O'Donnell questions separation of church, state

[The T]

The separation of church and state is a fallacy. Our founding fathers did intend to keep government out of the religious arena by disallowing a national religion such as existed in England with the Church of England; however the intent was never to keep the church out of government.

Few American educated people, it seems, have the ability to critically analyze political spin. Case in point: separation of church and state. The far left has embarked on a massive propaganda campaign to socialize the masses into believing that the above is an absolute. Religion, therefore, and any reference to God should be anathema in politics, leg-islation and enactment of law.

The historical and philosophical facts are quite different however. Our fore fathers never envisioned an absolute separation of church and state. Most of them were religious people. Their model for government was based mostly on separation of powers. In their mind, the church, as an organized entity, should hold no formal position in government. They did not say or imply that the church should have no voice in pronouncing political descent. Nor did they ever envision a government devoid of references to Judeo-Christian theology or idealisms; and they never believed that the government must be completely secular.

Unfortunately, many people believe the liberal left’s machinations without regard to these historical facts. Their argument states that more wars have been fought in the name of religion than of any other source. They cry: ‘the marriage of religion and politic has produced the crusades, Inquisition and the Taliban’ etc. What they fail to mention is the melding of the secular with absolute power. This has produced virulently greater horrors as evidenced in the persons of Stalin (20+ million dead) and Hitler (11+ million). Not to mention the killing fields of Cambodia and other secular genocide committed in the name of a greater social order.

In rebuttal: firstly, the Declaration of Independence itself is a religious document. The preamble states the primary premise from which all of the other premises follow. The premise is: that all people are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. These ‘rights’ are not endowed by the state, nor by any secular entity, be it government or king, but by God. Secondly, the framers of the Constitution wrote the latter and the Bill of Rights etc. because they believed that legislating such documents into law was God’s will. Their very core ethos as Christians made them draw the conclusions written within the documents. You cannot separate these documents from their Judeo-Christian roots without tearing them asunder and laying them waste. Simply, the ethics contained in our Constitution are Judeo-Christian. Therefore our constitution is essentially a religious document. Thus, separation of church and state as the far left sees it is complete fallacy.

Lastly, it is neither religion nor people of faith who have produced the horrors mention above. It is an evil that knows no boundaries. It has transcended all times, peoples and cultures whether secular or religious. In the Christian gospels Jesus vehemently condemned one sin in particular above all others. The reason is that this sin has the potential of producing the greatest amount of evil. It is none other than the greatest of the seven deadly sins: humanities tendency toward self-righteous pride. Hitler, Stalin, Usama Bin Laden, all of these have been inebriated by this great sin. So absolute is its power to blind that one, when caught in its grip, could conceive genocide as justifiable - even when done in the name of God.
Separation of Church and State: the leftist fallacy exposed. - Tech Support Forums - TechIMO.com

All the First Amendment says is that Government cannot establish a national Religion.

PERIOD.

The Constitution does NOT prohibit GOD anywhere in our Society, and that includes Government instituions.

So, Sharia law works for you....or rather, no one can ever use the 1st amendment to stop sharia law.....

Were talking practicing Religion, beliefs versus...Wait for it...ESTABLISHING LAW...

Of course Sharia could be stopped. Just don't VOTE for it. We are talking exercising religious beliefs...NOT speaking of establishing a LAW.

See how that works? Nice StrawDog Arguement though...too bad your attempt FAILED MISERABLY.

 

[Ravi]

All the First Amendment says is that Government cannot establish a national Religion.

PERIOD.

The Constitution does NOT prohibit GOD anywhere in our Society, and that includes Government instituions.

So, Sharia law works for you....or rather, no one can ever use the 1st amendment to stop sharia law.....

Were talking Religion versus...Wait for it...LAW...

Of course Sharia could be stopped. Just don't VOTE for it. We are talking exercising religious beliefs...NOT speaking of establishing a LAW.

See how that works? Nice StrawDog Arguement though...too bad your attempt FAILED MISERABLY.

Give some examples of exercising religious beliefs.

