Constitutional Amendment

[George Wallace]

Would you, support the following Christian Amendment to the U. S. Constitution?

Yes or No and why?

SECTION 1.
THIS NATION DEVOUTLY RECOGNIZES THE AUTHORITY AND LAW OF JESUS CHRIST, SAVIOR AND RULER OF NATIONS, THROUGH WHOM ARE BESTOWED THE BLESSINGS OF ALMIGHTY GOD

Section 2.
This amendment shall not be interpreted so as to result in establishment of any particular ecclesiastical organization, or in abridgement of the rights of religious freedom, or freedom of speech and press, or peaceful assemblage.

Section 3.
Congress shall have power, in such cases as it may deem proper, to provide a suitable oath or affirmation for citizens whose religious scruples prevent them from giving unqualified allegiance to the Constitution herein amended

[Steven Burton]

Because I see 1 as a rejection for 2 and 3 at least that is how it is going to be played out over the course of its life. Not to mention it already rejects 2 because as a nation we recognize one religion over the others. And to fully appreciate the religious freedom you can not place one over the other.

[Jim Chabot]

Absolutely George, I'm on board. I'm guessing that this is a hypothetical amendment?

I think that it eliminates a bunch of ambiguity and it hopefully would send the professional againsters off to find different pastures. Funny how these folks can protest anything and everything as offensive while maintaining immunity from prosecution as being offensive most every time they speak.

[Benjamin Burch]

No, because it would blur the lines of Church and Nation in a way that will not benefit either, and will only leave the Church more powerless to be the Church, and more dependent upon and beholden to the Nation.

Such an amendment would only pull down the Church, it would not raise up the nation.

[Diane Likens]

Such an amendment would make any non-Christian a non-American. One of the founding principles of this great Nation is religious freedom. It would be far too easy after an amendment such as this to make practicing Judaism, Islam, athiesm or any other religion "illegal". I find it to be utterly unacceptable.

[Ed DiSante]

i agree with Ben and Diane, (America is not a Theocracy)

[Jim Chabot]

Such an amendment would make any non-Christian a non-American. One of the founding principles of this great Nation is religious freedom. It would be far too easy after an amendment such as this to make practicing Judaism, Islam, athiesm or any other religion "illegal". I find it to be utterly unacceptable.

Better we should leave them alone and give them comfort as they make their journey to Hell. Religious freedom didn't mean what you seem to think. It was permissible for each State to have a State religion and many did.

[Jim Chabot]

No, because it would blur the lines of Church and Nation in a way that will not benefit either, and will only leave the Church more powerless to be the Church, and more dependent upon and beholden to the Nation.

Such an amendment would only pull down the Church, it would not raise up the nation.

O ye of little faith.

[Diane Likens]

Better we should leave them alone and give them comfort as they make their journey to Hell. Religious freedom didn't mean what you seem to think. It was permissible for each State to have a State religion and many did.

Um ......

Better we should govern them into Heaven?????? Is that even possible?

[Steven Burton]

So my first thought to this amendment is to start a revolution.

[Jim Chabot]

Um ......

Better we should govern them into Heaven?????? Is that even possible?

Nope not possible, I agree. But there sure not going to get there if Christians leave them alone, that's for sure.

Sorry, but I've had quite enough with those bent upon removing any sign of Christianity from the public square. It's offensive. Just recently we had a foolish little girl sue to have an innocuous prayer removed from a school in Rhode Island. Now we have a lawyer looking to make a name for himself suing the town next to our church to have a cross removed from a war memorial.

Enough is enough. Return the Ten Commandments to our courtrooms, Return the Lord's Prayer to our schools and hamstring the courts with an amendment so that we can live in peace. Are we really this weak?

[Patrick Russell]

This amendment doesn't make good sense. Sure it would make all of the Christians feel warm and fuzzy, because we would be making a decisive move "back to what the founding fathers intended", but really history shows most of them were at best deists. So on that score it is moot. As for making church goers feel good about their status, what bigotry would be unleashed on non church goers as second class citizens? Such an amendment opens up a can of worms for many poor choices some of which would have a similar look as to that of Nazi Germany others which would destroy what little is left of the church in America, and still others that would force people into church for political and social reasons only. So again, such an amendment is poorly conceived and ill fated.

[Diane Likens]

Enough is enough. Return the Ten Commandments to our courtrooms, Return the Lord's Prayer to our schools and hamstring the courts with an amendment so that we can live in peace. Are we really this weak?

Perhaps these would allow YOU to live in peace. Not ALL Americans would find it very peaceful, though. That's the point of religious freedom.

You are free to post the Ten Commandments at your home. You can pray the Lord's prayer any time you want to. You can witness to people if you so choose.

Nobody is infringing on your right to practice Christianity. I insist you do not have the right to require others to do so.

[George Wallace]

Is Christ King of the Nations?

Yes ? No?

If Yes, why not recognize Him as such?

[Jim Chabot]

but really history shows most of them were at best deists.

Really, you should read more. Read their words. Adams was most assuredly a Christian as were Washington and others.

Surely the founders of the Bay Colony and Rhode Island were devout Christians, were they not?

