While the North Carolina House of Representatives has finally killed the bill to allow the state to establish a state religion, a new study found that 34 percent of adults would favor establishing Christianity as the official state religion. While 47 percent opposed the establishment of state religion, it was less than a majority.
Another 11 percent thought that the Constitution allowed for the establishment of an official religion. Thus, they are entirely unaware of the workings of the first amendment or the prior rulings of the Supreme Court.
Republicans were the most likely to favor the establishment of a state religion with 55 percent favoring it in their own state and 46 percent favoring a national constitutional amendment.
While the poll reportedly included 1000 people (a sizable group), I still want to believe that it is skewed and that most people recognize the danger of religious-based government in a world torn apart of sectarian violence. Even if these people lack knowledge of the Constitution, they are given a daily lesson on the dangers of state-sponsored religion in their newspapers and news broadcasts. For those advocating such a change, they leave us with the chilling view that, for some, the problem with abusive theocratic regimes like Iran is simply the disagreement with the choice of the religion.
Source: HuffPost
G.Mason,
This article is about a poll of some sort, involving 1000 people. 34% seemed to think a national religion would be OK. Could be true.
What does this have to do with the second amendment, drones, Obama, Sandy Hook, pro choice, on and on?
In case you haven’t been reading: nothing.
Please leave your “liberal” (relative to Attila the Hun?) rants on your second amendment fantasies, for threads concerned with gun control. There are many opportunities.
To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
To a second amendment freak, everything looks like a firearms issue.
Darren,
I grew up near Salem, Massachusetts. I wonder if many people really know much about the witch hysteria and trials of 1692.
Here’s some interesting information from the First Church in Salem (Unitarian);
http://www.firstchurchinsalem.org/faq-salem-witch-hysteria-17.html
Excerpt:
FAQ & Salem Witch Hysteria
Was your church involved in the witch hysteria of Salem Village in 1692?
Yes, but the tragic series of events actually began in Danvers. The First Church in Salem was one of two churches directly involved with the Witch Trials. The church where the hysteria began was the Church of Salem Village, which had split off from the First Church in Salem in 1678. Salem Village was located four miles inland in what is now the town of Danvers and the Salem Village parish is now the First Congregational Church of Danvers.
As we like to tell people, while the witch hysteria began in Danvers, it was finished here in Salem. Two of our full members were excommunicated and executed in the ensuing events of that year, Giles Corey and Rebecca Nurse. In addition, many members of our church participated in and supported the witch-hunt that quickly consumed the entire area. Many of these people later recanted and publicly apologized.
There were no real witches executed in 1692. There were only innocent women and men falsely accused in a mass hysteria that underneath had as much to do with personal vendettas, grudges and greedy land grabs. The real evil that existed in Salem did not reside in the 136 people who were imprisoned and the 20 more who were executed. Rather it lay in the religious fervor of the accusers and judges who believed that what they were doing was righteous and holy.
In addition, it should be pointed out that the Salem Witch Hysteria was part of a larger phenomenon that had wracked Europe from 1450 through 1700. While the hysteria of Salem has become the most infamous, it should be pointed out that witch hysterias broke out all over Europe during this period of time, with the largest number occurring in Scotland. Indeed, the most popular book in Europe – other than the Bible – during this period was a volume titled Malleus Maleficarum (The Hammer of Witches), first published by two Dominican monks (and Inquisitors) in 1486. This work, characterized by a distinct anti-feminine tenor, vividly describes the satanic and sexual abominations of witches. The book was translated into many languages and went through many editions in both Catholic and Protestant countries, outselling all other books except the Bible. Thus, to understand the larger context for witch hunts involves being aware of the extreme anxiety and tensions that existed across Europe and later the English Colonies and to heed the human impulse to scapegoat the other during times of social turmoil and conflict…
What is your opinion about other forms of christianity?
The First Church in Salem has a long history of welcoming many differing religious communities to Salem. We have long tried to encourage religious tolerance and interfaith understanding.
We assert that there are alternative Christian perspectives that do not carry the baggage of exclusivism, prejudice, and rigid dogma that many people in this country who don’t go to church have come to associate with the Christian religion.
For ourselves, we do not believe that everyone has to have had a born-again experience in order to be a Christian. We believe that the way we treat one another and other people is more important than the way we express our beliefs and encounter God.
We believe there is ample evidence in the Bible that true religion is manifested in our behavior and in our lives – and not exclusively in subjective reports of personal transformation.
Those experiences are all well and good and we affirm that they are many times real. However, Jesus said that you will know those who serve him by the fruit of their actions – not the theological rigor and emotion of their professions.
G. Mason,
While I agree that we have a people problem versus a tool problem, we already have a full open carry society. Only seven states ban outright open carry: New York, Illinois, S. Carolina, Florida, Texas and California. All other states have varied degrees of open carry from requiring a permit to completely unrestricted. You can carry an open weapon, but you’d better know your Constitutional and state specific law before going out in public because we have another people problem – the cops are going to harass you because a great many of them are ignorant of the laws they are supposed to enforcing.
Correct Darren. You will note that earlier in this thread I quoted James Madison, the father of the constitution, many times.
Now is it not interesting that he was able to foresee this as a problematic issue all the way back in the 1780s?
Why is it we do not trust the word of a man who was pretty much able to predict the future on so many things politically? A man who has proven to have far greater informed and insightful opinion on politics than any of us.
He was also a man that was absolutely firm in his belief that the people be able to have the physical means to remove Tyranny from the govt. I think its safe to say that he had good reason.
James Madison was writing a Constitution and a Bill of Rights to last us for eons. We only have to defend it.
Gene the problem isnt guns, its the people. The criminals in particular.
Switzerland has an enormous amount of guns in their homes and no real issues.
America does not have a gun problem. It has a government and a people problem.
To be honest if we had a full open carry society, we would probably have alot less problems.
Weren’t there some reason why we didn’t want to be ruled by the Churches of England back in them there revelooshun days?
G. Mason,
The problem with slippery slope arguments is that 1) they are often misapplied and 2) they often descend into another more egregious fallacy; the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc aka correlation without causation. In fact, the reasonable restriction of rights is the entire premise of basing the law on reason instead of theocratic or imperial fiat under the social compact model of government. This is not to say slippery slope arguments are always facially invalid, but they are when they lack any form of real causation. Citizens aren’t allowed to own rocket launchers – a reasonable restriction – and society hasn’t collapsed although by every reasonable definition of the word “arms” a rocket launcher qualifies. A perfect example of a reasonable restriction currently being proposed is universal background checks. The right to bear arms was intended to protect the rights of otherwise law abiding citizens, not criminals. I’ve even gone so far as to propose a blind mental health screen be adopted to keep guns out of the hands of dangerously crazy people. It could be done in a way that does not violate HIPPA and allows for challenge if the person denied thinks their denial is wrongful. It’s also a reasonable restriction although it is predicated on our having some kind of universal access to mental health services.
The nature of erosion of rights is mostly gradual and we as citizens are wise to be on the watch for it, but the 2nd absolutists are as wrong as most absolutists when it comes to rights. Your rights end where the rights of others begin. People certainly have – and should have – the right to bear arms under the Constitution, but conversely society has a right to minimize the risk of people misusing the tools for nefarious or insane ends.
take a look at this chart. It tells the tale
http://www.popsci.com/files/imagecache/article_image_large/articles/Picture%201_94.png
ps- I have no doubt that the Founding Fathers, somehow for some strange reason, were far more brilliant, educated and wiser than all of our government combined today.
We truly are descending into an Idiocracy
rafflaw, you have to remember, I am a Liberal So most of the issues you quoted I completely agree with.
However as Michael Moore put it, Obama gets a pass because of his assumed liberal sheen. That is, Democrats are utterly blind when it comes to him as he continues on with his horrible presidency.
If you hated Bush you should hate Obama. They are completely the same president.
We will have to disagree on the 2nd. It should not be restricted.
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
To be quite honest I an getting seasick from the left to right shifting of government distrust every 8 years. It took me long enough but I finally realized that being outraged only when the Republicans were in office was allowing the Democratic presidents political capital to rape our rights, which they promptly did so.
I do not understand how anyone who has distrusted the government at anytime, can want any sort of limits on the 2nd Amendment.
J Edgar Hoover is proof enough that we must keep that yoke upon them.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”- Patrick Henry
However as Michael Moore put it, Obama gets a pass because of his assumed liberal sheen. That is, Democrats are utterly blind when it comes to him as he continues on with his horrible presidency.
You have not read a lot of this blog and the comments or you would realize you are wrong on this as well. You don’t seen have to read this blog or the news. Just listen to the stories on how dems and progressives are and have spoken out about the things we believe Mr, Obama has/is done wrong.
I am a true dem but Michael Moore does not speak for me, or for many of us.
Otteray I am truly sorry to hear about your grandson. I do not wish to pry further only to convey the proper address on that situation
I do disagree in sorts because being a Liberal who is pro choice to an extent, I have been privy to many discussions with other pro choice people regarding abortion. Many or perhaps even most pro choice people, are very opposed to restrictions of any sort. They see it as a slippery slope. Any concessions will give ground to further restrictions.
By the way G. Mason, when I look in the mirror these days I see the same face that I saw in the 70’s, except a lot grayer and many more lines.
G. Mason,
I didn’t suggest that you said that there should be limits to the first amendment. I was merely pointing out that even the First Amendment can be reasonably restricted under according to the Supremes. Why shouldn’t the 2nd Amendment also be subject to reasonable restrictions? The Heller decision seems to indicate that. You suggest that anyone who backs gun controls is trying to take away all guns. Far from the truth.
If you think that all of us who backed Obama believe in every action he has taken, you haven’t read much of what is written on Professor Turley’s blog.
No, not everyone knows that Swarthmore Mom was using Whites and Christians as a negative. Their actions is what is the negative.
The left is still against the “man” as you put it, but the “man” comes in many forms.
The “man” can be corporations that hide money from being taxed and pay millions to try to steer elections.
The “man” can be representatives of the NRA who pour money into campaigns to stop common sense restrictions on guns that the vast majority of gun owners agree with.
The “man” can even be Barack Obama when he continues drone policies that kill innocent civilians and target and kills American citizens without due process.
The “man” can be Christians who want to make their particular religion the law of the land.
The ‘man” can be Jews who get in the way of reasonable progress in trying to obtain peace in the Middle East.
The “man” can be RC priests who abuse kids and their bishops and cardinals and Popes that stand in the way of justice. The “man” can be Republican Senators who obstruct judicial nominations in order to make sure that “liberal” judges don’t get on the bench.
The “man” can be Democratic Senators who are bought and paid employees of special interests and corporations. Those are just a few of the “men” that liberals and progressives go after, every day on this blog and elsewhere.
Just which “man” are your referring to?
GMason, “Everyone knows that I am correct about Swatch using ‘White’ and ‘Christian’ as negatives in her descriptions. ” okay “Everyone knows” that is a legitimate response, as legitimate as a lot of the rest of what you write..
Tony C.
Otteray: To reinforce your comment, if I take a poll and first qualify people with the question “Do you attend a Christian church at least twice a week?”
I think I could get just about any percentage we want!
Under this protocol, I do not ask the second question if I don’t get a positive answer to the first, so even if I called 25,000 people, I only asked 1000 of them the second question, about making Christianity the national religion.
It gets even more specific then that. I attend Church 2x a week for choir so I would still not give them the answer they want.
I wondered when I read 1000, tat did ot see like a big enough sample. Having written that, when I read what commenters write to news articles, FB posts, etc I am appalled at how many write this is a ‘Christian country” and we all need to come to Jesus.
They have no notion apparently that, as noted earlier, there is more then one denomination (I am UCC, we gladly are open to all including LGBT. I think a lot of those “Christians would be appalled if it was UCC (some UCC is not open so even within UCC there would be a fight of which branch of belief should be the one we have to accept) and a whole, whole lot of versions of the Bible. Which one of that sould be the right one for the right denomination of the right religion?
