There is so much disagreement these days over the meaning of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution that I have a humble proposal.
Let each state adopt a religion and insist that the adopted religion be the state religion. All residents will be required to be members of such or face a fine. State income taxes will be replaced with a tithe. An automatic pay-roll deduction will insure that the state's church is well funded. Those who refuse to adopt the state religion will be taxed at twenty percent.
Since the selected religion will now have a prominent and well funded place in society, it can take over former state departments of health, child protection, and welfare.
Because most churches are also good at organization and fund-raising I respectfully suggest that they be used to run political contests and political funding.
I think Catholicism would be a good choice for any state, or possibly Calvinism. So long as there's only the one.
States that adopt a religion can therefore ban less than savory religions such as protestantism (unless its Calvinism) or those without an actual god.
Churches would continue to enjoy tax-free status with the tacit understanding that the exemption comes with responsibilities such as social well-being.
Since each state would adopt it's own official religion the pesky clause in the first amendment would be completely avoided; congress would not and need not establish one.
That is pretty funny. Ha Ha.
On a serious note, all state religion is false religion. So, when Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world he meant it. He wasn't playing around.
That means when He returns to end the world, he won't be coming after the dominionist, Sarah Palin.
I will not move because of what I do and don't believe in and America will not place being agnostic anywhere as a state religion. Having a state religion ruins the whole idea of freedom of religion. Why we were founded in the first place. Not everyone is religious so it won't work at all. Sorry hun, at least you tried to make some peace in this place.
The idea is that if you don't like the religion in one state you simply move to another state. Fifty states means a potential fifty religions. Then there's the bonus of having the state religion take over and run bureaucracies that governments are so notoriously bad at running.
By having a state sanctioned religion the first amendment is left intact, the U.S. congress need never have to take a position one way or another and those citizens who firmly believe that everyone should worship G_d win!
But no one is going to pack their bags to change to the state of their religion after living in a specific state their whole lives, plus it moves families apart and takes away cultural experiences. Also there are too many religions in America to suffice for only 50 states.
This is simply one of the many excuses I've heard for working around other "constitutionally protected" freedoms.
People are moving to other states for jobs, why not religion?
No need to be sorry.
I'm attempting to start a dialog here as some other forum posters have suggested that a state religion is the best way around the first amendment. After all, the reasoning is, that the first applies at the federal, not state, level.
If it is false, it really is not religion. State religion is false religion period. You are assuming that there isn't one true religion. It is not very visible but it exists.
You are just posting your unbelief every time you post on this board.
LOL. This is sure to stir up the pot.
Your point was dully noted. I cannot stand religion. It has no place in government for the very reasons you listed.
I thought it was time to clear the air, allow alternative views (thus my giving the positive points of a state religion), and allow those who feel the first amendment does not apply to individual states an opportunity to express their views.
Fair is fair!
I think the OP has in the name of “Seperation of Church and State” suggested virtually a Theocratic State.
The West object to Zimmitude or “Protection Money” and here is 20% to be paid to the suggested State.
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
That doesn't sound very serious to me. Do Jedi have a g_d?
Actually, in the UK Jedi is an official religion because people keep putting it on census forms in the religion box. I thought this was a world wide thing, sorry.
Come one, lets get serious here. Utah very nearly has a state religion and it's working for them. Why not every state have it's own religion.
You are assuming that "working for them" means eternal life. I would not assume that. http://newcovenanttheology.com/doctrine.html
I have not used that phrase and I make no assumptions regarding gaining entry into heaven.
I've voiced no assumptions as yet. I am merely proposing a way around the first amendment regard to the establishment of religion and how that might benefit Americans in a number of ways.
It is one thing to "float" an idea; entirely another to embrace that idea.
Thanks. Your thread is an excellent example that religion teaches separation rather than equality and unity. Well done.
I'm quite serious about this. If the first amendment only applies at the federal level then who does the law apply to?
Only people who work for the federal government or all Americans?
Thanks. The law applies for everyone, and for that reason, a president can get elected simply by claiming the majority religion that the masses agree with. This then leads to elected liars to the religiously biased masses. It was also created so none would take a biased view to favor one religion higher or superior to the other, "unbiased". But we all know that most to everyone has their specific preferences, law or not.
Presidential candidates already make claims of religious belief. Most learned (or their handlers convinced them) that getting the right number of votes depends, in part at least, on how many people you can convince that you will represent THEM.
Which presidential candidate in the last twenty years has not claimed some religious affiliation?
Yet in another forum some members are claiming New York City can ban the building of a mosque simply because "the people" don't want it. That this is the right of the people to decide.
Thanks. Yes I agree with you, you are pointing out the entire problem of religion to get elected. A person must claim the religious title that has the most believers or voters in order to receive the most votes. That is whats wrong with the separatism created by religion, they are biased to their belief without recognizing others beliefs as equal. We are recognized by most as a majority Christian belief. Since Muslims are the ones held accountable by the majority, it would make sense not to allow the mosque there unless you wanted to either break down religion or create chaos and anarchy possibly. Sometimes they have to appeal to the majority, no matter what the law or constitution says or they lose their power.
