter-balance yes you do

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Of course I speak broadly, using your ruler a newborn child has a two hour connection.

While I try not to correct those more able than me but if you will allow me?

NAtions aren't really "founded" though they can be.

For instance -How many indian Nations were there when Europeans arrived and what are the dates of their founding?

Of course there is not good answer and yet we know there were nations here why?

Because words still have meanings.

nation |ˈnā sh ən|

noun

a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory : leading industrialized nations.

Bonus question- For whom was the Constitution founded for?

Oh. So you mean white english speaking protestants that can't pay their debts. I guess I fail on one or more of those criteria.

[Danno 1,228]

Oh. So you mean white english speaking protestants that can't pay their debts. I guess I fail on one or more of those criteria.

Ahhh come on man you sound like a professor rattling on, I am looking for specifics, not speculations based in angst.

It is plainly stated.

[himher 634]

Oh. So you mean white english speaking protestants that can't pay their debts. I guess I fail on one or more of those criteria.

[Danno 1,228]

True but the same downright torture and bloodshed in the name of the church shows up back in 337 AD all the way to the 1990's so which time period is best appropriate to judge? It does not require modification of the Constitution to act out one's faith in starting hispitals, poor-houses, poverty societies, schools, or food banks but it will require modification of the Constitution to allow the Church (to be fair ANY) religion to apply their laws and dole out punishments and taxes and determine who can or will live or die based on the litmus test of what are considered official beliefs. So I am wondering if all of the good is possible now and none of the bad is possible now why the need to tweak the Constitution?

Even though your assessment is heavily biased and skewed, let me be clear, I am not proposing any change to the Constitution, and I would be interested to learn of any great movement to do so.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Even though your assessment is heavily biased and skewed, let me be clear, I am not proposing any change to the Constitution, and I would be interested to learn of any great movement to do so.

It is the title of this thread. Under the current Constitution as it is written, you can't do what you propose to do for a very valid reason: It was tried in the past, and disenfranchised large portions of the population, so the courts interpreted the 1st Amendment to mean the Federal government can't do it, and the 14th Amendment to mean the same restrictions placed on the Federal government apply to all levels of the government as far as individual rights.

Edited April 7, 2013 by The Patriot

[himher 634]

a third of Americans would like to establish Christianity as their official state religion

Republicans supporting the establishment of Christianity as the official religion of the United States

the same percentage of people would support a constitutional amendment to make Christianity the official religion of the United States.

The above is cut / pasted from the original post and underlies the basis of the original topic Danno. "establish Christianity" was stated twice and "constitutional ammendment" once.

Though perhaps appearing biased or skewed, I will reiterate only that I was referencing historical accounts incurred in the name of official state-sponsored religion and that "establish Christianity" is in direct contradiction to:

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

I did expand my comments to ANY religion - I am not at all in favor of formal Sharia or ?Halacha? (hope nature boy doesn't flag that if it's misspelled) law or any other religious based law either.

Edited April 7, 2013 by himher

[Darnell 8,479]

Oh. So you mean white english speaking protestants that can't pay their debts. I guess I fail on one or more of those criteria.

That was Australia, for a while, IIRC...

[Danno 1,228]

a third of Americans would like to establish Christianity as their official state religion

Republicans supporting the establishment of Christianity as the official religion of the United States

the same percentage of people would support a constitutional amendment to make Christianity the official religion of the United States.

The above is cut / pasted from the original post and underlies the basis of the original topic Danno. "establish Christianity" was stated twice and "constitutional ammendment" once.

Though perhaps appearing biased or skewed, I will reiterate only that I was referencing historical accounts incurred in the name of official state-sponsored religion and that "establish Christianity" is in direct contradiction to:

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

I did expand my comments to ANY religion - I am not at all in favor of formal Sharia or ?Halacha? (hope nature boy doesn't flag that if it's misspelled) law or any other religious based law either.

Someone takes a poll, you quote the question asked in that poll and then carry on like a poll has some consequence.

Let me ask again, where is this movement to amend the Constitution? (polls are not the same thing as a movement)

[himher 634]

The first time I saw anything on this was when this topic was posted. I am unaware of any movement if it exists at all.