[Diane Likens]

Is Christ King of the Nations?

Yes ? No?

If Yes, why not recognize Him as such?

I say, "Yes, Christ is King of the Nations". I do recognize him as such. My right to religious freedom, however, ends at another's personal boundaries.

[Jim Chabot]

Nobody is infringing on your right to practice Christianity. I insist you do not have the right to require others to do so.

That would be the purpose of the amendment. The removal of your insistence. You are taking part in oppression and persecution because "you insist." I did notice your little twist "require others to do so" nothing in the amendment or what I've said even implies this.

I'm sure you don't see it this way, that doesn't mean it's not true.

[Benjamin Burch]

Nope not possible, I agree. But there sure not going to get there if Christians leave them alone, that's for sure.

Sorry, but I've had quite enough with those bent upon removing any sign of Christianity from the public square. It's offensive. Just recently we had a foolish little girl sue to have an innocuous prayer removed from a school in Rhode Island. Now we have a lawyer looking to make a name for himself suing the town next to our church to have a cross removed from a war memorial.

Enough is enough. Return the Ten Commandments to our courtrooms, Return the Lord's Prayer to our schools and hamstring the courts with an amendment so that we can live in peace. Are we really this weak?

I don't know of anyone talking about Christians leaving them alone.

[Benjamin Burch]

O ye of little faith.

I have tons of faith in the church. I have zero faith in the country or constitution. I have every faith the nation will use this to redefine Christianity in a way that is in accord with national interests and that people will follow that.

[Jim Chabot]

I have tons of faith in the church. I have zero faith in the country or constitution. I have every faith the nation will use this to redefine Christianity in a way that is in accord with national interests and that people will follow that.

Like I said.

[George Wallace]

Absolutely George, I'm on board. I'm guessing that this is a hypothetical amendment?

No Jim,
This is the text of the amendment that was introduce as a bill by some in Congress every single year from 1947-1970.

[Benjamin Burch]

No Jim,
This is the text of the amendment that was introduce as a bill by some in Congress every single year from 1947-1970.

I'm much more interested in the tax bill/amendment (forget which one it is) which would exempt religious pacifists from their tax dollars funding war. This bill has been introduced every year since some point in the 70s. It is shot down every year. You see, religious freedom only works insofar as you pay your temple tribute to the god of Caesar.

[Benjamin Burch]

Like I said.

I see nothing that is "like (what) [you] said." You said I had "little faith." In what? In the Church? No. I have every faith in the Church.

However, the underlying question is "what would this amendment change" that I would need to have faith in something? You see, this amendment would not make the Church more free to evangelize -- it is already 100% free to do so. This amendment would not give the Church more power to evangelize -- it already has full power to do so.

You see, no legal amendment is going to help the Church. The Church gets its help from God, and we are already free to utilize that help. Therefore, this amendment does not suddenly improve things. So, instead, will it help change the nation to be more Christian? No. It cannot. It is powerless to do so.

Therefore, it changes nothing, on either side of the equation.

So... I have faith in the Church, and my faith in the Church is the same with or without this amendment.

I have faith in the Nation to twist the definitions of Christianity for the citizens, and I have faith in the World to follow that Nation. An amendment is powerless to do anything about that, and it only offers them another means by which they can and will do that.

While we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death.... Yet, if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, ‘You shall not covet.’ But sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died, and the very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.

Like I said...

[George Wallace]

I'm much more interested in the tax bill/amendment (forget which one it is) which would exempt religious pacifists from their tax dollars funding war. This bill has been introduced every year since some point in the 70s. It is shot down every year. You see, religious freedom only works insofar as you pay your temple tribute to the god of Caesar.

13 Then they sent to Him some of the Pharisees and the Herodians, to catch Him in His words. 14 When they had come, they said to Him, “Teacher, we know that You are true, and care about no one; for You do not regard the person of men, but teach the way of God in truth. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? 15 Shall we pay, or shall we not pay?”

But He, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, “Why do you test Me? Bring Me a denarius that I may see it.” 16 So they brought it.

And He said to them, “Whose image and inscription is this?” They said to Him, “Caesar’s.”

17 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

And they marveled at Him.

Who's image is on your money Ben?

Think the Imperial Tax in Jesus' day went to support military operations? Heck, it went to support their own oppression by an occupying force!

And Jesus said PAY IT!

[Rich Schmidt]

Would you, support the following Christian Amendment to the U. S. Constitution?

Yes or No and why?

No, because I don't see any way in which it would be helpful.

[Rich Schmidt]

As of this moment, there are 11 votes in the poll: 1 Yes, 10 No.

[Glenn Messer]

I embrace it with my heart, but I confess --- much to my great shame and sorrow (hee, hee, hee) that I have to agree with Ben and his original post on this one.

It would only create deeper division within the country and there is already too much of that. I am resigned to making the USA the strongest and morally best secular nation on earth.(Though I think we are a leader in this sense, we still have a long way to go.) I will wait until Jesus returns for the other.

[Benjamin Burch]

Who's image is on your money Ben?

Think the Imperial Tax in Jesus' day went to support military operations? Heck, it went to support their own oppression by an occupying force!

