O’Donnell Questions Separation of Church and State
- Posted on October 19, 2010 at 2:47pm by
Jonathon M. Seidl
- Print »
- Email »
The questioning begins at about 2:50 above. You can view the entire story over at the blog. But here’s a taste:
The AP is correct: debate generally does not center around whether the federal government can “establish” laws instituting a national faith or favoring one religion over another. However, there is wide debate about whether the Constitution prohibits government from dabbling in religion at all. And not everyone agrees that O’Donnell was questioning the establishment of religion, as much as the complete abandonment of it. …
[Still], it does appear that O’Donnell concedes the point at the end of the exchange. But maybe she shouldn’t have. Maybe she didn’t realize that she was on to something. And maybe instead of being faulted for asking the question, she should be scrutinized for not understanding the nuance.
After reading the entire story, feel free to add your comments below.
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 567 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 394 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 384 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 368 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 324 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 384 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 394 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 324 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 150 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 384 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (377)
Rowgue
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:38pmShe is of course correct. There is no prohibition of religion from government. What there is is a prohibition of government from religion. It is a safeguard against a government established and controlled religion. They realized that had been a popular and very very effective propaganda tool throughout history that kept tyrannical empires in power and advanced their agendas.
She was in a very hostile environment. She was never going to come out of that debate looking good. The audience made up of law students actually laughed rauckously when she tried to get Coons to point out where the seperation of church and state is. That is actually very very scary. That is the next crop of lawyers that are going to be arguing law in our courtrooms, and they can’t even grasp that simple concept.
Why don’t you show the rest of the video where she asks him what the five protections afforded by the first amendment are and the only one he can name is the non-existant seperation of church and state, then when he‘s fumbling and mumbling trying to remember anything else that’s in it he cries to let the moderator ask the questions.
I mean if it’s supposed to be a story about looking stupid and uninformed, that seems relevant.
Report Post »caitlynsdad
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 5:46pmSeparation of church and state is not in the Constitution; it’s in a private letter from Thomas Jefferson to (I think) a Baptist minister. What is in the Constitution is the establishment clause, meaning–as you are getting at–that the government cannot say “The Catholic Church is the official church,“ or ”the Presbyterian church is the official church,” or whatever. The reason for this is precisely to avoid situations such as occured in England prior to the American Revolution, where one monarch would be Catholic and persecute all the Protestants, and the next would be Protestant and persecute all the Catholics. But it never meant that you can’t pray in public, or at a high school football game or graduation ceremony, or that some government official can’t wear a cross openly, or that people must be silent about their religious beliefs and keep them “private,” or that the Catholic Church can‘t actively engage in the political life to try to put an end to abortion and say that they’re against abortion because it’s evil in the sight of God. Just to be religious and say so is not to persecute the unreligious, or the differently religious. I‘m not sure that Christine O’Donnell put it quite so well as I just did (!), but that is what she was getting at, and everyone knows it.
Report Post »caitlynsdad
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 5:52pmJust off the top of my head … five protections of the first amendment:
(1) No established religion
(2) (this is the key one in this discussion) no prohibition of free exercise of religion
(3) freedom of speech, and the press
(4) freedom of assembly
(5) freedom of petition
Okay, you‘ll just have to take it on faith that I didn’t look that up But it is worth pointing out that Christine O’Donnell knew that there are five, and that the only one that Chris Coons could mention was the non-existent one that sits in accord with liberal mythology.
Report Post »Rowgue
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 6:15pmCaitlyn the letter you are referring to does NOT call for a seperation of church and state. In fact it expressed the fear that the establishment clause could be twisted due to it’s lack of absolute clarity to justify the prohibiting of religous expression in the context of governemnt. It also went on to clarify exactly what was meant in the establishment clause. It is that part of the letter that references the “wall” between church and state, but the context of the reference is in protecting religion from state interference.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 6:49pmCoons recited the anti-Establishment clause, while O’Donnell knew there were five “things” in the First Amendment but couldn’t tell you what they were. Yep. O’Donnell clearly smoked him. I think if Coons had recited the entire First Amendment from memory, verbatim, you‘d still say O’Donnell won because your vote for O’Donnell transcends all facts and logic. It is like my view of the Steelers–there is no set of facts or logic that you can use to disabuse me of the view that they are the greatest sports franchise in the history of the world. But I smartly limit my biased fantasies to sports and do not let them spill over into politics or policy. You should try that some time. Perhaps then you could name an insect or maybe even a potted plant that would not win your vote if it were to run against Coons.
Report Post »caitlynsdad
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 6:53pmRowgue, the specific phrasing in the letter is “wall of separation between Church and State,” and I wasn’t meaning to imply any specific purpose that Jefferson had in using that phrase, only to point out that, to argue their false interpretation of the First Amendment, modern liberals rely on an expression which isn’t in the Constitution but in a private letter. Jefferson’s phrasing in a private letter, regardless of his purpose in using it, has no legal force–only the wording of the First Amendment does, which uses the phrase “[no official] establishment of religion“ as well as ”free exercise thereof.”
Report Post »caitlynsdad
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 7:09pmABC, your attempt to put words in my mouth (which I never said) in response to something Coons also never said is … well, making an argument based on imagination. Since neither I nor Coons said either of the words you hypothetically attribute to us in a hypothetical situation, you don’t even have a hypothetical leg to stand on. In terms of insects or potted plants receiving votes, you would do far better to cast those aspersions on the enviornmentalist wackos, who do not exactly populate conservative circles. Apart from that, there’s nothing to hypothesize about; all we have are what O’Donnell actually said and Coons actually said–not what you imagine they might have said.
You are, however, absolutely correct about the Pittsburgh Steelers, so if I formerly believed that liberals were wrong about everything, I must now amend that view. I now say that they’re wrong about almost everything.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 7:49pmCaitlynsDad, I clearly heard Coons quote the anti-establishment clause, so he had that part correct, while O’Donnell at least raised doubts about whether she knows that this clause is in the first amendment. I don‘t think I put those words in Coons’ mouth. Now, if you are suggesting that O’Donnell “knew that there were five” but didn’t know that the anti-establishment clause was one of them, nor specifically noted the others, then I’d say that it is rather safe to conclude that Coons knows more about the first amendment. Not that any of this matters in light of the other much more stupid comments that O’Donnell has made, like the great one about human brains going into lab rats thanks to our scientists.
At least we can agree on the Steelers.
Report Post »caitlynsdad
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 11:55pmABC, I agree that O’Donnell (maybe in the heat of debate?) phrased some of her points inaccurately, but I’m sure she was getting at the distinction between the establishment clause (which is there) and “separation of church and state” (which is not). Though that certainly could be a problem, I would seek clarification prior to merely assuming she knows nothing about the issue, her words potentially being more mixed up than her real knowledge. (Easy to do in a debate, easy to do when you’re not used to a public form–I’ve heard unquestionably intelligent people with Ph.D’s and long lists of academic books to their credit stumble all over their words in oral debate, and Coons has much more experience as a debater than O’Donnell does, so I think the benefit of the doubt is owed to the point she was obviously trying to make, which in my view is a valid one. Speaking as someone with some teaching experience, I know how difficult it is to speak publicly even on subjects about which you know a great deal; it takes a great deal of practice, innate talent, and possibly both. I once tried reading verbatim from a prepared text before a video camera, and was stunned at how difficult that was.) Even the lab rats statement, though inaccurate in the plain meaning of the words she used, had some basis in truth. When I said you were putting words in Coons’ mouth, I was referring to your hypothetical statement about him reciting the First Amendment verbatim.
Glad to know we can agree on the Steelers; I live in Cincinnati, where terrible towels are all but contraband.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 4:04pmCaitlynsDad, now we agree on more than just the Steelers.
Report Post »Susan Harkins
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:31pmAnd now, after all the religious rhetoric, and about who knows more or less about what, where, and how…the bottom line of this debate might be reduced to a simple choice of…
…who will tax me more, grow government more, and take (vs. add) opportunities for myself and my posterity? That person goes — the other person stays.
Simple enough.
Report Post »Evan B
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:24pmOne thing I think many fail to even get from the 2nd amendment is the fact that is states that “congress shall pass no law….” It leaves the states to decide for them selves. Our federal government can not establish a religion.
Report Post »iamhungry
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:24pmFor a potential senator who is meant to revere the constitution you would think that she would be highly conversant with its contents and relevant SC rulings. Whether you agree with schools allowing prayer or teaching Intelligent Design she does not understand the matter enough to vote in the Senate on the matter.
Report Post »untameable-kate
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:52pmIf the senate is debating something she doesen’t have info on is she inable in your eyes to research it and gain her bearing?
Report Post »Contrarianthinker
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 4:07pmHungrey, I too expected her to know the Constitution. She is weak on the basics. Sad we don’t have a better DE candidate than her. I would probably end up voting for the LP candidate or not voting for Senator at all.
Report Post »jenk99
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 4:49pmGood point Kate. One cannot be an expert on everything, it is impossible. Heck, look at our current President and most the left, their lack of knowledge on basic economics is astounding. One should ask… if she doesn’t know the answer, is she capable of figuring it out?
My biggest concern is not that she is an expert on SC rulings, or that she is a Constitutional scholar, but rather, will she vote for or against Obama’s progressive, America killing policies? I am pretty certain the Bearded Marxist WILL.
Report Post »M31Sailor
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 4:58pmAny idea what Coons will reply to the same scrutiny? Without time to give an thought to a very involved subject I bet he would sound like the fool he seems to be. Republicans, Conservatives ,Tea Party
Report Post »candidates always seem to have to know the Exact # of how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin
or how much wood could a woodchuck chuck. or they are not Qualified for any position.
iamhungry
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 5:37pmIt’s not a matter of knowing “everything”. Obviously some candidates are stronger in some areas than others. For a candidate who runs on constitutionality she doesn’t seem very strong on the Constitution.
Report Post »JDPickle
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:23pmWell, sound like she needs to do some home work before taking office, and getting a little more tuned in to what she wants to do for our country as a representative for her state. Mostly wrong wording in my opinion, but you never know.
Report Post »Last I checked, there is no actual evidence or factual scientific basis for evolution. Hence it is called the Theory of Evolution. So why exactly does our government insist that the Theory of Evolution be taught in schools, vice Creation. Both require faith, in that neither can be physically proven true in true scientific fact. Religion is typically based on faith. The Theory of Evolution changes on a frequent basis, and the Bible is proven time and time again to be accurate and correct. Still, our government chooses to take a Theory that changes and teach it to our children as fact. So in essence, the government is directing the teaching of religion in school, just the religion of their choice. Funny how you are categorized as not being intellectual or intelligent because you have faith in a God that created everything with a specific purpose, but a pretty smart indiviual for blindly accepting the Theory of Evolution as fact. As our country continues falling away from God, and continues to disintegrate, just think about why evolution isn’t solving the problem. Why was our country so blessed and prosperous when we were clinging to God and thankful for the inalienable rights that he bestowed on us, but now that we have turned our backs on him, everything seems to be falling apart. I hope we wake up soon. Or maybe He will just return and take his saints home with Him forever. I can only pray.
iamhungry
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:40pm@JDPickle. You should check again about evolution not being based on evidence or factual scientific basis. There was a highly vigorous debate when it was first proposed and it would not have taken hold in the scientific community without evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
Report Post »MrButcher
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:49pm“Last I checked, there is no actual evidence or factual scientific basis for evolution.”
i don‘t think you’ve ever checked.
here, let me help you. Explore this site with wonder and awe:
Report Post »http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html
Contrarianthinker
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 4:10pmButcher, certainly there is much solid evidence for micro evolution. It is macro evolution that has a mixture of evidence and “religious” belief. What is so interesting about Mormon Theology is the foundation is based on ETERNAL PROGRESSION which MUST have a redeemer (CHRIST) to allow us to correct errors/sins and get back on the right trail of progression through the atonement.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 6:38pmJDPickle, you are claiming the equivalent of the sun rising in the West. Please stop embarrassing yourself and actually go read the reams of evidence that supports the theory of evolution. Talk about living in a bubble of ignorance. I think that if understanding evolutionary theory was a requirement for receiving modern medicines–some of which are designed by incorporating portions of what evolutionary theory says–then you’d quickly find folks like Pickle changing their tune. As Aristotle said, virtue needs to be cultivated by habit, and Pickle’s thinking habits are quite bad. Perhaps some coerced cultivation would serve him well.
