[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Freepers Still Love war Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump "The Democrat Meltdown Continues" "Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process" "Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working" "Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts" "Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands "Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies" "Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk" KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel "Trade should work for America, not rule it" "The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP" "How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap" ‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’ Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible" "Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!" "If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think" "Ending EPA Overreach" Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED! Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing! Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy? Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia) "Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department" Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent "Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail" Any suggestion that the USA and NATO are "Helping" or have ever helped Ukraine needs to be shot down instantly "Real problem with the Palestinians: Nobody wants them" ACDC & The Rolling Stones - Rock Me Baby Magnus Carlsen gives a London System lesson! "The Democrats Are Suffering Through a Drought of Generational Talent" 7 Tactics Of The Enemy To Weaken Your Faith Strange And Biblical Events Are Happening Every year ... BusiesT casino gambling day -- in Las Vegas Trump’s DOGE Plan Is Legally Untouchable—Elon Musk Holds the Scalpel Palestinians: What do you think of the Trump plan for Gaza? What Happens Inside Gaza’s Secret Tunnels? | Unpacked Hamas Torture Bodycam Footage: "These Monsters Filmed it All" | IDF Warfighter Doron Keidar, Ep. 225 EXPOSED: The Dark Truth About the Hostages in Gaza New Task Force Ready To Expose Dark Secrets Egypt Amasses Forces on Israel’s Southern Border | World War 3 About to Start? "Trump wants to dismantle the Education Department. Here’s how it would work" test "Federal Workers Concerned That Returning To Office Will Interfere With Them Not Working" "Yes, the Democrats Have a Governing Problem – They Blame America First, Then Govern Accordingly" "Trump and His New Frenemies, Abroad and at Home" "The Left’s Sin Is of Omission and Lost Opportunity" "How Trump’s team will break down the woke bureaucracy" Pete Hegseth will be confirmed in a few minutes Status: Not Logged In; Sign In U.S. Constitution See other U.S. Constitution Articles Title: Christine O'Donnell Asks Where Constitution Calls For Separation Of Church, State Source: Associated Press URL Source: http://www.bnd.com/2010/10/19/14432 ... nell-questions-separation.html Published: Oct 19, 2010 Author: Associated Press Post Date: 2010-10-19 11:29:00 by Brian S Keywords: None Views: 202490 Comments: 236 WASHINGTON -- Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware is questioning whether the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from establishing religion. In a debate at Widener University Law School, O'Donnell criticized Democratic nominee Chris Coons' position that teaching creationism in public school would violate the First Amendment by promoting religious doctrine. O'Donnell asked where the Constitution calls for the separation of church and state. 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?" Delaware Senate The exchange Tuesday aired on radio station WDEL generated a buzz among law professors and students in the audience. Subscribe to *Tea Party On Parade* Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 120. #1. To: Brian S (#0) Pssst. She's right. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say a thing about 'seperation of church and state'. The history, and the revisionist history, related to this...theory, is facinating and revealing. It was from a USSC minority ruling, designed to keep a specific religion from attaining elective office, in short. Badeye  posted on  2010-10-19   11:31:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #24. To: Badeye (#1) Pssst. She's right. Huh? here's what she said: 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?" I think this one is pretty clear; 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. go65  posted on  2010-10-19   17:48:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #42. To: go65 (#24) When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion Coons didn't say that. He said: Government shall make no establishment of religion And no, it's not in the Constitution. no gnu taxes  posted on  2010-10-20   9:17:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #52. To: no gnu taxes (#42) Government shall make no establishment of religion And no, it's not in the Constitution. Yeah, he didn't quote verbatim, however its clear that he has the concept of what's in the First Amendment down. Bottom line - can't uphold the Constitution if you don't know what's in it. lucysmom  posted on  2010-10-20   11:19:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #54. To: lucysmom (#52) And no, it's not in the Constitution. Yeah, he didn't quote verbatim, however its clear that he has the concept of what's in the First Amendment down. Not at all. First of all, the 1st Amendment limits the powers of CONGRESS, not government, an important distinction as the basis of the discussion was allowing local schools to teach creation. Second he seems to have completely forgot the first amendment also says that Congrees shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion, something he seems to fully support any form of government doing. no gnu taxes  posted on  2010-10-20   11:25:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #92. To: no gnu taxes (#54) First of all, the 1st Amendment limits the powers of CONGRESS, not government, an important distinction as the basis of the discussion was allowing local schools to teach creation. O’Donnell is running for the Senate, isn't she? Shouldn't she know what laws Congress may and may not pass within the meaning of the Constitution? The point is that she doesn't know what's in the Constitution. Second he seems to have completely forgot the first amendment also says that Congrees shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion, something