Watch the difference in TONE in how the Democratic Media reports O’donnell, compared to their new GOP heroine, the unaccomplished, Meghan McCain!

The Democratic Media likes nothing more than an obseqious, sycophant, lapdog Republican – and Meghan McCain learned from the BEST!!

holy hell. i can understand that as a candidate that you can’t possibly know everything there is to know and i as a voter never will expect that but i at least want any candidate that the separation of church and state is in the constitution. so is she smarter than a 5th grader? magic eight-ball says “doubtful”.

norbit, not knowing that the separation of church and state IS in the constitution has nothing to do with the media. you’re changing the subject from general knowledge and knowledge you should know as a candidate for senate and one’s general feelings or perception of how the media treats a candidate. 2 separate things.

NORBIT said:
Watch the difference in TONE in how the Democratic Media reports O’donnell, compared to their new GOP heroine, the unaccomplished, Meghan McCain!

The Democratic Media likes nothing more than an obseqious, sycophant, lapdog Republican – and Meghan McCain learned from the BEST!!

So it isn’t possible that this particular candidate is, um, a little intellectually challenged?

To be clear, there is a valid point to be made here–though I’m not sure whether she was making it or not.

The phrase “wall of separation between church and state” comes from private writings of Thomas Jefferson. It doesn’t appear in the Constitution. What does appear is the two distinct religion clauses of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .”

The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses do not amount to a “wall of separation,” particularly if the Establishment Clause is viewed consistent with its original understanding (which allowed a much higher degree of state entanglement with religion than Courts have allowed in the last 40 or so years).

That having been said, if O’Donnell doesn’t know that there is an Establishment Clause (and thata fair reading of her remarks), then that’s a problem.

Christine is right. Just like Constitutional Lawyer Ann Coulter has pointed out–there is NO SEPERATION OF CHURCH/STATE in the Constitution. It was made up. It is certainly something that needs to be taken up by the current Supreme Court and to strike down the foolishness of that made up thing.

No one can point to ANYWHERE that sep of church/state is in the Constitution. Colby might want to rethink his remarks. Because Christine is smarter than he is ……

Lets also be clear on something else, there’s NOTHING about abortion in the Constitution, that was made up law as well.

Here’s David Limbaugh’s excellent piece on the myth of the separation of church/state:

http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2003/08/30/the_myth_of_church-state_separation

Colby–are you going to edit your remarks so they aren’t so snarky? You are better than that!

From Oct 15-

Azarkhan said:
PS: I got the over/under at 15 for stories run by Mediaite between now and Nov 2 on O’Donnell. I’m taking the over.

So far 7 stories that mention Ms. O’Donnell, 3 of which have her name in the title. I’m winning that bet!

Captain America is right as well. Separation of church and state as we now know it came about from a 20th century Supreme Court decision, not as a Constitutional article.

On another point, look how quick the left media is all over this. Weren’t as quick to jump about the “57 states” gaffe from the Annoited One, were they?

More of the same.

Oh, Shit! She was closing the gap to the point Obonga and BiteMe were
back in the state shilling for Coons! Lean Forward will crucify her for the rest of today
and tonight! That in itself would not be a large problem as they have very few listeners.
But the DNC and msm will go crazy!
Coons is an absolute abysmal choice for Senator from the State of Delaware but that may have just
nailed it for him!
Hoping she can overcome that one!
That was almost as stupid as Conway nailing it for sure for Rand with that
ad and his debate performance couple nights ago!

It’s not in the Constitution.

Separation of church and state did not enter our jurisprudence until Justice Black’s decision in Everson v. the Board of Ed. Most 1L con law students know this. Mr. Coons should have known this as well. Instead he exploited the mass confusion of the issue.

But these issue, ie, Church/State, evolution, etc are not the top priorities of DE voters. Stick to the economy, guys.

Let’s put the “Bearded Marxist” Coons under the same O’Donnell microscope and see how he fares.

Doesn’t fit the far left narrative you say…?

Delaware, Coons’ hand is in your pocket and he’s not even there yet…THINK!

Colby thought that he had a story proving the idiocy of O’Donnell for using the “seperation of church and state” phrase, but he only made himself look like a dolt when he said, “its worth noting that no where in the U.S. Constitution does the phrase ‘separation of church and state’ appear.”

Instead of critisizing the woman, perhaps you should praise her intelligence for knowing that those words dont appear in the Consitution.

“Of course its worth noting that no where in the U.S. Constitution does the phrase “separation of church and state” ”

Of course that didn’t stop Colby from running with his bias anyway. As opposed to provoking a thoughtful discussion on the matter.

“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”
—THOMAS JEFFERSON

P.S.
In 1797 the United States ratified the Treaty of Tripoli, which was negotiated by George Washington himself and signed by his successor, John Adams. The treaty declared that “the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” Congress unanimously approved the text of this treaty.

Ask yourselves if Mediaite finds ANY fault what-so-0ever with any Democrats. If they do, it never rises to the level of a story. Unlike the daily beat down of Republicans.

Face it, Mediaite is nothing more than ANOTHER arm of the Democrat party. All they’re doing is trying to save votes for Democrats in November.

Geoff Hines said:
i at least want any candidate…knowing that the separation of church and state IS in the constitution

Article and Section of the Constitution that mentions that? Below is a link to help you out-

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

What would we do without the media providing 24/7 Christine O’Donnell coverage?

But I guess they need something to divert the public’s attention away from:

unemployment,
the stagnant economy,
the coming tax increase on January 1,
the latest news on casualties from Afghanistan,
the broken Congressional budgeting process,
the rising national debt,
the $100 trillion in unfunded future liabilities from Democrat entitlements,
the nuclear threat from Iran,
the falling dollar,
the discredited US foreign policy,
the failed stimulus bill,
the lack of government transparency,
the passage of bills without reading them,
the declining favorability rating for President Obama,
the anticipated Democrat losses in Congress,
the expected Democrat losses in the Senate,
the border problem,
the Ground Zero mosque fiasco,
the terror threat,
widespread government waste and corruption,
…and all the other important stories that the leftwing media would prefer to hide.

Of course, the O’Donnell jokes are tired and old now. But what else can the media do? They certainly don’t want to cover any of the above stories. Maybe some more miners will get caught in a mine…and then the media can continue to ignore all the big issues until election day.

