Would you support requiring all Americans to be religious

[jknowgood]

JKNOWGOOD SAID:

"Anyway look at schools before prayer was banned and after."

Nonsense.

This fails as a post hoc fallacy.

There is no evidence whatsoever that schools as government entities following First Amendment jurisprudence in any manner 'disadvantages' the quality of education a student might receive.

Kids today need safe zones if they get offended. Yes we need prayer.

 

[Yarddog]

The religious right is constantly harping on this being a Christian nation, and "you have to believe in something greater than yourself", and that atheism is an existential threat to the United States, and that the Constitution protects freedom of religion but not the freedom to be non religious.

Scalia is the latest to join this discussion, saying government should favor religion over non religion and that America has only prospered because she has honored God.
Scalia: 'Don't cram' religious neutrality 'down throats of American people'

So would you favor passage of a law requiring all Americans to offer annual proof that they belong to an approved religious body (i.e. no spaghetti monster type stuff)? And what should be the penalty of failing to prove this? Death seems to be the only viable penalty to ensure that every American is religious, and so that no atheist scum are able to threaten America's survival by mocking God.

I've never seen a Christian support laws making religion mandatory. Scalia's questionable notion of "favoring" is not the same thing as "requiring".

That would be as crazy as a Regressive Leftist wanting a law fining people for not being PC.

New York Becomes First City to Fine People for Using Wrong Gender Pronouns

Oops. Maybe not a good example.
.

Guess th left is self projecting again. They like to create crazy rules for everyone else how they are supposed to think. They must assume Christians want to do the same thing. Never did trust that old lady at the bake sale anyways! hahaha

 

[Muhammed]

The religious right is constantly harping on this being a Christian nation, and "you have to believe in something greater than yourself", and that atheism is an existential threat to the United States, and that the Constitution protects freedom of religion but not the freedom to be non religious.

Scalia is the latest to join this discussion, saying government should favor religion over non religion and that America has only prospered because she has honored God.
Scalia: 'Don't cram' religious neutrality 'down throats of American people'

So would you favor passage of a law requiring all Americans to offer annual proof that they belong to an approved religious body (i.e. no spaghetti monster type stuff)? And what should be the penalty of failing to prove this? Death seems to be the only viable penalty to ensure that every American is religious, and so that no atheist scum are able to threaten America's survival by mocking God.

Can't we just all agree to worship the flying spaghetti-breathing dragon that lives in the attic of my garage with Fonzi and fends off those meddling kids that keep painting flowers on my van and stealing my weed?

 

[Centinel]

The religious right is constantly harping on this being a Christian nation, and "you have to believe in something greater than yourself", and that atheism is an existential threat to the United States, and that the Constitution protects freedom of religion but not the freedom to be non religious.

Scalia is the latest to join this discussion, saying government should favor religion over non religion and that America has only prospered because she has honored God.
Scalia: 'Don't cram' religious neutrality 'down throats of American people'

So would you favor passage of a law requiring all Americans to offer annual proof that they belong to an approved religious body (i.e. no spaghetti monster type stuff)? And what should be the penalty of failing to prove this? Death seems to be the only viable penalty to ensure that every American is religious, and so that no atheist scum are able to threaten America's survival by mocking God.

Can't we just all agree to worship the flying spaghetti-breathing dragon that lives in the attic of my garage with Fonzi and fends off those meddling kids that keep painting flowers on my van and stealing my weed?

We can agree to do so, but Congress has no power to make us do so.

 

[Arianrhod]

You only see what you want to see

I prayed that your posts would contain something other than platitudes, and my prayer wasn't answered. QED.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The religious right is constantly harping on this being a Christian nation, and "you have to believe in something greater than yourself", and that atheism is an existential threat to the United States, and that the Constitution protects freedom of religion but not the freedom to be non religious.

Scalia is the latest to join this discussion, saying government should favor religion over non religion and that America has only prospered because she has honored God.
Scalia: 'Don't cram' religious neutrality 'down throats of American people'

So would you favor passage of a law requiring all Americans to offer annual proof that they belong to an approved religious body (i.e. no spaghetti monster type stuff)? And what should be the penalty of failing to prove this? Death seems to be the only viable penalty to ensure that every American is religious, and so that no atheist scum are able to threaten America's survival by mocking God.

I've never seen a Christian support laws making religion mandatory. Scalia's questionable notion of "favoring" is not the same thing as "requiring".

That would be as crazy as a Regressive Leftist wanting a law fining people for not being PC.

New York Becomes First City to Fine People for Using Wrong Gender Pronouns

Oops. Maybe not a good example.
.

Christians have been doing it for decades, such as compelling the reading of bible verses in public school through government mandate (see e.g. Abington School District v. Schempp (1963)).

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A christian prayer covers about all the religions. Praying to the Lord to let him know your thank him and to bless the day you are fixing to live won't harm anyone.

