Constitutional Law, Politics, Religion, Society

Survey: 34 Percent Of Americans Want Christianity Made Official Religion

300px-god2-sistine_chapelWhile 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

398 thoughts on “Survey: 34 Percent Of Americans Want Christianity Made Official Religion”

  2. OS,

    Thank you for your valuable input….. Training is the valuable key…. Not restricting…. Moderate regulation….is essential….

  3. I am not a fan of the NRA as it is presently constituted. I had a lifetime membership back in the 1970s, but cancelled it when the the wingers took it over from sportsmen and hunters in 1977. That was the year of “The Cincinnati Revolution,” and Harlan Carter was elected Executive Director of the NRA.

    Having said that, and after wading through all the propaganda, there are a few voices that still make sense. One of them is Colion Noir, who was speaking out in this fashion long before the NRA asked him to be a commentator.

  5. Much of my problem with the gun control issue is the lack of knowledge of those proposing laws. It is not unlike the story I wrote yesterday, regarding news media not having a clue as to what they were writing about. A few days ago, a woman member of congress was asked what some gun part was. She replied that she did not know, but was going to vote against it anyway. This is not an isolated problem. Lawmakers are given their talking points by lobbyists and big money donors. Not just about guns, it is a much larger problem than that.

    They forget the Law of Unintended Consequences. Take for example 15-year-old Sarah Merkle, a member of the Maryland Rifle Club and Maryland State Rifle Club. She is is a talented competitive shooter, and has been offered scholarships. I looked up her history, and would not be surprised to see her as part of the American Olympic shooting team one day. Sarah has a problem. Under the proposed legislation, if she takes her competition rifles out of the state of Maryland, she cannot bring it home with her. A YouTube video of her testimony before the legislature has gone viral in the past two days.

  6. You mostly get into the teapot tempest because you like to frame things in an emotional way because it has appeal to the non-rational, Bob.

    I understand the value of loaded language as well as I understand the value of loaded weapons so don’t try to sugarcoat the technique.

    It’s people like that on both extremes of the argument that cause me to be very careful to not use loaded language or other propaganda techniques when discussing the topic. Reason works just fine as does a knowledge of the law.

    Speaking of which, the whole “It’s for a well regulated militia” argument is a load of crap. The 2nd reads, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The militia is a reason for the right, not a conditional clause. The right as stated is clear: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Being in the National Guard hasn’t got squat to do with it. As it sits, the 2nd is already limited by reasonable exceptions just like other fundamental rights found in the Bill of Rights.

    Outlawing assault rifles? Will only make for a black market in them worse than already exists. Unlike things like rocket launchers, they are too easy to build and made from common materials. Outlaw them tomorrow and someone will be selling them out of their machine shop/garage before nightfall. It’s your right to express your opinion on the matter, just so, I have the right to point out its a futile if not exacerbating strategy to accomplish an end: a reduction of gun violence. Speaking of which – how’s that whole prohibition on drugs thing working out? But I digress. It’s already illegal in most states for felons to own fire arms. Does it stop them or recidivist gun crime? Nope. Violent criminals tend to be violent criminals. They’re largely sociopaths and psychopaths. It’s their nature. None of which changes the fact that long guns – including assault rifles – are used in a very small minority of all gun violence crimes. 4%. That’s a fact and it’s devoid of emotion. Statistically, long guns are a non-issue in looking at gun crime objectively.

    Gun shows? You should only be able to buy firearms from licensed dealers, preferably ones required to keep inventory and sales records. Gun shows are traveling sales shows for illegal and semi-legal gun runners. I used to know an illegal arms dealer that made a big chunk of his money through gun shows. Outlawing gun shows? That’s a reasonable restriction.

    Mandated and monitored destruction of guns taken as evidence? You bet. Good idea.

    You also have a point about the past versus the present NRA though. It’s a gun manufacturer’s lobby group now without a question. I also know a lot of gun owners who absolutely hate the NRA because of it. And they are at the pinnacle of the 2nd absolutists.

    Stick to workable (as in practical) solutions.
    Avoid loaded language and emotionalism.
    It’ll get you a lot further in convincing people to adopt reasonable mitigations that have a real chance of working than blatantly pushing or trying to push their buttons so they’ll opt for a less reasonable solution with no chance of working.

  7. I mostly got into this teapot tempest because I take issue with the old chestnut “guns are just inanimate objects.” That wasn’t meaningful the first time it was spewed out, and it’s not meaningful, now. “It is what it is.” So? It’s a diversion.

    Almost everything is an inanimate object. As a nominal “civilization,” we have the right and responsibility to ensure our safety and that of others. That’s all anyone is trying to do here. You keep people and certain inanimate objects separated. Not all inanimate objects were manufactured equal. Keep all the rocks you want.
    If you have a gun of some sort, I don’t care. Unless it’s a danger to other people. It’s certainly a danger to you, if you don’t keep it locked up, and unloaded.
    If you have an “assault rifle,” with a large ammunition capacity, I’d be curious about why you think you need one. Are you paranoid? Mentally ill? Feel the need to kill a large number of people? Sure looks that way. Need to assassinate law-enforcement officials, like in CO and TX?

    If you like wielding assault rifles and other weapons of war, I invite you to take advantage of your 2nd amendment Constitutional right to join the National Guard. No, you don’t take the weapons home with you, that would be stupid.
    And no, don’t bother diverting the conversation into “what’s an assault rifle?” I know what they are, and so does anyone reading this.

