Christine O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State - Page 2

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Christine O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State (Page 2 of 11)

Posted: 10/19/2010 1:34:53 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

Quoted:

"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

The question is obviously what was she referring to when she said "that", separation of church and state or Coon's reply. Further, teaching creationism in public school does not equal establishing a religion, regardless of whatever sleight of hand past or present SCOTUS panels wish to employ.

I think it is quite clear she is well versed in the rhetorical nonsense of a certain crowd, and was woefully outclassed by a debate opponent who saw exactly where here argument was going (because it is hardly original, and quite nonsensical) and made a point of using precisely the words in the 1st Amendment. She walked right into that trap, as if she did not recognize those words.

wrong

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz0xr3tSA0g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBdTx5uNMPY

ETA: furthermore, coons couldn't even list the freedoms listed in the 1st amendment when she asked him to list them

You didn't seriously post that stuff to defend her?

Posted: 10/19/2010 1:35:09 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Because she is the best thing to happen to the left since David Duke ran for office. The press is having a field day very successfully making us all look like fools for having let a fringe element of people who embrace ignorance in the name of conservatism gain so much power.

The press has a field day making any candidate to the right of Bernie Sanders look like a raving loon regardless.

...but that being said, we should be exceptionally careful about who we nominate. You can't just vote for any ol' person who says the right stuff and think it's all going to be OK in the grand scheme. Given that the choices were O'Donnell and that nitwit Coons...well...

I say again: There is no more dangerous, hair-brained, ridiculous, nonsensical system of beliefs than liberalism. The difference is that liberals aren't held accountable for the nonsense they pull or the goofy-ass things they turn into actual policy.

Posted: 10/19/2010 1:36:02 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Quoted:

"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

The question is obviously what was she referring to when she said "that", separation of church and state or Coon's reply. Further, teaching creationism in public school does not equal establishing a religion, regardless of whatever sleight of hand past or present SCOTUS panels wish to employ.

"She seemed genuinely surprised that the principle of separation of church and state derives from the First Amendment, and I think to many of us in the law school that was a surprise," Daly said. "It's one thing to not know the 17th Amendment or some of the others, but most Americans do know the basics of the First Amendment."

I think our founding Fathers would be equally surprised. Just like they would be if they heard that the 14th Amendment somehow guarantees a right to abortion.

Posted: 10/19/2010 1:36:29 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:
She has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election. I just don't see why this woman is news.

Because she is the best thing to happen to the left since David Duke ran for office. The press is having a field day very successfully making us all look like fools for having let a fringe element of people who embrace ignorance in the name of conservatism gain so much power.

Comparing her to David Duke is reprehensible.

Considering how much you go on about how unfair some of the allegations made against Obama are, to insinuate something like that is just wrong.

Predictable.

Weak,

Sad,

Yet, predictable.

Posted: 10/19/2010 1:38:24 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:

"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

The question is obviously what was she referring to when she said "that", separation of church and state or Coon's reply. Further, teaching creationism in public school does not equal establishing a religion, regardless of whatever sleight of hand past or present SCOTUS panels wish to employ.

I think it is quite clear she is well versed in the rhetorical nonsense of a certain crowd, and was woefully outclassed by a debate opponent who saw exactly where here argument was going (because it is hardly original, and quite nonsensical) and made a point of using precisely the words in the 1st Amendment. She walked right into that trap, as if she did not recognize those words.

wrong

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz0xr3tSA0g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBdTx5uNMPY

ETA: furthermore, coons couldn't even list the freedoms listed in the 1st amendment when she asked him to list them

You didn't seriously post that stuff to defend her?

comprehension problem?

ETA: it's pretty clear you once again you post before knowing what you're talking about even if she could have explained it a little better

Posted: 10/19/2010 1:38:59 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
She has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election. I just don't see why this woman is news.

+1 She's gonna get her ass kicked...why should we care? WAY too many idiotic statements have emanated from her pie-hole.