You're describing two different things.

And going about your school day without praying in the classroom won't harm anyone.

Yeah, because it has worked out well since it was banned.

What harm do you perceive it's caused?

Look at schools today compared to the schools of the past. My gosh kids today have to have safety zones if they get offended.

That's not a function of prayer/no prayer, and I don't see how prayer would fix it.

Likely because it wouldn't.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You're describing two different things.

And going about your school day without praying in the classroom won't harm anyone.

Yeah, because it has worked out well since it was banned.

What harm do you perceive it's caused?

Look at schools today compared to the schools of the past. My gosh kids today have to have safety zones if they get offended.

That's not a function of prayer/no prayer, and I don't see how prayer would fix it.

Well you don't have faith. Anyway look at schools before prayer was banned and after.

You don't have any facts or evidence.

This is as much a red herring fallacy as a post hoc fallacy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We have gotten along without such a law for a couple of hundred years. We had a social fabric that supported decency. Now the social fabric supports evil and perversion. A law won't change a pervert into a normal person.

Testify brother!!!

The OP is correct. In the past we had civility and decency. Now we have moral relativism and decadence.
I will submit however that government was responsible for the type of censorship and regulations that were oppressive and were put into place for the sole purpose of controlling the population.
In the 60's, we broke away from that and for a time we had a fair balance between freedom of expression and what community standards deemed appropriate. Now we've gone off the deep end.

More unfounded nonsense, another post hoc fallacy.

 

[jknowgood]

Yeah, because it has worked out well since it was banned.

What harm do you perceive it's caused?

Look at schools today compared to the schools of the past. My gosh kids today have to have safety zones if they get offended.

That's not a function of prayer/no prayer, and I don't see how prayer would fix it.

Well you don't have faith. Anyway look at schools before prayer was banned and after.

You don't have any facts or evidence.

This is as much a red herring fallacy as a post hoc fallacy.

At a time why God was welcomed in school we turned out educated individuals. Now that God is out, the education system is a failure. We have students who cannot figure out what sex they are. They graduate without not knowing how to read. If you can't see the difference, you are blind.

 

[BluesLegend]

Liberals run around trying to impose their views on everyone, while claiming its Christians who are doing this got it. /eyeroll

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The religious right is constantly harping on this being a Christian nation, and "you have to believe in something greater than yourself", and that atheism is an existential threat to the United States, and that the Constitution protects freedom of religion but not the freedom to be non religious.

Scalia is the latest to join this discussion, saying government should favor religion over non religion and that America has only prospered because she has honored God.
Scalia: 'Don't cram' religious neutrality 'down throats of American people'

So would you favor passage of a law requiring all Americans to offer annual proof that they belong to an approved religious body (i.e. no spaghetti monster type stuff)? And what should be the penalty of failing to prove this? Death seems to be the only viable penalty to ensure that every American is religious, and so that no atheist scum are able to threaten America's survival by mocking God.

No, I would not, and that is not what Scalia said.

However, it is still easily a Christian majority, and the basis of the foundations are Judea-Christian in origin, as well as the classical liberalism of Locke, Say, Malthus, Hobbes, and others.

While it may not be "a Christian nation", it is by far "a nation of Christians"

Hence the need for the Establishment Clause, to ensure the majority not seek to disadvantage the minority through force of law – as has occurred for too often during the course of the history of Western Civilization.

Indeed, but what we have now is the minority seeking to disadvantage the majority through force of law, and that must stop.

 

[Tilly]

The religious right is constantly harping on this being a Christian nation, and "you have to believe in something greater than yourself", and that atheism is an existential threat to the United States, and that the Constitution protects freedom of religion but not the freedom to be non religious.

Scalia is the latest to join this discussion, saying government should favor religion over non religion and that America has only prospered because she has honored God.
Scalia: 'Don't cram' religious neutrality 'down throats of American people'

So would you favor passage of a law requiring all Americans to offer annual proof that they belong to an approved religious body (i.e. no spaghetti monster type stuff)? And what should be the penalty of failing to prove this? Death seems to be the only viable penalty to ensure that every American is religious, and so that no atheist scum are able to threaten America's survival by mocking God.

On Saturday, he said the First Amendment prohibits the government from endorsing one religion over another. But, he added, that doesn’t mean the government has to favor non-religion over religion.

He argued that’s a more modern reading originating in the courts in the 1960s.

What's wrong with that? Do you think non-religious people should be favoured?

 

[Tilly]

The religious right is constantly harping on this being a Christian nation, and "you have to believe in something greater than yourself", and that atheism is an existential threat to the United States, and that the Constitution protects freedom of religion but not the freedom to be non religious.