Contrarian, there is no scientific distinction between micro and macro evolution other than time and scale. Micro evolution refers to the mechanism of random genetic variation and natual selection occurring within a given population or (sometimes) species, while macro evolution refers to this same mechanism occuring across populations to give rise to new species. Now, religious people who do not understand the science or seek to undermine good science that conflicts with their faith-based garbage beliefs frequently assert that no one has observed macro evolution (aka speciation), but this is wrong. It has been observed both in nature and even in controlled lab experiments. For more on this, see: http://www.jstor.org/pss/2410209. The fact that more micro than macro evolution has been observed has to do with the time scale involved. Similarly, we‘ve seen more snowfalls than we’ve seen formations of glaciers in our short lifetimes. This is something that EVERYONE blogging here should already know. Every high school kid taking a basic freshman biology class should be and generally is taught this stuff. That you don’t know if means that you are woefully ignorant of science and your vote in an election, to the extent that it influences policy-making, is actually doing harm to our democracy–just like a plumber attempting to work as a heart surgeon would be threatening a patient. I would be embarrassed to publicly admit such ignorance and ashamed that while our military spills blood to preserve our democracy, people like you get to make ridiculous comments and then go vote on stem cell research initiatives. What a joke. Ben Franklin is turning in his grave.
Report Post »El Duderino
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 12:17amYou’re so not right. There are huge gaping holes in the theory of evolution. Give it up, the science is not settled.
Report Post »Joseph_Plumb_Martin
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 12:34amTheres more evidence for evloution then there is for Israelites having lived in America.
Report Post »Contrarianthinker
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 12:09pmABC I respect you because you come back usually with respectful posts to me. You’ve done this here except for the garbage part. In Mormon Theology, I beleive we have the perfect answer with the Law of Eternal Progression and life on other worlds in the past, now, and into the eternal future.
The objection I have to the species cross over position is that given infinate time almost anything is possible. One has to use probablities to scientifically talk about whether man evolved from lower creatures or was man from the “beginning” needing a time to learn and progress back to God. When one does this, the probality is slow low that that it takes pure faith to beleive this.
(2) I beleive in ecosystems. One system “feeds” on another system. The concurrent occurance of many parts of the ecosystem shows that there is an intelligent design behind it.
I don’t mind evolution being taught in the schools as long as:
(1) it’s major gaps in knowledge and assumptions are made very clear AND
(2) intelligent design be shown as a viable alternative to macro evolution.
I can’t stop without a little jab (GRIN) THE MINDS OF PROGRESSIVES PROVES NEGATIVE EVOLUTION. (grin)
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 4:02pmContrarian, do not misunderstand me. I am not calling religion “garbage” per se. It has an important role in giving people peace of mind in areas where rationality offers nothing (e.g., what happens after death), and it holds the wisdom of millennia of humans’ collective experience which can help us make decisions regarding ethics. These are very important things that appeal to many people, including agnostics and atheists who study them merely from an anthropological standpoint. However, religion is absolutely garbage when it tries to replace science in explaining things for which we have empirical data to support scientific inquiry. Evolution is clearly such an area. And it is a garbage argument for religious people, who do not fully understand the science to falsely claim and only for purposes of preserving religion’s predominance in an area where it should have none (i.e., explaining natural phenomena), to claim that there are big holes in the theory. There are not. The level at which the controversies occur are so arcane and minor that they do not threaten the theory in an significant way. The theory could be refined in the future, the way Einstein refined Newton’s laws of physics, but it will be at the margin and apply to special cases (e.g., the equivalent of refining Newton to apply to objects moving near the speed of light). It is highly unlikely that the basic theory, which has been proven with observation and controlled testing, will be overturned in any significant way. You really must read more about evolution and check the validity of your purported examples of holes, because they are probably illusory or simply wrong.
Report Post »Major Infidel
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:21pmMeh, she’s just not a politician thats all.
I think it’s a good thing, I’d still vote for her.
Report Post »iamhungry
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:35pmNot only is she not a politician, she is not an informed citizen.
Report Post »voodoo donut
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 4:52pmIAMHUNGRY, what is she uninformed about?
Report Post »iamhungry
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 5:34pm@Voodoo. Here’s 2 things: She talks about running the government strictly to the constitution but then can’t name 2 of the 3 amendments that the Tea Party would like to repeal. She talks about judges legislating from the bench but then can’t name one SC ruling she would repeal.
Report Post »APEXIdaho
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 10:07pmThe only thing that Ted Kennedy had to qualify him for office was his brother was president.
Report Post »thesixfour
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:21pm1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
That means – Keep the STATE out of the Church, or keep the state from establishing an official religion – like the Church of England – hence the reason for the amendment. Not the other way around. Or how the everyone “interprets” the Constitution.
This will be a tough one to get past in a close race though. She was on the right track – but lost composure. And will be eaten alive in the next two weeks because of it. Bummer – this is what happens when lawyers can double talk their way around anything – he saw her stumbling and took full advantage.
Also, anyone who says evolution is a fact – and says they are religious – is playing two flutes at once. You can’t believe both those things. Coons is still a snake. But won this round because of his lawyer-ness. Evolution is very much a theory. There is no concrete proof – we have hints, like the universe is either expanding or contracting – but it doesn’t PROVE anything as fact. Hence the need for that theory to change every 6 months to a year.
Report Post »FreedomGal76
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:34pmMore than that he’s A SELF-AVOWED MARXIST!!!
Report Post »citizenx
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:43pmEvolution is a fact proven by science (example: viruses that adapt to anti-biotics, etc)… Human Evolution is a theory.
Report Post »china clipper
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:18pmShe was just stating a fact.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:48pmIt isn’t what you say … it is what the MSM says you say. This is getting ridiculous … you state a fact and are called a liar … but THE REAL LIARS are treated like gods.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 6:25pmShe was not merely stating a fact. She is using loaded, coded language to argue that more religious expression should be tolerated in public places. It is also true that the FAA is not listed anywhere in the Constitution, nor are the regulations governing taillights on our nations 18-wheelers, but it doesn’t mean that those rules giving rise to regulation of those areas are not constitutional. The fact that separation of church and state does not appear in the Constitution does not mean that the SCOTUS hasn‘t used Jefferson’s letter as a guide in writing its decisions, which it has done. To take such a literal reading of the Constitution–as dumb bible thumpers do with their holy books–is not how the SCOTUS interprets the Constitution nor how laws get made. However, such a simpleton reading of the Constitution (again, like the Bible) does highlight how limited the mental capacities of such bible-thumpers really is.
Report Post »El Duderino
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 12:35amIt was loaded, but I don’t think coded.
In God We Trust baby …
Gotta drive you plain nutty to see that on our money.
The courts are of man. Man is imperfect and therefore prone to mistakes. Roe v Wade for instance. Tragic we justify killing humans for any reason. That‘s why it’s ok for you to play here too. You get to use the same, built in, excuse. You’re flawed my brotha.
Report Post »epeele
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:17pmIf you want to truly understand the issue of “Separation of Church and State” and “Creator God” in government, you should read this essay from the President of Founders’ Truth (http://founderstruth.org/Portals/0/GregsCorner_0910.pdf).
Report Post »Jack27
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:12pmThe laughing audience are probable constitutional law enlightened by the corrupted education system. If any of them had actually read the Bill of Rights, they could have seen that it did not want a state run religion.
Report Post »BoilitDown
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 5:12pmWas the laughter from law students and lawyers? If so, that is particularly disturbing. Are they learning law from Jon Stewart? It sounds like the audience doesn’t understand the “church/state issue”.
Report Post »As usual, Coons‘ false statements of the opposition’s policies were enough to show how dishonest he is. His own agenda apparently trumps the call for a return to the Constitution by the constituants.
mdlwoods
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:12pmThe first time the words “separation of church and state” were used were by Thomas Jefferson in a letter replying to a letter to him asking him to clarify the constitution. He is in way meant to limit the Church or a religion in the U.S. The left have taken those words and run with them, trying and succeeding over the years, to limit our freedom of religion. If we don’t stand up, take a loud stand against the progressive attempt to do away with all religion, we are going to be in more trouble than we can imagine!
Report Post »Rowgue
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:42pmWrong. There was never any intention of any seperation of church and state. What he said in his letter was actually that he feared that people might use the language in the first amendment to justify seperation of church and state even though that was never the intention. His fear has been realized.
Report Post »GulfCoastGirl
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:12pmI was with her until the she asked that stupid question. She could have been totally silent, her point was made. She interrupted him with that dumb question. He would have went on with his point and the subject would have changed and she could have made it through…but then, when she was outright asked about the amendments, she had no clue. She gave them all the ammunition they needed to bash her on MSNBC. I bet people will be sending her copies of the constitution by the bucket loads….we need to get it right people!
Report Post »FreedomGal76
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:31pmHopefully people see through the nonsense her opponent was saying; to change the constitution to “what we ‘interpret’ it to be” now?!?!?!
Which one goes to what number is what she was asking to be reminded of. When you’re under that kind of stress day in and day out… She does know what the constitution says and more importantly, what it means.
Churches operating as a non-profit charity entity are chartered as 501 – c – 3 entities under the IRS tax legislations. Unions are chartered the very same. So how is it that churches are not allowed to speak about politics but Unions are. There’s a double-standard here. The origin of the first amendment that I think all people have a sense of is that this was set in place so that the government would not tell people what church to attend, what traditions to uphold, where to tithe, what they could or could not publically avow as “truths” or not.
Report Post »Beeree
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 5:45pmThe amount of laughter after O’Donnel asked where the “Seperation of Church and State” was in the Constitution only shows how uninformed those idiots were. Why don’t you read the Constitution and some of the other Founding documents to get informed, then you will realize that there is no seperation of Church and State only a restriction of the governement from establishing or restricting the free exercise of religion.
Report Post »Contrarianthinker
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:12pmI hat to say this that she made a fool of herself. IF he doesn’t win in a landslide, I’ll be surprised. No more money to her from me.
Report Post »walkwithme1966
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:25pmYes, she certainly did – unbelievable!! http://wp.me/pYLB7-gA
Report Post »Lonescrapper
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:54pmto bad the people who won‘t vote for her can’t even use spellcheck…
Report Post »Contrarianthinker
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 4:13pmLone, you’ve trained well by Progressives.. attack the poster NOT the message. Now I‘m not saying you are a Progr5essive but you’ve been educated within a Progressive culture. Certainly you can strongly disagree with me… no problem. BUT your retort is “use a spe4kkchecker?????????”
