Conservatives love the constitution, they believe our founding fathers were wise men who are still right hundreds of years later... except when they don't. A recent survey found 55% of Republicans want to change the constitution to make Christianity the official state religion.
If this country were made up of just Republicans it would democratically be a theocracy at state level... thank any deity you like for liberals.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 … on-of-usa/
Or we could thank the republican speaker of the house.
"While a resolution that would have cleared the way for an official state religion in North Carolina was quickly pulled from consideration by the state’s Republican Speaker of the House,"
Yeah after being suggested by them
They took it down because the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional.
But that was not what I wrote about i wrote about the polling of Republicans at a national level.
Where did they get the 55% number from? I looked at the poll questions and don't see it, could you link me to it?
Yup sorry, forgot to post the link, it's now in the OP.
I got that, I don't know how they get the 55% number, there is no direct question so where did it come from?
Here: http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/ta … 042013.pdf
April 03 - 04, 2013
2. Establishing Christianity as state religion?
Republicans: 55% in favor, 33% opposed.
Ok, the next question asks if they are constitutionally able to do it and 61% of republicans say no. Adding strongly favor and favor you get 55% I guess that means something but not enough to get me excited.
precisely my point, they know it is unconstitutional but the majority want to do it anyway.
I think its gonna be ok, no need to worry.
Amending the Constitution is not unconstitutional?
No it isn't but that was not the point, conservatives claim to love the constitution but eon this issue central issue either want to avoid it or change it. Not o mention the horror of the fact they support a state religion and thus a theocracy.
No, thank the constitution for protecting us from all politicians. Your whole statement is based on one unknown poll. The liberals would change the constitution to erode gun rights, and that's based on many well known polls.
You make a good point here. I don't trust either party, but from my standpoint they aren't all that different. The Republican party is the big government party who is pro-big business, pro-military, anti-gay mariage. The Democrat party is the big government party of pro-lawyers, pro-welfare state, and anti-individual achievement. Both parties are anti-individual rights, and pick and choose when to defend or disregard rights.
Josak, I think you are reading way too much into this pole. The republican and democrat parties do enough offensive stuff without trying to make something out of nothing.
Actually I think polling people is very important and so are the results it gives us a sense of what each group would do if the country was actually theirs to do what they wish with, it ****** me off no end that many democrats would restrict gun rights beyond just background checks and conservatives are quite right to point that out, if anyone has a poll on the issue I would be interested in seeing it, it's absolutely crucial for us to know what each group and hence each party would do if we ever gave them control of all the houses and executive and safe re-election.
Unknown poll? I have referenced it repeatedly and it is actually two.
Because you reference a poll or two, that makes it known and important?
There is a big difference between conservative and republican; it is like saying all democrats are socialists.
There is plenty of hypocrisy to go around. You have members of the Republican Party who claim to be conservative, and yet vote for big government programs. Then we have the liberals who claim to be all about free speech... until someone says something they disagree with. Then we get legislation designed to limit free speech (AKA the fairness doctrine), or we get a smear campaign to silence those they disagree with.
I guess it's a good thing the libertarians are around to point out the hypocrisy of both parties.
Josak, wanting to amend the Constitution doesn't mean you are a hypocrite if you think the Constitution is important. From the very beginning the founders knew that changes would be necessary, which is why they set it up so it could be amended.
Also, federal vs. state powers... they have changed since the beginning, and the 1st amendment states that Congress shall make no law, not that a state shall make no law.
Are you defending creating a state religion?
Also Marbury vs Madison established federal judicial review. It has never been successfully challenged so yes the 1st Amendment applies.
I don't understand how you can claim to love the constitutional and the wisdom of the founding fathers then seek to change one of it's most fundamental aspects, possibly the most fundamental. That is the hypocrisy I am not even challenging the legality (it would never get past the Supreme court).
I'm saying that a restriction on what Congress can do is not a restriction on what state legislators can do.