But they will find, to their horror, that what happens on election day can’t be ignored.

Ok. Good explanation and comeback!
Christine O’Donnell can still win here.
Chris Coons is a horrible, horrible choice and everyone here knows it.
Barry and Biteme were in Delaware for a reason.
They are reading real poll numbers.

So the conservatives are pointing out that the exact phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution, while also pointing out that abortion isn’t mentioned anywhere. Yet those purported omissions apparently justify a.) integrating church and state, or at least not separating them, and simultaneously justify b.) banning abortion. These so-called “originalists” do nothing but twist the text like a post-modern literary critic to find justification for whatever they want to do.

Anonymous Finch had a great analysis, and I think it’s an entirely fair interpretation of O’Donnell’s muddled remarks — especially the “You’re telling me that’s in the First Amendment?” question in response to Coons’ bringing up the Establishment Clause, to which the answer is an unqualified yes. (I’d also add the “no religious test” clause in Article VI as further evidence of the framers’ intentions.) To interpret O’Donnell’s question as looking for that exact phrase, surrounded by quotation marks, in the Constitution smacks of narrow-minded casuistry.

(But because I’m making a point here and have actually read the Constitution, I can’t wait for the conservatives to jump in and call me “a libby POS” and an “idiot” and continue to uphold the civility of public discourse that they so loudly promote.)

She is right! If something is not explicitly stated in the constitution, how can you liberals assume things? Does the constitution state that a Delaware senator needs to have read the constitution? NO! Christine is actually complying WITH the constitution by NOT reading it. You liberal fools make me sick.

Colby, if you are going to use a strike-out HTML tag….make your pronouns agree.

Maybe Karl Rove Meghan McCain was right when he notoriously referred to the Sarah Palin endorsed Tea Party candidate as a “nutjob”?

Vidiot said:
(But because I’m making a point here and have actually read the Constitution, I can’t wait for the conservatives to jump in and call me “a libby POS” and an “idiot” and continue to uphold the civility of public discourse that they so loudly promote.)

You are a Libby POS and an idiot-ok you can stop waiting now. In truth. while I disagree, you state your opinion very credibly.

Vidiot said:
These so-called “originalists” do nothing but twist the text like a post-modern literary critic to find justification for whatever they want to do.

That is a part of why the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution they way they did. It was set up to be a living document subject to interpretation. It works; sometimes it is interpreted against one person’s viewpoint, but it always can be changed.

That’s the beauty and the annoyance of our charter.

Dronetek said:
Ask yourselves if Mediaite finds ANY fault what-so-0ever with any Democrats. If they do, it never rises to the level of a story. Unlike the daily beat down of Republicans.

Face it, Mediaite is nothing more than ANOTHER arm of the Democrat party. All they’re doing is trying to save votes for Democrats in November.

You must be new here. Welcome to the legion of conservative commentators that have said exactly what you have said. Now, please provide an argument of substance outside of the hackneyed ‘Mediaite is a liberal rag’ schitck.

If you dislike it so much, then why waste your time reading it? Wouldn’t it be easier to just go to a website that confirms and validates all of your theories and fears? No, it seems that you are like Bloyer, having only an interest in stirring the partisan pot rather than engaging in an honest discourse of ideas.

lazzzlo said:
That is a part of why the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution they way they did. It was set up to be a living document subject to interpretation. It works; sometimes it is interpreted against one person’s viewpoint, but it always can be changed.

That’s the beauty and the annoyance of our charter.

But, when coupled with the power of judicial review, that view of Constitutional interpretation is dangerous and anti-democratic. It means that 9 unelected judges with lifetime appointments can strike down acts of democratically elected legislatures (Congress and state legislatures) and create new “rights” based on nothing more than their “viewpoint” and “interpretation.” That’s not judging; that’s Platonic guardianship.

AnonymousFinch said:
But, when coupled with the power of judicial review, that view of Constitutional interpretation is dangerous and anti-democratic.

It can be, but it is also what keeps the majority from oppressing the minority.

AnonymousFinch said:
But, when coupled with the power of judicial review, that view of Constitutional interpretation is dangerous and anti-democratic. It means that 9 unelected judges with lifetime appointments can strike down acts of democratically elected legislatures (Congress and state legislatures) and create new “rights” based on nothing more than their “viewpoint” and “interpretation.” That’s not judging; that’s Platonic guardianship.

The concept was to keep them non-partisan…unfortunately, it doesn’t stop them from cramming their ideologies down our throats.

If you had term limits for the SCOTUS, and given the lowering of the bar for candidates this year, you just might end up with an O’Donnell or Palin in there….and that truly would be terrifying!

CaptainAmerica said:
Here’s David Limbaugh’s excellent piece on the myth of the separation of church/state: http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2003/08/30/the_myth_of_church-state_separation Colby–are you going to edit your remarks so they aren’t so snarky? You are better than that!

Ahhh Townhall. That is a real objective site. Thanks

AnonymousFinch said:
lazzzlo said:
That is a part of why the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution they way they did. It was set up to be a living document subject to interpretation. It works; sometimes it is interpreted against one person’s viewpoint, but it always can be changed.

That’s the beauty and the annoyance of our charter.

But, when coupled with the power of judicial review, that view of Constitutional interpretation is dangerous and anti-democratic. It means that 9 unelected judges with lifetime appointments can strike down acts of democratically elected legislatures (Congress and state legislatures) and create new “rights” based on nothing more than their “viewpoint” and “interpretation.” That’s not judging; that’s Platonic guardianship.

I knew when I posted that I was leaving a lot of thought out! dammit!

Judicial review is part of the flawed concept; it is partisan and it is lifetime. Basically, it’s a good system….however, a benevolent system definitely only works if you are in agreement with the majority.

We offer recourse; but that is easier said than done. The alternative is “chaos”.

SpineCrusher said:
If you had term limits for the SCOTUS, and given the lowering of the bar for candidates this year, you just might end up with an O’Donnell or Palin in there….and that truly would be terrifying!

I’m conservative but I would hope that O’Donnell, Palin or Grayson and Alvin Greene wouldn’t pass the judicial muster in committee.