Report Post »El Duderino
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 12:24amI believe the comment was an affront to your own mental capability and therefore a delegitimization of your non-endorsement, and possibly by association, your ilk.
Report Post »Contrarianthinker
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 11:56amEL, I started out supporting her because she was being unfairly attacked by the MSM. I sent money to her campaign. Since then, I’ve changed my mind. She is NOT an informed spokeperson for liberty and the Constitution. You diasgree and that’s fine. I’m asure you,ve sent money to her campaign and volunteered to make some telephone calls? Have you?
Report Post »benditlikebeck
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:11pm“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” How doesn’t this amendment separate church and state?
Report Post »MrButcher
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:31pmit doesn’t. it just says congress can’t establish or forbid it.
but keeping church and state seperate is a VERY good idea.
Report Post »WVBobcat
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:39pmText of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Your question was, “How doesn’t this amendment separate church and state?“ The amendment specifically states that ”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Church is not a synonym for religion, and this provision specifically applies to the federal government. What is left out by Mr. Coons is that Congress may not prohibit the free exercise of religion. Christians have been routinely denied an opportunity to freely exercise their faith as a result of this separation of church and state argument that is not in the Constitution.
And don’t be too harsh with Ms. O’Donnell since Coons was unable to identify “freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” as additional first amendment rights. This gotcha crap is disgusting.
Report Post »benditlikebeck
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:41pmbut if you can’t “establish or forbid” it as you say, what room is there at all? It seems effectively separated, whether or not we want to use that wording.
Report Post »ChrisBalsz
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 4:17pmWhen it is abused to mean that absolutely nothing religious, or implicitly religious, or traditionally linked to a religion, can appear or remain on anything civic–such as red poinsettias in a town hall in December–unless it has political clout, like keeping the Ten Commandments on the wall of the Supreme Court.
Report Post »CandaceGray25
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:09pm“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” – Amendment 1
“… I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] ” – Thomas Jefferson 1801 in a letter to Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
I do not believe either candidate is wrong. The quote “separation of church and state” is not literally in the amendment for the constitution, yet the phrasing “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble…“ would be the figurative ”wall” according to Thomas Jefferson.
Report Post »epeele
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:22pmCANDACEGRAY25,
Documents in the Library of Congress show that the letter from Thomas Jefferson you are referring to was written on a Thursday and President Jefferson then attended a Christian service in the US Capitol rotunda the following Sunday. So disenchanted with the music, he then commissioned the US Marine Corp Band to play worship music during the Capitol Church services thereafter.
The point being, the “wall” is to keep the government from impeding upon the free exercise of religion of the individual, not to keep religion out of the government.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 6:20pmEpeele, you are using as evidence that the “wall” is to keep gov‘t out of religion but not the opposite the mere fact that Jefferson went to church service and didn’t like the music he heard? Are you joking or retarded? Jefferson was one of the two or three smartest men to ever serve in government in this country. He was undoubtedly aware of the 100 years war in Europe and all the other conflagrations that were caused by state-sponsored religion. He would not be surprised by the problems occurring in places like Saudi Arabia or Iran or in the Palestinian territories or past problems in the Balkans or Northern Ireland. He clearly understood that government and democracy needed to be protected from a state religion. And the founders would not have written in the anti-Establishment clause were it not for those dangers. You are completely ignorant on this issue. Breathtakingly so.
Report Post »El Duderino
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 12:11amrar, you’re such an animal … and those fangs … so cute when you’re so sure of yourself …
i don’t get why you suffer fools?
waaiiit a minute, are you a closet becklodyte … O. M. G. You Are!
You <3 beck don't you?
Such a naughty, sneaky little kitty.
Report Post »epeele
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 12:36pmABC, You can read Thomas Jefferson’s own words as well as the words of all the Founders. Your disagreement is not with me, but with them. I’m not saying Thomas Jefferson was advocating a state-sponsored religion, because he was not. You must not be reading carefully. The intention by Jefferson and the other Founders was for the government to not interfere with the INDIVIDUAL’S freedom to worship or not worship. The restriction is on the government, not on the individual. This also means that the individual should be free to worship in government (as Jefferson did, per my example) or in the school (the Library of Congress published the first complete English Old and New Testament Bible to be used as text book in schools).
The Constitution is, therefore, a document of restrictions on government. Not a document of rights granted to the government or a document of restrictions on the individual. Your reduction to name-calling is unwarranted.
Rather, I would suggest you spend more time researching federal documents and the historical context in which they were written. Even further, research what the Founders researched to write those documents which included writings from Greek and Roman classics (i.e. Cicero), William Blackmore, Charles Montague, John Locke, and the Bible. The Founders were extremely well-read and informed and developed a government that empowers the individual (Constitutional Republic) rather than a government that empowers the masses (Democracy).
Report Post »Spookytruck
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:06pmWhere is evolution treated as documented fact? Cows deliver calves. Dogs produce dogs and fish produce fish. Fish do not produce monkeys and monkeys do not produce people. Concerning the “Big Bang Theory” When has organization come about from an explosion? Bangs create chaos. Not organization.
Report Post »Blacktooth
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:53pmSpookytruck, don’t bother explaining logic. Most people are not listening. They are just misinformed and they want to cling to their false ideas. They love their ideas, especially if those ideas can get rid of their Creator. If they acknowledge God, then they will be obliged to listen to Him. Can’t have that can we!?
Report Post »CyberPro
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 6:33pm@Spooky,
I have always been very interested in science. Sadly, science has been coopted by people who find that they receive money for doing research, and that they get more money if they are researching something that is a “Crisis”.
I’m sorry, but my panic button wore out years ago. So, Gore can continue to spout that the earth will become so hot that the seas will rise and we will all die. Ho-hum… I was born dying, and I do not expect to escape this life alive. It will be very interesting to see what comes after that. I am a Christian, and I believe in Heaven and Hell. We do not have a very good description of Heaven, but a pretty good one of Hell. I have chosen the former over the latter!
I digress.
I was about to relate some of what I read in a book a while back about String Theory. Very interesting, up to a point. Then I became aware that this stuff is just a game. The Theoretical Physicists have bamboozled us with their speaking of Quantum Physics. They are carefully developing theories to talk about what happened during the Big Bang, and talking about Dark Matter. Why, because this stuff MUST exist for their theories to make any sense at all. There is NO proof that there is anything remotely like Dark Matter, but their calculations collapse if it does not exist, therefore, it must exist. Right, there is some great science for you. I cannot see it, cannot test for it, have absolutely no way to prove that there is any such thing, but the formula won’t work without it, so we just conjure some of it up. – Then, since it is “proved” that Dark Matter exists (after all, I just made it) – we can continue on our merry way and create some cool new sub-atomic particles that only exist on every other Tuesday, except in the month of December, when they exist for a sub-fraction of a pico-second on Friday afternoon.
Report Post »cheezwhiz
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:06pmWTH is going on in DE ?
Report Post »Why is the bearded marxist so focussed on religion and witchcraft and creationism and not on the economy ? Do the people of that state don‘t care or does he know that he’ll get the votes despite being a total jack@$$ ( this state votes for Bidens, so haha).
How come the issues of national security or national debt are not being thrown around in DE ?
M31Sailor
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:05pmIn listening to Samantha, I found she was correct in asking this Dufus where in the Constitution were the Words “separation of church and state”??
His Reply::: No Reply I would like to see her expand on Mr Weatherbee’s explanations regarding the first Amendment
Sailor
Report Post »dirtytricksjusttowin
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:05pmThis country was founded on Christian principles. ….and the progressives are trying their best to separate our country from the religion it was based on.
Tell me uneducated people, what is the Declaration of Independence?
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Report Post »cheezwhiz
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:18pmHas anyone seen the new ads for the “ bend over ” channel ?
Report Post »The voice-over leaves out the phrase
“ by our creator” ,
just like Hussain has been doing lately !
MrButcher
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:24pmwell, the declaration is not the constitution and not the law of the land.
ever read Jefferson’s original wording of that part? it contained no reference to a deistic creator.
here’s the original wording from Jefferson before it was changed:
“We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness”
neat to know.
Report Post »citizenx
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:36pmThis country wasn’t founded on Christian principles… but thx for playing repeat the myth. Almost all of the founding fathers were Deists… not Christians.
Contrarianthinker
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 4:01pmButcher but the draft was looked at by Ben Franklin and others on the Committe and the word CREATOR was added. That too is a fact.
Report Post »Contrarianthinker
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 4:05pmCX: Not true although that is the rewriting of history done by progressives. Yes, Jefferson was a Deist without question. Franklin was likely a deist. I believe all the other the remaining of the signers of the DofI were self professed Christians.
Report Post »MrButcher
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 4:07pmVery true, ConThinker
Good ol’ Deist Ben Franklin.
Would have loved to witnessed that conversation between TJ and Ben on the wording of that part.
Report Post »Contrarianthinker
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 4:15pmButcher, I too would like to have been there. There were other members of the Declaration Committee who are less famous. I’m sure part of adding Creator was to get all states on baord. It had to be a unanimous vote to pass.
Report Post »citizenx
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 4:20pm@Contrarianthinker – It might be easy for someone that hasn’t read alot of the writings of the founding fathers to say… but it certainly isn’t the truth. It is quite obvious how they felt about religion in general… however, that said… the first Congress was made almost entirely of Christians. We could argue about this all day… but you would still be wrong. :) There is literally a library of writings on the subject and many from the churches of the time themselves.
That said… I don’t think religion has any place in determining the laws of the country other than the fact that laws should be influenced by the moral compass of the citizens. I would rather this country be inclusive of all people rather than exclusive. That is what separates us from most of the countries of the world.
Report Post »M31Sailor
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 4:37pm@ X
Except unborn children. They have the right to be Aborted, even Partial Birth Aborted per your Laws
Moral place America
Report Post »citizenx
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 4:49pm@M31Sailor – Not sure why you would label such laws as my laws. I am pro-life with some exceptions. Those exceptions wouldn’t include any abortion of a developed fetus.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 6:16pmCitizenX is correct. Many framers were Deists and even those that weren’t scrupulously avoided putting references to God in the Constitution. They were highly aware of the tremendous bloodshed that had haunted Europe for centuries because of religious conflict and, in an era in which to declare yourself an agnostic carried a huge stigma, that our Founding Fathers had the wisdom to include an anti-Establishment clause is rather remarkable. In terms of relative difficulty, including the anti-Establishment clause is much harder to maintain than the free expression clause. Hence, Jefferson’s colorful language describing a “wall” between church and state. This reflects the still powerful influence of the church on people’s lives and thinking that Jefferson believed should be kept at bay in the New World. While there is no doubt that the majority of early Americans were religious, the framers established a system that was overtly not religious. One need only see what has happened around the world since 1776, from the Arab-Israeli conflict to the problems in Northern Ireland to the conflicts on the India-Pakistan border, to realize the wisdom of keeping limits on how far the government can go to endorse a particular religious view in the public square.
Report Post »APEXIdaho
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 9:46pmIt appears that the constitution just might have been inspired by a higher power to provide the wording that can create a government as singular as ours. All but three of the written constitutions in the world are based on ours.
