Would you support an amendment to secure Church/State separation?

[Cascadian]

Poll question: Would you support an amendment to secure Church/State separation?

I thought about this when word came out on the news about the Supreme Court's ruling on the Pledge of Allegence. As you know those who wanted "God" ommited from the pledge lost.

I think at this serious sitaution of religious fanatics running the government, I would like to see a constitutional amendment that would guarentee the separation of Church and State. Would you be in favor of such a law?

John

[LittleApple81]

1. What is "Chruch" n/t

[Cascadian]

3. typo

n/t

[MontecitoDem]

2. The Constitution already separates church and state

no amendment is needed, and trying to push one would be counterproductive I think.

[Cascadian]

5. We need to have it strengthened.

Especially when the religious right have their heels dug in the government. It is time to clarify and strengthen that separation.


John

[MontecitoDem]

7. there's no way you could carry the day in this climate

and that's why I say it would be counterproductive.

Monkeying with the Constitution really bugs me.

[Cloud]

10. Of course

I say put the pledge back to how it was originally written.

Of course if under God were removed it will just give the fundies more ammo in their whole "Christians are being persecuted in America" argument.

[Pab Sungenis]

23. As it was originally written.

"I pledge allegiance to my flag, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisibile, with liberty and justice for all."

[Nobody]

24. Speaking of which....

There is a letter to the ed in USA Today that was talking about how the letter writer was disgusted by the attempt to separate church and state (HELLO!!!!! Can you say, First Amendment? Can you say, Congress shall make no law...? I knew you could). This idiot was claiming that this amounted to


wait for it . . . . .





DISCRIMINATION AGAINST CHRISTIANS.

The letter writer goes on to say that political campaigns don't belong in churches. This I do agree with.

My opinions is that if any religious organization prints voters guides or tells you from the pulpit how to vote or does any other activity that endorses a candidate for public office, that organization should lose its tax free status.

What a lot of the most rabidly religious seem to forget that if the nation gets entrenched into a particular religion, who's to say it will be YOUR denomination?

It wasn't all that long ago that Catholics and Lutherans refused to have anything to do with one another.

[shockingelk]

4. Do I support the First Amendment? Yes. n/t

[Cascadian]

9. I think we need a new one.

We need to have something that will clarify and toughen the separation. To keep the fanatics from ruining our democracy.


John

[TexasMexican]

6. No, unless it had an exception for...

God in the pledge, and "in got we trust" on money.

"God" is not a religion.

[Cascadian]

11. That's not what the religious wingnuts think.

They keep insisting that we are a Christian nation. To remove this and have a new amendment will clarify that and remind them of that.


John

[TexasMexican]

16. Well then I suggest not having a new amendment.

the only reason to have one then would be to allow exceptions, such as those I listed. I think very few people have problem with God on currency and in the pledge.

That being said as a 2nd amendment supporter, I would not support adding a new amendment to the contition to protect my right to keep and bear arms.

We just need the courts to rule the current laws unconstitional, although they seem to be just as unwilling to do so as they did in the pledge ruling.

[punpirate]

12. "God" is, however, a...

... religious concept. And in the case of many of the test cases about the ten commandments, that is establishment of a particular kind of religion... which the First Amendment forbids, without any legal question.

[TexasMexican]

15. not necessarily true...

even athiests know what God is.

[progdonkey]

19. nonsense

I don't even know where to start with the inanity your comment....

[punpirate]

36. Okay, I'll try to be more specific....

Knowledge of a concept does not necessarily mean the embracing of it. I know about genocide, but I don't embrace it or condone it. I know about God, but I don't believe the concept of it should be a cornerstone of our government, nor do I believe that its laws should derive from someone's notions of what God might want in the way of law.

Knowing of and incorporating in are two different things, logically, legally and practically.

Cheers.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

37. No they don't

other than recognizing others' mental constructs.

[punpirate]

8. We already have an amendment...

... the first one. All we need are a few judges who understand the phrase, "Congress shall make no law...."

[Cascadian]

13. Obviously, the righties never got the message.

It's time to remind them of this. A new amendment would reinforce that.


John

[punpirate]

20. Don't think so.

First of all, there is a Constitutional amendment covering separation of church and state. Second, it would likely never get through the Constitutional amendment process today.

Last, it's not that they haven't gotten it--rather, they don't like it. There are a number of groups out there pushing for a theocratic state. Another amendment isn't going to deter them, presumably with themselves as the religious police. Only reputable judges and public opinion will ensure they remain in their current extreme minority.

Edit for syntax.

[Bombtrack]

14. I'd like to tax churches unless they are actual charitable institutions

Meaning, a signifigant portion of the time and money both given to the church and used by the clergy go to helping the less fortunate and improving townspeoples lives in a tangable way.

One of the reasons I'm so against organized religion is the rediculousness of seeing at least 5 different places in every town in America that are just buildings, real estate, and stupid ornimental crap that costs millions individually and hundreds of billions if not trillions collectively that serves absolutely no practical purpouse for helping people.

[Tyler Durden]

22. Now THAT works.

The church can appeal to CONSCIENCE, but the moment they tell you who not to support or how not to vote and why, then they forfeit the right to tax free status.

Period.

[Selwynn]

28. That would rock!

[Cronus Protagonist]

17. Not needed, it's already in there

All we need is an impartial Supreme Court.

BLAME BUSH FIRST!

Click here for "BLAME BUSH FIRST", and other fair and balanced yet stunning buttons, magnets and stickers

[no_hypocrisy]

18. It isn't necessary. The Framers of the Constitution designed the First

Amendment to have a necessary tension between the Establishment Clause (restricts government from using its clout to promote and impose religion upon citizens by force and/or threats) and the Free Exercise clause (restricts government from interfering with citizens' rights to practice religion according to their beliefs). If an amendment were passed, there would be a negative impact on the Free Exercise clause because there are issues that demand a compromise between the two clauses. Like singing Christmas carols in public school for example.

And taking an extreme position will not tend to neutralize extremists on either side of the issue. Compromise has been the way Americans have settled their disagreements, both in the government and as private citizens. We should just try harder to use what we already have.

[madrchsod]

21. the other branch of the first christian church

-the coptic church- has as one of it`s main foundations that the church has no relationships with any government. they follow christ`s "render unto ceaser-and god`s....". but i doubt to many fundies even know the coptic church was the first founde and it founding was mentioned in the old testament..
we already have an admendment and the teachings of christ and st mark, to bad the fundies believe in none of these

[SarahB]

25. I thought this was already part of the Constitution, but...

perhaps of late, it's been rather unclear to members of certain groups. HELLO?! We do not live in a Theocracy! People of all religions (or no religion) pay their taxes and have every right to worship (or not worship) as they wish. If we need an Amendment to clarify this, fine with me.

[Cascadian]

26. Once again....WE NEED TO STRENGHTEN IT!

The only way we are going to do this is push for an amendment to enforce the separation. We are losing this country and it's laws to the fundies. Wake up!


John

[Selwynn]

27. Without a doubt - it protect me of faith, as well as the state

Good for everyone. It ensures freedom and liberty.

[Peregrine]

29. Should codify the Lemon test

If there was one it should require the use of Lemon to determine constitutionality.

Scalia hates Lemon, and if given one more vote, he would kill Lemon.

[SouthALdem]

30. Well technically....

they didn't exactly lose. The Court decided that Newdow didn't have standing to bring the issue so the question can still come back before the Court. The Court's decision was really no decision and the battle still wages.

The God-ly ones can't exactly call it a victory.

[TomNickell]

31. Uhhh, Ahhh, we already did that one. n/t

[Cascadian]

32. For the hundredth time.....

We need to have an amendment to strengthen the separation further. Hello?

John

[MontecitoDem]

35. For the two hundreth time - we disagree with you!

[genius]

33. Ever hear of the First Amendment? Look at the Establishment Clause

[Cascadian]

34. Well for some reason, the neocons are going to put an end to that.

It is up to us to rectify their efforts and set up a stronger separation law. How many times do I have to say this. I feel like a damned broken record. WE NEED A NEW AMENDMENT TO STOP THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT! GOT IT? GOOD!

John