I hope both of you are right.

Posted: 10/19/2010 1:41:04 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:

fine vote for the democrat instead. thats for costing us a seat.

The folks who voted for O'Donnell in the primary cost us the seat already.

Wrong answer..Castle voting like a democrat but running as a Republican cost him his seat.

We either vote conservative or nothing will change. It ain't over until November 3rd.

This woman is a Mystical Idiot...

Posted: 10/19/2010 1:41:13 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
And she is 100% correct. The words "separation of church and state" are not in the Constitution.

This is not news.

And Coons never said they were. He was perfectly clear about how that was from where the principle has been derived. She once again sounded like a one-trick pony sticking to a talking point out of an inability to even understand the debate. She's like that Turtle guy who answered every question by simply saying his opponent started the recession.

Sheesh, these debates are making her look like a rank amateur, yet people compare her to Ronald Reagan? Spare me.

Posted: 10/19/2010 1:42:40 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:

"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

The question is obviously what was she referring to when she said "that", separation of church and state or Coon's reply. Further, teaching creationism in public school does not equal establishing a religion, regardless of whatever sleight of hand past or present SCOTUS panels wish to employ.

I think it is quite clear she is well versed in the rhetorical nonsense of a certain crowd, and was woefully outclassed by a debate opponent who saw exactly where here argument was going (because it is hardly original, and quite nonsensical) and made a point of using precisely the words in the 1st Amendment. She walked right into that trap, as if she did not recognize those words.

wrong

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz0xr3tSA0g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBdTx5uNMPY

ETA: furthermore, coons couldn't even list the freedoms listed in the 1st amendment when she asked him to list them

You didn't seriously post that stuff to defend her?

comprehension problem?

ETA: it's pretty clear you once again you post before knowing what you're talking about even if she could have explained it a little better

You and I must be watching different videos.

Posted: 10/19/2010 1:44:47 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
She was correct..there is no separation of Church and State in the constitution. I like her.

The MM is really trying to turn this exchange into she don't no shit event.

That woman needs to explain her question, so she don't get run her over by the mass media and their agenda

Posted: 10/19/2010 1:45:20 PM EDT

[#11]

The church is the enemy of liberty

it MUST have legal separation from government at all costs

Posted: 10/19/2010 1:48:58 PM EDT

[#12]

When did the Fundies infiltrate the tea party so heavily

Posted: 10/19/2010 1:49:06 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

The church is the enemy of liberty

it MUST have legal separation from government at all costs

I would prefer to say keep mysticism out of politics. Together they are a scary mix.

Posted: 10/19/2010 1:49:44 PM EDT

[#14]

We need to keep the separation of church and state on a good balance between outright hostility and overtly friendly. Founding fathers made this distinction in their discussions of this matter.

Posted: 10/19/2010 1:49:59 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:

"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

The question is obviously what was she referring to when she said "that", separation of church and state or Coon's reply. Further, teaching creationism in public school does not equal establishing a religion, regardless of whatever sleight of hand past or present SCOTUS panels wish to employ.

I think it is quite clear she is well versed in the rhetorical nonsense of a certain crowd, and was woefully outclassed by a debate opponent who saw exactly where here argument was going (because it is hardly original, and quite nonsensical) and made a point of using precisely the words in the 1st Amendment. She walked right into that trap, as if she did not recognize those words.

If you can divine all that from a text devoid of inflection, body language, and overall context you should be making millions as an analyst. In reality, you're just seeing what you want to see.

Perception is reality.

The public at large "knows" that the First Amendment guarantees the separation of Church and State. She "appears" to be ignorant of that "fact".

Her opponent wins that round.

You guys need to educate the American people.

Posted: 10/19/2010 1:52:04 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Really? I see a lot of folks disagreeing with and questioning Tea Party candidates on here.