Report Post »Contrarianthinker
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 12:16pmCitizen, I can assure you that I’ve read many, many books on the Founding Fathers and their times. Most didn’t want slavery except the Southern delegates so there was a compromised reached. .Compromise is almost always necessary in politics. True, there are lines that should never be crossed. Most important, just you don‘t agree with someone that doesn’t mean the other person is ignoranet and/or stupid. It’s very unbecoming.
FYI, I read Sacred Fire recommended by Glenn concerning the nature of Washington’s faith.
Report Post »copatriots
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:05pmO’Donnell is on to something here and Coons is a hypocrit. He goes to the churches for their votes and expects parents to teach creationism but vehemently prohibits any type of that teaching in schools. He is a self-proclaimed Marxist. I have no doubt “his church” is no different than Jeremiah Wright’s “church”. But, sadly, Coons is too well polished and well-spoken and Delaware will vote Harry’s pet right in.
Report Post »catndahat
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:05pm“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?”
It‘s clear that O’Donnell was trying to trip up Coons–but the media are too stupid to grasp the nuances of debate–so they ‘audibly gasp’ and claim O‘Donnell doesn’t understand the 1st Amendment. The Establishment Clause was inserted into the constitution to prevent a state-controlled government. ‘Separation of Church and State’ means the state shall not establish a government, NOT that religion cannot have standing in government jurisdiction. Yeeeesh, how many times does it have to be said to these ape-brained ‘journalists’ and ‘politicos’????
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 6:08pmThat is not clear. It could be that she tried to trip him up. But it seems more likely that she simply didn’t know that the anti-Establishment clause is in the First amendment. Afterall, she also didn’t know what the 14th Amendment says (due process, equal protection…) when asked about that moments later. Given her general lack of knowledge, I am going with her ignorance rather than her craftiness on this one. It fits in better with the fact pattern observed since she started campaigning.
Report Post »El Duderino
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 11:59pmThe ‘fact pattern’? I Luv how you talk. I think I know you from another forum.
Report Post »Windsong
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 3:18pmMs. O‘Donnell wouldn’t have repeated ‘in the First Amendment?‘ so many times if she hadn’t wanted him to answer the quesiton. If we have learned nothing else in the past two years, we have learned that ‘Democrats’ will go to any length to discredit, demean or destroy any person that is conservative.
Report Post »For all of those avid suppporters of Mr. Coons, you really DO need to do some research on him. His ‘marxist’ comments, along with written papers are just the beginning of his…interesting associations.
I‘m not an O’Donnell fan, but I’d vote for her in a second over Mr. Coons now. He doesn’t want to see the country that I know and love succeed, so having him in office would be…well, it would be like electing Nancy Pelosi. No thank you.
Aside from that, Ms. O‘Donnell wasn’t wrong about the ‘church and state’, and she wasn’t wrong to question Mr. Coons‘ adamant scientific ’opinions’ – which he spoke of as though they were fact.
I believe Mr. Coons is a worm. If Bill Maher hadn’t gotten involved, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. But Coons has turned out to be a self-righteous, demeaning and arrogant idiot. Two weeks ago, I didn’t see him as such. Thanks Mr. Maher! You caused your good friend, Mr. Coons, to be thoroughly vetted…and is really isn’t pretty.
RightPolitically
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:02pmShe’s right, the Constitution does not speak to separation of Church and State! The State cannot, however, ESTABLISH a religion………separation is the wish of the SECULAR LEFT!
Report Post »Contrarianthinker
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:15pmThe Central government cannoit establish a state relion for all 50 states. The state can choose to have an official religion. A number of NE states had one up until the 1830s.
Report Post »Why
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:20pmThat is incorrect. At the time it was written there were state churches. It says “Congress will not” it was written to limit the Federal Gov not the states.
Report Post »walkwithme1966
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:21pmFor me that is not the point – the point is that these candidates need to be discussing the economic situation and how to help develop an environment for the creation of more jobs. These issues that are being discussed don’t mean anything to me currently or other I suspect who are unemployed and struggling day to day just to exist. Its about jobs!!
http://wp.me/pYLB7-gA
Report Post »M31Sailor
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:30pmFrom Thomas Jefferson in a letter written to the Danbury Connecticut Baptist’s Assoc
1802 is the phrase in the Constitution the legislature shall “make no law
respecting the establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise there of”
in the letter were Jefferson’s personal words “thus building a wall between
Report Post »church and state”
Contrarianthinker
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:58pmThe discussion is framed as the panelists ask questions. They like to avoid those issues that make Democrats look bad.
Report Post »charliego
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 5:15pmI tend to agree with rightpolitically. I can not find my source at this moment, but I seem to recall Thomas Jefferson made the comment ‘separation of church and state’ in a letter to a Connecticut minister–I will keep looking. The first amendment to my understanding stems from the pilgrims escaping from the Church of England–a mandated religious exercise. It appears to stretch a point if the government can dictate what you can and cannot worship or celebrate in the public square. The ACLU, I believe, is the main culprit in separating man and their religion. To me this turns the concept completely on its head. Especially since most of this appears to be geared toward the Christian faith whereas other religious practices—coming to mind particularly is the Muslim faith who are allowed feet washing stations or ‘time out’ for prayer. that is okay with me, but I should be able to say GOD in the Pledge or have a prayer if team members wish to participate. I believe much of this is turned upside down because the ‘powers that be’ wish a secular state. In other words irradicate Christianity, as manifested by Communistic ideology. Ms. O’Donnell was correct within her point made.
Report Post »The second issue referencing the theory of Evolution vs Creationism is a completely different focus. Children should be exposed to the different ‘theories’ in an educational setting. If the scientists and others within the research cadrey are still arguing the point, it seems to me that this argument would be better presented in research-educational venue. One can opine when they think life begins. These are moral and conscience issues. We can delve deeper on life theories after we figure out how to run a country properly and with discipline. Opinion piece–thank you
Joseph_Plumb_Martin
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 12:32amConnecticut got rid of it’s state religion in 1808
Report Post »capitalismrocks
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 10:28amThe States can in fact, as they always have been able to, establish a state religion it is the federal government that is barred from such until the 1st Ammendment was enacted, that overrode 10th ammendment rights of states to have official religions.
However, let it be clearly said and understood – the 1st ammendment is about the FREEDOM OF RELIGION, no where, no way, no how can you interpret ANY word from the 1st Ammendment to say even remotely that there can be NO RELIGION within government.
It only states that the government must treat ALL religions equally and the government must not Establish its own Religion…
That being said, Public schools can teach evolution along side of Intelligent Design. They can have 1 moment of silent prayer (allowing children to pray to whichever God their religion believes, or if they are athiest, the kids can think about the next level of Pokemon they are going to conquer)
Christmas decorations can hang anyway, so long as if a request for a Star of David is allowed and Hung next to it, it is done so, if Athiests want a Winter Solstice Tree, thats fine too…
Bottom line is Religion is allowed freely to be practiced everywhere and anywhere, especially on public property where is it protected by Federal Law. To bar or, to ban it is a violation of the practice of Freedom of Religion… get out there and educate people, enough with the ACLU lies, this is going to end once and for it, no more Godless society… right now, more then ever we need some faith and belief so people can stop turning to the Church of Govt.
Report Post »Psychosis
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:01pmCOONS IS AN IDIOT evolution is not a fact it is merely a theory and should be taught as such. it can not be scientifically proven any more than creation can be scientifically proven. they should be both taught in schools for what they are THEORIES……… or in laymans terms OPINIONS
Report Post »benditlikebeck
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:05pmGravity is just a “theory” also. I presume you keep yourself chained to the earth so you don’t float away?
Report Post »snowleopard3200
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:08pm@Psychosis
Agreed. This is why evolution is called the “Theory” of Evolution.
Please note and pass on to the Progressives and activists the “Theory” part.
Report Post »Contrarianthinker
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:14pmIT IS THE LAW of gravity, not a theory
On Evolution, I find little if any problem with the micro side. THAT IS SCIENCE.
The macro side is science mixed with humanistic religion.
Report Post »Rowgue
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:21pmBendit you are confused. Don‘t let your confusion get you into arguments about things you don’t understand. Evolution is a theory because the scientific evidence has not been discovered yet that proves it. Gravity is not a theory because it has been proven and confirmed and confirmed and confirmed and confirmed and confirmed and confirmed…well hopefully you get the idea.
Go back to school and learn about the scientific method. And realize we’re not talking about evolution in general. That is a scientific fact that has been demonstrated ad nauseum. Yes animals adapt to their environments over generations. What isn’t proven or even approaching a plausible level of certainty is that evolution is the mechanism by which all life as we know it came to exist.
Report Post »benditlikebeck
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:22pmEvolution has an extraordinary amount of evidence that supports it. Creationism has zero evidence other than a book written thousands of years ago that actually proposes two conflicting stories. If we were to introduce this myth into schools I think we would be obligated to include the countless other creation myths invented by our ignorant ancestors. Should we still teach that world is flat according to the bible too?
Report Post »tspark
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:24pmRE: benditlikebeck
What school did you learn that Gravity is just a theory? perhaps they need their licenses pulled
regarding evolution…it is only a theory and should be taught just as such, day after day they are coming up with evidence against it too…
like she said it should be in the community’s hands as to what is being taught…
Report Post »benditlikebeck
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:30pmA law is an observable fact. (objects fall to the earth) A theory is a testable explanation of how something behaves. (objects with mass attract one another) The explanation of why objects fall to the earth is in fact the “theory” of gravity.
Report Post »iamhungry
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:32pm@Psychosis. You misunderstand how the term “theory” is used in science. It is not merely an “opinion”. It is a framework that fits all data and observations which must meet several essential criteria.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Report Post »SydrycalWorks
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:33pmBlaze,
The Theory of Eternity- 1=3
SydrycalWorks
Report Post »arpeggio22
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:35pmYou reveal your lack of scientific understanding. Theories are the most well established concepts in science. A hypothesis may be described as “merely” because there is there is a lot of work to do to reach the theory stage, if it gets there at all. The theory of evolution is probably the most well supported scientific theory in existence. The overwhelming majority of biologists, geneticists and anthropologists accept evolution as fact. The only part of your post I agree with is that creationism cannot be proven. Nothing can be absolutely proven. But we can establish a degree of likelyhood. With no way to test or falsify creationisms claims, the likelyhood is very close to zero. Evolution, on the other hand, has converging lines of evidence from multiple fields of study. And just one piece of evidence can shoot the whole theory down. That evidence has yet to show up over the last 150 years. To deny evolutions strength is simply putting your ideology before well established data.
Report Post »JJ Coolay
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:39pmBend it, your analogy is weak. The theories of evolution and creation are completely different from the Law (or theory as you put it) of Gravity.
Report Post »Gravity is proven. Your argument is lame.
Dexter Alarius
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:40pmbenditlikebeck
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:22pm
Evolution has an extraordinary amount of evidence that supports it.
Evidence also exists that contradicts it. That’s the point. Contradictory evidence is ignored, or glossed over.
Report Post »aesaac
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:46pmThere is no evolution, only the appearance of it, there is no time only the appearance of it. What shall we presuppose, that there is no intelligent design, what is the opposite of intelligent design, unintelligent design? “Intelligent design is the proposition that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause.” If intelligence exists then its cause by necessity must be intelligence itself, or a meta-intelligence. Life manifestly is a form of intelligence. Evolution is a mechanical device, a process by which intelligent design manifests itself.
God save me from these intellectual philestine, these dilettantes, these dabblers, these self proclaimed knowers of nothing.
Report Post »NRABIBLETHUMPER
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:46pmThe theory of gravity was proven, the theory of evolution was not! All God’s creatures adapt!
Report Post »I won’t say Coons is an idiot, but defeitely mis-informed on many matters. VERY LIBERAL!!!
Go Mrs. O’Donnell!
snowleopard3200
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:46pm@Bendit
Have a question from the first lesson of an electronics class I took.
“Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, just changed.” (change in the book was defined as solid to liquid, liquid to gas, or back to such other states.
So if it is neither created nor destroyed, then where did the energy come from in the first place?
Report Post »Contrarianthinker
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:56pmIs there any science behind Intelligent Design? Absolutely yes. It should therefore be taught as an alternative to MACRO Evolution.
Report Post »benditlikebeck
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:57pm@snowleapord:
Must have come from god then right? Well where did god come from? Came from nothing? Always was and always will be? Alph and Omega? Why can’t I say the same for energy?
Which god did it come from exactly? Did he have a father? Oh, he was his own father. I forgot. That makes sense.
Report Post »arpeggio22
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:59pmDexter, there is also evidence that contradicts our understanding of gravity and several other well established theories. The evidence in support of these theories far outweighs any contradictory evidence. If we failed to move forward because some small piece of data or evidence doesn’t exactly fit, we would get nowhere. That is one of the beauties of science, it is self-correcting and admits when things need to be changed. Unlike religious ideololgy which fails to change (or does so grudgingly) in the light of new evidence.
Report Post »Contrarianthinker
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:59pmTo asssume first cause is an inapproriate question if there is NO BEGINNING AND NO END.. IT’S ALWAYS EXISTED. TIME IS A MAN MADE DIMENSION.
Report Post »arpeggio22
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 4:09pmAesaac, OK, if intelligence needs intelligence to be created, then where did the first intelligence come from? Your argument is circular and a classic logical fallacy. It’s the main reason (amongst many others) why intelligent design is fatally flawed. ID was conceived as a way cloak creationism as science and get it taught in public schools.
Report Post »spicemaster
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 4:27pmto: benditlikebeck,
Report Post »The Bible said the earth is round and is suspended in space:
The earth is round!
You may be surprised to learn that the Bible revealed that the earth is round. Job 26:10, Prov 8:27, Isaiah 40:22, Amos 9:6. Today, we chuckle at the people of the fifteenth century who feared sailing because they thought they would fall over the edge of the flat earth. Yet the Bible revealed the truth in 1000 B.C. 2500 years before man discovered it for himself!
In various verses, the Bible says the earth is round and hangs in space. It took a long time for science to catch up and reach the same conclusions. Copernicus made the discovery in 1475. But the Bible always knew. Here are two related Bible verses that were written more than 2500 years ago, and more than 1000 years before Copernicus.
ltb
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 4:40pmSo, Bendit… how exactly do you test the theory that man evolved from a primordial stew? If you want to talk about experimental science, several scientists have tried to simulate abiogenesis (ironically, failing to see that “intelligence” directs their experiments), but they have all failed. As far as observational science is concerned, the fossil record does not even remotely support the notion of evolution.
Report Post »benditlikebeck
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 5:00pm@Spicemaster
Job 26:10 He marks out the horizon on the face of the waters for a boundary between light and darkness.
Proverbs 8:27 I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep.
Isaiah: 40:22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
Amos 9:6 he who builds his lofty palace in the heavens and sets its foundation on the earth, who calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out over the face of the land–the LORD is his name.
Job, Proverbs, and Amos don’t even give the slightest assertion that the world is round. Isaiah describes it as a flat circle at best.
There are several verses that suggest the earth has “ends” or that all of the earth can be visible from a high enough point
Daniel 4:11
The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH:
The bible is loaded with contradictions and factual errors. There is no place for this in a science class.
Report Post »aesaac
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 5:12pmArpeggio22, “if intelligence needs intelligence to be created, then where did the first intelligence come from?”
It is not I that conjectures that intelligence needs intelligence to be created. Intelligence is the cause of intelligence. Intelligence does not require a first cause, you do. Your necessity to believe in a first cause is a projection of your perception that you have a begining, a middle and an end. Existence manifests existence.
Someone once said I know it when I see it, talking about pornography. It’s the same with intelligence. Art is more than the canvas, the paint. Art is an example of intelligence. Life is an example of intelligence, the nuclear furnace of the Sun, fetal development; all are forms of intelligence. The totality of all intelligence, is the Intelligence that all intelligence manifests.
Which came first the chicken or the egg? The egg. All chickens come from eggs. Not all eggs come from chickens.
Report Post »iamhungry
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 5:26pm@SnowLeopard, The Earth is not a closed system.
Report Post »Mr Sanders
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 6:03pmEvolution is the continual improvement on the prior genome set which makes up and organism/lifeform. So, we/other lifeforms on the planet are getting better with each generation? Really? Just because Darwin wrote the book doesn’t mean he was right, and that’s all the discussion on the subject; end of story! It is FACT!? Darwin even had his doubts. I’ll tell you what, be a stand up person, be a ‘real’ scientist, and keep searching for the truth, keep investigating. As a ‘scientist’ you have to be open to the possibilities. The teaching of Evolution, even though I think its circular reasoning, should be taught right along side Intelligent Design; then let the generations decide on their own – what are you afraid of…. being questioned?
Here’s a brute-force equation for you: When you come into the world, do your cells continually regenerate? If so, congrats, you’re immortal! If not, well then, how are you improving? How are you evolving? You’re aging the moment you arrive on planet dirt, sorry, planet Earth and one day you return to the dirt, sorry, Earth. Sounds great, where do I sign up… sorry again…. I’m on that plan already.
We have superbugs out there and they get more complex but we’ve become lesser to them- why? We can’t evolve faster than they? How is this possible? We are the foremost resilient, adaptable, complex living organism on the planet, we came from that puddle of gooh ‘billions & billions’ of years ago, and we gotta problem with Superbugs? Hmmm. Let me think…. maybe we should talk/investigate this a little more before we spout off that THE “THEORY” of “X” is a done deal.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 6:05pmWow. There are a lot of really dumb people here implying that Coons is an idiot. First, there is no “law” of gravity that has been observed again and again. Rather, the phenomenon of gravity has been repeatedly observed. The actual theory of gravity is highly complex and not totally worked out. Go read Brian Greene’s book, the Elegant Universe, for a summary of state-of-the-art understanding of gravity. We can mathematically estimate gravity and have good idea of how it arises, but there is a lot we still do not know.
Evolution, on the other hand, is actually more worked out at the theoretical and mechanical (i.e., molecular biological) level. We have used Darwin’s theory to predict intermediate steps in evolutionary chains only to find them later. This is as powerful a way to validate theories as laboratory tests, and while conservatives have no problems with using this type of validation when it came to Einstein’s theory of relativity and gravity–where his mathematical theories were confirmed by later observations of black holes and the like–they apparently have problems with similar validations of evolution. Moreover, we have observed evolution out right in well documented observations, including the cases of moths and microbes–using the latter to help with predictions on drug design. I have a simple suggestion for all of those people who continue to deny evolution: stop using modern medicines since you clearly do not believe in the validity of the science that helps to design them. You deserve only the power of prayer and whatever assistance a witch doctor, excuse me, priest can supply you.
I continue to lower my expectations of the intelligence and knowledge of people blogging here, and I continue to be surprised that my expectations are too high.
Report Post »JGP
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 7:21pmABC, don’t forget the evolution of Maxism, communism, socialism. It does not work anywhere. It is unsustainable, period.
Report Post »Do you really think the path that we are on (bigger centralized gov’mint) is going to turn out alright? There is no example of it working and plenty examples of it collapsing. Democrats and Republicans have steered us this way due to self serving power and wealth pursuits.
This over spending, hugely wasteful and corrupt federal gov’mint is destroying our republic and future. Lib‘s and conservative’s, believer’s and non-believers, gay and straight, we’re all fixing to hit the wall.
I’m sure we have more in common than we have differences. While we’re are trying to win an argument on this blog, big gov’mint continues to crush us.
abc
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 7:42pmJGB, I agree in principle. But please tell me what specific programs should be cut. I think you can cut only a fraction of what most conservatives claim, and only over a very long period of time. There is a big difference between reality and rhetoric.
Report Post »APEXIdaho
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 9:21pmAll I know there has been a lot of de-evolution in the last several years of my life, Schooling has been dumbed down, they try to teach too many things and delute the important things.
Report Post »zolon5
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 10:39amThank you, Psychosis, at last someone posted credible truth. Took the words right out of my mouth.
Report Post »And you wonder why our educational system is rated so low internationally. Our watered down curriculum and lack of incentive to learn by our youth has been spiralling down for decades. Doesn’t matter how many billions of dollars you dump into the system. Keep the standards high for students, pay deserving teachers well, get rid of sluggards and unions that protect them, offer vocational training for those who are academically challenged and close the Dept of Education at the Fed. level. Keep education at the local level. Allow competition through charter and private schools and provide tax credits to those who have to pay taxes to support public schools.Amen.
ltb
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 11:03amABC, when you call other people “dumb,” it doesn’t raise your IQ. At any rate, gravity is a law and that law is explained through gravitational theory and that theory is supported by experimental science and observational science. Evolution, however, is a theory which is not supported by observational science and which has not been proved through experimental science. Your claim about evolution being worked out at the molecular level is a flat out lie. The more microbiologists understand the irreducible complexity of the smallest of organisms, the more evolution falls apart.
Report Post »Nooooooooorm
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 3:36pmProgressives cling to evolution despite it’s many flaws and contradictions. Why? Because if we evolved from a pile of goo, then RIGHTS are simply constructs of man. Therefore man can create rights, remove rights and change rights as he sees fit.
Without a Creator, rights are nothing more than abstract concepts which have evolved over time.
Therefore since the Progressives believe they are the enlightened, they are the most intelligent, etc. then they are the ones who should determine those rights.
They are the ones who can grant them, remove them, or create new ones. It is this power which intoxicates Progressives.
The Founding Fathers were an evolutionary step forward for humanity, while the progressives are a devolutionary step backwards.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 3:48pmLTB, you give yourself away as seriously lacking knowledge of evolutionary biology. It has been observed in nature and in the lab. I linked to examples of research papers written on the subject elsewhere on this blog. If you Google speciation you will find many peer-reviewed scientific papers that prove you completely and utterly wrong.
Report Post »Rapunzel
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 5:07pmEvolution is a theory, and despite what many believe to the contrary, has NO incontrovertible evidence to prove it. Just like supernatural creation, it’s impossible to test empirically. If you believe in it, you interpret facts like the fossil record to support it and disregard inconvenient facts that don’t quite fit.
Naturalistic scientists cling to the theory of evolution because so far, they haven’t come up with anything better to explain our existence that does not involve the supernatural.
In fact not one of its predictions has been found to be true. Everyone should read Philip Johnson’s “Darwin on Trial” for an excellent exposition on the topic.
If you couldn’t tell – I believe in God and special creation. Most, if not all, our current problems can be traced to lack of belief in God and faith in evolution. Eugenics, socialism and communism, acceptance of immoral behavior and sexual deviation as ‘normal’, can all be traced to belief in evolution.
After all, if there is no God, there’s no right or wrong either – and no unalienable rights!!!
Report Post »Huckabee Gingrich 12
Posted on October 21, 2010 at 1:47am@LTB
Didn’t you call me lazy and ignorant? Did that make you smarter and more productive?
