The Freak Show Continues: O'Donnell Questions Separation Of Church & State

[BoberFett]

This is the party that thought Palin would make a good Vice President. Should we expect their other choices to be any better?

 

[daishi5]

Also not in the Constitution:
- the words "right to privacy"
- the word "Air Force"

I think you are assuming too much. I think the "separation of church and state" is a good ruling, but it is not in the constitution, but derived from it and the writings of the founding fathers. (Not to go too far afield, but when we discuss the 2nd amendment the writings of the founding fathers are suddenly ignored) Isn't it sad, but it appears that what O'donnell said is actually right, but most people are actually so ignorant of where the "separation of church and state" actually comes from that they are laughing at probably the only correct thing she has said all month.

 

[werepossum]

The guy did misquote the amendment and his statement differs quite a bit from the actual amendment. The amendment does agree with his statement but it's actual text is much broader that what he says.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

At face value it prohibits the government from establishing a state religion and prevents them from creating any laws for or against any specific religion.

However, I believe she still asked that question because she was ignorant of the first amendment, which is ridiculous.

Pretty disappointing that Coons couldn't quote that better. Even before I looked it up to confirm the exact text I would've quoted it as "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion" and I'm not in politics and it's been over 20 years since I learned that in school.

You'd think that any politician or prospective politician would have at least the first, second and possibly fourth amendments memorized enough that they could at least accurately paraphrase the contents given the amount of controversy regarding them and the importance of each. *sigh*

Good points. So we have TWO politicians that don't know the First Amendment. Since neither have any intention of ever considering the Constitution with respect to legislation, probably doesn't matter, but still . . .

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The guy did misquote the amendment and his statement differs quite a bit from the actual amendment. The amendment does agree with his statement but it's actual text is much broader that what he says.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

At face value it prohibits the government from establishing a state religion and prevents them from creating any laws for or against any specific religion.

However, I believe she still asked that question because she was ignorant of the first amendment, which is ridiculous.

Pretty disappointing that Coons couldn't quote that better. Even before I looked it up to confirm the exact text I would've quoted it as "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion" and I'm not in politics and it's been over 20 years since I learned that in school.

You'd think that any politician or prospective politician would have at least the first, second and possibly fourth amendments memorized enough that they could at least accurately paraphrase the contents given the amount of controversy regarding them and the importance of each. *sigh*

Correct. What the Constitution prohibits is the government from establishing a state religion, which was common when it was written. No one really wanted an Anglican Church created by the state.

That has been interpreted more broadly however, and the standard isn't the words in the Constitution, but from a letter by Jefferson written in response to one sent by the Danbury Baptists, the text of which follows.

The address of the Danbury Baptists Association in the state of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801. To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America. Sir, Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that none are more sincere. Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ. Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people. And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator. Signed in behalf of the association, Nehemiah Dodge Ephraim Robbins Stephen S. Nelson

To which Jefferson replied:

Mr. President
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, 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.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

Therefore it isn't "in the Constitution" but rather what Jefferson makes of it.

It's amazing how many "experts" seem to overlook this fact. Certainly someone running for office should have known.

So she answered correctly, but I haven't much confidence if she knew why. She should have been able to pull this out of her butt.

 

[her209]

I think you are assuming too much. I think the "separation of church and state" is a good ruling, but it is not in the constitution, but derived from it and the writings of the founding fathers. (Not to go too far afield, but when we discuss the 2nd amendment the writings of the founding fathers are suddenly ignored) Isn't it sad, but it appears that what O'donnell said is actually right, but most people are actually so ignorant of where the "separation of church and state" actually comes from that they are laughing at probably the only correct thing she has said all month.

The anti-"separation" crowd argues otherwise.

 

[piasabird]

If liberals dont like the reason for the federal holiday, Christmas, they should revoke Christmas as a Federal Holiday or shut up. What do you think the federal holiday Christmas, celebrates? It celebrated the Birth of Christ. If you dont like the holiday then revoke it or go to work that day.

 

[Pens1566]

I'm going with "she's clueless about what's actually in the constitution" for $1000 Alex. She also asked to be told what the 14th and 16th amendments were ...