Also, remember that a fair amount of the judicial renderings are submitted by the law clerks.

AnonymousFinch said:
The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses do not amount to a “wall of separation,” particularly if the Establishment Clause is viewed consistent with its original understanding (which allowed a much higher degree of state entanglement with religion than Courts have allowed in the last 40 or so years).

That having been said, if O’Donnell doesn’t know that there is an Establishment Clause (and thata fair reading of her remarks), then that’s a problem.

I really thought that brief clip was unfair, and then these “reporters” simply assume that she actually didn’t know.
I can’t be sure but I find it completely reasonable that she was asking that question to highlight the fact that the phrase “separation of church and state” isn’t in the constitution. I’m thinking a larger clip will demonstrate.

This is the kind of “create a story even if none exists” crap I really dislike about our media.

The Constitution only prohibits the government from establishing a state religion. However, when the Texas State School Board puts religious themes and rewrites history, they are pushing for a “Christian” take on everything to be taught in public government sponsored schools. This clearly goes over the line because it formally backs a specific religious belief system, Judeo-Christian, as the one true religion.

It isn’t in the Constitution in the sense Coons was using it . Not establishing (a state) religion is not the same thing as government attempts aimed at actively disestablishing religion.

Coons was wrong, O’Donnel was right, and Colby Hall is a hack.

“some would argue that to ask such a question reveals a level of naivete that certainly doesn’t help one’s political efforts.”

Others would point to what she’s been about for the last 15 years. She — like Glenn Beck and David Barton — are not interested in a separation of church and state. She wants the gov’t to teach religulous ideas, and the naive people are ones who don’t understand this about her and Palin and many others in the Tea Party movement.

If you go to 7:00 of the video you’ll see that O’Donnell is questioning whether the “establishment” bit appears in the 1st. It’s not just about the “separation” phrase as O’Donnell’s spokesman would have you believe.

All of this could have been prevented if their opponents had opposed the teapartiers in the right way:

http://24ahead.com/s/tea-parties

In cases like DE it’s in the Dems’ interest to have a teaparty candidate, but in cases like NV it doesn’t. If, instead of playing the race card and sneering at those not like them, the Dems had taken the far easier route and simply showing how libertarian-leaning loons are wrong they wouldn’t be in this spot.

murphy0071 said:
The Constitution only prohibits the government from establishing a state religion. However, when the Texas State School Board puts religious themes and rewrites history, they are pushing for a “Christian” take on everything to be taught in public government sponsored schools. This clearly goes over the line because it formally backs a specific religious belief system, Judeo-Christian, as the one true religion.

That is a fair point. I believe in “States rights”. Judicial review is set up to “oversee” for the long term and “technically” not be partisan or whimsical.

There isn’t an easy answer.

CaptainAmerica said:
Here’s David Limbaugh’s excellent piece on the myth of the separation of church/state: http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2003/08/30/the_myth_of_church-state_separation Colby–are you going to edit your remarks so they aren’t so snarky? You are better than that!

Surely ye jest -

I’m not convinced that he is!

From updated story: “Chris Coons who demonstrated his Constitutional ignorance when he could not name the five freedoms contained in the First Amendment.”

Colby, where’s the seperate headline: Coons doesn’t know what’s in the First Amendment

If you have any sense of being objective, you’ll put that story up.

soory folks – im for Coons big time – but ODonnell was entirely accurate here and supposedly educated folks like Colby hall just dont understand the history of this phrase.

Im an absolutist on separation – but that doesnt change the reality here.

The words “separation of Church and State” aren’t in the Constitution, but the separation of Church and State is a Constitutional protection we as Americans depend on to keep religion from encroaching on our individual rights as secured by the Constitution and protected by the government. No one religious takes special precedence over another, nor will that religion be forced upon the citizenry.

Unless, that is, conservatives can defend the concept of Sharia law on principle now.

zombietimeshare said:
It isn’t in the Constitution in the sense Coons was using it . Not establishing (a state) religion is not the same thing as government attempts aimed at actively disestablishing religion.

Wait, how was Coons using it the sense of “actively disestablishing religion”?

The conversation was on the legitimacy of a theologically-based theory of creation in public schools, not whether individuals can teach or expose their own children to the theory of intelligent design.

So, O’Reilly factually states that Muslim’s killed us on 9/11 and the liberal left injects all kinds of meaning into those words and goes crazy.

O’Donnell factually states that the words separation of church and state are not in the constitution and the liberal left injects their own interpretation of her “meaning” and uses that against her to portray her as crazy

Geez, what next…..

Oh, I know, November 2nd

The epitome of Republicant brilliance. The Conservative mind lacks a fundamental sense of inner intelligense and decency. It never grows – it never deepens. It repeats only what it is told. Goose-stepping goons of conformity. Pretending to be outwardly solvent – but is inwardly bankrupt at all times. Our “Idiot Culture.”

Fox News: We proudly pander to Teabaggers said:
“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”—THOMAS JEFFERSON P.S.In 1797 the United States ratified the Treaty of Tripoli, which was negotiated by George Washington himself and signed by his successor, John Adams. The treaty declared that “the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” Congress unanimously approved the text of this treaty.

Thomas Jefferson Quotes:

The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.

Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. XV, p. 383

The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses.

Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Alberty Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XII, p. 315,

I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others.

Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies from the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Grey & Bowen, 1830), Vol. III, p. 506

I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.

Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington, D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIV, p. 385

Those who attribute the Treaty of Tripoli quote to George Washington make two mistakes. The first is that no statement in it can be attributed to Washington (the treaty did not arrive in America until months after he left office); Washington never saw the treaty; it was not his work; no statement in it can be ascribed to him. The second mistake is to divorce a single clause of the treaty from the remainder which provides its context. It would also be absurd to suggest that President Adams (under whom the treaty was ratified in 1797) would have endorsed or assented to any provision which repudiated Christianity. In fact, while discussing the Barbary conflict with Jefferson, Adams declared:
The policy of Christendom has made cowards of all their sailors before the standard of Mahomet. It would be heroical and glorious in us to restore courage to ours.

John Adams, Works, Vol. VIII, p. 407, to Thomas Jefferson on July 3, 1786

Furthermore, it was Adams who declared:
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature.