he seems to fully support any form of government doing. How so? You might find this article interesting: religion.blogs.cnn.com/20...irst-amendment-ignorance/ As the author of Religious Literacy and adviser to the recent Pew Forum U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey, each of which demonstrated the ignorance of Americans about most things religious, I am not surprised that candidates for the U.S. Senate seem as surprised to learn about the Bill of Rights as I am by the latest plot turns in "Glee." (Emma? With John Stamos? Really?) lucysmom  posted on  2010-10-20   13:11:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #94. To: lucysmom (#92) The point is is O'Donnell did know; Coons didn't. The 1st Amendment does not say GOVERNMENT can't establish laws establishing religion as Coons said; it specifically references Conrgress. O'Donnel was right to question him on this, especially since this entire matter was in regards to a local school decision to teach creation. Did you even read my earlier post as you seem to be comnpletly disregarding it. The fact is that Coons was wrong and O'Donnel was right as clearly articulated here. Coons and Widener Students Looked Shockingly Foolish More sensible commentary here no gnu taxes  posted on  2010-10-20   13:32:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #98. To: no gnu taxes (#94) The fact is that Coons was wrong and O'Donnel was right as clearly articulated here. From the posted article: O'Donnell asked where the Constitution calls for the separation of church and state. 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?" From the article you linked The First Amendment establishes that Congress shall declare no official nationwide religion. The First Amendment does not ban the mention of religion in public. In fact, it protects same. Who is arguing that the mention of religion in public is banned? I can't remember a president that did not end a major speech with "God bless America", can you? But then God and religion are not the same thing are they? From James Madison: Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together. The Civil Government, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success; whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the TOTAL SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH FROM THE STATE. (thank you to you know who) (The use of the word "state" in the above should not be confused with "state" as in one of the fifty states.) lucysmom  posted on  2010-10-20   14:20:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #100. To: lucysmom (#98) Coons is arguing it is unConstitutional for school districts to teach creation. O'Donnell argues there is nothing in the Constitution itself which would indicate such. And she is right. It's as simple as that. And given that Madison lead prayers before Congress invoking his Calvinistic belief of Divine Providence, I would say he would agree with O'Donell, too. no gnu taxes  posted on  2010-10-20   14:26:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #105. To: no gnu taxes (#100) And given that Madison lead prayers before Congress invoking his Calvinistic belief of Divine Providence, I would say he would agree with O'Donell, too. Not so fast CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, MARSH v. CHAMBERS Jay and Rutledge specifically grounded their objection on the fact that the delegates to the Congress "were so divided in religious sentiments . . . that [they] could not join in the same act of worship." Their objection was met by Samuel Adams, who stated that "he was no bigot, and could hear a prayer from a gentleman of piety and virtue, who was at the same time a friend to his country." This interchange emphasizes that the delegates did not consider opening prayers as a proselytizing activity or as symbolically placing the government's "official seal of approval on one religious view." Rather, the Founding Fathers looked at invocations as "conduct whose . . . effect . . . harmonize[d] with the tenets of some or all religions." webcache.googleuserconten...nk&gl=us&client=firefox-a Teaching creationism is this context is not the same thing as a Congressional prayer. lucysmom  posted on  2010-10-20   15:28:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #110. To: lucysmom (#105) This interchange emphasizes that the delegates did not consider opening prayers as a proselytizing activity or as symbolically placing the government's "official seal of approval on one religious view. Funny, in this day and age, it most certainly would be. Madison didn't just say a prayer; he invoked his Calvinist beliefs. The first amendment limits the power of CONGRESS in the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to not establish any national religion or prohibit the exercising of any one's religious rights (paraphrasing). It says nothing about what local school boards (or any other local government entity, for that matter) can do. In fact, if a local government chooses to actually teach religion (not just an alternative form of the origins of life) it would be unconstitutional for Congress to pass a law prohibiting it. O'Donnell was simply right. no gnu taxes  posted on  2010-10-20   15:47:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #111. To: no gnu taxes (#110) It says nothing about what local school boards (or any other local government entity, for that matter) can do. In fact, if a local government chooses to actually teach religion (not just an alternative form of the origins of life) it would be unconstitutional for Congress to pass a law prohibiting it. O'Donnell was simply right. The issue becomes a bit cloudy when the local school accepts federal money. lucysmom  posted on  2010-10-20   15:57:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #118. To: lucysmom (#111) The issue becomes a bit cloudy when the local school accepts federal money. Not really. The Feds might make it a condition of receiving the money, but that has nothing to with the Constitutionally of the matter. Except that it might be construed as such conditions by the Feds are unconstitutional as making an end run around the legislative duties of Congress. Fact is O'Donnell was right. no gnu taxes  posted on  2010-10-20   16:14:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #120. To: no gnu taxes (#118) Fact is O'Donnell was right. Yep, and Coons looked ridiculous. Badeye  posted on  2010-10-20   16:21:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 120.         There are no replies to Comment # 120. End Trace Mode for Comment # 120. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com