@ABC
Ah, the old “speciation” card, eh? Well, you’d be hard pressed to find any creation scientist who disputes “speciation”, i.e. microevolution. Macroevolution, on the other hand, would require what I call “genus-ation”, and that has never been shown to have ever happened, nor is it physically possible. But, hey genius, you just keep on believing you came from a rock. Let me know how that works out for you.
Evolutionist’s Life Verse:
Report Post »Jeremiah 2:27- Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us.
ltb
Posted on October 21, 2010 at 10:20amHuckabee Gingrich 12, the reason I called you lazy and ignorant is because you obviously are, when it comes to the First Amendment. If you were to think for yourself and do a little research, you would quickly discover that the intent of the First Amendment and of our Founding Fathers was to prevent one denomination of Christianity from being shown preference over another.
To early Americans, the word “religion” meant the same thing as “denomination,” so when our founding fathers talked about religion in the context of the First Amendment they meant Presbyterianism vs. Methodism vs. Baptism, etc. and were not talking about Judaism vs. Buddhism vs. Islam, etc. Furthermore, each of the thirteen original colonies had a state-supported religion (i.e., denomination of Christianity) and people in those colonies paid taxes to the churches in their respective colony. For instance, Virginia’s state religion was Anglicanism and Massachusetts’ state religion was Congregationalism. The intent of the First Amendment was to prevent the Federal government from establishing, for example, Anglicanism over Congregationalism as the official American religion. Simply put, our founding fathers didn’t want a Church of America, akin to the Church of England.
Study the Congressional Records for 06/07/1789 through 09/25/1789 and then let me know if you are still mistaken about the intent of the First Amendment. You’re not ignorant because you’re dumb, you‘re ignorant because you don’t have command of the facts. As far as lazy goes, get off your butt and start thinking for yourself instead of regurgitating lies that you’ve been spoon-fed.
Regarding the Supreme Court having the final word, genius, when people start practicing civil disobedience and praying en masse in public venues, we’ll see who has the final word. Once a few people get arrested for praying in public, you will see a backlash that hasn’t been seen since water cannons were used on blacks during the civil rights marches of the 60s.
Report Post »Huckabee Gingrich 12
Posted on October 21, 2010 at 8:56pm@LTB
Report Post »Wow, I’m flattered that you took so much time out of your busy day to give me a lesson on the Constitution, but frankly genius, I didn’t need it, especially from a person who starts sentences with the word “regarding” (I hate that!). I understand the first amendment very well, and for that matter, all of the amendments. What I said was that (I‘ll type very slowly so that you don’t get confused) the phrase “separation of church and state” is obviously not in the first amendment, but the Supreme court has repeatedly applied it to the states. They’re wrong to do so, but there ain‘t nothin’ you can do about it, except vote for a conservative President so that he may appoint conservative Justices, and that‘s about the same as nothin’. Concerning people getting arrested for praying in public, I’d recommend laying off the Alex Jones show for a while if I were you. It’s actually kind of cute (or maybe sad) that you’re so naive to think that your “civil disobedience” is going to overturn Supreme Court decisions. But you go ahead and do your “civil disobedience” thing, and let me know how that works out for you. Some prisons have internet access, so you may still be able to post, but I hear the food really sucks. We likely agree on more than we disagree. You sound Baptist. The fact remains that “civil disobedience” is disobedience, and is sinful. The Bible trumps the US Constitution and the US Supreme Court all day long. Good day.
ltb
Posted on October 21, 2010 at 11:22pmHuckabee Gingrich 12, I’m sorry if I offended your senses by starting a sentence with “regarding,” but you really shouldn’t be giving grammar lessons when you use words like “ain’t.” At any rate (is it okay if I use that phrase to transition this sentence?), even though we may agree on more than we disagree, people like you are worse than Liberals because you understand what is right and yet you are still complacent. That not only is a sin (i.e., not doing right when you know to do right – James 4:17), it is cowardly and yes, lazy.
Regarding (oops I started a whole new paragraph with that one) civil disobedience being a sin, you might want to familiarize yourself with the Bible, because there are several instances when Jews practiced civil disobedience in the OT (e.g., Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were thrown in a furnace for not bowing to idols) and in the NT (e.g., Peter and John were thrown in jail for preaching the gospel to unbelievers). I don’t attend a Baptist church, but I am a Christian and quite frankly, I hope you’re not, because I would hate for a fellow Christian to understand that the 1947 Everson decision was a sham while admitting he just doesn’t really care enough to do anything about it. You just go ahead and stay on your couch as America continues to slide into a cesspool and let me know how that works out for you.
Report Post »Huckabee Gingrich 12
Posted on October 22, 2010 at 7:09pm@LTB
Report Post »Just a couple of points:
I don’t throw the word “Christian” around when referring to myself. I believe the Bible, I’ve received Christ and been born again, but the word “Christian”, as originally used in the Bible, is derogatory.
Concerning my staying on the couch, I work for a living, i.e., I run a business six days a week. I barely have time to hack out a few paragraphs on the computer for entertainment’s sake while doing deskwork, let alone stay on my couch. I actually sit down on the couch once a week when I make time to watch a football game or two, and that’s only from Sept to Feb., so save your “lazy” accusations for someone you know. You don’t know me.
john seven eighteen
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:00pmI admit that I am no expert on these matters, but I can promise you that if I decided to run for public office (knowing I would be questioned on these matters) I would do my homework so as not to fuel the enemy’s fire, so to speak. But that’s just me…..
Report Post »CatB
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:44pmO’Donnell is correct … the Democrat “bearded Marxist” is wrong … just because the PRESS won‘t report the truth doesn’ mean that O’Donnell was inncorrect.
Report Post »ltb
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 4:29pmO’Donnell had done her homework and asking “where in the Constitution is it stated that there is separation of Church and State?” is a perfectly intelligent question. Why? Because anyone who’s ever bothered to read the Constitution would immediately answer that it does not contain any such declaration.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 5:52pmAgreed. Not knowing the 14th amendment (due process, equal protection) is a pretty bad one. And earlier in the campaign, she couldn’t name a single bad SCOTUS case reversed by later courts. Just go home and memorize two words: Dred Scott. That is all it should take. But a surprisingly large number of Republican candidates don’t know the basics. I mean how hard is it for Sarah Palin to say what newspapers or magazines she reads, has in her office, has passed by while near a newsstand, is aware are being published in this country. I mean, it isn’t that hard to sound intelligent to the average, uninformed voter. If you cannot pass even that low of a test, then you really should find a job as a cleaning lady or shoe shine boy. Even government work is too hard for you.
Report Post »El Duderino
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 11:40pmI LUV IT! (I really do)
Please don’t stop. We’re riding people like you right into congress and on to the presidency.
Rush is right, libs are much more fun when they’re losing. It’s just like the situation where the office jerk makes a huge stink about being right … to the point of betting … and all the while, you know he’s dead wrong. Too fun.
Report Post »snowleopard3200
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 2:59pmUnderstand one thing with me, as a chaplain I tend to be somewhat to one side of the church -state debates.
The constitution as I understand it and the writings of its creators is that there is to be no officialy sancitioning of a state religion, recognition of a single religion, or interferance with a persons individual beliefs or even chosing not to belief.
Churches operating as a non-profit charity entity are chartered as 501 – c – 3 entities under the IRS tax legislations. So long as the same qualifications are brought to all such recognized organizations and treated with equality that should be the limit of the governments involvment.
The limit here is the line to which any government organization should “dabble” with religious beliefs unless it is proven to endanger others safety – such as murderers, preaching to rob banks and cause terrorist attacks, etc.
That is a fine line to walk and will never be easily balanced.
With Ms O’Donnel, I think she needs to be more careful with perceptions and nuances of spoken words. For they can be mistaken and taken in many different paths.
http://www.artinphoenix.com/gallery/grimm (mix art)
Report Post »ConservativePatriot
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:13pm@snowleopard you are exactly right in your interpretation of the Constitution. The Government can’t ESTABLISH a religion. That does NOT mean religion can’t be practiced, it just can’t be sanctioned. Additionally, the AP has written the story in a way to make O’Donnell look bad, when in fact, if you heard the whole clip, she’s questioning the bearded marxist when HE said the 1st Amendment states there is separation of church and state, and those words verbatim are NOT in the Constitution, as O’Donnell stated.
Report Post »untameable-kate
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:25pmShe is in a no win situation. She has been made a fool of by the left for things she said as a kid, now people will not take her seriously whether she has valid points or not. She is right of course but all those juvenile delinquents in the back row don’t know that, they only know what the Godless educators on the left have taught them.
Report Post »citizenx
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:30pmYou have an interesting yet fundamentally flawed understanding of what the Establishment Clause means and how it applies. There are many reasons why people campaign against the Dept of Education. As long as public schools fall under the jurisdiction of the Dept. of Education it is against the law to teach any church’s doctrine. In addition, if intelligent design was allowed to be taught in public schools this would also open up the flood gates for any number of religious doctrines to be taught… not just christian doctrines.
Personally, I support the status quo in this concern for the very reason I gave above. However, there is no limitation on private schools that are funded without federal funds. Therein lies the best option for parents who want their children to be taught intelligent design or any number of other christian doctrines.
Report Post »snowleopard3200
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:35pm@ConservativePatriot
Thanks.
Report Post »Thirteenth Paladin
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:54pmO’Donnell is Correct. There is nothing about Seperation of Church and State in the Constitution. The State cannot religion, but there is no seperation. That’s a Court interpretation. Neither our Constitution nor our government would exist if not for the involvement of the “church”. She was the only one there that knows this, she gets my vote.
NRABIBLETHUMPER
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 3:55pm@Conservative X, intelligent design is not a religous doctrine as evolution is not. How can a federal gov’t be the one to make the choice of one over the other? If both aren’t taught, neither should be taught in a public school by your logic. I, on the other hand, believe, like Mrs. O’Donnell does, the local school board should decide, not the federal gov’t. I interpret the 1st amendment to limit the fedreal gov‘t’s involvement totally. To me this falls under a state’s rights issue.
What purpose does the Dept. of Education serve anyway? It should be abolished completely! Complete waste of time and money! If that money were kept in the local schools and the overburdening regulations of that Federal beaurocracy was elimated then the schools could be much more efficient at what they original purpose was.
“Get the left out” and get out of the way!
Report Post »PhilipJames
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 4:12pmJust a thought…. if there is supposed to be seperation of church and state as you discuss… why, in your commentary are you talking about a tax exemption for the churches? is that not somehow “getting involved in religion by the state”? how can there be an argument about absolutely no involvement by the state in religious affairs when the state has taken churches and made them tax exempt… isn’t that an official involvement in the church in some way? by placing it apart from others? I’m confused…
Report Post »Look, I believe that the constitution does not declare a hard line total seperation of religion and the state… I think that it is more about officially promoting a specific religion. After all, the word God appears all through the official documents of the state from the beginning. Its not like they tried to deny religion or anything as it appears the left and atheists have been trying to push for some time now. I think the United States celebrated a religious life right from the beginning.. it was an integral part of life in America. And should still be.
ltb
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 4:21pm“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” U.S. Const. am. 1.
It’s disturbing that there are so many ignorant students in that law school, who evidently are clueless about the First Amendment. Two points: 1) In 1899, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that America is a “Christian Nation” and backed its decision with 87 precedents, quotes from the Founding Fathers and excerpts from Congressional Acts; 2) In 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court reached a decision that there is separation of Church and State in America based on a quote from Thomas Jefferson that was taken completely out of context and without citing one single precedent.
