Law forcing Americans to buy Bibles

[Davoo]

There is a law that could get implemented very soon that, if it were to become recognized as legal, would create a constitutional precedent that--if we were to have a Christian extremist-majority in Congress for even two years--would make it legal to pass a federal law requiring all American citizens to purchase New Living Translation Bibles, or face fines of hundreds of dollars.

What does Newgrounds think of this? Do you believe that Christian fundamentalists wouldn't ever be able to gain a majority in congress, and the white house?

[Camarohusky]

Please post some links so we can know what you're talking about.

[Heretic-Anchorite]

At 6/25/12 02:19 PM, Davoo wrote: There is a law that could get implemented very soon that,

Sources?

I doubt something like that would ever pass, even if republicans had a super-majority.

If something like that ever did pass, I would personally host a bible burning, with all the legal preparations of course.

[The-universe]

Assuming it's true hotel managers are going to have a lot of thefts on their hands.

[Warforger]

Just to clarify this is a "what if" post, this isn't actually happening.

Having a Bible is one thing, actually getting around to reading it is another. I've tried reading that god awful book and it's so boring and most of the time pointless (there are a couple pages which are all instructions for building a lavish court house and all the specifications, it's worth pointing out that this book had small text and double passage pages, so this goes on FOREVER) and when it does get around to saying something it's usually cruel and irrelevant today. Now I had alot more patience for that book than most non-religious people and hell even for many religious people, so I highty doubt it would be effective.

[Davoo]

Well let's just say if this law could very possibly get passed, would you support it, Newgrounds? What would you think?

[TNT]

The First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution is that we the people have the freedom of speech, the press, petition, and religion. Of course I would be against that bill...

[Prinzy2]

There would be no possible way to enforce it. What are they going to do, conduct house to house searches to see if you have a bible in your home? Even if the police had a legitimate reason to search your home, they're not going to be wasting their time looking for a bible.

[wildfire4461]

I've found yet another reason to hate religion.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

do you by chance have any sources?

[All-American-Badass]

Such a law, if it existed and got passed, would never pass muster on the supreme court.

[Angry-Hatter]

Is this some kind of veiled swipe against the healthcare mandate? That if government can mandate that you buy one thing, then it can mandate that you buy anything, including completely useless items such as religious texts?

No, such a law requiring people to buy bibles would be in direct conflict with the first amendment, and it would be an open and shut case in any court trying to determine its constitutionality. Why are we even having this discussion?

[Entice]

At 6/25/12 06:06 PM, Ilssm wrote: I wouldn't support it but I wouldn't condemn it either. I don't care what happens.

You wouldn't condemn a law that would force Americans to either buy a bible or pay hundreds of dollars of fines?

[Sword-of-Kings]

There is absolutely no chance in hell of that happening.

[Davoo]

At 6/25/12 06:06 PM, Ilssm wrote: I wouldn't support it but I wouldn't condemn it either. I don't care what happens.

Whoa, that's intense, dude!

At 6/25/12 06:21 PM, TNT wrote: The First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution is that we the people have the freedom of speech, the press, petition, and religion. Of course I would be against that bill...

I agree!

At 6/25/12 07:05 PM, Prinzy2 wrote: There would be no possible way to enforce it. What are they going to do, conduct house to house searches to see if you have a bible in your home?

No there isn't judicial precedent for that yet; but forcing you to buy something, there just might be judicial precedent for very soon.

At 6/25/12 07:35 PM, All-American-Badass wrote: Such a law, if it existed and got passed, would never pass muster on the supreme court.

Dahhhhahahah I think you see what I've done here.

At 6/25/12 08:54 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Is this some kind of veiled swipe against the healthcare mandate?

I have no idea what you're talking about!

That if government can mandate that you buy one thing, then it can mandate that you buy anything, including completely useless items such as religious texts?

Isn't that how judicial precedent works?

No, such a law requiring people to buy bibles would be in direct conflict with the first amendment, and it would be an open and shut case in any court trying to determine its constitutionality. Why are we even having this discussion?

Well forget the Bible then. What about Farmer's Almanacs? Even though it's not religious, requiring an individual purchase something by law would still violate the commerce clause, right?

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes

It doesn't say it can regulate commerce with the people. So it's unconstitutional either way, right?

[Camarohusky]

At 6/25/12 10:08 PM, Davoo wrote: Isn't that how judicial precedent works?

No. That's not how judicial precedent works.

Well forget the Bible then. What about Farmer's Almanacs? Even though it's not religious, requiring an individual purchase something by law would still violate the commerce clause, right?

How does individual ownership of farmer's almanacs implicate the commerce clause? What interstate industry is benefitted by lay people having such alamancs?

It doesn't say it can regulate commerce with the people. So it's unconstitutional either way, right?

Either you're way out of your league or you're intentionally mis-framing the subject to hget the answer you want. Either way, you're way off.

[thegarbear14]

No source.... then it's bullshit?

Don't go omfg i hate religion because of this, because there is no source and therefore is probably bullshit.