John Adams, Works, Vol. X, pp. 45-46, to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813

So…let see here – Christine was 100 percent correct and Coons was ignorant. And we have a headline about O’Donnel but not one on Coons. Seems standard for this site. The dem gets a pass, the pubbie gets criticized even though the pubbie was right and the dem was wrong. Bizzare.

At least Colby included the update in the article. Too bad he couldn’t find time to write another headline about how RIGHT CHRISTINE WAS AND HOW WRONG COONS WAS.

That’s the “fairness” here. So sad…someday the media will wake up and say what the hell happened. It shouldn’t be too much longer, we americans are fed up to our eyebrows with the complete democrat propaganda being spewed on NBCCBSABCMSNBCCNN. I’m sure FNC has the story correct, since they are the only network that isn’t in the back pocket of the democrats – and it is why FNC is dominating the cable ratings game.

It would be nice if mediaite recognized their own bias and addressed it. I still have hope that someone here will wake up and smell the coffee.

musiccityvic said:
Thomas Jefferson Quotes:

The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.

Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. XV, p. 383

The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses.

Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Alberty Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XII, p. 315,

I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others.

Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies from the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Grey & Bowen, 1830), Vol. III, p. 506

I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.

Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington, D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIV, p. 385

Those who attribute the Treaty of Tripoli quote to George Washington make two mistakes. The first is that no statement in it can be attributed to Washington (the treaty did not arrive in America until months after he left office); Washington never saw the treaty; it was not his work; no statement in it can be ascribed to him. The second mistake is to divorce a single clause of the treaty from the remainder which provides its context. It would also be absurd to suggest that President Adams (under whom the treaty was ratified in 1797) would have endorsed or assented to any provision which repudiated Christianity. In fact, while discussing the Barbary conflict with Jefferson, Adams declared:
The policy of Christendom has made cowards of all their sailors before the standard of Mahomet. It would be heroical and glorious in us to restore courage to ours.

John Adams, Works, Vol. VIII, p. 407, to Thomas Jefferson on July 3, 1786

Furthermore, it was Adams who declared:
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature.

John Adams, Works, Vol. X, pp. 45-46, to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813

I get that you’re trying to prove that the Founders were Christian in response to someone saying that the Constitution was not founded on Christian values, but what part of the Constitution says that Christian values are the standard by which citizens governed by the Constitution should ascribe to?

Can anyone imagine her and Sharon Angle debate each other on the Constitution? I would pay to see that!

Christine was correct to question Coons and show how really stupid he is and the Law School Students who hollared and booed are just that; stupid! Whoever is teaching them on constitutional law; or are they, they are ignorant of what the 1st Amendment says or implies! Look it up youselves! Where in the 1st amendment does it contain any separation of church and state clause! Not only that but Stupid Coons does not even know the 5 areas that ARE protected by the 1st Amendment and glenn113, if you are so fricken smart, what are they?

lazzzlo said:
That is a part of why the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution they way they did. It was set up to be a living document subject to interpretation. It works; sometimes it is interpreted against one person’s viewpoint, but it always can be changed.

That’s the beauty and the annoyance of our charter.

Actually, they provided a method by which the Constitution could be amended. And I doubt that they ever imagined that their original intentions would someday be viewed as totally irrelevant, or that their clear meaning would be twisted 180°.

Nachi said:
The epitome of Republicant brilliance. The Conservative mind lacks a fundamental sense of inner intelligense and decency. It never grows – it never deepens. It repeats only what it is told. Goose-stepping goons of conformity. Pretending to be outwardly solvent – but is inwardly bankrupt at all times. Our “Idiot Culture.”

Are you really a talking chimp?

glenn113 said:
Can anyone imagine her and Sharon Angle debate each other on the Constitution? I would pay to see that!

I am sure they both know it better than you, and I am not trying to be “snarky.”

blurgh. said:
The words “separation of Church and State” aren’t in the Constitution, but the separation of Church and State is a Constitutional protection we as Americans depend on to keep religion from encroaching on our individual rights as secured by the Constitution and protected by the government.

If the words “separation of Church and State” aren’t in the Constitution, how do you come up with “the separation of Church and State is a Constitutional protection we as Americans depend on to keep religion from encroaching on our individual rights as secured by the Constitution and protected by the government”?

As an aside, this a very contentious argument that so far has been remarkably free of personal insults on the comments.

Nachi said:
The epitome of Republicant brilliance. The Conservative mind lacks a fundamental sense of inner intelligense and decency. It never grows – it never deepens. It repeats only what it is told. Goose-stepping goons of conformity. Pretending to be outwardly solvent – but is inwardly bankrupt at all times. Our “Idiot Culture.”

This idiot tells me how unitelligent I am and yet he can’t even spell.

musiccityvic said:
Thomas Jefferson Quotes:

hey, I can hit Ctrl-C just like the conservatives in here!

“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose.”
- Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813

“I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology.”
“Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law.”
- Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814

George Washington:
“Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.”
- letter to Edward Newenham, 1792
“Gouverneur Morris had often told me that General Washington believed no more of that system (Christianity) than did he himself.”
-Thomas Jefferson, in his private journal, Feb. 1800

Benjamin Franklin:
“In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the lack of it.”
“The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.”
-in Poor Richard’s Almanac
“I looked around for God’s judgments, but saw no signs of them.”
“Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.”
James Madison:
“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.”
-letter to Wm. Bradford, April 1, 1774
“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.”
-1803 letter objecting use of gov. land for churches

Thomas Paine:
“Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst.”
“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all.”
“The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion.”

Furthermore, John Quincy Adams — who was himself a Unitarian — took his inaugural oath on a book of laws, to further undermine the separation of church and state.

See, at least my cut and pastes are on topic, unlike Azarkhan’s et al.

its not in the constitution. supreme court decision

A little more context of this story and a video with an 8 minute segment

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/19/christine-odonnell-church-and-state_n_767910.html

as you can see, ODonnell seems surprised when Coons actually quotes the first amendment, and earlier can’t remember what other rather crucial amendments are, even though she’s run for office several times and you might think she’d study up when her platform is all about returning to the Constitution.

In the discussion of schools Coons makes perfect sense and is correct that creationism is religious doctrine while evolution is accepted science and that is why one should be taught in public schools and the other reserved for church or home. ODonnell OTOH thinks local school districts should decide what to teach, and dictating they teach science over religious doctrine is somehow the government overreaching.

