[EastCoastAmerican]

Rick Santorum said he nearly vomited upon reading JFK's speech of the necessity of the separation of church and state. Santorum insists that a society's religious values are inseparable from their moral outlook, and therefore intertwined with their policy-making decisions.

Rick Santorum isn't the first or last political figure to view this separation as harmful and unnecessary; in fact, many social conservatives and evangelical Christians want to enshrine religious doctrine into US law.

This question is geared towards social conservatives who want to get rid of this separation, and how they'd implement it without running afoul of the Constitution. Since many advocates for the removal are evangelical Christians, I'll frame these questions in the context of Christianity being the ideal.

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.

1. How would you alter the First Amendment to provide religious orders more control within the government? If you have no desire to alter the Constitution, then how will you legally achieve your goal?

2. Should America be a Christian Nation? If so, then should Christianity in general be upheld as the moral standard, or a certain Christian denomination?

3. What about religious minorities? If religious orders were free to exercise political control over the government, and the government was free to exercise political control over religious institutions, then many religious minorities (including Christian minorities such as Catholics) would suffer stigmatization and persecution. Should there be laws protecting non-Christians and Christian minorities from government coercion? Should Protestant Christians get exclusive benefits and privileges that religious minorities do not get? If you answer "no" to the former, then how should the law deal with Indian Reservations that have significant non-Christian populations?

4. Should getting rid of the separation between church and state be a nation-wide decision, or left up to each individual state?

[septimine]

1. How would you alter the First Amendment to provide religious orders more control within the government? If you have no desire to alter the Constitution, then how will you legally achieve your goal?

I think we got it wrong in having no religion in the public square, and I would make our nation officially Christian, though I would allow other religions to exist. The reason that I think having Christianity as OFFICIAL is beneficial is that it gives us a benchmark, a check against allowing moral degradation and degeneracy.

As it stands now, morally, it's a race to the bottom. If some new deviant behavior gets a significant lobby, it becomes normalized and accepted, whether or not it's a good thing for civilization. In the early 20th Century, people were arrested for cursing in public, women wore full length dresses, and pornography was hard to find, if not impossible. Now cursing and swearing are common even on so-called "family programing", most clothing for females barely cover the naughty bits, and pornography is found in everyday entertainment (magazines, TV, movies, and songs). For the next generation, I think it's going to be even worse. Not only the current types of porn and violence being more or less normalized, but even more severe forms, perhaps the ideas of Nambla and beastiality will be the new gays, and rather than simply implied violence on TV, we'll see the real thing.

2. Should America be a Christian Nation? If so, then should Christianity in general be upheld as the moral standard, or a certain Christian denomination?

Well, I'm not opposed to the idea of a denomination being given some authority, but ideally, it would be Christianity in general. The idea would be that no federal or state law could do something that was against the clear obvious teachings of the Bible. In other words, if the Bible says that thou shalt not steal, the government cannot make stealing legal. I would also personally support the notion of setting aside Sunday as a day in which all non-essential services are closed to give people at least one day for religious observance and family time.

3. What about religious minorities? If religious orders were free to exercise political control over the government, and the government was free to exercise political control over religious institutions, then many religious minorities (including Christian minorities such as Catholics) would suffer stigmatization and persecution. Should there be laws protecting non-Christians and Christian minorities from government coercion? Should Protestant Christians get exclusive benefits and privileges that religious minorities do not get? If you answer "no" to one or both of the latter choices, then how should the law deal with Indian Reservations that have significant non-Christian populations?

I wouldn't tax them more, nor would I do anything to prevent them from practicing as they chose, however they don't get to remake our society in their image. They don't get to impose Sharia or Shangrila on America. They don't have the ability to have many wives just because Muhammad or Joseph Smith said so. Animal sacrifices would be a no no. I don't think the government should officially stigmatize anyone, the acknowledgement is simply that Christianity is the source of our morality, and that is how we will govern.

I think in America it would have to either be Federal, or not at all. The problem with doing something like this on a per state basis is that nothing can be done in one state that cannot be directly undermined in another. That's why DOMA had to be federal -- if a gay couple marries in California, then moves, they're legally married in all 50 states. That means that even if 49 states have laws stating that gay marriage is illegal, the fact that one state does allow gay marriage means that gay fly to that state, get married, and come home, thus effectively nullifying that law. So it would be the same thing with religious morality. If Missouri were to declare that the official state church was Presbyterian, nothing happens of any real effect. The state would not be able to enforce any Presbyterian rules as most could be easily circumvented by doing those things in Illinois or Kansas and then moving back afterwards. If we banned Sodomy in Missouri nothing changes except that East St. Louis posts a few billboards saying "gays can have sex here" and charging for hotel rooms by the hour. Servers housing porn that would be illegal in Missouri would be housed in some other more liberal state. In short it would be sound and fury signifiying nothing.

