Would you support requiring all Americans to be religious

[Davros]

The religious right is constantly harping on this being a Christian nation, and "you have to believe in something greater than yourself", and that atheism is an existential threat to the United States, and that the Constitution protects freedom of religion but not the freedom to be non religious.

Scalia is the latest to join this discussion, saying government should favor religion over non religion and that America has only prospered because she has honored God.
Scalia: 'Don't cram' religious neutrality 'down throats of American people'

So would you favor passage of a law requiring all Americans to offer annual proof that they belong to an approved religious body (i.e. no spaghetti monster type stuff)? And what should be the penalty of failing to prove this? Death seems to be the only viable penalty to ensure that every American is religious, and so that no atheist scum are able to threaten America's survival by mocking God.

 

[Moonglow]

had to grow up in a society like that, no thanks....

 

[boedicca]

Being against religious neutrality is not the same as requiring that any one follow a religion.

The OP is spewing specious nonsense.

 

[hjmick]

Oy vey.

 

[Moonglow]

Being against religious neutrality is not the same as requiring that any one follow a religion.

The OP is spewing specious nonsense.

Then for some reason, they pick the religion to force you to dance with..

 

[Katzndogz]

We have gotten along without such a law for a couple of hundred years. We had a social fabric that supported decency. Now the social fabric supports evil and perversion. A law won't change a pervert into a normal person.

 

[Moonglow]

We have gotten along without such a law for a couple of hundred years. We had a social fabric that supported decency. Now the social fabric supports evil and perversion. A law won't change a pervert into a normal person.

Testify brother!!!

 

[jknowgood]

When we a nation under God we were great. Now we have gone against God. We got Obama.

 

[Davros]

Being against religious neutrality is not the same as requiring that any one follow a religion.

The OP is spewing specious nonsense.

I'm not saying Scalia would support such a law, I'm asking if YOU would.

 

[Moonglow]

When we a nation under God we were great. Now we have gone against God. We got Obama.

When was that era of good tidings?

 

[boedicca]

When we a nation under God we were great. Now we have gone against God. We got Obama.

The Progs worship the Secular State - it's their government required religion. And they have a zero tolerance policy for dissent.

Evidence: firing of the Firefox CEO for supporting Prop 8, bankrupting a bakery in Oregon for refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian couple, the Twitter mobs calling for killing the pizza parlor owner for hypothesizing that she wouldn't cater a gay wedding....

You Will Comply - or You Will Be Destroyed.

 

[jknowgood]

When we a nation under God we were great. Now we have gone against God. We got Obama.

When was that era of good tidings?

Before the sixties, the liberals started to take over.

 

[boedicca]

Being against religious neutrality is not the same as requiring that any one follow a religion.

The OP is spewing specious nonsense.

I'm not saying Scalia would support such a law, I'm asking if YOU would.

Have you quit beating your wife?

 

[Moonglow]

When we a nation under God we were great. Now we have gone against God. We got Obama.

The Progs worship the Secular State - it's their government required religion. And they have a zero tolerance policy for dissent.

Evidence: firing of the Firefox CEO for supporting Prop 8, bankrupting a bakery in Oregon for refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian couple, the Twitter mobs calling for killing the pizza parlor owner for hypothesizing that she wouldn't cater a gay wedding....

You Will Comply - or You Will Be Destroyed.

Nanoo-Nanoo....Same thing happened when conservative America existed....except it was a retribution of death or incarceration...

 

[Moonglow]

When we a nation under God we were great. Now we have gone against God. We got Obama.

When was that era of good tidings?

Before the sixties, the liberals started to take over.

So just during Eisenhower?

 

[Davros]

We have gotten along without such a law for a couple of hundred years. We had a social fabric that supported decency. Now the social fabric supports evil and perversion. A law won't change a pervert into a normal person.

So what is the solution to changing the social fabric? Eliminating atheists and agnostics from America would accomplish that goal for you, wouldn't it?

 

[Davros]

When we a nation under God we were great. Now we have gone against God. We got Obama.

So you support my proposal, then? Ban atheism and Agnosticism from the United States?

 

[Davros]

Being against religious neutrality is not the same as requiring that any one follow a religion.

The OP is spewing specious nonsense.

I'm not saying Scalia would support such a law, I'm asking if YOU would.

Have you quit beating your wife?

Not analogous at all. I do find it interesting that you refuse to answer the question.

 

[Arianrhod]

Being against religious neutrality is not the same as requiring that any one follow a religion.

Explain.

 

[jknowgood]

When we a nation under God we were great. Now we have gone against God. We got Obama.

So you support my proposal, then? Ban atheism and Agnosticism from the United States?

No just quit banning everything about God in our society. Bring back payer in our schools. That would be a great start.