She seems like a decent lady , but holy shit, she is not Senate material, and Coons clearly is capable.

Vidiot said:
Furthermore, John Quincy Adams — who was himself a Unitarian — took his inaugural oath on a book of laws, to further undermine the separation of church and state.

I did not know that ad always appreciate learning something.

IMO in a time when the country was almost entirely Christian, the fact that our Constitution remains secular , and speaks against the government establishing a religion, is incredibly significant.

Because religion is so diverse and can at times be oppressive I think the framers of our Constitution found a brilliant solution to allow religious freedom, but stem it’s tendency to oppress. We are free to explore whatever religion or philosophy moves us along our journey, but the law protects us from the kind of fundamental oppression we see in other countries. It’s a beautiful thing

Patrick Henry said:
If the words “separation of Church and State” aren’t in the Constitution, how do you come up with “the separation of Church and State is a Constitutional protection we as Americans depend on to keep religion from encroaching on our individual rights as secured by the Constitution and protected by the government”?

The Second Amendment doesn’t say “fully automatic,” but we find it easy enough to justify the government regulation of fully automatic weapons in the general population.

It’s Constitutionally sound to say that there should be a separation of Church and State, based on the language of the Establishment Clause. If it weren’t, then we wouldn’t associate those three words together. Legally speaking, the courts have expanded enough on the Clause to create enough support to the idea that just as the State cannot tell citizens what religion they should or should not practice, no one religion will overshadow any other in the matters of state. Individuals and communities (government officials included) are free to associate with any or no religious belief they see fit.

Basically, the basic concept is that my freedom ends when it begins to encroach upon the freedom of others. If Christian parents want the public school system to teach intelligent design, then any other religious group has as much right to request a curriculum change. If we weren’t a diverse country, it could be as simple as a vote on the local level to decide what gets and doesn’t get in a curriculum. But it’s not that simple, as the Texas textbook controversy and the debate that spawned today’s conversation shows. Voting is never easy, especially when it has to do with religion and the struggle between majorities and minorities. This is why, with the topic of science, the test is as easy as if the theory is scientifically viable. As of yet, intelligent design has not been accepted by the scientific community and is thus not scientifically viable. As such, injecting a faith-based theory into a science class makes little, or more to the point, no sense.

whoops — typo. Make that “underline”, sted “undermine.”

Geoff Hines said:
holy hell. i can understand that as a candidate that you can’t possibly know everything there is to know and i as a voter never will expect that but i at least want any candidate that the separation of church and state is in the constitution. so is she smarter than a 5th grader? magic eight-ball says “doubtful”.

Really? Exactly WHERE IS ‘separation of church and state” in the Constitution? And I want a DIRECT QUOTE reference! IT. IS. NOT. IN. THERE.

I just watched a slightly different clip from the debate {context matters} and on this one as ODonnell and Coons are discussing the first amendment she does say to him “so that’s where that phrase appears?”

after seeing that I again think it’s reasonable to assume that what she was trying to do is make some point about that phrase not being in Constitution. I think she knew it, and was playing what she thought was a nifty game by leading Coons on to get him to admit that the phrase is not in there.

Looks like it backfired. IMO that wasn’t the worst part. Her failure to understand the difference between the science of evolution vs the religious doctrine of creationism was very troubling as she supported allowing local school boards to decide what should be taught. They really are not in any way equal but different theories.

Her inability to answer a question about significant amendments , after several campaigns and running on a return to the Constitution that’s not something easy to overlook. .

MsUnderestimated said:
Really? Exactly WHERE IS ’separation of church and state” in the Constitution? And I want a DIRECT QUOTE reference! IT. IS. NOT. IN. THERE.

and what exactly do you think that means. Here’s the story of why that phrase has become the one that expresses what is written in the first amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

The concept of separation of church and state refers to the distance in the relationship between organized religion on the one hand and the nation state on the other. The term is an offshoot of the original phrase, “wall of separation between church and state,” as written in Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists Association in 1802. Jefferson was responding to a letter that the Association had written him. In that letter, they expressed their concerns about the Constitution not reaching the State level. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution did not yet exist, thus leaving the States vulnerable to federal legislation. In Jefferson’s letter, he was reassuring the Baptists of Danbury that their religious freedom would remain protected – a promise that no possible religious majority would be able to force out a state’s official church. The original text reads: “…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.”[1] The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. The phrase itself does not appear in the U.S. Constitution, although the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

NORBIT said:
Watch the difference in TONE in how the Democratic Media reports O’donnell, compared to their new GOP heroine, the unaccomplished, Meghan McCain!

The Democratic Media likes nothing more than an obseqious, sycophant, lapdog Republican – and Meghan McCain learned from the BEST!!

You aren’t worthy to lick the heels of Meghan McCain’s 5″ pumps.

So O’Donnell’s campaign manager – probably after frantically searching the Constitution – came to the defense of O’Donnell by saying that “She simply made the point that the phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution.” What else would he say – “Christine apologizes for being a dummy.”?

He must think the public at large is as stupid as the empty vessel he “manages”. Some of us watched the debate. O’Donnell was like a deer in the headlights. She in NO WAY “simply made the point” that the phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution.

It sounded like most in the audience were laughing at her, because they knew what the term “separation of church and state” with reference to the Constitution meant.

ard65 said:
Christine was correct to question Coons and show how really stupid he is and the Law School Students who hollared and booed are just that; stupid! Whoever is teaching them on constitutional law; or are they, they are ignorant of what the 1st Amendment says or implies! Look it up youselves! Where in the 1st amendment does it contain any separation of church and state clause! Not only that but Stupid Coons does not even know the 5 areas that ARE protected by the 1st Amendment and glenn113, if you are so fricken smart, what are they?

No, I don’t think so. I had Constitutional law in college. I don’t think either one of them even had it in high school.

I’m sure they know the 2nd, 10th and 14th. That’s not saying much.
But on this next statement I am trying to ask a rational question.and am not joking. There should be some type of rule basic constitutional law course that all people that want to run for a senator or congressman at the very least should be required to pass some type of course based on constitutional law at the very least.