 

[daishi5]

The anti-"separation" crowd argues otherwise.

I am not certain who the "anti-separation crowd" is, but the name gives me an idea, and I didn't know O'Donnell was one of them. The sad thing is, from what I am hearing, she actually is correct in a "broken clock, twice a day" sort of way. But, the crowd is so dumb that they don't realize it is not actually in there.

 

[Phokus]

I am not certain who the "anti-separation crowd" is, but the name gives me an idea, and I didn't know O'Donnell was one of them. The sad thing is, from what I am hearing, she actually is correct in a "broken clock, twice a day" sort of way. But, the crowd is so dumb that they don't realize it is not actually in there.

Based on the actual exchange, she apparently doesn't know of the establishment clause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miwSljJAzqg#t=06m00s

Which is unbelievable, i'm pretty sure i learned this in grade school.

 

[dainthomas]

If liberals dont like the reason for the federal holiday, Christmas, they should revoke Christmas as a Federal Holiday or shut up. What do you think the federal holiday Christmas, celebrates? It celebrated the Birth of Christ. If you dont like the holiday then revoke it or go to work that day.

Negative. December 25th was the Roman date of the winter solstice, and most of the Christmas "traditions" were appropriated from Saturnalia or Roman New Year traditions.

So at best, it's a Pagan holiday and at worst a celebration of senseless consumerism. Easter is the primary Christian holiday, and that's not a federal holiday.

 

[trenchfoot]

The only possible use for Christine is keeping Harry Reid out of power. Luckily that is itself a noble use.

Well, two possible uses. Imagine her and Patty Murray going nose-to-nose for the title of Most Stupid Senator. Reality television at its finest.

I'd pay front row seat prices to see that happen. My money'd be on Murray. But I'd quadruple down to watch a no-holds barred scream-fest between Palin and McCain in the 2012 primaries. They really do have a score to settle with each other. With Palin's ramblings and McCain's dirty mouth, fun times would be had for all.

 

[OutHouse]

Based on the actual exchange, she apparently doesn't know of the establishment clause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miwSljJAzqg#t=06m00s

Which is unbelievable, i'm pretty sure i learned this in grade school.

i learned in jr high civics what each amendment was but have since forgotten exactly what every one is about except for the big ones always in the news. but then again im not running for congress.

 

[her209]

i learned in jr high civics what each amendment was but have since forgotten exactly what every one is about except for the big ones always in the news. but then again im not running for congress.

I don't know if O'Donnell got the same lessons on the Constitution in middle school, but she did say she took an eight-day class on the Constitution in 2002.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/17/how-tea-partiers-get-the-constitution-wrong.html

 

[Kadarin]

"I'm not a Constitutional scholar. I'm nothing you've heard. I'm you."

Of course she's not a Constitutional scholar. She's a witch.

 

[CallMeJoe]

I'm going with "she's clueless about what's actually in the constitution" for $1000 Alex. She also asked to be told what the 14th and 16th amendments were ...

I could concede that she may be asking if the actual phrase "separation of church and state" or even an approximation of that phrase appears in the Constitution. I like to interpret the Establishment Clause in light of the aforementioned letter from Mr. Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, but I recognize that someone taking a contrary position is not necessarily an airhead.

I do, however, wonder at someone who promises to review every Senate vote for Constitutionality lacking familiarity with the Fourteenth Amendment.

I further find it absolutely comical that a favored candidate of the "Taxed Enough Already" Party doesn't intimately know and loathe the Sixteenth Amendment.

 

[Paratus]

I agree with small govt. conservatives like PeshakJang. Why should the PC "separation of church and state" people be able to stop us from spending tax payer money on displays of the ten commandments and christmas. The documents our constituiton was founded on.

I don't know who this "Jefferson" was but our founding fathers were all God Fearing Christians and they would've wanted us to enforce religious values in the name of freedom and small govt.

Anyway we need a "Religious Czar" in this country to protect religious freedoms by making laws to promote prayer and the true American religion, Morminism.

Anyway I'm voting for O'donnell. What state is she in again?

 

[Paratus]

Of course she's not a Constitutional scholar. She's a witch.

