Poll: Vast majority of Americans still self-identify as Christians

So you’re claiming the people that wrote and created the Constitution were violating it. Interesting. And what gives you that idea. They would know the intent better than we, would they not? Or do you consider yourself more enlightened than they and that they just didn’t do it right yet?

Yeah, I am. I have the quotes from Jefferson, Madison, and others from the early 1800′s expressing a distaste for the collusion of religion and government that they saw transpiring. THEY wrote the Constitution, BoR and DoI… THEY know better what the intent was. Do I need to requote them?

Not everyone who came over here to early America wanted to do away with the collusion of religion and government. It was these people who broke the rules and why we have the quotes we do from Madison, Jefferson and others seeking to clarify the intent of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses.

Where does the word NEED come into play? We have the RIGHT to do so. You do not have the RIGHT to prevent us. That’s the difference. You are trying to prevent our FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION because you find it distasteful. There’s plenty out there that share your beliefs. That doesn’t make them right.

You already have the right to display your religious symbols and artwork at your house, in your church, in museums and convention centers and anywhere there is private property. I characterize it as a need because you apparently feel that all those other places aren’t a big enough expression of religious fervor.

The only reason you and others wish to push religious artwork and symbols into government buildings is because you think it somehow validates your beliefs and “codifies” our nation and government as a “Christian nation”. Something the establishment and free exercise clauses were designed to prevent.

SauerKraut537 on April 5, 2013 at 3:24 PM

They were concerned with the State usurping that belief system to use with its own nefarious ends as was done in England. They definitely did not believe in restricting religious faith in public.

You are lying if you claim otherwise.

njrob on April 5, 2013 at 4:29 PM

You got the first part right, but I haven’t said they were for restricting religious faith in public. How hard is it to understand? I’ve said it I don’t know how many times now, they weren’t for US Government buildings being made into places of worship and advocacy. This is completely different from what you keep saying I’m saying.

Some people, like yourself, in those days apparently disagreed with the intent of the Constitution and tried shoehorning religious services and worship into government activities. They were wrong for doing so, and as the quotes I mentioned illustrate, Jefferson, Madison and others called them out on it.

If the intent of the founders was to make government more religious, why was the state church of Massachusetts and Connecticut outlawed in 1833?

SauerKraut537 on April 5, 2013 at 5:46 PM

They voluntarily choose to do so according to their own State laws. Nothing in the federal government said otherwise as was the case from all the years from 1787 to 1833 or do you just imagine those years didn’t exist?

Seriously, how can you write these obvious falsehoods with a straight face?

njrob on April 5, 2013 at 9:20 PM

Are you aware that the Bill of Rights applies to the states as well? That no church and state government was supposed to be working hand in hand?

The REASON that the Massachusetts state church issue and other religious oversteps weren’t addressed until the early 1800′s was because they had a lot to do to standardize things and undo some of the laws the states passed early on in the first 25 years of our nations existence.

You DO realize that the former colonies/now states weren’t all buddy buddy and on the same page all the time, right? That some states were more religious than others, some more liberty driven, etc?

Seriously, how can you claim I’m the one writing obvious falsehoods with a straight face while you ignore the history of our country. I’ve corrected you time and again with facts and quotes, etc and you just ignore it like it doesn’t exist, all the while spouting your ad hominems at me trying to claim me discredited. As if you had that power. LOL!

Dude, read a book please.

SauerKraut537 on April 5, 2013 at 11:38 PM

There has NEVER been, nor will there ever be a demand that atheists aren’t allowed to serve in government.

listens2glenn on April 5, 2013 at 9:24 PM

Seriously? My home state of Texas has a rule on the books that says that one cannot run for office in the state without first affirming their belief in the existence of god. It doesn’t have to be the Christian god, although in my state someone not Christian doesn’t stand a chance when pitted up against the religious voting bloc.

There are 8 or 9 more states that still have like phrases forcing the belief in a god on state office holders.

You can’t say there has never been, and those laws very well could be enforced again… I believe it used to be 33 states in total but the last 8 or 9 hold outs still haven’t removed the language.

But congrats on not commenting on my comment about the State of Massachusetts state Congregationalist church, which bled over into Connecticut as well.

SauerKraut537 on April 5, 2013 at 11:44 PM

listens2glenn on April 6, 2013 at 12:00 AM

Google is your friend…

SauerKraut537 on April 6, 2013 at 12:03 AM

njrob on April 6, 2013 at 10:24 AM

LOL!

Are you a dingbat? EVERY source is biased. I’m glad you exhibited some scientific rigor on this subject, now if only you could apply the same rigor to your religious beliefs!

Did you miss the part where I said that there USED TO BE like 33 states with rules like these on the books? Of COURSE some state constitutions have changed, and I’m glad Maryland decided to change it, bravo for them!

Let me ask you this. In your “investigation” of the link I provided (which might be years old, I didn’t create the page), did you read about how it was the Federal government that made the states not enforce these parts? That it was on the states to change them? Why are the 7 or so other states listed on that page still leaving these rules in place?

Not that they can be enforced, and thank god for that, but you know as well as I that people of unbelief have very little chance of overcoming the religious in a ballot box, so while the laws/rules aren’t enforcable (meaning that an unbeliever can run), they’re enforceable at the ballot box.

You say they gave equal protection but why didn’t they say Christians, Muslims, Jews? Why only Christians? That sounds unequal to me…

Why did it take until 1961 for these state constitutions to be changed? Why are there still some states with these religious requirements, like my home state Texas?

SauerKraut537 on April 6, 2013 at 10:59 AM

The North Carolina Constitution of 1776 disestablished the Anglican church, but until 1835 the NC Constitution allowed only Protestants to hold public office. From 1835–1876 it allowed only Christians (including Catholics) to hold public office.

Article VI, Section 8 of the current NC Constitution forbids “any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God” from holding public office.

Such clauses were held by the United States Supreme Court to be unenforceable in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, when the court ruled unanimously that such clauses constituted a religious test incompatible with First and Fourteenth Amendment protections.

SauerKraut537 on April 6, 2013 at 11:26 AM

That shows they were permitted to have a State Church which counters all your arguments about the Constitution preventing a Church for individual States. The State itself decided to take away that right. That right is not GRANTED by the Federal Government.

njrob on April 6, 2013 at 12:44 PM

No, that shows they overstepped the intent of the US Constitution and were called out on it. They had to be reigned in.

SauerKraut537 on April 6, 2013 at 12:53 PM

No. It shows the court used an incorrect argument to reach the correct decision because religious tests are not permitted as per Article VI of the Constitution.

njrob on April 6, 2013 at 1:06 PM

Dipstick, all you have yo do is read before popping off next time…

The Court did not base its holding on the no religious test clause of Article VI.

In Footnote 1 of the opinion Justice Black wrote:

Appellant also claimed that the State’s test oath requirement violates the provision of Art. VI of the Federal Constitution that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Because we are reversing the judgment on other grounds, we find it unnecessary to consider appellant’s contention that this provision applies to state as well as federal offices.

SauerKraut537 on April 6, 2013 at 1:12 PM

I look forward to your people taking credit for the millions killed under the Soviet reign where they demanded a separation of church and state. Carry on.

njrob on April 6, 2013 at 2:11 PM

The 30 Years War in Central Europe, waged between Catholic and Protestant, resulted in over a third of the population in Central Europe dying.

Millions more than the millions you claim atheists killed have died throughout history from religiously based wars. Wars over interpretations of the same religion, wars between different civilizations with different gods they worshiped. All wars have had some level of religious overtone to them.

“For god and country!”

SauerKraut537 on April 6, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Bandit13 on April 6, 2013 at 2:28 PM

What would Jesus NOT do?

SauerKraut537 on April 6, 2013 at 2:47 PM

njrob on April 6, 2013 at 3:01 PM

LOL! The states JOINED the United States, and by joining agreed to the US Constitution with its wall of separation between church and state… They signed on to what that entailed. That the states had previously passed Constitutions that had statements and laws that ran counter to the US Constitution is well known. Yes, they had State religions, but once they signed on and agreed to the US Constitution that all changed for them. It just took, in some cases, decades for the states to change their laws, or have them changed for them.

Yes, religious events took place in government buildings, this is history. But they were wrong to do so.

Supreme Court decisions that not only mentioned god, but explained how integral he was to our nation’s forming and foundation? Provide me links, until then I call BS.

You’ve ignored that Black had his own personal agenda that he implemented while ignoring the actual law.

Your claims about Black’s “agenda” sounds just a bit conspiracy theorist, don’tcha think? You’re not by chance the 9/11 truther/birther type are you?

SauerKraut537 on April 6, 2013 at 3:20 PM

njrob on April 6, 2013 at 3:35 PM

Apparently YOU don’t read…

In this court decision, the court held that a minister was not a foreign laborer under the statute even though he was a foreigner.

“There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people. While because of a general recognition of this truth the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. Com., 11 Serg. & R. 394, 400, it was decided that, ‘Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania.”
— Supreme Court Decision, 1892 Church of the Holy Trinity Decision v United States

The case is famous for Justice Brewer’s statements that America is a “Christian nation.”

These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. 143 U.S. 457 (1892)

But Justice Brewer published a book in 1905, titled The United States: A Christian Nation, in which he DISAGREED with the interpretation of the court’s decision as a statement or endorsement by the Supreme Court that the United States is officially in law a “Christian Nation”:

But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion, or that the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that ‘congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. [...] Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions.

Have fun chewing on that. I’m sure it’ll come out like the rest of the crappy logic and understanding you’ve flung my way.

SauerKraut537 on April 6, 2013 at 4:50 PM