Would you support requiring all Americans to be religious

[Correll]

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.

ONe way is the creation of a false meme that having religious Faith and using it in consideration of policy and politics is the same as Establishment of Religion and constantly attempting to marginalize people for that.

 

[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.

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?

He actually said one denomination cannot be favored over another, but the government shoild be able to favor religion over non religion.

 

[jknowgood]

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?

Color blind.

 

[Eaglewings]

It is in the end times that tattoos on our forehead will tell others if we are christian...and those who are christian die.

 

[Correll]

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?

He actually said one denomination cannot be favored over another, but the government shoild be able to favor religion over non religion.

Is he wrong?

 

[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.

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

The constitution says the free exercise of religion will not be prohibited, but that does not prohibit the government from demanding that citizens freely exercise one religion or another. That is why right wingers say there is no freedom from religion, only freedom of religion.

 

[jknowgood]

It is in the end times that tattoos on our forehead will tell others if we are christian...and those who are christian die.

Those that don't get the mark of the beast dies.

 

[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.

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?

He actually said one denomination cannot be favored over another, but the government shoild be able to favor religion over non religion.

Is he wrong?

If it can favor religion over non-religion, then you must conclude that it can render non-religious people as non citizens without rights. That is the ultimate result of favoring religion over non-religion. The endgame so to speak. What does it mean to you?

 

[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.

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

The constitution says the free exercise of religion will not be prohibited, but that does not prohibit the government from demanding that citizens freely exercise one religion or another. That is why right wingers say there is no freedom from religion, only freedom of religion.

If you examine Congress' enumerated powers, you will not find any power that would allow them to require that any of the people of the several states be religious. Such a law would be outside the scope of their delegated powers.

 

[Correll]

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.

The constitution says the free exercise of religion will not be prohibited, but that does not prohibit the government from demanding that citizens freely exercise one religion or another. That is why right wingers say there is no freedom from religion, only freedom of religion.

I have never heard a "right winger" say that the government can demand that citizens "freely exercise" a religion.

That is just nonsense you made up.

Denying "Freedom From Religion" comes up when you libs try to drive religious people from the PUblic Square just because they are religious.

You are either lying, or you have the ability to empathize of a dead fish.

 

[Davros]

It is in the end times that tattoos on our forehead will tell others if we are christian...and those who are christian die.

Those that don't get the mark of the beast dies.

In the Conservative Christian Utopia all those who are non Christian would be executed so that they can be sent swiftly to hell and prevented from corrupting any believers.

 

[Correll]

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?

He actually said one denomination cannot be favored over another, but the government shoild be able to favor religion over non religion.

Is he wrong?

If it can favor religion over non-religion, then you must conclude that it can render non-religious people as non citizens without rights. That is the ultimate result of favoring religion over non-religion. The endgame so to speak. What does it mean to you?

That is a huge and unsupported jump.

YOu are being irrationally afraid of religious people.

 

[Correll]

It is in the end times that tattoos on our forehead will tell others if we are christian...and those who are christian die.

Those that don't get the mark of the beast dies.

In the Conservative Christian Utopia all those who are non Christian would be executed so that they can be sent swiftly to hell and prevented from corrupting any believers.

Made up nonsense.

Your hysteria is not building your credibility here.

 

[boedicca]

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.

The constitution says the free exercise of religion will not be prohibited, but that does not prohibit the government from demanding that citizens freely exercise one religion or another. That is why right wingers say there is no freedom from religion, only freedom of religion.

You really do not grok the First Amendment. I doubt you've ever read it. Here you go:

"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."


The Free Exercise of Religion encompasses the Freedom to not follow any religion, bub.

 

[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.

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.

Public accommodation reigning over one's conscience in individual enterprise should not be permitted. There are other venues to obtain services, and forcing someone to perform work they choose not to perform is quite simply slavery.

I do agree that in public offices, such as licensing or governmental services necessary to the functioning of society, or when hired by an individual company to perform certain tasks apparent at the time of hire, you either can in good conscience do the job, or find another. Render to Caesar and all that.

 

[Davros]

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.

These Christians were in the business of baking cakes. That was not endorsement of the gay marriage, merely providing public accomodation for baking cakes.

 

[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.

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.

Look at all the fuss about school kids seeing Father Christmas, having a nativity play, a Christmas tree, the colours red and green at Christmas... Oops .... Winterval...and so on.

 

[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?

He actually said one denomination cannot be favored over another, but the government shoild be able to favor religion over non religion.

I didn't read that he said religion should be favoured at all. Perhaps you could quote it?

 

[boedicca]

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.

These Christians were in the business of baking cakes. That was not endorsement of the gay marriage, merely providing public accomodation for baking cakes.

Merely being forced to do something against their will in order to placate a Totalitarian Ideology.

 

[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.

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

The constitution says the free exercise of religion will not be prohibited, but that does not prohibit the government from demanding that citizens freely exercise one religion or another. That is why right wingers say there is no freedom from religion, only freedom of religion.

If you examine Congress' enumerated powers, you will not find any power that would allow them to require that any of the people of the several states be religious. Such a law would be outside the scope of their delegated powers.

Then the states could pass such laws? Would you be in support of such laws?