Report Post »Tyrone
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 4:25pmThis senate race was framed by an atheist comedian Bill Maher.
Report Post »Joseph_Plumb_Martin
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 4:33pmWow,way to pick ‘em Delaware
Report Post »cruisemates
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 4:40pmSorry, but Coon acting as the Constitutional expert (as he has been this entire election) was completely wrong to say there is a “separation of church and state” in the Constitution. The First amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
That’s all. In the context of American history it is entirely related to the imposition of the Church of England upon our citizens as the state religion by King George.
ANY SCHOOL CHILD SHOULD KNOW THIS.
Which makes it a perfectly valid reason to include discussions of things like WHY school children are not taight intelligent design. My 7th grade American History book had a chapter on the Scopes trial.
So – now it isn‘t isn’t even legal for schools to talk about one of the most famous trials in American history? As I recall, we learned that the Scopes trial had the American public rapt – much like our generation’s OJ trial. Think they hear about that in public schools these days?
Report Post »5
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 4:47pmIf these people voted for Joe Bite-Me so many years they’re pretty stupid anyway.
DEL. Stand up for the Law of the land & vote for Good Change, not BO-CHANGE!
Separation of Church and State is not a Law you Lib/terds. Read. Learn.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 5:48pmThe Supreme Court has made reference to Jefferson’s letter and has also spent many decades fleshing out what the balance should be between the free expression and anti-establishment clauses of the First Amendment. While folks might argue that the Court has moved too far in one direction or the other, there is no question that some kind of wall exists, lest the anti-establishment clause would make no sense. In recent cases, the high Court has suggested that one look for a reasonable inference of endorsement and has suggested that Christian only references on public land (e.g., copies of the 10 commandments in a courthouse) are not allowed while a collection of religious icons (e.g., x-mas tree, menorah, etc.) in a federal building lobby would be allowed. People here might disagree with this reasoning, but they are not part of the majority writing controlling decisions on the Supreme Court, so it really doesn’t matter what they say. This is the law. What these bloggers say is idle opinion.
As for evolution versus intelligent design, most courts have held that the latter is a religious theory that is prohibited from being taught in the school–presumably unless it is taught alongside other religious theories like Islamic or Buddhist theory on where humans came from–while holding that the former is a scientific theory that can be taught be itself as the state-of-the-art explanation for where humans came from. There is no controversy to teach, since evolution is science and doesn’t trigger 1st amendment issues in a school setting while intelligent design clearly does as a religious doctrine.
The tax stuff mentioned earlier relates to IRS rules that disallow non-profits from taking overtly political activity. The federal government has used this rule as a way to try to prevent churches from becoming conduits for overtly political campaign financing. Since the ruling of Citizens, people who want to contribute dollars and speech to political campaigns can do so through overtly political 501(c)3 organizations, so I am guessing that the IRS rule is no longer needed or enforced, but that’s just my guess.
Finally, Karl Rove an arch conservative called O’Donnell more than a little nutty, so this is not about liberals slandering an otherwise intelligent and highly qualified candidate. She is doing herself in by highlighting how little she knows. Recognizing that an inability to cognate on nuance is a mark of character amongst some conservatives, I nonetheless worry about asking people to make laws who know so little about what is and is not constitutional based upon recent SCOTUS rulings.
Report Post »cruisemates
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 6:32pmABC…
Once again you are taking the issue way out of context. All O’Donnell said was a RHETORICAL question, “where in the Constitution is there a ‘separation of the church and state’.”
The way I heard it was O’Donnel knew exactly what she was asking, as in “show me where THOSE WORDS are written in the Constitution.“ The fact that the audience made ”stage gasps” was pretty effective in convincing people they actually thought she didn’t know. But once again it is just the media using the “long shot” to distort reality.
Just like the shot from behind the speakers at the Lincoln Memorial (you know, Ed Schultz’ perspective) – or that picture of the 747 that “almost” hit the Golden Gate Bridge. Sometimes things look different than they really are, and its the “job” of the mainstream media to exploit everything for maxiumum effect – because that is just so much more sellable than the truth – isn’t it?
Report Post »cruisemates
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 6:40pmABC, you wrote…
“…the high Court has suggested that Christian only references on public land (e.g., copies of the 10 commandments in a courthouse) are not allowed while a collection of religious icons (e.g., x-mas tree, menorah, etc.) in a federal building lobby would be allowed.”
So – are you saying “intelligent design” is a Christian Only theory? We already know it is from the old testament which is accepted doctrine for Judaism, Christianity and Islam. I am no theologian, but I am guessing Zorastrians and Bhuddists have similar ideas as well. So, by your, excuse me, “the court’s” definition, it should be allowed as long as there is no “reasonable inference of endorsement”
ABC – do you work for “ABC News?”
Report Post »JGP
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 6:43pmA few points; the theory of creation isn’t exclusive to Christianity. SCOTUS decisions aren’t always right. The federal goverment has no business in education. If there’s no Dept. of Ed. that doesn’t mean no one gets an education. The states or communities will pick up the ball as they should.
We have 50 states, thus 50 goverments competing for the best enviorment/system to insure freedom, liberty, prosperity, etc. If one state wants to say “we are a Buddist state” and it doesn’t go against their constitution, they have the right if the people want it. If California wants to be totally socialist, they can. But the other states don’t have to fund their failures.
But as long as the states pass on their responsibilities to the fed’s they have to bow to the master.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 6:44pmCruise, here is the problem with that assertion. Let‘s say the topic of debate at that point was regulations concerning our nation’s trucking industry and O’Donnell asked where it says the word trucks in the constitution. As Scalia pointed out in Heller, it would be ridiculous to assert that modern hand guns would not fall under the Second Amendment just because they are not specifically mentioned in that amendment. The point is that you look stupid making such a claim. The reality is that there is a HUGE body of legal scholarship and SCOTUS opinions that flesh out the boundaries of this tension between the free expression and anti-establishment clauses, and to reduce the argument to: the words “separation of church and state” are not in the First Amendment is to reduce the analysis to absurdity. This is not surprising for an idiot like O’Donnell, but even arch conservative Scalia would wince at her simpleton thinking on the subject. Now, she doesn’t have to sound like a constitutional scholar, but she shouldn’t sound like a total idiot either. She sounded like a total idiot–and that was BEFORE she admitted that she had no idea what the important 14th amendment says.
Report Post »APEXIdaho
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 7:22pmMrs. O’Donnell has more experiance than Ted Kennedy had when he went to Washington.
Report Post »Libertarian
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 7:23pm“(The constitution as I understand it and the writings of its creators is that there is to be no officialy sancitioning of a state religion, recognition of a single religion, or interferance with a persons individual beliefs or even chosing not to belief)” ~snowleopard3200
Incorrect. The first amendment says “Congress shall make no law”, it does not say the states or the states of the union shall make no law.
Separation of church and state is no where in the constitution. However the constitution does mention that states be setup as a republican form of governance, not a communist, socialist or theocratic dictatorship; a mirror of our federal gov.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 7:40pmCruise, I’m telling you that courts have held that intelligent design is a religious doctrine that cannot be taught in school if it is viewed as promoting a Christian viewpoint. I PERSONALLY do not want it taught in a science class because it is bad science regardless of which religion it is based upon and regardless of whether it can be constitutionally taught in any non-science class as religion. I don’t know whether other organized religions have creation stories that line up with the Old Testament, but my guess is that they are very different. The variety of creation myths is rather wide.
And I do not work for ABC News.
JGP, the theory of creation likely could be taught in the school alongside other creation myths so that there is no inference of endorsement of the validity of one over any other. It should not be taught in the science classroom because it is religious teaching that should not be mixed with science. Further, the current high school curriculum of biology is very large and barely can be covered in a single year, so there is no time to crowd it out with nonsense posing as science, much less a survey of creation myths to allow it to be taught in biology class in a constitutional way. The SCOTUS is clearly not always right (c.f. Dred Scott), but it is the last word on interpreting the law. You are free to disagree but you are not free to have your opinion supercede the Court’s in any meaningful way. The federal govt has business in school when those public schools violate the constitution, an intervention that would be legal. The states overseeing education should worry about how far behind the rest of the world Americans now are thanks to the poor teaching quality of math and science. People saying we should teach the controversy are not helping us close the gap with Finland, Taiwan or Chile. Actually, there are many constitutional, federally mandated limits on what kind of government a particular state can have. That you don‘t understand this means that you should go read more and stop blogging about stuff you don’t understand.
Report Post »JGP
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 8:37pmABC, I don’t recall commenting to your posts in any condescending way. If I have I appologize.
I know, Articl IV, section 4. Thats not too many.
Report Post »jzs
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 9:15pmOf course the word “separation” is not in the Constitution! That’s crazy. Now, that doesn’t mean the government should start helping poor people, being peacemakers, loving neighbors or other things that Jesus taught. And it doesn’t mean we should have Muslim judges or Presidents either. The Founders wanted protestant religion in government. The main role of the governement should be letting businesses make as much money as they possibly can and enforcing Christian morality. That’s the proper role of government in a Christian country.
Report Post »Iowasoccermom
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 9:54pmJust ask David Barton. He explains it all better than anyone. He has a small booklet with the entire history of how this phrase has become so misused.
Report Post »liberty2day
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 9:58pmABC – What’s really interesting is that Thomas Jefferson attended church in the Capitol building during his presidency after his famous Danbury Letter. One does wonder if he was so adamant about the separation of church and state, why as president he didn’t nip that practice in the bud right then and their rather than attend the services lending the misconception that he supported any religious activity in government facilities. Or at a minimum boycott the service to show how deeply he felt as the father of “wall of separation”. What a sell out he turned out to be.
Report Post »liberty2day
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 10:13pmABC – I agree with you on evolution. You can prove it by all those half bird/half lizard critters running around today as reptiles continue to evolve into birds like they did millions of years ago. Evolution certainly didn’t stop after it made its first bird. Reptiles surely continues to evolve into birds. Why almost everywhere you look you see some that are more reptile then bird or some that are more bird than reptile. Just the other day I found a small snake in my garden with the prettiest yellow feathers. Evolution in progress. Proof positive.
jzs
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 11:00pmAnd if any of us get an antibiotic-resistant strain of a pathogenic bacteria, let’s put our hope in the power or prayer.
Report Post »IOnceWasLiberalButNowISee
Posted on October 19, 2010 at 11:54pmWhere religion is concerned I believe that the First Amendment begs a question, and that is, “What did the founders mean when they used the word ‘religion?’” Here is the section in question of the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
We can know for certain what people of the time considered to be religion, Noah Webster published “An American Dictionary of the English Language” not too long after the writing of the Bill of Rights. 38 years to be exact, though he began to compile it in 1807, so it is safe to say that words in the late 1700s had the same meaning as what was eventually published. In Webster’s Dictionary the definition includes the following for the word religion:
“4. Any system of faith and worship. In this sense, religion comprehends the belief and worship of pagans and Mohammedans, as well as of christians; any religion consisting in the belief of a superior power or powers governing the world, and in the worship of such power or powers. Thus we speak of the religion of the Turks, of the Hindoos, of the Indians, &c. as well as of the christian religion. We speak of false religion, as well as of true religion.”