[Rich]

The idea would be that no federal or state law could do something that was against the clear obvious teachings of the Bible.

Two thousand years of comedy gold and still they keep it coming. Tell me is sub normal intelligence a prerequisite for being a Christian or is it just an immense advantage. Or perhaps Christians are just pathologically lazy and never bother to read their beloved Bible.

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Yeah I'm sure rape victims are just gonna love marrying their rapists. Its a clear obvious biblical teaching, never contradicted by Jesus. There are examples like this almost beyond count. Have you ever heard of a historical event called the Reformation. Germany descended into a mad house, because while all Protestants seemed to agree that the teachings of the Bible were clear and obvious they totally disagree what they were. After 500 years of Protestant intellectual cretinism its interesting that some Protestant fundamentalists are returning to Catholicism (the greatest paedophile ring in the history of humanity) and Orthodoxy because they've realised the Bible defines nothing without an authority to interpret it. Even the meaning of the ten commands was totally disputed, while a few of the new Protestants were getting into a free love orgie, most of the Protestants of Europe set off on an orgy of vandalism, as they set out to smash the craven idols.

They don't have the ability to have many wives just because Muhammad or Joseph Smith said so.

The Mormons didn't practice polygamy because Joseph Smith said so. They practised it because its clearly and obviously aloud according to biblical teaching. It is clearly approved of on numerous occasions and never once disapproved. It doesn't come more clear and obvious than that. Mohammedanism actually qualifies Polygamy in a way that the Bible never does, by saying you've got to treat all your wives equally, although you can treat your female slaves as you want..

[EastCoastAmerican]

Well, I'm not opposed to the idea of a denomination being given some authority, but ideally, it would be Christianity in general. The idea would be that no federal or state law could do something that was against the clear obvious teachings of the Bible. In other words, if the Bible says that thou shalt not steal, the government cannot make stealing legal. I would also personally support the notion of setting aside Sunday as a day in which all non-essential services are closed to give people at least one day for religious observance and family time.

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.

2. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.

3. Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor's.

1. You say that you'd allow non-Christians to practice their religion, provided that their beliefs do not use the law to shape society. An evangelical Christian lawmaker can interpret the italicized portion of your argument to alter the First Amendment and get rid of freedom of religion. He can argue that the First Amendment as it stands goes against the clear, obvious teachings of the Bible because it allows government to tolerate the existence of members of the non-Abrahamic faiths. In some areas of the Pacific Northwest and New England, nearly 1 out of 4 people polled in public surveys identified as being "atheist" or "no religious affiliation." Many Indian Reservations have citizens who continue to practice the indigenous religious teachings of their tribe. There's many evangelical Christians who'd be more than eager to use the strong arm of the law to convert non-Christians through legal persecution, even if said non-Christians have a minimal impact on American laws and society.

Rick Perry, a former Presidential candidate, once said that he doesn't believe that non-Christians deserve equal rights, so these theoretical Christian lawmakers aren't just fringe nuts with little-to-no political influence. They have power and influence among the Religious Right, and they will try stuff like this if you put Biblical teachings into US law and government.

What do you think should be done in regards to these Christians?

2. Would criticizing the Bible fall into "taking the Lord's name in vain?" How about making jokes about God and Christianity? If US laws were based on the Bible, how far would this Commandment be taken, or should be taken?

3. How would the law enforce 'desire?'

[Stormsmith]

I would be surprised if many Americans chose to change their republic to a theocracy, full stop.

Look at the hoopla over birth control and the Catholic church. Most Catholic couples use contraception, including BCP. And if you listen over the din, some will even note the pill is prescribed for things other than contraception. Moreover, pregnancies can be rough on women. I'd like to see Santorum carry five kids to term, and live with the potential after-effects.

The Catholic church reversed its oposition to condoms in HIV/Aids prevention, after rigid adherence resulted in utter tragedy and ruin. If contraception can be ok'd for health reasons in Africa, can it not be used in America for other medical needs?

If you lump all Christian beliefs under one roof, what next? Will blood transfusions be deemed illegal? Coffee? What about tea or wine, where some institutes incorporate its use in holy ceramonies, and others pooh-pooh them altogether.

And what about Christmas. Will Christmas be banned or will all Christians be forced to participate, even those who declare the observation of Christmas as sinful?