Ms. Underestimated…..

You have a tunnel-visioned take on a larger-scaled concept. The Framers wanted to step back from the European legacy of religious-driven bloodshed that included the cusades, the inquisition, the witch trials, and a ton of others.

On the new continent, they hugely wanted to break from the English tradition of having a version of the Anglican Church.

My guess is that the independent denominations in the US have fared way better on account of those old decisions. Last I saw, they’re not taxed and the rest of us are at liberty to worship as we choose.

Seems like a win-win to me.

I learned this stuff years ago as a college student. One of the few non-math classes that I really benefitted from.

Funny how this article has been removed from Mediaite’s home page.

The reason why the Constitution doesn’t mention God is because religion is up to the States.

At the time of the Declaration of Independence, something like 9 of the 13 colonies had OFFICIAL religions – all Christian (obviously).

The colonies went along with the Declaration and the subsequent Constitution (Bill of Rights, etc.) on the grounds that the FEDERAL government would not ESTABLISH an official religion that undermined their own. This is the meaning of the Establishment clause.

This is why the Constitution doesn’t mention God, BUT EVERY State Constitution DOES mention God (or Creator, etc.) It was up to the States. When “State” is mentioned, what is meant are the states, not “The State”.
(Liberals leave out these little details.)

Therefore, the notion of “Separation of Church and State” DOES NOT EXIST anywhere in the Constitution.

As John Adams said:

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.”

A lot of what people have been taught since an early age is wrong. Chalk it up as more lies from Liberals/Progressives. The internet is slowly allowing the true history to come out.

So the states can say they want to be, um, Catholic? I live in Oregon or Maine and we’re Pentacostal and tax dollars are going to up-keep of the churches? That seems like a weird scenerio.

Back to the main thread….any apologist for this dumb-ass O’Donnell… Bring it.

Although unfortunately presented inarticulately, Ms. O’Donnell is correct that “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution, nor is it a correct interpretation of the Establishment clause. The sole meaning of the Establishment clause was to prohibit the federal government from preferring one faith as a national religion. The 20th century Supreme Court rulings expanding that clause to incorporate the bigoted 19th century anti-Catholic concept of “separation of church and state” is an unconstitutional exercise of judicial overreach, as well as creating a jurisprudence which even pro-separationists acknowledge is incoherent. We need to amend the first amendment to restore the original meaning of its establishment clause, which is non-preference among denominations, not secular hostility to faith in general. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com.

Matt Moran, campaign manager for Christine O’Donnell, …stated :

“Christine O’Donnell was not questioning the concept of separation of church and state as subsequently established by the courts. She simply made the point that the phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution. It was in fact Chris Coons who demonstrated his Constitutional ignorance when he could not name the five freedoms contained in the First Amendment.”

Moran must think people are stupid. Coons READ the 1st Amendment during the debate. The O’Donnell campaign is counting on voter ignorance to win. That got her this far.

Next week she’ll employ the winning strategy: a whisper campaign that Coons is a black man or gay or Muslim…facts matter not at all.

Timely Renewed says: “The 20th century Supreme Court rulings expanding that clause to incorporate the bigoted 19th century anti-Catholic concept of ‘separation of church and state.’”

That “bigoted” concept of separation of church and state comes from Thomas Jefferson. This is the reason that the conservatives had references to Jefferson taken out of the text books in Texas; they (you) want to turn the radical U.S. Constitution on its head and make it a spiritual, instead of a secular, document.

This is absurd and dangerous, Timely, and it’s the reason that those law students were laughing AT O’Donnell, not with her. She thought she had Coons by the short hairs, when what she was doing is showing her hard core reactionary (pre-American Revolution) desire to make the country a Christian nation.

Alz says: “The reason why the Constitution doesn’t mention God is because religion is up to the States.”

No where in the U.S. does the state get to organize a religion. That’s how federal government works, and that’s not a liberal/progressive notion. That’s a political idea which used to transcend left and right. Now the right, with its growing channels of misinforming propaganda, is twisting the meaning of widely understood ideas. The first Amendment applies to all Americans in all states.

GlennBeckReview said:
Alz says: “The reason why the Constitution doesn’t mention God is because religion is up to the States.”

No where in the U.S. does the state get to organize a religion. That’s how federal government works, and that’s not a liberal/progressive notion. That’s a political idea which used to transcend left and right. Now the right, with its growing channels of misinforming propaganda, is twisting the meaning of widely understood ideas. The first Amendment applies to all Americans in all states.

Nope. The Federal Government has enumerated powers. Everything else is left to the individual States.

That’s one of the reasons why the States agreed to the Union in the first place. At the time of the Declaration of Independence, something like 9 of 13 colonies had OFFICIAL religions.

Our entire system is based on Judeo-Christian ideals.

See http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=1995&month=04

The liberals have been lying to us for scores of years.

Alz says:
“Nope. The Federal Government has enumerated powers. Everything else is left to the individual States.”

I’m sorry if you don’t understand how federalism works. Liberals are not lying, and the uber-conservative Hillsdale College is no reliable source of information about anything. I’ve had contact with them; they’re idiots. One prof there wrote me, “People believe what they believe.” Libertarians also recognize the separation of church and state as a federal notion. The state may not shove some god down our throats.

The reason states agreed to join the Union is because of the bill of rights that protect everyone from religious tyranny from any state.

Reactionaries are trying to institute a new religious tyranny by claiming that the federal Constitution isn’t a federal Constitution. That’s what O’Donnell, David Barton, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are attempting.

Guess what reactionaries: we have a secular, federal Constitution, and rational adults are not going to let you kids put God back into our bedrooms, schools or — for those who have matured beyond the need for an invisible belief — lives.

Glenn Beck says what the people who don’t think are thinking. Of course, the people that he “wakes up” are still sleep walking in the dark; they just think that they are “awake.” (Hitler had the same effect of people who had never been active in politics before he came along.)

GlennBeckReview said:
Alz says:
“Nope. The Federal Government has enumerated powers. Everything else is left to the individual States.”

I’m sorry if you don’t understand how federalism works. Liberals are not lying, and the uber-conservative Hillsdale College is no reliable source of information about anything. I’ve had contact with them; they’re idiots. One prof there wrote me, “People believe what they believe.” Libertarians also recognize the separation of church and state as a federal notion. The state may not shove some god down our throats.