Scalia is the latest to join this discussion, saying government should favor religion over non religion and that America has only prospered because she has honored God.
Scalia: 'Don't cram' religious neutrality 'down throats of American people'

So would you favor passage of a law requiring all Americans to offer annual proof that they belong to an approved religious body (i.e. no spaghetti monster type stuff)? And what should be the penalty of failing to prove this? Death seems to be the only viable penalty to ensure that every American is religious, and so that no atheist scum are able to threaten America's survival by mocking God.

I've never seen a Christian support laws making religion mandatory. Scalia's questionable notion of "favoring" is not the same thing as "requiring".

That would be as crazy as a Regressive Leftist wanting a law fining people for not being PC.

New York Becomes First City to Fine People for Using Wrong Gender Pronouns

Oops. Maybe not a good example.
.

OMG.

 

[Jackson]

The religious right is constantly harping on this being a Christian nation, and "you have to believe in something greater than yourself", and that atheism is an existential threat to the United States, and that the Constitution protects freedom of religion but not the freedom to be non religious.

Scalia is the latest to join this discussion, saying government should favor religion over non religion and that America has only prospered because she has honored God.
Scalia: 'Don't cram' religious neutrality 'down throats of American people'

So would you favor passage of a law requiring all Americans to offer annual proof that they belong to an approved religious body (i.e. no spaghetti monster type stuff)? And what should be the penalty of failing to prove this? Death seems to be the only viable penalty to ensure that every American is religious, and so that no atheist scum are able to threaten America's survival by mocking God.

Hell, no! You are wrong. The Constitution protects people to be non religious. Equal Opportunity Country.

 

[Tilly]

The religious right is constantly harping on this being a Christian nation, and "you have to believe in something greater than yourself", and that atheism is an existential threat to the United States, and that the Constitution protects freedom of religion but not the freedom to be non religious.

Scalia is the latest to join this discussion, saying government should favor religion over non religion and that America has only prospered because she has honored God.
Scalia: 'Don't cram' religious neutrality 'down throats of American people'

So would you favor passage of a law requiring all Americans to offer annual proof that they belong to an approved religious body (i.e. no spaghetti monster type stuff)? And what should be the penalty of failing to prove this? Death seems to be the only viable penalty to ensure that every American is religious, and so that no atheist scum are able to threaten America's survival by mocking God.

Which of Congress' enumerated powers would allow the enactment of such a law?

None.....

Yes, precisely. Therefore, we can't legally have such a law.

The OP was misleading. No one asked for such a law in the article.

 

[Tilly]

You only see what you want to see

I prayed that your posts would contain something other than platitudes, and my prayer wasn't answered. QED.

Well, you prayed to that Welsh goddess, arianhod

 

[whitehall]

Does tolerance equal favoritism in the low information predominately left wing mind? Christians would be glad to be left alone instead of cramming left wing ideology down their throats. Imagine forcing Muslems to cook pork for a Christian wedding like they forced Christians to bake a cake for sodomites.

 

[Davros]

The religious right is constantly harping on this being a Christian nation, and "you have to believe in something greater than yourself", and that atheism is an existential threat to the United States, and that the Constitution protects freedom of religion but not the freedom to be non religious.

Scalia is the latest to join this discussion, saying government should favor religion over non religion and that America has only prospered because she has honored God.
Scalia: 'Don't cram' religious neutrality 'down throats of American people'

So would you favor passage of a law requiring all Americans to offer annual proof that they belong to an approved religious body (i.e. no spaghetti monster type stuff)? And what should be the penalty of failing to prove this? Death seems to be the only viable penalty to ensure that every American is religious, and so that no atheist scum are able to threaten America's survival by mocking God.

No, I would not, and that is not what Scalia said.

However, it is still easily a Christian majority, and the basis of the foundations are Judea-Christian in origin, as well as the classical liberalism of Locke, Say, Malthus, Hobbes, and others.

While it may not be "a Christian nation", it is by far "a nation of Christians"

Hence the need for the Establishment Clause, to ensure the majority not seek to disadvantage the minority through force of law – as has occurred for too often during the course of the history of Western Civilization.

Indeed, but what we have now is the minority seeking to disadvantage the majority through force of law, and that must stop.

In what way are non-Christians trying to disadvantage Christians? Public accommodation is public accomodation. You are baking a cake, not endorsing gay marriage. You are signing a legal document as required by law, not personally endorsing gay marriage.

 

[Arianrhod]

What harm do you perceive it's caused?

Look at schools today compared to the schools of the past. My gosh kids today have to have safety zones if they get offended.

That's not a function of prayer/no prayer, and I don't see how prayer would fix it.

Well you don't have faith. Anyway look at schools before prayer was banned and after.

You don't have any facts or evidence.

This is as much a red herring fallacy as a post hoc fallacy.

At a time why God was welcomed in school we turned out educated individuals. Now that God is out, the education system is a failure.

These days your God is being home-schooled, and he's a lousy speller.

How did your God feel about segregation?