[Iron-Hampster]

At 6/25/12 02:35 PM, Ilssm wrote:

Frankly, idgaf what happens. It won't affect me personally either way.

democracy in a nut shell, its okay if it effects others, just as long as it doesn't effect me.

[Camarohusky]

At 6/25/12 10:50 PM, thegarbear14 wrote: Don't go omfg i hate religion because of this, because there is no source and therefore is probably bullshit.

Hatter nailed it. This is a jab at Obamacare. It has nothing to do with religion.

[Korriken]

At 6/25/12 10:57 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Hatter nailed it. This is a jab at Obamacare. It has nothing to do with religion.

I wouldn't even call it that. just a fail troll feeding off your attention. let's starve it to death.

[orangebomb]

At 6/25/12 05:24 PM, Davoo wrote: Well let's just say if this law could very possibly get passed, would you support it, Newgrounds?

Not only no, but hell no. {pun intended.} No one with a rational thought process in this country would ever support anything like this, and the thought of just bringing that up is asinine, and then there is an issue with the other faiths out there {Jews, Muslims, Atheists and so on.} that they wouldn't be too happy about if such a law passes.

There is a good reason why separation of church and state exists in America, I prefer it that way.

[Thecrazyman]

At 6/25/12 02:19 PM, Davoo wrote: There is a law that could get implemented very soon that, if it were to become recognized as legal, would create a constitutional precedent that--if we were to have a Christian extremist-majority in Congress for even two years--would make it legal to pass a federal law requiring all American citizens to purchase New Living Translation Bibles, or face fines of hundreds of dollars.

What does Newgrounds think of this? Do you believe that Christian fundamentalists wouldn't ever be able to gain a majority in congress, and the white house?

Such a law would be heavily challenged in the High Court if it was approved, further more the Christian Fundamentalists responsible would be put away in Federal Prison for violating the wall of separation between state and religion itself.

Again this also proves that some people forget that this is the Land of the Free, there only asking for a Native American Decedent to one day assume the Oval Office itself and get these people to realize that THIS isn't a Christian Nation and THIS is the Land of the Free.

That said, no law should be made to force people to buy health care nor christian bibles period.

[Ericho]

It's really silly for anyone to make something like that mandatory. It's clearly unconstitutional as the first amendment states that Americans have freedom of religion. I suppose you might argue that it doesn't really violate that because they're not actually saying that people have to become religious, just use Bibles. Of course, it seems to certainly imply that. This thing should die fast and probably will.

[Pa4oo]

If someone FORCES me to buy a bible,i wioud just PUNCH him in the face!!!

[Angry-Hatter]

At 6/25/12 10:08 PM, Davoo wrote: I have no idea what you're talking about!

Cute.

That if government can mandate that you buy one thing, then it can mandate that you buy anything, including completely useless items such as religious texts?

Isn't that how judicial precedent works?

No it isn't. You are making an apples to oranges comparison.

No, such a law requiring people to buy bibles would be in direct conflict with the first amendment, and it would be an open and shut case in any court trying to determine its constitutionality. Why are we even having this discussion?

Well forget the Bible then. What about Farmer's Almanacs? Even though it's not religious, requiring an individual purchase something by law would still violate the commerce clause, right?

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes

It doesn't say it can regulate commerce with the people. So it's unconstitutional either way, right?

Article 1, Section 8 starts off by saying "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States".

The argument being made is that this mandate to purchase healthcare insurance is of demonstrable usefulness to the nation's overall welfare and is therefore constitutionally acceptable under the above clause. You would have to demonstrate how a mandate for purchasing farmers almanacs would be as universally helpful to the health and well-being of America's citizens as a mandate to purchase health insurance.

[Camarohusky]

At 6/26/12 02:36 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Article 1, Section 8 starts off by saying "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States".

This is the tax and spend clause, not the commerce clause.

The argument being made is that this mandate to purchase healthcare insurance is of demonstrable usefulness to the nation's overall welfare and is therefore constitutionally acceptable under the above clause. You would have to demonstrate how a mandate for purchasing farmers almanacs would be as universally helpful to the health and well-being of America's citizens as a mandate to purchase health insurance.

You're right and wrong at the same time. The tax and spend clause does allow for the government to provide health care and alike benefits for the people. However, the tax and spend clause is somewhat restricted in the procedure with which it can do this. The tax and spend caluse authorizes the Federal government to tax people and then provide healthcare. the tax and spend clause does not provide the Federal government with the power to force people to buy a private product. In other words, Tax and Spend would allow for universal healthcare or a single payer system. it does not provide the leeway needed to do the ACA. The ACA's authority comes from the Commerce Clause.

[TheKlown]

Can I use the Bible papers to wipe my ass with?

[Eltro2kneo]

Lock this piece of shit thread.

There are no links to any article, get that shit out of here before it spreads.

[thegarbear14]

At 6/26/12 03:27 PM, Eltro2kneo wrote: Lock this piece of shit thread.

There are no links to any article, get that shit out of here before it spreads.

it's bullshit. just let it die.

[camobch0]

Of course I wouldn't support this, anymore than I support Sharia law.