The reason states agreed to join the Union is because of the bill of rights that protect everyone from religious tyranny from any state.

Reactionaries are trying to institute a new religious tyranny by claiming that the federal Constitution isn’t a federal Constitution. That’s what O’Donnell, David Barton, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are attempting.

Guess what reactionaries: we have a secular, federal Constitution, and rational adults are not going to let you kids put God back into our bedrooms, schools or — for those who have matured beyond the need for an invisible belief — lives.

Glenn Beck says what the people who don’t think are thinking. Of course, the people that he “wakes up” are still sleep walking in the dark; they just think that they are “awake.” (Hitler had the same effect of people who had never been active in politics before he came along.)

Nope, again.

Your spouting information without absorbing any new information. Your logic is not new, but wrong is wrong.

First, Hillsdale was the VENUE for the talk. Stanton Evans wrote the talk.

Second, you said “The reason states agreed to join the Union is because of the bill of rights that protect everyone from religious tyranny from any state.” No, false. The religious tyranny was from the Church of England. The colonies were LACED with religion as the colonies were founded on religion by religious people.

As pointed out, many of the colonies had OFFICIAL religions. To say that they were trying to stop their own religions is silly. That facts negate your assertions.

Beck and O’Donnell are just exposing the lies of the left and they are trying to present the facts. The problem (for liberals) is you guys can’t control them. You have to ridicule them rather than engage in logic and reason.

If you were interested in logic and reason, you would embrace the facts and see where it leads rather than trying to include certain facts, exclude others and ridicule people who you don’t like.

What I have discovered over the years is liberals are smart, but they don’t use reason. Smart and wrong is still wrong.

I suspect that the media coverage of O’Donnell will die down now. As she says things that the Left knows is true but that is against their doctrine, they’ll be less interested in covering her.

On the other hand, the personal attacks will continue – but only to the extent that she and her people can’t comment. In other words, the personal attacks will be at a level that makes it one way.

You can see the bias. How much coverage is Alvin Green getting?

CaptainAmerica says:

No one can point to ANYWHERE that sep of church/state is in the Constitution. Colby might want to rethink his remarks. Because Christine is smarter than he is

Replace two words that have the same meaning as Church/state and there you have it! Where do you baggers get this wacky crap? You must live in the real world. Stop buying into the Fox lies, just read it yourself, sheep don’t fare well for long! Yes, O’Donnell is smarter than we think, she could give a second grader a run for their money!

Alz said:
A lot of what people have been taught since an early age is wrong. Chalk it up as more lies from Liberals/Progressives. The internet is slowly allowing the true history to come out.

Just so ya know

United States of America

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids the federal government from enacting any law respecting a religious establishment, and thus forbids either designating an official church for the United States, or interfering with State and local official churches — which were common when the First Amendment was enacted. It did not prevent state governments from establishing official churches. Connecticut continued to do so until it replaced its colonial Charter with the Connecticut Constitution of 1818; Massachusetts retained an establishment of religion in general until 1833. (The Massachusetts system required every man to belong to some church, and pay taxes towards it; while it was formally neutral between denominations, in practice the indifferent would be counted as belonging to the majority denomination, and in some cases religious minorities had trouble being recognized at all.)

The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, makes no mention of religious establishment, but forbids the states to “abridge the privileges or immunities” of U.S. citizens, or to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. In the 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education, the United States Supreme Court held that this later provision incorporates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause as applying to the States, and thereby prohibits state and local religious establishments. The exact boundaries of this prohibition are still disputed, and are a frequent source of cases before the U.S. Supreme Court — especially as the Court must now balance, on a state (similar, but not equivalent to province) level, the First Amendment prohibitions on government establishment of official religions with the First Amendment prohibitions on government interference with the free exercise of religion.

CosmosDan said:
Just so ya know

United States of America

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids the federal government from enacting any law respecting a religious establishment, and thus forbids either designating an official church for the United States, or interfering with State and local official churches — which were common when the First Amendment was enacted. It did not prevent state governments from establishing official churches. Connecticut continued to do so until it replaced its colonial Charter with the Connecticut Constitution of 1818; Massachusetts retained an establishment of religion in general until 1833. (The Massachusetts system required every man to belong to some church, and pay taxes towards it; while it was formally neutral between denominations, in practice the indifferent would be counted as belonging to the majority denomination, and in some cases religious minorities had trouble being recognized at all.)

The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, makes no mention of religious establishment, but forbids the states to “abridge the privileges or immunities” of U.S. citizens, or to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. In the 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education, the United States Supreme Court held that this later provision incorporates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause as applying to the States, and thereby prohibits state and local religious establishments. The exact boundaries of this prohibition are still disputed, and are a frequent source of cases before the U.S. Supreme Court — especially as the Court must now balance, on a state (similar, but not equivalent to province) level, the First Amendment prohibitions on government establishment of official religions with the First Amendment prohibitions on government interference with the free exercise of religion.

The framers never intended for religion to be separate from public life. It was so interlaced into society that no one talked about it – just like we don’t talk about the oxygen that we need that’s in the air. As important as it is, we just assume the air has enough oxygen and we live our lives.

The issue that we face is that we never made an Amendment to the Constitution to specially and completely remove religion from the public square. And without such a change, much of the efforts to squash religion are wrong and unconstitutional.

Plus, our lives are driven by belief – regardless of religion. Liberalism itself is a religion. It’s not an absence of religion. So to say that the Left wants to separate “Church and State” is really about squashing Christianity and replacing it with a dependence on the State. Obama speaks about “belief” and “hope” just like a preacher.

The MAIN reason our system worked for so long is because of our Judeo-Christian system. By removing it, we are seeing all sorts of problems.

From what I have read, the Framers specifically assumed moral and religious teachings that were Christian based. Even the founders who were not so religious recognized that we need a common moral code to operate.

Liberals seem to understand that we need rules of the road so people can drive safely. Liberals also seem to understand that there are rules to making and playing music that, if not followed, mean the music just plain sucks.

There are rules for living too in this country and they are our Judeo-Christian morals and ethics. Take them away and our system falters.