Then again, what I think you mean is "you cannot disagree or question Tea Party candidates without being challenged"...which is what you apparently want. You don't want a conversation, you just want to lecture.

Well, that's news to me

If you wouldn't quote him, I wouldn't have to read his nonsense.

FWIW, I have never seen anybody here who agrees with me that O'Donnell is a poor representation of conservative politics calling anyone else trolls just for believing otherwise. She is the Cynthia Mckinney of the right, but at least McKinney stayed in the House.

For some reason the sniping posts insinuating that certain posts are trolling, or that certain people do not: "belong" here always seem to come from people holding very particular and consistent sets of views.

I agree.

Posted: 10/19/2010 1:52:06 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
She was correct..there is no separation of Church and State in the constitution. I like her.

The MM is really trying to turn this exchange into she don't no shit event.

That woman needs to explain her question, so she don't get run her over by the mass media and their agenda

EVERYBODY understands her question. It's stale rhetoric that has been around for years. It's akin to the "why are there still monkeys" nonsense people still post on arfcom every few months. Coons understood her question, which is why he was so careful to explain it was a concept derived from the first amendment and over years of rulings. When she asked the direct question about whether the specific words were there, he stated the words used in the amendment. She then acted smug and had a stupid grin on her face as if she caught him in something! Embarrassing!

Posted: 10/19/2010 1:52:34 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

When did the Fundies infiltrate the tea party so heavily

They haven't. There is no "Tea Party". Each rally is different. I've been to several where mysticism wasn't even brought up. Then I've been to some where I left after the second speech because of the mystics. The movement is quite diverse.

Posted: 10/19/2010 1:54:52 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:
When did the Fundies infiltrate the tea party so heavily

They haven't. There is no "Tea Party". Each rally is different. I've been to several where mysticism wasn't even brought up. Then I've been to some where I left after the second speech because of the mystics. The movement is quite diverse.

And it is crucial when attempting to build a long-term political movement to enact fundamental change in the way society works to spend copious amounts of effort picking each other apart over disagreements than it is to unite around themes that everybody can agree on.

...because that's how we achieve success.

Posted: 10/19/2010 1:55:46 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Really? I see a lot of folks disagreeing with and questioning Tea Party candidates on here.
Then again, what I think you mean is "you cannot disagree or question Tea Party candidates without being challenged"...which is what you apparently want. You don't want a conversation, you just want to lecture.

Well, that's news to me

If you wouldn't quote him, I wouldn't have to read his nonsense.

FWIW, I have never seen anybody here who agrees with me that O'Donnell is a poor representation of conservative politics calling anyone else trolls just for believing otherwise. She is the Cynthia Mckinney of the right, but at least McKinney stayed in the House.

For some reason the sniping posts insinuating that certain posts are trolling, or that certain people do not: "belong" here always seem to come from people holding very particular and consistent sets of views.

I agree.

In your own silly way, you only reinforced my point.

Posted: 10/19/2010 1:56:16 PM EDT

[#21]

at least in the other topic, the liberal water-carrier had enough shame to be embarassed at how bad he got spanked for his ignorance about the Establishment clause, and deleted his OP and requested deletion. Just a damned shame that all that good information that was posted was so speedily flushed.
Now the more shameless lib-trolls are finally out of bed and shoveling shit as usual and here the topic floats in the bowl.

eta

Justice Scalia’s views on Establishment Clause
leave a comment »

In holding that the Establishment Clause prohibits invocations and benedictions at public-school graduation ceremonies, the Court—with nary a mention that it is doing so—lays waste a tradition that is as old as public-school graduation ceremonies themselves, and that is a component of an even more longstanding American tradition of nonsectarian prayer to God at public celebrations generally. As its instrument of destruction, the bulldozer of its social engineering, the Court invents a boundless, and boundlessly manipulable, test of psychological coercion, which promises to do for the Establishment Clause what the Durham rule did for the insanity defense. See Durham v. United States, 94 U.S.App.D.C. 228, 214 F.2d 862 (1954). Today’s opinion shows more forcefully than volumes of argumentation why our Nation’s protection, that fortress which is our Constitution, cannot possibly rest upon the changeable philosophical predilections of the Justices of this Court, but must have deep foundations in the historic practices of our people. (Robert E. LEE, Individually and as Principal of Nathan Bishop Middle School, et al., Petitioners, 1992)