Too bad it's so hard to determine who would do the best job based solely on past experience. One would think, with the advent of the Internet, that it would be much easier to make such a determination with the wealth of information available.
Unfortunately, what has happened is there is a wealth of spin, half-truths, shameless advertising, and negativism launched against the opponent.
Truth is harder to come by these days than ever.
And I believe this is precisely what the "first" was supposed to prevent.
Actually I believe the intent of placing the law in the body of the constitution and in the amendments was to prevent a "voting majority" from corrupting and destroying the freedoms that all Americans should expect.
The amendments should be absolute, applying to all within regardless.
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.
I see nothing in the above limiting these rights to federal employees only.
I think you'll find that privilages such as those given to government employees were taxable.The constitution does not convey privilages such as who gets government jobs.Only employers or masters do that.The constitution also does not and cannot enumerate all our freedoms.The constitution itself says so!It says any freedoms not specifically enumerated are reserved to the people or the states.If,the individual states deside that they want to promote a specific religion in their particular state I suppose their own state constitution would have to allow it.In that case they would have to convene a constitutional convention with that purpose in mind.I doubt however that the will exists for such a purpose.
You are right in saying that I'm a Deist!
AlThough I was brought up as a Roman Catholic I've seen the truth that religions are manmade.They may have their good points.I reserve my freedom of worship to deside what aspects of the various religions I see have merit.Any religion that would try to force alligence leave something to be desired.
I have found nothing in the original law limiting income tax to government employees only.
I believe that the first amendment, by prohibiting congress from establishing a religion or prohibiting congress from limiting it's practice, establishes a limitation upon the what the states can establish as well.
Wait a minute.. You're serious about this? Clearly you don't understand that freedom doesn't come from having a state religion... that's pretty much the opposite of freedom. Everything would be a complete and utter mess if each state had it's own religion.
I don't think you'd be solving anything by combing the church with the state.
Again my primary point is that if each state adopts a religion there's no need to worry about the first amendment. At least that's what some posters to these forums suggest.
The benefits are pretty clear. A great many government run bureaucracies would be taken over by churches. There's nothing to indicate a church could do any worse job than the government.
Freedom of religion means allowing anyone to practice whatever religion they please,wherever they please.
Tithes are intended to be voluntary just as many former internal revenue service agents discovered.Paying an income tax is voluntary rather than manditory for American citizens.They took the time to research the tax codes and discovered that their is no law making the average American liable for the income tax.
The income tax was originally a tax on a privilage.
The privilage of working for the federal government.
Government employees also had to pay the first social securty tax ,because it was originally only available to government employees.So,unless you were a citizen of the "united states" or the District of Columbia" I.E. the federal government then you were not libale for these taxes.The New Deal changed all that and allowed anyone to voluntarily become a citizen of the federal government and thus the equivilant of an employee of the government.
I personally belive in a supreme being.But that being is so far removed from where we currently are spiritually that we can only serve it by tithing or volunteering which ever is most practical.Governbment ideally should be non denominational and serve the people and not the other way around as it pertains to individuals in government who are self-serving.
Need I remind you of the history of religion as it relates to government? Sure it has had it's good times as well,but I see no difference when it comes to keeping control over both government and religion.
Power corrupts the corruptable ,anywhere they may be .In government or religion!
Then doesn't that mean that all Americans are expected to practice some religion? The amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
It does not say exercising no religion.
You and I both know that was not always the case. Members were expected to tithe; if they did not they might face ridicule or worse, expulsion.
The original income tax was enacted by congress to help defray the costs of the civil war. It was originally "apportioned" based on Census data, but the sixteenth amendment changed that.
I believe, by definition, that makes you a Deist.
Need you remind me that the entire population of Great Britain was in near constant flux because the religion of the land was determined by the whims of its current ruler?
You don't suppose our constitution was crafted to avoid just this sort of problem do you?
This is the very thing that caused Calvinist to escape to the Netherlands, rent a boat and sail to the New World.
Those who are corruptible rarely have a motive beyond wealth, widespread recognition or both. Though people who are corruptible often state a higher purpose to their efforts, the truth about their efforts is apparent once some level of monetary success or power is achieved.
World history is rife with examples.
Actually people have the right to believe or not believe, or as most people do, believe the wrong thing with faith that does not originate with God. True faith is a gift, and not given to many at all.
That predestination of the few elect should make you concerned enough to think this more.
It's nice to see that you believe in free choice. But I again have to ask you what is "the wrong thing."
That last sentence is beautifully put by the way.
It seems you assume that I've had no interest in religion nor have studied it at all.
That is not true.
In fact I have spent the last thirty years of my non-professional time doing just that. Christianity first, of course. Judaism and finally Islam. This last long before 9/11 or even the first attack on the World Trade Center.