She turned me into a Newt!









I got better....

 

[GoPackGo]

Of course she's not a Constitutional scholar. She's a witch.

Is she a good witch or a bad witch?

But seriously, if she were a witch she could just cast a spell and make herself smarter. DERP!

 

[Siddhartha]

"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."

 

[Paratus]

"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."

Get that liberal drivel out of here!

We're wide awake! And taking back our country! From them!



Oops sorry the troll slipped out.

 

[PJABBER]

Correct. What the Constitution prohibits is the government from establishing a state religion, which was common when it was written. No one really wanted an Anglican Church created by the state.

That has been interpreted more broadly however, and the standard isn't the words in the Constitution, but from a letter by Jefferson written in response to one sent by the Danbury Baptists, the text of which follows.

To which Jefferson replied:

Therefore it isn't "in the Constitution" but rather what Jefferson makes of it.

It's amazing how many "experts" seem to overlook this fact. Certainly someone running for office should have known.

So she answered correctly, but I haven't much confidence if she knew why. She should have been able to pull this out of her butt.

QFT. The U.S. Constitution clearly does not mention “separation of church and state.”

I am really surprised that Coons was not familiar with the detail as he has a law degree from Yale and it should have been brought up in a Constitutional law class.

O'Donnell's degree, on the other hand, is in English literature with a concentration in communications. She was studying for a career in theater, which might still serve her well as that is what politics seems to have become.

Listening to the responses in the debates she has had with Coons, O'Donnell has much more than a passing familiarity with the U.S. Constitution and comes across as a strict constructionist. This is entirely unfamiliar territory for most liberals so they tend to jump at seeming "gotcha" points that are only valid in the rarefied atmosphere of sophomoric exchanges amongst their peers in the echo chamber.

I attribute her being much more correct in her Constitutional viewpoints than Coons has been to the fact that conservatives are generally much more aware of Constitutional issues and consider them regularly as a means of validating political stands, while liberals tend to ignore Constitutionality as they push social agendas.

O'Donnell has become the lightning rod for Democrats but so far she has done very well under pressure.

 

[CrackRabbit]

QFT. The U.S. Constitution clearly does not mention “separation of church and state.”

I am really surprised that Coons was not familiar with the detail as he has a law degree from Yale and it should have been brought up in a Constitutional law class.

O'Donnell's degree, on the other hand, is in English literature with a concentration in communications. She was studying for a career in theater, which might still serve her well as that is what politics seems to have become.

Listening to the responses in the debates she has had with Coons, O'Donnell has much more than a passing familiarity with the U.S. Constitution and comes across as a strict constructionist. This is entirely unfamiliar territory for most liberals so they tend to jump at seeming "gotcha" points that are only valid in the rarefied atmosphere of sophomoric exchanges amongst their peers in the echo chamber.

O'Donnell has become the lightning rod for Democrats but so far she has done very well under pressure.

I attribute her being much more correct in her Constitutional viewpoints than Coons has been to the fact that conservatives are generally much more aware of Constitutional issues and consider them regularly as a means of validating political stands, while liberals tend to ignore Constitutionality as they push social agendas.

When I called you a BS artist in your other thread I wasn't joking.
You have a true talent for forming cow excrement into something that looks interesting, but still smells like shit.

 

[preCRT]

Those that graduated in the bottom half of their classes need someone to make them feel good about themselves, which is why they clung to McCain, Palin & now this idiot. Stupid is as stupid does.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

"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."

The bolded part is what's been the sticking point through the ages. Precisely what does that mean? It's fairly clear that the founders did not want to mandate a religion which would literally be establishing one. On the other hand if it is a cross, does that mean that the founders would abhor it on public land? That doesn't seem likely either.

The problem is that each situation has it's merits. We hear about a cross being displayed in a park as being against the separation of church and state by some, but if that is true, there are a lot of crosses in Arlington Cemetery. Which one of you is going to cut them off?

Unfortunately extremists on both sides will push just as hard as they can leaving the rest of us scratching our heads at their antics.

 

[her209]

"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."

Using semantics, that means state governments CAN make laws establishing religion and prohibit free speech.

:awe: