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: 203626
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
Comments (1-81) not displayed.
.
.
.
#82. To: Skip Intro, A K A Stone, All (#77)
And there's nothing in the Constitution about CORPORATIONS either.Like Stone's bible, his constitution is the cut and paste version where select segments can be used out of context to make his case.
And thank you very much.
The Problem for A K and his crowd of wealthy prosyletizers is that they just can't hide that they hate Equality.
There Religion DEMANDS an US v THEM way of life.
If the zioFundies were in charge, you'd see ZERO diff between them and any other 'Wahabbi' Sect.
The Fundies ALWAYS have the same mindset. Master meet slave.
#83. To: A K A Stone, All (#81) (Edited)
Atheists are never on the right. They are leftists. Your soviet union is the example or your china.
And I thought you were gone, A K.
SUPER> Cause I have so much more to say!!!! 8D
"Atheists are never on the right."
ThAT ANOTHER COMMANDMENT OF YOURS? Would you burn me at the stake if you caught me? LMFAO
SOURCE NOW. And/Or I'll need your Logic behind that one.
Cause I'm here to tell you that I AM an ATHEIST and Nathan Bedford Forrest and I could be best buddies. LMFAO
#84. To: All (#83)
The first thing Satan does to capture the Populace.
Start an Organized Religion.
#85. To: All (#84)
Start an Organized Religion.
Like just when did that interlocutor meet the god that he (and in religion it's ALWAYS a he;} knows exactly what that god is thinking and can and WILL explain that to the 'flock' (and they literally mean flock-as in time to eat;}.
#86. To: A K A Stone (#80)
What is your point.
That you pick and choose what you want your Constitution to mean.
And that the US Constitution's purpose is to preserve EQUALITY and you and your minions never want to bring that up or the fact that anything you say is NOT in the Constitution has the strange effect of making the UNITED STATES MORE Un equal.
THAT's my point. 8D
And of course the Constitution's FIRST job was to preserve PROPERTY RIGHTS and that the ELITE of the Time did not trust the masses-see Electoral College for details.
But as far as you and STATE Religion go, you'll never get it. And you and your Church can start PAYING taXES AT ANYTIME IF YOU THIN DIFFERENT.
THAT'S MY POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8D
#87. To: mcgowanjm (#61)
off your meds again, huh?
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#88. To: Skip Intro (#78)
Muslim Prayer in Public Schools
http://www.suite101.com/content/muslim-prayer-in-public-schools-a26209
#89. To: no gnu taxes (#88)
This is what the Superintendent says:
"At Carver, we provide afternoon recess for students to play, pray, talk, study or just have a break. Some Muslim students use this time for a prayer that, according to their faith, must be prayed during a specific time window each afternoon. That occurs at recess. Students of other faiths are free to pray or not pray, as they wish, but teachers and staff are prohibited from encouraging or discouraging prayer or from praying with students. " Try again padlock.
#90. To: A K A Stone (#53)
So should the churches kick the voting booths out of their churches?
Why?
#91. To: Skip Intro (#89)
And that's really believable, huh?
--
At Carver Elementary School in San Diego students are praying 15 minutes during an afternoon recess and an hour after lunch. Extra breaks were put into the school day this year to accommodate 100 Muslim students that transferred from a closed Arabic languge program.
No Child Left Behind
Because of the No Child Left Behind mandate, many schools are eliminating recesses to allow more time for reading and math. Even science is being pushed to the back burner to allow more time for teaching. Lengthening the schools day is being considered and all-year school is becoming popular to aid in student information retention. With all this being demanded in other schools, it is surprising that some public schools are adding a recess for religious prayer. (Muslim religious prayer)
Christian Demands
Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute is asking the school district to provide rooms for Christians to pray, as well. "The school policy presumes that Christians are less religious and less inspired to worship and praise the Lord and come together," says Dacus." [Randy Dotinga, The Christian Science Monitor, scmonitor.com, July 12, 2007]
Court Involvement
Lisa Soronen, attorney with the National School Boards Association, says, "Most Americans don’t think about the fact that schools naturally accommodate Christians. There’s no school on Sunday, and we get days off for most of the major Christian holidays." Soronen added that the courts have not ruled on this issue so there is no precedent. Since the American Civil Liberties Union has remained silent on Muslim prayer, it may be up to Christian groups to take this matter to the courts. Meanwhile, schools are unclear how to handle the issue.
#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?)
#93. To: Brian S (#0)
Limbaugh is having a ball with this topic right now.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#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
#95. To: no gnu taxes (#42)
He said:Government shall make no establishment of religion
And he's correct:
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.
Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.
#96. To: Badeye (#50)
Ya know, this is one of those topics that clearly displays who actually knows whats IN THE CONSTITUTION, and who gets their information from the Eliot Spitzers of the world.Few years back, before my biz partner woke the hell up, he insisted 'seperation of Church and State is in the Constitution!' to both myself and my wife, right here in my office.
I looked at my wife, then at him and said 'Thousand dollars, right now, says you cannot find that phrase ANYWHERE within the Constitution.' He said 'Your ON!' and went back to his office.
Five minutes later he came back and said 'You want a check?'
Told him 'nope, you buy all of us (office staff) lunch today'.
He's a staunch Conservative these days.
LOL.
GOOD one!
Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.
#97. To: Capitalist Eric (#96)
Its 100% true. Today he's a Conservative blogger in his free time.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#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.)
#99. To: Badeye (#50)
I looked at my wife, then at him and said 'Thousand dollars, right now, says you cannot find that phrase ANYWHERE within the Constitution.' He said 'Your ON!' and went back to his office....
He's a staunch Conservative these days.
He's not very bright is he?
#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.
#101. To: Brian S (#0)
Christine O'Donnell Asks Where Constitution Calls For Separation Of Church, State
She is correct,the United States Constitution doesn't.
Am I am no church supporter.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.
-In discussions to release J.Pollard.
#102. To: lucysmom (#99)
He's not very bright is he?
Goofy, you are the last person that should be casting negative comments on anyone's intelligence levels.
As I noted, he woke the hell up.
While you choose to remain a idiot, as we see daily.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#103. To: lucysmom (#99)
you cannot find that phrase ANYWHERE within the Constitution.'
Based on your post, I challenge you to copy and paste the section.
Or remain the fool we see here each day.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.
-In discussions to release J.Pollard.
#104. To: WhiteSands (#103)
Or remain the fool we see here each day.
Not fair, you know thats going to be the case no matter what goofy does, or doesn't do./
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#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.
#106. To: WhiteSands (#103)
you cannot find that phrase ANYWHERE within the Constitution.'Based on your post, I challenge you to copy and paste the section.
The phrase is not in the Constitution and the principle is, so to say the phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution is correct. To say, however, that the concept of separation of church and state is not in the Constitution is false. To be accurate one must distinguish between form and content.
#107. To: Badeye (#102)
As I noted, he woke the hell up.
or he just substituted what you said for what someone before you told him.
#108. To: Badeye (#104)
Or remain the fool we see here each day.Not fair, you know thats going to be the case no matter what goofy does, or doesn't do.
It is common courtesy to ping a person you mention in your post.
#109. To: Capitalist Eric (#46)
You don't give a shit about FACTS, either.
What facts, my dear Eric?
Maybe you should STFU and let the adults talk.
No can do. 1st Amendment and all that. You're free however, to put me on filter at any time of your choosing.
#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.
#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.
#112. To: lucysmom (#107)
As I noted, he woke the hell up. or he just substituted what you said for what someone before you told him.
And you wonder why I call you 'goofy'....lol
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#113. To: lucysmom (#108)
Or remain the fool we see here each day. Not fair, you know thats going to be the case no matter what goofy does, or doesn't do.
It is common courtesy to ping a person you mention in your post.
Riiight, cause thats what you do with me all the time....lol
And you wonder why I call you 'goofy'....
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#114. To: meguro (#109)
Still pretending you post from Japan?
rotfl!
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#115. To: Badeye (#113)
Riiight, cause thats what you do with me all the time....lol
I don't?
You have proof?
#116. To: lucysmom (#115)
Riiight, cause thats what you do with me all the time....lol I don't?
You have proof?
I've seen it a few times with you and mingster...the difference is I don't really give a shit.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#117. To: no gnu taxes (#91)
And that's really believable, huh?
Compared to anything you post? Absolutely.
#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.
#119. To: meguro, sneakypete (#109)
Your statement:A US military base isn't considered US soil?
Legally, the answer is "no." That is, the Constitution does NOT apply on U.S. military bases.
If you'd served in the military, you'd already know that.
It's one of the realities of what sneakypete was stating, when he said "The Bill of Rights ONLY applies to people who are on American soil."
That you don't KNOW about this, and instead choose to argue from a position of overt ignorance, demonstrates that you don't give a shit... about FACTS.
No can do. 1st Amendment and all that.
Yeah, you're guaranteed the right to make yourself look like a complete asshat. Congratulations on successfully exercising that right.
Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.
#120. To: no gnu taxes (#118)
Fact is O'Donnell was right.
Yep, and Coons looked ridiculous.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#121. To: Badeye (#114)
To: meguro Still pretending you post from Japan?rotfl!
Still pretending anyone takes you seriously?
Chuckle.
.
.
.
Comments (122 - 236) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]