I cannot join for yet another reason: the Court’s statement that the proposed use of the school’s facilities is constitutional because (among other things) it would not signal endorsement of religion in general. Ante, at ____. What a strange notion, that a Constitution which itself gives “religion in general” preferential treatment (I refer to the Free Exercise Clause) forbids endorsement of religion in general. The Attorney General of New York not only agrees with that strange notion, he has an explanation for it: “Religious advocacy,” he writes, “serves the community only in the eyes of its adherents and yields a benefit only to those who already believe.” Brief for Respondent Attorney General 24. That was not the view of those who adopted our Constitution, who believed that the public virtues inculcated by religion are a public good. It suffices to point out that during the summer of 1789, when it was in the process of drafting the First Amendment, Congress enacted the famous Northwest Territory Ordinance of 1789, Article III of which provides, “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” 1 Stat. 52 (emphasis added). Unsurprisingly, then, indifference to “religion in general” is not what our cases, both old and recent, demand. (LAMB’S CHAPEL and John Steigerwald, Petitioners, v. CENTER MORICHES UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., 1993)

Posted: 10/19/2010 1:57:15 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
The church is the enemy of liberty

it MUST have legal separation from government at all costs

Thank you. The insanity in here was really starting to spike my blood pressure

, but you restored a small glimmer of hope to me.

I just cannot understand how in the everliving fuck anyone could think that mixing religion and politics could be anything but a terrible idea. And frankly I'm ashamed at how many people think it's acceptable (let alone desirable) for the government to push religion and be religious as long as the church isn't made official and you aren't forced to go.

This O'Donnell lady plays right into the hands of the mainstream Democrats. What a better way to play to the stereotypes than to run on the "God platform".

Posted: 10/19/2010 1:57:35 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:
fine vote for the democrat instead. thats for costing us a seat.

The folks who voted for O'Donnell in the primary cost us the seat already.

so why the fuck is the answer to throw our nominee under the bus.

A sexy witch (R) is better than any (D)

irt makes 0 sense to me why you folks insist on beating the shit out of her.

THE ALTERNATIVE IS A DEMOCRAT

Posted: 10/19/2010 1:59:03 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

The church is the enemy of liberty

it MUST have legal separation from government at all costs

Good grief, you sound like a fuckin lefty...

The 1st Amendment only states that the government can make no law establishing a national religion. There is nothing in the Constitution that denies schools, courthouses and public places from seeing religious activities.

If your fear is that somehow the Baptist down the street is your worst enemy, you have issues.

Posted: 10/19/2010 2:00:19 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Really? I see a lot of folks disagreeing with and questioning Tea Party candidates on here.

Then again, what I think you mean is "you cannot disagree or question Tea Party candidates without being challenged"...which is what you apparently want. You don't want a conversation, you just want to lecture.

Well, that's news to me

If you wouldn't quote him, I wouldn't have to read his nonsense.

FWIW, I have never seen anybody here who agrees with me that O'Donnell is a poor representation of conservative politics calling anyone else trolls just for believing otherwise. She is the Cynthia Mckinney of the right, but at least McKinney stayed in the House.

For some reason the sniping posts insinuating that certain posts are trolling, or that certain people do not: "belong" here always seem to come from people holding very particular and consistent sets of views.

I agree.

In your own silly way, you only reinforced my point.

I thought I was agreeing with you.

Posted: 10/19/2010 2:00:20 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
And she is 100% correct. The words "separation of church and state" are not in the Constitution.