All of the research that i have done – and it is considerable – points to the our system being founded on religious beliefs (Christian) and that there never was any meaning to the First Amendment that demanded that religion be removed from the public square. It’s all made up.

Alz says:
“Beck and O’Donnell are just exposing the lies of the left and they are trying to present the facts. The problem (for liberals) is you guys can’t control them. You have to ridicule them rather than engage in logic and reason.”

The LAST thing Beck is doing is present the facts. Beck is a liar, and he does so for entertainment purposes. There’s no ridicule there, just the facts. There is no desire to “control” Beck or any of his minions; the desire, the need, the righteous thrust of Beck’s detractors is to correct Mr. Beck and his followers who don’t seem to care much about the facts, such as:

There is no mention of God in the Constitution. It is a secular document that historical revisionists like Beck’s buddy, David Barton, want to render spiritual.

In the entire U.S. there is a separation of church and state as ordained by the Constitution’s 1st Amendment. It is thus because it is a federalist document. It is why public schools cannot (and should not) teach religulous beliefs.

You can make the Constitution — as you’re trying to do here — a Christian document until you’re blue in the face, but that doesn’t change it’s secular language. Jefferson knew this; Madison knew this. You, Alz, are WAYYYY out of the mainstream…just like O’Donnell, Beck, Barton and the other reactionaries working to impose their ancient belief systems on the rest of us.

It won’t work: we are a pluralistic society, just the way we were conceived. You have every right to believe whatever nonsense — ancient or contemporary — but you do not have the right to foist your beliefs upon us through the instruments of public institutions.

Alz, you’re not on the wrong side of history; you’re on the wrong side of reason. Luckily, the courts including the SCOTUS have realized that and rejected your brand of spiritual authoritarianism over and over. You’re just flat out wrong. Our system was founded on reason, not beliefs.

http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2010/07/glenn-becks-guest-wrong-on-james.html

From Bob Cesca:

“The Republican strategy for this midterm election is simple: Treat voters like easily manipulated hoopleheads. The GOP and its various apparatchiks are spending untold millions of dollars, much of it from anonymous donors and, perhaps, even some illegal foreign donors, in order to play out this nationwide swindle. They’re investing heavily on the wager that Americans are so kerfuffled by the slow-growth (but growth nevertheless) economy that they’re willing to buy any line of nonsense as an alternative solution.”

Alz says:
“The framers never intended for religion to be separate from public life….”

That is complete bulls#$t. Where do you get your false ideas from, David Barton? Barton attempts the reactionary, religulous historical revisionism that you’re attempting here. You need to reread what Madison wrote about this.

http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2010/07/glenn-becks-guest-wrong-on-james.html

Alz said:
The issue that we face is that we never made an Amendment to the Constitution to specially and completely remove religion from the public square. And without such a change, much of the efforts to squash religion are wrong and unconstitutional.

That’s what I just posted. The 14th amendment was eventually interpreted by the Supreme Court to extend the establishment clause of the 1st into the states. You may disagree but that’s actually how our government works. It may be good to study the works of the founders but they wrote a constitution knowing that future generations would have to make changes and decisions based on a changing society and the 14th amendment was one, and the legal interpretation that extended the 1st amendment establishment clause into the states is another
.

Alz said:
Plus, our lives are driven by belief – regardless of religion. Liberalism itself is a religion. It’s not an absence of religion. So to say that the Left wants to separate “Church and State” is really about squashing Christianity and replacing it with a dependence on the State. Obama speaks about “belief” and “hope” just like a preacher.

Individuals all have a belief system that guides them, some are heavily influenced by various religions and some are not. No religion gets to say their belief system has any claim on our society or our government. That’s specifically written into our Constitution. You’re dead wrong, liberalism is not a religion and it certainly isn’t about squashing Christianity since many liberals are Christian. Most liberals I know will defend people’s right to worship as they choose but when people try to push their religious beliefs on others or come off as if their morals are superior because of their religion then people object. Quoting the Bible doesn’t give your opinion or your belief system any extra weight in a democratic republic. That’s all

Alz said:
The MAIN reason our system worked for so long is because of our Judeo-Christian system. By removing it, we are seeing all sorts of problems.

I’ve heard the argument many times of this country being founded on Judeo Christian principles and I ask, What principles do you think are uniquely Judeo Christian? The fact is many other religions and people who favor no religion also have principles and many of them are the same one Christianity tries to lay claim to. Those principles were around before Christianity was. The principles we need to pay attention to are the ones established in our Constitution. Principles of liberty and equality, and a society that cares about the needs of our fellow citizens.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

We;ve been working on this union ever since, and now We The People are much more than just Christian, and even those that are, don’t agree on things. So we should be honoring the process.

Alz said:
There are rules for living too in this country and they are our Judeo-Christian morals and ethics. Take them away and our system falters.

One group does not get to declare what the proper morals and ethics are, and it’s very clear that people of all religions don’t even agree with each other on what they are, so we use the process outlined in the Constitution of our democratic republic with the one person , one vote guide.

Alz said:
All of the research that i have done – and it is considerable – points to the our system being founded on religious beliefs (Christian) and that there never was any meaning to the First Amendment that demanded that religion be removed from the public square. It’s all made up.

The whole country, including the Constitution is all made up isn’t it? I’m sure the founders could never imagine the diversity we have right now but I also think they were smart enough to understand that a nation was better off founded on certain non religious principles mentioned in the Constitution. We have to live in the country we have now , with all it’s diversity, and apply the Constitution to present day. I don’t think people are trying to remove religion from the public square, but we need to understand how it best applies to modern society and a very diverse country. No religion has any higher status among we the people and the principle of liberty and religious freedom.

It’s not about using select quotes to try and understand what the founders thought 200+ years ago. It’s about understanding the ongoing history of this changing country and applying those foundational principles from a non religious constitution, to all people of all religions.

I have no idea why certain sections come out smaller. It’s not intentional in any way.

http://www.angryblacklady.com/2010/10/21/christine-odonnell-is-an-idiot-doesnt-know-separation-of-church-and-state-is-in-the-first-amendment/

Check this out: it’s pretty awesome: http://cnnbc.moveon.org/?id=24638-18093351-A_hvjcx&t=2

welcome to :
===== http://www.goshops.org/ ======
This is a shopping paradise