[mikema63]

as an atheist this idea is terrifying.

Psalm 14:1 ESV / 40 helpful votes

To the choirmaster. Of David. The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good.

would i officially be declared a fool and jailed for my abominable deeds? what about gays and adulterers? would that be a stoning offence?

this stuff is nuts.

[EastCoastAmerican]

as an atheist this idea is terrifying.

would i officially be declared a fool and jailed for my abominable deeds? what about gays and adulterers? would that be a stoning offence?

this stuff is nuts.

I made this thread to find out exactly how far American conservatives want to take this, especially the points when the Bible and the Constitution lock horns.

Many people fight for an ideal society; I ask the question of "what now?" in the hypothetical situation that the ideal is achieved. I get the feeling that anti-separation Catholics and Mormons will regret tearing down the wall once they realize how much power and influence Protestant Christians would gain from this move.

[Rich]

as an atheist this idea is terrifying.

Personally at the end of the day I'm not bothered. The secret is to get on the inside, earlier enough. Whether its Christian, Muslim, Stalinist or Nazi system, someone who knows the ideology is utter bollocks will have an immense advantage over those who actually believe in it. I'm sure they'd be fantastic opportunities for power and privilege in such a society for anyone who was highly ideologically astute. I'm sure there would be great opportunities to really fuck over manipulate and abuse true believers.

[Dr House]

1. How would you alter the First Amendment to provide religious orders more control within the government? If you have no desire to alter the Constitution, then how will you legally achieve your goal?

The First Amendment is applicable only to the federal constitution, and not specifically to the States, which means that per the provisions of the Tenth Amendment, the First is not applicable to states. This was quite intentional, as the Founding Fathers were not in favor of the separation of church and state (not universally anyway), and the point of the first amendment was to prevent the federal government to impose one state religion on the multi-religious nation.

2. Should America be a Christian Nation?

America is culturally a Christian nation. It should therefore remain a Christian nation, as that is one of its unifying factors.

If so, then should Christianity in general be upheld as the moral standard, or a certain Christian denomination?

That is for states to decide.

3. What about religious minorities? If religious orders were free to exercise political control over the government, and the government was free to exercise political control over religious institutions, then many religious minorities (including Christian minorities such as Catholics) would suffer stigmatization and persecution. Should there be laws protecting non-Christians and Christian minorities from government coercion? Should Protestant Christians get exclusive benefits and privileges that religious minorities do not get? If you answer "no" to the former, then how should the law deal with Indian Reservations that have significant non-Christian populations?

Again, this is for states to decide. As for Indian reservations, if I'm not mistaken they are considered autonomous authorities within the US government set up as havens for Indians, so they'd decide on religious matters as well.

4. Should getting rid of the separation between church and state be a nation-wide decision, or left up to each individual state?

See above.

[EastCoastAmerican]

1. The First Amendment is applicable only to the federal constitution, and not specifically to the States, which means that per the provisions of the Tenth Amendment, the First is not applicable to states. This was quite intentional, as the Founding Fathers were not in favor of the separation of church and state (not universally anyway), and the point of the first amendment was to prevent the federal government to impose one state religion on the multi-religious nation.

2. That is for states to decide.

So you think that it would be okay if state and local governments stopped following the First Amendment in regards to religion, if they wanted to do so?

[Dr House]

I would. I'm not religious, but I consider theocracy to be broadly beneficial to society, as most religious dictates are meant to curb socially or personally harmful behavior.

[mikema63]

i have never agreed with that point of view on states rights, i think everything that isn't absolutely necessary on the federal level should be run as locally as possible, but all levels of government should be as restricted as possible.

also i think theocracy is negative on net balance.

[NikolasVile]

In the early 20th Century, people were arrested for cursing in public, women wore full length dresses, and pornography was hard to find, if not impossible.

Does anyone really need any more proof that religion keeps people from being free?

[Rei Murasame]

In the early 20th Century, people were arrested for cursing in public, women wore full length dresses, and pornography was hard to find, if not impossible. Now cursing and swearing are common even on so-called "family programing", most clothing for females barely cover the naughty bits, and pornography is found in everyday entertainment (magazines, TV, movies, and songs).

Well, allowing people to be free to dress as they want is all a part of making sure that people who really look good are allowed to shine like the adorable stars that they really are.

The reason I trust the fashion police more than any religious police, is because the fashion police will come after you and chastise you when you create a fashion disaster, "like, that is so fail, girl, cease and desist", whereas the religious police will come after you when you look really great, "wow, that is absolutely perfect, stop wearing it".

With that said: John Galliano for President!