This is not news.

I agree with you but, the ideology of a separation exists in the First Amendment establishment clause, according to the SCOTUS in Everson v. Board of Education (1947) which held:

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or dis-beliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

Which is why many people get upset when government money is used to promote ideas like creationism in schools, prayer in public institutions, "under God" being added to the pledge and money and so on. While I firmly believe that spiritual men and women are indispensable to our country and that those spiritual values can make people better leaders (can, not do) I don't think that ideas which are specific to any religion have a place in a government. I think it's possible to agree on a social contract which protects the individual without involving a religious component.

Just as many people of all faiths will balk at having other faiths being promoted by the government, people without any faith have the same objections to having any faith promoted by the government.

Posted: 10/19/2010 2:02:28 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Really? I see a lot of folks disagreeing with and questioning Tea Party candidates on here.
Then again, what I think you mean is "you cannot disagree or question Tea Party candidates without being challenged"...which is what you apparently want. You don't want a conversation, you just want to lecture.

Well, that's news to me

If you wouldn't quote him, I wouldn't have to read his nonsense.

FWIW, I have never seen anybody here who agrees with me that O'Donnell is a poor representation of conservative politics calling anyone else trolls just for believing otherwise. She is the Cynthia Mckinney of the right, but at least McKinney stayed in the House.

For some reason the sniping posts insinuating that certain posts are trolling, or that certain people do not: "belong" here always seem to come from people holding very particular and consistent sets of views.

I agree.

In your own silly way, you only reinforced my point.

I thought I was agreeing with you.

Sorry, I thought you bolded just that first bit to be a smart ass.

It is 1am and I should be sleeping.

Posted: 10/19/2010 2:04:19 PM EDT

[#28]

The words do not appear in the Constitution.

That the first amendment does separate church and state is beyond any doubt. Courts have affirmed this many times. Coon's chose his words carefully and O'donnell fell for it.

Teaching creationism in schools establishes a preferential treatment towards a religion and is utterly unconstitutional. It's no different then if the teacher started reading Genesis in class- the end result is a government sanction of a specific creation myth. It's not science, it's not constitutional and it's not a states rights issue.

She needs to bone up on the history of the Constitution and the Supreme Court, because that shit matters.

Posted: 10/19/2010 2:04:35 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Really? I see a lot of folks disagreeing with and questioning Tea Party candidates on here.
Then again, what I think you mean is "you cannot disagree or question Tea Party candidates without being challenged"...which is what you apparently want. You don't want a conversation, you just want to lecture.

Well, that's news to me

If you wouldn't quote him, I wouldn't have to read his nonsense.

FWIW, I have never seen anybody here who agrees with me that O'Donnell is a poor representation of conservative politics calling anyone else trolls just for believing otherwise. She is the Cynthia Mckinney of the right, but at least McKinney stayed in the House.

For some reason the sniping posts insinuating that certain posts are trolling, or that certain people do not: "belong" here always seem to come from people holding very particular and consistent sets of views.

I agree.

In your own silly way, you only reinforced my point.

Whoa there, Nelson Rockefeller. O'Donnell may not be an ideal candidate, but she would have to have YEARS of bat-shit crazy antics *IN* elected office to measure up to a Cynthia Mckinney.

Posted: 10/19/2010 2:06:18 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
The words do not appear in the Constitution.

That the first amendment does separate church and state is beyond any doubt. Courts have affirmed this many times. Coon's chose his words carefully and O'donnell fell for it.

Teaching creationism in schools establishes a preferential treatment towards a religion and is utterly unconstitutional. It's no different then if the teacher started reading Genesis in class- the end result is a government sanction of a specific creation myth. It's not science, it's not constitutional and it's not a states rights issue.

She needs to bone up on the history of the Constitution and the Supreme Court, because that shit matters.

Apparently, believing / knowing this basic fact makes you a libtard who must be purged in the name of party purity.