G.Mason,
In the video, the questions are logical fallacies; that is, the false dilemma fallacy. That fallacy is also known by other names, such as the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice,fallacy of the excluded middle, fallacy of the false alternative, false dichotomy, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses.
In short, “gotcha” questions.
The questions being asked of the witness ignore the fact those identical situations come up every day in clinics and hospitals. To frame the question as a “living breathing child” does not address other questions. For example, is the newborn anencephalic, have kyle mccabe syndrome or gastroschisis?
Families and their doctors must address these questions all the time. My grandson discussed stopping his chemo and radiation with me. As a legal minor, his parents could have forced him to continue. Under the reasoning by the questioners in the video, the doctors and his parents acted unethically when they ceased treatment and consulted Hospice. Same for my wife. The doctors asked me what I wanted to do. I told them to consult hospice. Not what I wanted to do, of course, but what I had to do.
The answer to all those questions is, “It depends.” However, in South Dakota, there have been propositions put forth repeatedly that would take the choice to treat or not to treat out of the hands of parents and doctors.
Here is the last version of Proposition 11 in South Dakota. It has been voted down a couple of times, but it keeps coming back.
http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/no-exception-for-fatal-anomalies
Btw the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights for good reason. It is to protect the other 9. I mourn the death of a child. Whether it be car or gun or drone. But there the comparison ends.
I am all for taking a murderer who kills a child with a gun, and arresting them and have them go to trial.
Can you say the same about someone who blows up kids with Drones? I thought not.
You rage at the NRA working to block gun control laws yet do nothing to stop Obama using drones to kill children. Do you even have the courage to see the victims of Obamas drone war? Highly doubtful.
Also for the record, If I could snap my fingers and make every weapon on the planet vanish, bombs, guns etc etc,I would do it. That is not a realistic scenario.
This is however.
Over 200 years ago and still relevant.
“A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. ” James Madison, June 29th. 1787, Debates in Federal Convention
“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”
Thomas Jefferson
Try to have the courage and conviction that you have on guns to watch this video completely. Do not be a hypocritical coward
Rafflaw, perhaps you can show me where I suggest limits to the 1st.
I am a Liberal sir. I defend ALL of the Bill of Rights equally.Church and State absolutely should remain separate. But I refuse to allow this repugnant, shallow and pathetic hypocrisy that has destroyed my party, to go unchallenged.
The left blindly supports Obama and foams at the mouth and howls with rage at the 2nd Amendment while he is out there killing hundreds of little kids with drones and installs Fascism into our lives. Not a GD peep out of them either. They look the other way. It is disgusting Its hypocrisy.
If you do not have the courage and conviction to stand up to a greater crime than the one you get on your soap box for, then you have no business speaking at all. Shame on you all. Hypocrites.
You are every bit as pathetic as the Jesusfreaks who want to bomb other countries in the name of Christ. It is sheer lunacy. Keep drinking the cool aid. White Bush Bad, Black Bush good. Got it.
Btw, everyone knows that I am correct about Swatch using ‘White’ and ‘Christian’ as negatives in her descriptions.
The rightwingers might not be right on many things but they have the label to the left of ‘arrogant intolerable elitists’ pegged with perfect accuracy. You guys really are a brainwashed cult.
Democrats used to be against ‘the man’ and now they are working for ‘the man’. Money talks and bull$ hit walks right? What a disgrace.
Maybe its time you look in the mirror at what you have become.
“The US will regret not taking the opportunity to regulate the guns and the drones in my opinion.”
They (as in the citizens) will regret not regulating domestic drone use long before they’ll regret anything else.
G.Mason 1, April 8, 2013 at 12:45 pm
Elaine and Swatchmore, I am pretty confident that your outrage at guns and the 2nd amendment/nra pales in comparison to your use of drones.
*****
What outrage at guns and the Second Amendment have I expressed? There you go–making up stuff again. For shame! BTW, I have never used drones for ANYTHING!