If the founders had wanted no established religions at all, they would have specified, but like I said, there was disagreement as to the authority of federal vs states.
But tell me, what part of the Constitution says that a state can't make a state religion?
Like I said, things change. If you want to talk about loving what the founders set up, you have to accept both sides of the coin.
Originally, a state religion would not have been ruled unconstitutional.
It means that if American had to be republican, it would become Saudi Arabia. What an example!
Polls don't necessarily mean what people would do.
For instance... 90% of people support background checks on all gun purchases. Right?
Well, no. Not really. That's what they say when asked that question, but what do they say when they are asked about different types of gun purchases?
90% support background checks at stores and gun shows.
70% support background checks on private purchases.
50% support background checks when selling to friends and family.
The big problem with polls is that people are uninformed, often don't really care about the subject, and just make a knee-jerk reaction.
After the UBC bill failed, polls showed that the majority of Americans were glad that it failed.
People are irrational, inconsistent, emotional, etc... polls don't equal what people would really do.
There are a lot of factors that weigh into the results. Sample size, demographics, etc. all have a huge impact. The wording of the question has a lot to do with it as well. That is why I tend to ignore polls, because the pollster can (very easily) create a poll that will support his viewpoint, and not really give any indication of the views of a population.
Liberals claim that many politicians adjust their position on gun control and background checks to garner votes. They are frustrated that so many conservatives and quite a few democrats voted against such regulations. Then, these same democrats claim that the vast majority of Americans want these measures. The two statements conflict. It is true that many politicians follow polls and adjust their opinions to garner votes. IF these were consistent, accurate poll results, I'd expect many, many more politicians to mirror these results with their vote. IF the vast majority of Americans believe in additional gun regulation, it is highly likely that it would pass. Thus, I doubt the accuracy of these polls. Politicians are politicians, and to me, they are the measure of how accurate these polls are.
The polls were accurate. There was no doubt. Dozens, and dozens of scientific polls, all showing the same 82-92%.
The problem isn't the polls, it's the people. Simple as that, the populace is, largely, stupid.(Think Men in Black, a person is smart, but people are panicky and stupid)
The poll results are transient at best. They fluctuate and are dependent on when they were taken. If they are taken right after a tragedy, they run high. Liberals like to talk about the poll results at their peak. Politicians know that these poll numbers are not consistent.
by Kathryn L Hill 2 years ago
I predict the parties will become either-or ... As in: Democrats/Progressives Liberals: Anti-Constitutionalists.vsConservative/Non Progressive Republicans: Constitutionalists.No?How about:Democrats/Progressives Liberals AND Conservative/Non(?)Progressive Republicans: Anti-Constitutionalists.vsThe...
by Scott Belford 2 years ago
Clearly, Donald Trump will nominate the most extreme conservative he can find to replace Kennedy and Sen Mitch McConnell will do everything he can to get him appointed.At stake, of course, is Kennedy's own legacy. I suspect he is quite aware that the important decisions he sided with the...
by Jack Lee 2 years ago
It has been almost a year since he left office. Though he seems to stick around DC and make his comments occasionally about policies...The question I have for all is this - what is your opinion of this President in his 8 years in office...?Overall, has he been good or bad for America?Please use...
by Credence2 6 years ago
Excellent op-ed page that discusses conservatism taking two distinct tracts. Have a read and share your opinion, please. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 … /?src=recg
by Credence2 9 days ago
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi … gK1iPD_BwEThis nice reassurance ruling from the Supreme Court may well give the Electoral College a new lease on life and make the institution less troublesome in my eyes than before.No more happenstance, if you don't want something to occur,...
by Susan Reid 9 years ago
Every day we hear from hubbers about how Obama is out to destroy the Constitution. Across this great nation there is a movement of very vocal, very serious "pro-contitutionalists."The Constitution is suddenly quoted and defended like the Bible.It's all the vogue -- ALL OF A SUDDEN.My...
Copyright © 2020 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.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|