Posted: 10/19/2010 2:06:36 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Because she is the best thing to happen to the left since David Duke ran for office. The press is having a field day very successfully making us all look like fools for having let a fringe element of people who embrace ignorance in the name of conservatism gain so much power.

The press has a field day making any candidate to the right of Bernie Sanders look like a raving loon regardless.

...but that being said, we should be exceptionally careful about who we nominate. You can't just vote for any ol' person who says the right stuff and think it's all going to be OK in the grand scheme. Given that the choices were O'Donnell and that nitwit Coons...well...

I say again: There is no more dangerous, hair-brained, ridiculous, nonsensical system of beliefs than liberalism. The difference is that liberals aren't held accountable for the nonsense they pull or the goofy-ass things they turn into actual policy.

I agree totally. The folks to the right of the aisle couldn't possibly come up with anything that damages civil liberties or infringes freedom.

Posted: 10/19/2010 2:07:51 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:

"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

The question is obviously what was she referring to when she said "that", separation of church and state or Coon's reply. Further, teaching creationism in public school does not equal establishing a religion, regardless of whatever sleight of hand past or present SCOTUS panels wish to employ.

I think it is quite clear she is well versed in the rhetorical nonsense of a certain crowd, and was woefully outclassed by a debate opponent who saw exactly where here argument was going (because it is hardly original, and quite nonsensical) and made a point of using precisely the words in the 1st Amendment. She walked right into that trap, as if she did not recognize those words.

wrong

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz0xr3tSA0g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBdTx5uNMPY

ETA: furthermore, coons couldn't even list the freedoms listed in the 1st amendment when she asked him to list them

You didn't seriously post that stuff to defend her?

comprehension problem?

ETA: it's pretty clear you once again you post before knowing what you're talking about even if she could have explained it a little better

You and I must be watching different videos.

most likely, now try not to slobber on your computer screen

Posted: 10/19/2010 2:10:03 PM EDT

[#33]

She was questioning the moron who didn't know what was in the constitution.

Posted: 10/19/2010 2:12:00 PM EDT

[#34]

She was right, it says the gov shall not do anything to restrict religion not banish it like the dems have done.

Posted: 10/19/2010 2:14:27 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Your Troll-Fu is weak on this one, it's already been covered.

And just why is that trolling?

It seems lately you cannot disagree or question Tea Party candidates.

Isn't there a TeaParty.com where they can hang out and circle jerk with DU style moderation where such posts WOULD be considered trolling? I just want people to be happy.

Posted: 10/19/2010 2:14:39 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
She was questioning the moron who didn't know what was in the constitution.

Posted: 10/19/2010 2:14:49 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:

She has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election. I just don't see why this woman is news.

+1 She's gonna get her ass kicked...why should we care? WAY too many idiotic statements have emanated from her pie-hole.

I hope both of you are right.

So help me out here. How exactly do we benefit by her losing the election in November?

All this bashing of a candidate who has at least promised to push back against the current agenda has me a bit confused.

She won the primary and is now the Republican candidate for Joe F'n Biden's senate seat. Is there some magical fairy-world super duper conservative Chris Costa of the political conservative world who is also in the race? Did I miss the memo about cover sheets on TPS reports or something?

She is the candidate facing off against the entire Dem election machine and we have people on our (pro 2nd amendment RKBA etc) side convinced that their God sworn duty is to trash and belittle her beyond political salvage? WTF is the matter with you folks? She ain't perfect by a long shot but the time to take care of that is long past.

She will vote and caucus with the Republicans, who I believe will start moving back to the conservative side of the dial, and that is really all that matters at this point. I know it is embarrassing for all the experts who said she could never win the primary but this is the time to put petty squabbling aside and support the best likely candidate for the seat. For better or worse that is Christine O'Donnell. A better candidate can be put up in 6 years if it turns out that she lives down to your worst expectations.