And Jesus said PAY IT!

Just to be clear... I agree and I pay it every year, and I disagree with those who withhold in protest. However, the point in regards to religious freedom stands.

[Rich Schmidt]

As of this moment, there are 11 votes in the poll: 1 Yes, 10 No.

And now it's 1 Yes and 13 No.

[John Kennedy]

Is Christ King of the Nations?

Yes ? No?

If Yes, why not recognize Him as such?

I seem to recall Christ saying something about his kingdom being not of this world.

[Billy Cox]

Would you, support the following Christian Amendment to the U. S. Constitution?

Yes or No and why?

What benefit would such an amendment deliver? Americans are already free to practice Christianity or to abstain from doing so without penalty, so why would we need to amend the Constitution to say what it already says.

[George Wallace]

I seem to recall Christ saying something about his kingdom being not of this world.

Psalm 2
According to the Version
Approved by The Church of Scotland

1 Why rage the heathen? and vain things
why do the people mind?

2 Kings of the earth do set themselves,
and princes are combined,
To plot against the Lord, and his
Anointed, saying thus,

3 Let us asunder break their bands,
and cast their cords from us.

4 He that in heaven sits shall laugh;
the Lord shall scorn them all.

5 Then shall he speak to them in wrath,
in rage he vex them shall.

6 Yet, notwithstanding, I have him
to be my King appointed;
And over Zion, my holy hill,
I have him King anointed.

7 The sure decree I will declare:
The Lord hath said to me,
Thou art mine only Son; this day
I have begotten thee.

8 Ask of me, and for heritage
the heathen I'll make thine;
And, for possession, I to thee
will give earth's utmost line.

9 Thou shalt, as with a weighty rod
of iron, break them all;
And, as a potter's sherd, thou shalt
them dash in pieces small.

10 Now therefore, kings, be wise; be taught,
ye judges of the earth:

11 Serve God in fear, and see that ye
join trembling with your mirth.

12 Kiss ye the Son, lest in his ire
ye perish from the way,
If once his wrath begin to burn:
blessed all that on him stay.

[Paul DeBaufer]

The unholy marriage of Church and Empire is unconscionable and an unholy marriage this would be violating both the principles of America and Christianity.

[George Wallace]

The unholy marriage of Church and Empire is unconscionable and an unholy marriage this would be violating both the principles of America and Christianity.

Would it surprise you to know that Nazarene's endorse this amendment and worked toward its passage?

[Mike Schutz]

Would it surprise you to know that Nazarene's endorse this amendment and worked toward its passage?

Not sure from your comment if you mean officially, by action of the GA, or some individuals. In any case, why should anyone be surprised? In the same way that the founding of the denomination brought together both sides in the greatest conflict in our nation's history, Nazarenes have taken differing sides in almost every political issue and election.

[Larry Parsons]

I seem to recall Christ saying something about his kingdom being not of this world.

What he meant the idea of his kingdom didn't come from man but from God who is in heaven.
Thanks
Larry

[Roy Richardson]

No, because it would blur the lines of Church and Nation in a way that will not benefit either, and will only leave the Church more powerless to be the Church, and more dependent upon and beholden to the Nation.

Such an amendment would only pull down the Church, it would not raise up the nation.

We would lose the ability to critique the government, and to the rest of the world, everything our country did would reflect on Christ. I'm not sure that Christ wants to be hit with the guilt by association of stuff the US does.

[Greg Farra]

Section 1 is not happening. Our nation does not devoutly recognize the authority and law of Christ. When we all do, then we won't need an amendment anyway.

[George Wallace]

Not sure from your comment if you mean officially, by action of the GA, or some individuals. In any case, why should anyone be surprised? In the same way that the founding of the denomination brought together both sides in the greatest conflict in our nation's history, Nazarenes have taken differing sides in almost every political issue and election.

Mike,
The only reference I have states, that for Nazarenes those involved were "editors and educators." Or "denominational representatives" (whatever that means...?)

Many groups of Christian people hearing its message have given it their enthusiastic support representatives of many denominations have expressed their approval including, moderators of four Presbyterian assemblies, the General Secretary of the Assemblies of God, editors and educators in the Baptist, Methodist, Christian, Nazarene, Mennonite and other churches. The Board of Administration of the National Association of Evangelicals has endorsed it as has the Woman's Christian Temperance Union of twenty-two states.

From:
The Christian Amendment Movement: what it is what you can do to help 1947

[Jim Chabot]

I'm much more interested in the tax bill/amendment (forget which one it is) which would exempt religious pacifists from their tax dollars funding war. This bill has been introduced every year since some point in the 70s. It is shot down every year. You see, religious freedom only works insofar as you pay your temple tribute to the god of Caesar.

Caesar's been dead a long, long time Ben. You could actually win that one, I don't see it happening, but it's possible. It wouldn't be possible with old whats his name. The Caesar argument is a red herring, generally run by a bunch of malcontents with a sour outlook on our nation. We have no God other than the one who calls Himself "I AM" and His Son Jesus, that's why we came here in the first place. Back then we owned the government here, it could happen again, anything is possible here in the land of the free!