    If we were talking to the NRA of, say, 30 years ago, it would be unnecessary to have this conversation. Now the NRA is owned by gun manufacturers. Selling guns to criminals, Mexican cartels, and nutcases (at gun shows, for example) is just as lucrative as selling them to non-criminals. Background checks are just another slide down the slippery slope of Federal tyranny (oh, yeah, the Federal tyranny that the people of your country elected. Look up “tyranny,” some time). If you don’t like the laws, put your fetish inanimate objects of mass murder away, and vote.

  8. Tony,

    A tool without a user is inert, especially machines. Then again, I was raised to believe people were responsible for their actions. Besides, I’ve already stipulated that the gun manufacturers should make an inherently safer product. None of which changes the fact that triggers don’t pull themselves. And keep your straw men to yourself. I never ascribed sole cause (only). I ascribed prime cause. Two different things. You can make the safest gun in the world and someone will still choose to kill someone with it at some point. It’s our nature. If we lived in a world full of enlightened Buddha and Bodhisattva, there would be no need for weapons of any sort, but we don’t. So until human nature evolves to the point that we as a species collectively realize the true nature of violence and refrains from it, the problem will always be people when the lines of causation are traced. The prime cause of all violence is people. If you want to get worked up over easy? I don’t think you appreciate how easy fatal violence is to commit without any weapon at all. As long as people have necks they will be easy to kill. That’s just basic physiology. But it takes the will to kill or harm before any action, tool enhanced or not.

    Tools don’t have will.

    Have you ever read any of “The Dark Tower” by Stephen King, Tony? The prime lesson of the Gunslinger’s as relayed by the character Roland Deschain sums up the nature of violence:

    “‘Say your lesson.’

    ‘I do not aim with my hand; he who aims with his hand has forgotten the face of his father.

    I aim with my eyes.

    I do not shoot with my hand; he who shoots with his hand has forgotten the face of his father.

    I shoot with my mind.

    I do not kill with my hand; he who kills with his hand has forgotten the face of his father.

    I kill with my heart.”

    And so it goes.

  10. It’s been awhile since I’ve seen a straight up insulting troll. It’s a classic for a reason.

    In honor of the occasion, allow me to present Mose Allison

  11. If you insist, Crazy it is. Do you ever write coherently? I see a lot of blabbering, but really, yours is basically insane and delusional at times.

  13. Guardian of Truth,

    Just call me Crazy Chester the enabler … now have another one for the road.

  17. The gun rights groups, or whatever they are called, view registration and regulation as a pretext to further erode ownership rights. The concern also is a death by a thousand cuts to ownership rights, an example would be banning the assault rifle today, then the autoloading shotgun, then the pump action shotgun and eventually large bored shotguns all together. This is one of the reasons why they are against new regulations or restrictions, essentially it is they distrust federal and some state elected officials’ intentions. In a nutshell that is where they are coming from.

    Politicians and pundits that make statements such as “Reasonable Gun Control” are viewed with at best skeptacism by the gun rights groups, because in addition to the above paragraph, they look at such statements as double-speak or being euphamistic. So this causes the problem.

    Because both sides of the issue totally do not trust each other just bringing up the issues causes the other to react as if their interests are being threatened. The gun rights groups have more political concerns than just firearms. They tend to believe that removal of firearms is a sign of the onset of a repressive government that will take away other rights that are more easily destroyed. They tend also to associate gun confiscation with tyrrany. It is a very strong litmus test with these folks. Culturally, they view firearm restrictions as a sign of the deterioration of their American Culture and a challenge to their way of life. That can be a powerful motivator of people in general.

    It really is more of an issue than just the firearms itself, just as much the troubles in Northern Ireland is not just about Catholic vs Protestant. You may not agree with their position, but it might be helpful to understand how they feel about the issue.

  18. To the person blabbering at 426 pm, does your family know what you do? If not, I would suggest a mental health evaluation. That is the craziest thing I have ever seen anyone post.

  19. Although I disagree with Gene’s interpretation of the 2nd or, perhaps more accurately, he disagrees with mine … I can not agree with anyone who characterizes his opinion on the 2nd as macho. That is simply not true.

    There are many on this blog who would fit into that macho characterization but Gene is not one of them.

  20. Gene: You mistake my support of the 2nd being based in some kind of abject love of the gun culture – or even stupider – a sense of “macho”.

    No I don’t. As I said, I support the 2nd too (and own guns). I just do not believe it conveys an absolute, zero regulation, zero restriction right to any weaponry a citizen desires (and I do not believe you think that either).

    As for your “not a simple cause,” the point is you claim people are the ONLY problem. They are not. The ease of use and ability to accidentally or impulsively use the gun is a problem too, and that is a problem with the product, not the consumer.

    I can trace every problem everywhere to “a problem with the people,” the financial meltdown is a “problem with the people, not the tools (credit default swaps), alcoholism is a problem with the people, not the tools (alcohol), drug addiction is a problem with the people, not the product, date rape is a problem with the people, not the drugs used to accomplish it, I can tie climate change to a problem with the people, not their tools.

    Claiming it is a “problem with the people” is such an over-generalization that it renders itself meaningless; I can go one ridiculous step further and say it is a problem with oxygen; because if it weren’t for oxygen we wouldn’t have these problems.

    We cannot change the emotional, impulsive, self-destructive nature of people with a law. The problem is with the product, and a product and how it is used (and what it can do) is something we can regulate, because manufacturers are at heart coldly rational profit seekers that will certainly try to thwart or dilute laws, but won’t break laws that pass if there are criminal consequences.

Comments are closed.