She handled herself just fine in the debate. For what it is worth there is no requirement in the constitution for separation of church and state and anyone who has read any of the writings of the founding fathers would find such a claim laughable.

Posted: 10/19/2010 2:15:08 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
I agree totally. The folks to the right of the aisle couldn't possibly come up with anything that damages civil liberties or infringes freedom.

You seem to think that silly ideas from the right have an equal chance of becoming policy as silly ideas from the left. Look at the last 100 years of history and tell me if that's a realistic assessment.

Posted: 10/19/2010 2:16:32 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
She was right, it says the gov shall not do anything to restrict religion not banish it like the dems have done.

She did not make that argument. She did not make any argument. She had one combination to play, and she was unable to cope with a sparring partner with half a clue.

Posted: 10/19/2010 2:19:01 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:

"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

The question is obviously what was she referring to when she said "that", separation of church and state or Coon's reply. Further, teaching creationism in public school does not equal establishing a religion, regardless of whatever sleight of hand past or present SCOTUS panels wish to employ.

"She seemed genuinely surprised that the principle of separation of church and state derives from the First Amendment, and I think to many of us in the law school that was a surprise," Daly said. "It's one thing to not know the 17th Amendment or some of the others, but most Americans do know the basics of the First Amendment."

That is horse shit. She was pointing out to that moron that the words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the First Amendment.

ETA- Does anyone have the video? It's pretty clear.

ETAII- I don't know anything about this woman, so I don't really have a dog in this fight.

Umm, if she was attempting to make a point she failed and came off as completely ignorant.

Posted: 10/19/2010 2:19:07 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

The words do not appear in the Constitution.

That the first amendment does separate church and state is beyond any doubt. Courts have affirmed this many times. Coon's chose his words carefully and O'donnell fell for it.

Teaching creationism in PUBLIC schools establishes a preferential treatment towards a religion and is utterly unconstitutional. It's no different then if the teacher started reading Genesis in class- the end result is a government sanction of a specific creation myth. It's not science, it's not constitutional and it's not a states rights issue.

She needs to bone up on the history of the Constitution and the Supreme Court, because that shit matters.

We have lots of folks objecting to how their kids are taught....some are minor items, some are not. We pretty much acknowledge that teachers and unions and the hierarchy of public institutions are liberal. This leads people to believe their kids are being indoctrinated and that the moral and ethical teachings of their personal religious beliefs are being nullified. Allowing more choice in education would do away with a lot of this tension over secular humanism v. religion. There's little that convinces me that government doesn't want to be your "religion of choice" if given half a chance. Choice is the only way to balance the dynamic.

Posted: 10/19/2010 2:19:20 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

Quoted:
She has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election. I just don't see why this woman is news.

Because she is the best thing to happen to the left since David Duke ran for office. The press is having a field day very successfully making us all look like fools for having let a fringe element of people who embrace ignorance in the name of conservatism gain so much power.

Glad to see someone gets the bigger picture

Posted: 10/19/2010 2:20:54 PM EDT

[#43]

Don't worry about O'Donnell in office. She will hire all the expert aid she needs, just like every other politician that goes to Congress or the Whitehouse.

Posted: 10/19/2010 2:21:21 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
She was right, it says the gov shall not do anything to restrict religion not banish it like the dems have done.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. The First says a great deal more.

It does state that congress can make no law respecting and establishment of religion. That's called the establishment clause. The second part, that a lot of people like to ignore is "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...", or Free Exercise clause. That's the one that keeps congress from helping out one religion without actually calling it official, among other things

Together, they form a separation between church, or religion in general, and government. Not only can congress not establish a state religion, it can't favor one and it can't hinder one. Because state governments run schools, and because the first amendment is incorporated, they are subject to the same rules. Teaching creationism in school would favor one, and hinder others. The same goes for displays of religious icons or commandments in courthouses- they just can't pass the Lemon test.