Note well what he adds after discussing world religions other than Christianity, “We speak of false religion, as well as of true religion.” At the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights, the founders of this country considered Christianity to be TRUE religion and any other to be FALSE religion. In other words, in today’s world in which the meanings of words have been altered by popular usage, the First Amendment should really be stated thus: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Christianity, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
Congress would therefore be able to prohibit the free exercise of any religion OTHER than Christianity.
Report Post »capitalismrocks
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 1:28amThe Establish clause was put in for 2 specific reasons, one was that the founders still clearly had in their minds the establishment of the “Church of England” and wanted to ensure that the United State not fall into that same dilemma.
2nd – early in the US history, there were 9 states with official religions… if you didn’t like to be a Quaker and follow that, you could pack up and move to a different state that was “Catholic” as its official religion, or you could go a state that with Lutheran… However if there was an official “Federal” religion, you’d have no place to move or go to. Religion was left to the states, not the federal govt at the time…
The 1st ammendment clearly states that the US govt must treat ALL religions equally, it must not favor one religion over another, nor hold down one religion over another. It must not establish (create) its own religion either. What the 1st ammendment does NOT state is that there should be NO religion in any area of government… a speech by Thomas Jefferson about his view of there should be a Separation of Church and State is NOT law, it is NOT in the Constitution, yet the ACLU and Athiests fall back on this meaningless, non law bearing, non-Consitutionally bound statement by a former President as being some form of Federal Law when it is NOT.
Do deny Religion is in fact favoring Athiesm over all other religions and therefor the govt is unfairly favoring one religion (the religion of no God) over all others, now THAT would be UnConstitutional….
If you are going to teach Evolution, then Intelligent Design should be shown side by side. Its like the argument of Global Warming, why are kids in school only shown polar bear dying on pieces of ice floating in the artic, while ignoring the teaching of cyclical expansion and receding of glaciers every 40,000-50,000 years… so were the Woolly Mammoths driving around in their SUV’s, going home to their coal burning stoves and racking up their carbon footprints to cause the last global climate change???
So if you’re going to show one side of something, you need to show all sides…
Well, just to get a head on getting this country back to being as NON-PC as possible, let me say ahead of time and I ask everyone to proudly and loudly announce this year
Happy Hunakka and Merry Christmas…. and hey for you Athiests, Happy Winter Solstice too… God Bless us One and All !
Report Post »bolec slodkie
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 4:44amThe first bible printed in the United States of America was approved and funded by CONGRESS!!!
Report Post »They understood what the establishment clause meant.
The clause in the first amendment can be better understood in modern language if the article, a form of adjective, is moved to clarify the context.
to wit: “AN establishment of religion”
“establishment of A religion”
The Idea that GOD crated everything is not limited to a singular faith and therefore can not be construed, except by the weakest of logical constructs, to cause anyone to participate in a specific religions tradition.
Restriction of any discussion of faith does, however, violate the free exercise clause. Discussions of specific religious traditions are fully appropriate and necessary to understand various cultures.
gbeck2012
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 6:52amPoor Christine, Poor Texas Board of Education, Poor Blissful people who buy into this nonsense.
Why did the law students and professors laugh at Christine O’Donnell?
The words “Separation of Church and State”, just like the words “Innocent until proven guilty” do not appear verbatim in the constitution. However, these are time-honored and fundamental concepts with a constitutional basis, repeatedly upheld buy the highest court in the land, and with a basis in the writings of several of the founding fathers.
To pretend that concepts such as these are some sort of blaspheming conspiracy being forced upon us by (you pick one) liberals, nazis, socialists, communists, judicial activists, progressives is the epitome of ignorance, combined with a strong measure of lunacy.
Report Post »Perpetua
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 7:07amYes, the words are NOT in there, yet the libs are calling for donations to send copies of the Constitution to Christine. It is amazing how they interpret the words of the 1st Amendment, and maintain they are right and everyone else is a loon! Absolutely amazing.
Report Post »ltb
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 10:30amABC, who cares if the Supreme Court has spent decades trying to determine the appropriate balance between free expression and the federal establishment of a religion? The Supreme Court got it wrong in 1947; therefore, any “fleshing out” by the Court since then has been purely academic. There is no separation of Church and State, period. There is only the prohibition of the federal government from establishing a state approved Christian religion (i.e., no preference will be shown to Presbyterianism, Methodism, Baptism, Catholicism, etc.). Regarding Jefferson’s Danbury letter, anyone who has read the entire letter, quickly reaches the conclusion that Jefferson would be appalled that his “wall of separation” comment was bastardized to undermine the First Amendment. You are either haplessly ignorant about the history behind the First Amendment and the debates that gave rise to the verbiage eventually used, or you are willfully ignorant and are purposefully trying to deceive people to promote an agenda. Either way, you are just plain ignorant about the First Amendment.
Report Post »Huckabee Gingrich 12
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 10:40amThis woman is a ditz, and will not be elected. You don’t win debates by asking rhetorical questions, you win them by spelling out the facts in plain simple terms. In trying to trip up Coons, she made herself look like a total ignoramus. The phrase “separation of church and state” is obviously not in the constitution, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly applied the first amendment to the States. Yes, the Supreme Court was wrong, but that doesn’t matter; they have the final say. O’Donnell is way out of her league, but thankfully, she will soon be forgotten.
Report Post »ltb
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 10:43amABC, I have a simple question: Since secular humanism is a religion [Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)] and Evolution is as much of a doctrine of this religion (i.e., according to the first plank of the Humanist Manifesto) as Creation is of Christianity and Judaism, why should the federal government establish the religious teaching of Evolution in public schools while prohibiting the religious teaching of Creation?
Report Post »ltb
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 11:27amHuckabee Gingrich 12, no, the Supreme Court does not have the final say, We The People have the final say and when Americans are complacent about the Supreme Court “getting it wrong,” another nail is hammered into the coffin of this Republic. The ignorance and laziness of people like you are what is destroying America.
Report Post »LisaC49
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 11:58amDo not scrutinize without knowing the 1st Amendment. Coon was wrong and O’Donnell was right.
“Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Sorry to burst your bubble, Coon and fellow lefties, but Christine O’Donnell was correct. There is no “separation of church and state” clause in the U.S. Constitution. Nice try at self-inflicted ignorance on the part of everyone who heckled her at the Delaware Senate debate! You might try reading your Constitution next time, before claiming to know it.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 3:46pmLTB, the Court in ‘47 did not get it wrong. That would be true only if the Court overturned those cases which it hasn’t. That you assert otherwise means nothing to the law in this country, unless you are writing a new majority opinion on the Court that the world doesn’t know about yet. Also, to answer your question, no court has held that evolution is a religious doctrine that would trigger constitutional requirements that it be taught only in the context of competing religious ideology. And this is proper, since the basis for evolution as a scientific theory is TOTALLY DIFFERENT than how creationism and other creation myths are developed–one is based upon empirical testing, while the other is simply made up either by an unseen creator or by people who claim without proof to have heard him speak.
Report Post »FIRED UP FREE MAN !
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 9:30pmMr. SOROS is an international criminal. Any government official taking money from this monster or those he supports should be brought up on treason charges. Anybody who takes money from this monster has sold his soul and our government to HELL ! GOD BLESS AMERICA AND THE LIGHT OF DAY! For only TRUTH and the light of day is what this country DESERVES. Democrats seemed to have been infected by this DEADLY parasite and his minions. This country will NOT rest until SOROS is in prison orange and handcuffs standing in front of a military tribunal in Guantomino Bay, Cuba
If you have any complaints about Mr. SOROS here are the names and addresses, maybe you can send them a line.
Tides Foundation Info:
National Office
Physical Address: 1014 Torney Ave. San Francisco, CA 94129-1755
P.O. Box 29198*
San Francisco, CA 94129-0198
415-561-6400
415-561-6401 Fax
info(at)tides.org
New York Office
Tides New York
55 Exchange Place, Suite 402
New York, NY 10005-3304
212-509-1049
212-509-1059 Fax
nyinfo(at)tides.org
Center for American Progress Information:
1333 H Street Northwest
Washington D.C., District of Columbia 20005
Phone: 202-682-1611
Fax: 202-682-1867
Mailing Address
Democracy Alliance
P.O. Box 18607
Washington, DC 20036
Media Matters Information:
455 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 756-4100
..
Report Post »SunnyRose
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 9:43pmI would encourage you to take 5 minutes and review some of the original writings (from the library of congress) of the founding fathers regarding religion (a letter signed by 14 of our leading founders). It might cause you to rethink some of your understanding of the First Amendment.
Report Post »https://itooktheredpill.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/in-congress-march-16-1776/
SunnyRose J.D.
SunnyRose
Posted on October 20, 2010 at 9:47pmI‘ve watched the video and O’Donnell is correct. I believe she understood him to be asserting (2:38) the words “separation of church and state” are found in the constitution. (which they are not). She asked (2:50) “where in the constitution is – the separation of church and state?” (meaning that phrase) And later, when they went back to the topic, she again asked “you’re saying that phrase – the separation of church and state – is found in the first amendment?” (6:21) which he responded to by significantly misquoting the first amendment, “The government shall make no establishment of religion” (7:10) (not even close, by the way). which she called him on saying “That’s in the first amendment?” (7:20) (which it is not.) Just saying, she had the info correct, but the optics all wrong.
Report Post »“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Huckabee Gingrich 12
Posted on October 21, 2010 at 1:26am@LTB
Report Post »I’m not ignorant or lazy, but thanks for that. The Supreme Court does have the final say. You don’t have to like it, you just have to eat it. If you think you are more powerful than the Supreme Court, you should try to exert that power. Let me know how that works out for you, genius.
cmgnp
Posted on October 21, 2010 at 10:48amThere is no separation of church and state as the state is compelled to safeguard all religions ….
Report Post »true , it may not promote any one religion but there certainly is no loss of rights brought about when the state deals with religions …..
ltb
Posted on October 21, 2010 at 12:41pmABC, in light of the facts that I previously stated (i.e., 87 precedents versus 0 precedents, numerous quotes from the founding fathers versus one quote taken out of context and tortured to mean the exact opposite of what Jefferson intended, numerous quotes from the Congressional records during debates on the First Amendment versus no quotes from the Congressional records), you can’t possibly be serious that the 1899 Supreme Court Justices were the ones who got it wrong. Think about what you’re saying… you’re saying that the ’47 Court didn’t get it wrong, because Everson v. Board of Education hasn’t been overturned – that’s like saying someone who steals a car isn’t a thief, because he didn’t get caught.
To your second point, I realize no court has ruled that Evolution is a religious doctrine, hence my question… Why hasn’t Evolution been ruled a religious doctrine when the courts have ruled that Secular Humanism is a religion [Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)] and Evolution is a doctrine of Humanism according to the Humanist Manifesto? In my opinion, Christians have been lax in our attempts to reverse the Everson decision, because we have been on defense for decades instead of being on the offense. Parents with standing need to sue a local school that preaches Evolution, based on the fact that it is a religious doctrine being taught in preference of Creationism.
Regarding your statement that Evolution is TOTALLY DIFFERENT from Creationism because Evolution is based on empirical testing… that is a lie. The fossil record does not support macroevolution, period, and there has never been a single scientific experiment that has demonstrated abiogenesis is possible. In view of all of the evidence against Evolution, it takes more faith to believe everything arose out of nothing than it does to believe that everything was brought into existence by an awesome Creator.
Report Post »