 

[bodecea]

All the First Amendment says is that Government cannot establish a national Religion.

PERIOD.

The Constitution does NOT prohibit GOD anywhere in our Society, and that includes Government instituions.

So, Sharia law works for you....or rather, no one can ever use the 1st amendment to stop sharia law.....

Were talking practicing Religion, beliefs versus...Wait for it...ESTABLISHING LAW...

Of course Sharia could be stopped. Just don't VOTE for it. We are talking exercising religious beliefs...NOT speaking of establishing a LAW.

See how that works? Nice StrawDog Arguement though...too bad your attempt FAILED MISERABLY.

Actually, my point was made quite nicely by you....different religions...different set of rules. Yours is the kind of attitude our Founders made the 1st Amendment to protect AGAINST.

 

[mascale]

Jefferson had it right all along, apparently.

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining [p16] or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State." Reynolds v. United States, supra, at 164."

Even the Supreme Court said so, even though it wasn't there.

The Tea Party clearly wasn't there. The Republicans cherish a defense budget, but only "defence" is in the Constitution: And even though blacks were not entirely in the Constitution. "Congrefs" itself has a language problem, it seems. It's in the Constitution, which was even put online at the time!

The internet is not in the Constitution!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Tea Party GOP take America back to 1789. Many Nations get it all back. . . .And with usury!)

 

[GHook93]

Man she is ignorant, comrade Coons is truly blessed to have her!

She truly didn't know what is in the first amendment. If she did she could have schooled him using his own logic:
"You say its in the first amendment, but you stated the clause that CASE LAW established it on, just like in your example of Roe v Wade established "reproductive rights" or more accurately a Right to Privacy and Griswold v CT case also established a Right to Privacy.
No one would doubt that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental rights protected by the constitution, but the Right to Privacy is not directly STATED in the constitution. Just the Doctrine of Separation of Church and State is guaranteed by the constitution via case law, but its not directly provided for in the constution. So Coon if you want to say all Case Law established based on the constitution is in the constitution, then why don't you advocate bringing back the "Separate But Equal Clause," that piece of garabage legislation was created by case law based off the constitution?"

To the question of the Tea Party advocating changing the 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th amendment, first the village idiot should have done her homework (esp after she fucked up in the last debate not knowing one recent supreme court case) and then she should have charged back:

"First , I want to say that is outright slander of a rigtheous movement and I would like you to take your politics out of your questioning. There are people in the antiwar movement wanting to get rid of the 2nd amendment, but I will NOT associate that to the entire group. If you want my opinion, then address ME!"

"Second, asking about the 15th and 17th amendment is ridiculous and partisan attempt to make me look radical or unknowledgable and frankly I am insulted that they are added to the question, but I will address them for you. The 15th A: Not abriding the right to vote based on race, color or creed, is not being advocated by the Tea Partiers who support me and anyone I would ever associate with or allow to support me. Getting rid of that Amendment is advocated only by Nazis and KKK members not Tea Partiers. The 17th A: Senator terms, number of Senators per state and Senator voting rights....seriously you want me answer that question when I am running for senate?

Onto the 16th Amendment, laying income taxes. The Articles of the Constitution allow Congress to lay and collect any taxes they deem fit, so I am not sure what repealing the 16the Amendment would accomplish. I mean the first income taxes where established during the civil war well before the 16th amendment. As a senator I wouldn't waste my time on that amendment. A better question would be what do I think should be done with taxes, but that is not what you asked.

Lastly, on the 14th amendment, which I think is most important amendment outside of the bill of rights and 13th amendment. But let's break it down by its important clauses. I support ground breaking clause of it; Due Process Clause, Equal Protection Clause, Privilege and Immunity Clause and 14th amendments incorporating the bill of rights to the states. I would fight tooth and nail to keep them. But I can't support the birthright clause by how its being used today. The birthright clause was meant to protect the citizenship of the children of the newly freed slaves from be denied citizenship by the Racist Democrats at the time. It was not meant to give automatic citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. It is sad that children get caught in the mess, but if their parents do what the vast majority of our immigrants do and immigrate to America the right way, the LEGAL way, then they can become citizens the right way. The birthright clause as its is applied today rewards people for breaking our laws, which rational Government Official would support that? But I want to be crystal clear here, my opposition to the birthright clause doesn't mean I am anti-immigration. The opposite is true, we are a nation of immigrants and we should always support legal immigration, but I am strongly opposed to illegal immigration and any legislation that would encourage, appease or support it!"

O'Donnell questions separation of church, state - Politics - Decision 2010 - msnbc.com

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

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

Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.

I thought these Tea Party candidates were all about Constitutionalism? WTF???

Christine O'Donnell Questions Separation Of Church & State (VIDEO)

"...Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that "religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools."

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

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

The video:​

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miwSljJAzqg&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

Lmao! I love how she tried to play it off, when everyone started laughing at her .

The article goes on:

Erin Daly, a Widener professor who specializes in constitutional law, said that while there are questions about what counts as government promotion of religion, there is little debate over whether the First Amendment prohibits the federal government from making laws establishing religion.

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

This, ladies and gents, is the new and improved, knows-the-constitution Republican party. Be proud, Teabaggers!

 

[GHook93]

Where in the constitution does it say black people can marry white people?

You nuts get dumber by the day.

It doesn't you ignoramous, Loving v VA used the equal protection clause to make the right to marry (along with other rights) a fundamental right protected by the constitution. Its not in the constitution, but it was protected by it. Prior to Loving, I can't remember the case (might be the Prior case), it made it CONSTITUTIONAL to create laws that disallow whites and blacks from fucking, dating and marrying! And yes that case came after the 14th amendment.

Point is interracial marriage is PROTECTED by the constitution, but its not part of the constitution, just as the Separation of Church and State Doctrine is established by well thought out interpretations of the constitution and not by what is in the constitution!

People like you take way too much for granted!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Remember some months ago when I was arguing that the MAIN reason that America came into existence was because of RELIGION. You know, the pilgrims leaving Britain due to religious prosecution and NOT to open up business aka COMMERCE??

Remember the RW response to that then?

OK...watch how they respond now in this thread.

These guys never cease to amaze me and crack me up.

LOL!!!!

Separation of church and state came about because of persecution of Christians...

...by other Christians.

 

[The T]

So, Sharia law works for you....or rather, no one can ever use the 1st amendment to stop sharia law.....

Were talking practicing Religion, beliefs versus...Wait for it...ESTABLISHING LAW...

Of course Sharia could be stopped. Just don't VOTE for it. We are talking exercising religious beliefs...NOT speaking of establishing a LAW.

See how that works? Nice StrawDog Arguement though...too bad your attempt FAILED MISERABLY.

Actually, my point was made quite nicely by you....different religions...different set of rules. Yours is the kind of attitude our Founders made the 1st Amendment to protect AGAINST.

Bullsqueeze. Sharia LAW vs. Practice of Religion in the Constitution...Guess what Religion is permitted under Sharia?

You are an Idiot. You defeated yourself.

Sharia is Contrary to the Constitution. Nice try at turning my words against me. Didn't work wench. I said the contrary of what you accused me of.

Try again fruitloop.

 

[MarcATL]

POLITICO.com: VIDEOS

Listen to the crowd.

I heard the audio. A combo of disbelief and laughing at her.

Yeah...a reall Poppy Show!

ROTFLMBAO!!!

 

[GHook93]

Nothing in the Constitution says you can't pray, or put religious artifacts on public land.

Yes, the first amendment means the government cannot put religious symbols on public land. This is what James Madison and Thomas Jefferson intended when they wrote it.

LOL read about the Establishment Clause and look about facts of the time. Religious presecution was a main reason many immigrated to America. The First Amendment was established to make sure everyone could practice their religion. The common phrase that is argued is the 1st amendment was established as "Freedom of Religion not FREEDOM FROM RELIGION!" TJ and Washington want to make sure the rights of America's religious minorities (specifically the JEWS) would be protected to practice their religion. That was the main legislative intent of the establishment clause.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So according to The Bearded Marxist "Separation of Church and State" is in the Constitution?

Would someone please point out where?

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.
First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's not separation of church and state.

That was a made up construct, like Kwaanzaa.

Kwanza's made up? Wow, so is Christmas. What's your point?

 

[manifold]

where does it state that churches cannot be involved in politics?

Show me an example of ANYONE arguing that churches cannot be involved in politics.

If you would pull your head out of your ass you would have noticed that the argument has been going on for years. The fight against prayer in school, the fight against nativity scenes on display and so on and so forth. Liberals have been trying for decades to completely eliminate religious issues from public view including politics.

Backpedal fail.

So again, exactly nobody, except your poorly constructed strawman, is arguing that churches cannot be involved in politics.

Got it.

 

[The T]

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.
First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's not separation of church and state.

That was a made up construct, like Kwaanzaa.

Kwanza's made up? Wow, so is Christmas. What's your point?

And what are the origins of Christ's Birth versus Kwanza? Time frame for one.

Both have a nice goal...and have been basterdized.

Kwanza is Political...

Kwanzaa turns 43 year old this year (2009). Kwanzaa, the alternative to Christmas mainly celebrated by African-Americans, was created in 1966 by Ron Maulana Karenga.

Ron Maulana Karenga, a political activist and professor was activist in the "Black Power" movement in the 1960s. Karenga helped found the Black empowerment group "US Organization."


Kwanzaa, derives its origins from the African "First Harvest" and was created as way for the African-Americans to connect to their traditions rooted in African and to common humanist principles.

SOURCE

 

[Queen]

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.
First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's not separation of church and state.

That was a made up construct, like Kwaanzaa.

Kwanza's made up? Wow, so is Christmas. What's your point?

All religions are made up.

LOL!!!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Really? Does that mean you are okay with sharia law being established in government institutions?

Hey stupid, what part of the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion " do you not understand?

Who says Congress would make such laws?


You guys crack me up.....on one hand, the 1st amendment doesn't prevent religion in government....then, suddenly, it does. I guess it depends on the religion.

Hey stupid, the first amendment specifically states that congress can make NO laws establishing religion. Your idiot friend Ravi asked if it would be ok if the government established sharia law. If you are too stupid to understand that to establish sharia is akin to establishing a certain religion then you are just going to have to stay stupid. I have no patience for idiots such as yourself. Say hello to iggy!

 

[GHook93]

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.
First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's not separation of church and state.

That was a made up construct, like Kwaanzaa.

Kwanza's made up? Wow, so is Christmas. What's your point?

You do realize that Kwaanza is the Black equivalent of White Power/White Supermacist Day don't you?

 

[Misty]

The real story here is the liberal arrogance.

It does not say separation of church and state anywhere in the constitution. God is all throughout out government. They prayer before each congressional session, in god we trust, endowed by our creator, all references to God.

A state can not proclaim itself an Islam state or a Jewish state or a Christian state. That's what is meant by 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."

nowhere does the quote separation of church and state appear. This is the brainwashing of political rhetoric.

 

[Misty]

The real story here is the liberal arrogance.

It does not say separation of church and state anywhere in the constitution. God is all throughout out government. They prayer before each congressional session, in god we trust, endowed by our creator, all references to God.

A state can not proclaim itself an Islam state or a Jewish state or a Christian state. That's what is meant by 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."

nowhere does the quote separation of church and state appear. This is the brainwashing of political rhetoric.

man I wish I could thank myself or positive rep myself sometimes.

 

[kwc57]

That's not separation of church and state.

That was a made up construct, like Kwaanzaa.

Kwanza's made up? Wow, so is Christmas. What's your point?

You do realize that Kwaanza is the Black equivalent of White Power/White Supermacist Day don't you?

Minus the tatoos, piercings, hate and violence......correct?

 

[Ravi]

That's not separation of church and state.

That was a made up construct, like Kwaanzaa.

Kwanza's made up? Wow, so is Christmas. What's your point?

You do realize that Kwaanza is the Black equivalent of White Power/White Supermacist Day don't you?

What the fuck are you smoking?