It's an incredible bit of mental gymnastics for people to argue that the First Amendment doesn't really mean exactly what Jefferson and Madison said it meant. They wrote it, after all, and explained it several times in no uncertain terms, both using language describing a separation between church and state.

Posted: 10/19/2010 2:22:01 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:
She has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election. I just don't see why this woman is news.

Because she is the best thing to happen to the left since David Duke ran for office. The press is having a field day very successfully making us all look like fools for having let a fringe element of people who embrace ignorance in the name of conservatism gain so much power.

Glad to see someone gets the bigger picture

I don't give a damn what she thinks or says, she is STILL better than the Democrat alternative.

Let her be a lightning rod, keeps the press dogs off the hundreds of other races.

Posted: 10/19/2010 2:22:21 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
We have lots of folks objecting to how their kids are taught....some are minor items, some are not. We pretty much acknowledge that teachers and unions and the hierarchy of public institutions are liberal. This leads people to believe their kids are being indoctrinated and that the moral and ethical teachings of their personal religious beliefs are being nullified. Allowing more choice in education would do away with a lot of this tension over secular humanism v. religion. There's little that convinces me that government doesn't want to be your "religion of choice" if given half a chance. Choice is the only way to balance the dynamic.

Aha!

So if we have person A who believes that the concept of federalism prohibits any real federal role in education and person B who wants the federal government out of education because they think that the feds and teachers unions are a bunch of godless commies out to undermine their families, should they:

A. Fight to the death over who is right
B. Realize that they share a similar goal and work together to achieve it

Posted: 10/19/2010 2:23:58 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:
She was right, it says the gov shall not do anything to restrict religion not banish it like the dems have done.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. The First says a great deal more.

It does state that congress can make no law respecting and establishment of religion. That's called the establishment clause. The second part, that a lot of people like to ignore is "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...", or Free Exercise clause. That's the one that keeps congress from helping out one religion without actually calling it official, among other things

Together, they form a separation between church, or religion in general, and government. Not only can congress not establish a state religion, it can't favor one and it can't hinder one. Because state governments run schools, and because the first amendment is incorporated, they are subject to the same rules. Teaching creationism in school would favor one, and hinder others. The same goes for displays of religious icons or commandments in courthouses- they just can't pass the Lemon test.

It's an incredible bit of mental gymnastics for people to argue that the First Amendment doesn't really mean exactly what Jefferson and Madison said it meant. They wrote it, after all, and explained it several times in no uncertain terms, both using language describing a separation between church and state.

Jefferson was a "libtard" who "trolled" the constitutional convention from FRANCE of all places.

Posted: 10/19/2010 2:25:05 PM EDT

[#48]

I like her. And I admire her for standing up for what she belives in .

Posted: 10/19/2010 2:25:05 PM EDT

[#49]

I know showhorses are supposed to look good all the time. Lets see 18 hour a day schedule since the start of campaign, Probably not sleeping well. She looked muddled to me not ignorant. Could happen to anyone. Imagine working 18 hour days for months and ask yourself how clearheaded you would be. Same thing happed to Debra Medina I met her and talked to her a couple times at very small get togethers. She is no more a hardcore truther than you and me.

Posted: 10/19/2010 2:25:47 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:

Don't worry about O'Donnell in office. She will hire all the expert aid she needs, just like every other politician that goes to Congress or the Whitehouse.

Speaking personally, I don't find any of O'Donnell's statements any more disturbing than, say, insisting that borrowing 787 billion dollars for "education and infrastructure" is "stimulus", insisting that there's no time to read massive pieces of legislation that impact the daily lives of every American before passing them, or insisting that a wise latina will come to better decisions on what the Constitution says than white dudes.

...but that's just me.

Is O'Donnell my ideal candidate? Certainly not, but I've seen little to make me believe that Coons would have been a superior nominee.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Christine O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State (Page 2 of 11)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us