I even studied similarities between all three and differences.
There aren't that many differences. There are MANY similarities.
Islam actually affirms not only Jesus as a real person (named Isa in the Koran) it confirms his virgin birth. A great deal more is written about Mary (Miriam) in the Koran than in the Christian bible.
I have attended services in all three faiths.
The biggest problem with adherents of many Christian practices is they make two flawed assumptions.
The first, that the person they are talking to is someone needs to "hear the word." I think this is a rather egotistical assu
The second, that it is their "duty" to spread that word...even if the "receiver" doesn't want to hear it.
This makes Judaism and Islam attractive in that neither faith insists upon proselytizing.
Finally being bombarded by "the truth" this way makes the faith no more interesting than a laundry soap commercial.
Ok, sorry for leaving out a word in my last sentence. It was late: I was tired. Most of what passes for Christian faith is not. It is legalism. Take for example, the idea that men must feel guilt of law before the gospel of salvation can bring them to peace.
Well, I think that notion is wrong. In fact, i believe that the gospel is the sword of God, cutting the heart, and the gospel is then the joy of God.
But, if you think about it, even those who claimed to believe in predestination, the Calvinists, were legalistic, and viewed law above gospel.
Here is the deal, if you give the law one ounce of spiritual power and make the mistake of thinking that law guilt and gospel conviction are one in the same, you have no true faith.
So the Calvinists, who were just Augustinians anyway, are lost. And they knew all about predestination and they are still all lost.
Have a great day.
Oh, and my saying that people have the right to not believe is not speaking of free will, only of political freedom to believe or not believe. In an absolute sense there is no free will. Those he predestined he called, those he called he justified, those he justified he glorified.
In God's mind this entire universe is a done deal and the outcome has been planned from all eternity.
Interesting! If that's so, if the ultimate outcome is predetermined and g_d knows who will sit in heaven and who will sit in hell, even generations far into the future, why play it all out?
What's the point? Your proposal makes us little more than ants in an ant farm. Do you suggest that there's some entertainment value to g_d allowing us to play out a life s/he has already set in stone?
Why not exercise the ultimate outcome now, or why not sometime in the past?
I agree that man has a free will to believe or not to believe in the Creator-God Allah YHWH. But with this free will one has must get ready to suffer its consequences also. The Creator-God Allah YHWH has a free will also to reward the truthful believers and to punish the untruthful ones in this world and in the hereafter; and He has the power to execute what He wills while man does not have it.
Please remember it.
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
No worries, it's not difficult to remember how bad your god treats those who use the free will he allegedly provides.
Thanks for threatening me. I really appreciate it.
Free will to disbelieve means that "consequences" are not part of the equation. If a person truly believes that there is no g_d, then it follows that they also do not believe in "consequences."
Or isn't that obvious?
Truth is in the mind. If that "truth" includes a lack of believe then that particular "truth" also means no punishment, no reward, no hereafter.
Yet man has exercised one g_dlike power, the power to visit death upon hundreds of thousands. Does that make man g_dlike as well?
Just start the Theological Party and garner votes....as a believer, I don't vote in the world system, I just pray for governments and rulers.
The secular world is not our concern, our power lies in prayer and battle in the heavenlies, let the world serve itself.
when this country was founded, there was a state religion in England, the ANGLICAN church, which was once the Catholic church... but that's course in church history....
anyhow... protestants, like baptists, catholics, lutherans, quakers, and those of the Jewish faith, were all PERSECUTED because they didn't go to the ANGLICAN church, and follow the ways of the king of England.
So the king sent them here.... to the yet unformed US, where folks of different protestant stripes learned to get along, and hashed out a document that tried to ensure that no one was oppressed because they did not worship as their leaders did... which in many cases did not follow the bible.
so many great solutions started By OP, so many options
nothing will ever come of a forum at HubPages and some posters. Thank you for playing however
by daeemomin7 years ago
THE RELIGION OF ISLAMThe first thing that one should know and clearly understand about Islam is what the word "Islam" itself means. The religion of Islam is not named after a person as in the case of...
by Dan Harmon2 years ago
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/bibl … a-schools/Seems that Orange county in Florida encourages Christian literature to be disseminated to students, but aren't so happy when other religions or groups want the...
by jerami5 years ago
Before I begin; I want to say, I do believe in GOD and the Messiah. So I'm not disputing the existence of God. Though I do dispute many discriptions of him and where he is. I'm just asking a...
by niall.tubbs6 years ago
I don't know anyone in America that doesn't support the freedom of religion. Why do you ask?
by Tim Mitchell2 years ago
Religion has been convoluted over the centuries to fit societal views worldwide with various meanings. For the purpose of discussion and respect to others participation this forum question proposes using the etymology...
by jerami6 years ago
There can be no doubt as to who Jesus is talking to through out the 23 chapter of Matthew. And there can be no doubt as to what timeframe these things were to transpire.Matt.23 v. 13 "But woe unto you scribes...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.