Christine O'Donnell, first amendment.. wha?

[Patrick Degan]

The principle of church/state separation is established in the constitution not only by the first amendment prohibition but also article 6's prohibition against any religious test for public office. The fourteenth amendment further reinforces the separation doctrine, applying it to the nation as a whole through the principle of inclusion. As articulated in Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township 330 U.S. 1 (1947):

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

It should be clear to all but the ignorant and dishonest that the statement "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" goes beyond "no state church" and does not allow for Christine O'Donnell's idiotic argument that local schools can play pick-the-prayer and force kids to learn creationism and that the Federal government can't say "boo" about it. It bloody well can do.

[Glocksman]

Indeed.
While my personal preferences regarding certain social issues (reproductive rights*) are more conservative than many of my Democratic brethern would like, I would not dream of having them encoded into law because I recognize the Constitution isn't a 'pick and choose' menu.

So-called 'conservatives' like O'Donnell are an insult both to those on all sides who genuinely wish to adhere to the BoR and to the few principled conservatives remaining in the Republican party.


*I am generally in favor of 'choice', but I do believe that absent exigent circumstances, a minor should require parental permission for an abortion.

[xerex]

Seriously, people think she is qualified to run for office?

there are people on Palin's website who think O Donnell just proved that separation of church and state is not in the constitution

Please give me a link to this.

its on Palin's Facebook page.

[Molyneux]

I actually found the whole issue rather amusing. Amendment 1 says "no state religion!" and four other pretty important things. O'Donnell sticks to strict interpretation. Fine. Coons says "separation of church and state! It's in the Constitution!" Factually wrong. Jefferson's and Madison's writings strongly argue that the state shall have no laws regarding religion. Fine again, and now we're just talking semantics and what the Constitution says versus what two of the founders said expanding on the text.

And it all turned into a big-ass, knee-jerk side show for the actual debate issues, which received NO attention; par for the course in election year politics. I feel like I'm back in middle school.

Hmm...maybe I'll ONLY vote for the candidates I'd bone! It would make voting an easy, 3-minute little bit of the old in-out.

Did you watch the video? At all?
The original topic that spawned the "separation of church and state" tangent was talking about teaching creationism in public schools. You would have to be sticking your head so far up your own ass that you start resembling an Ouroboros with a digestive problem in order to come to the conclusion that "Congress shall make no law respecting religion" somehow doesn't apply the principle to government-run schools.

This has come up in courts again and again and again, and the result has never been anything other than clear. You cannot fucking teach religion in schools, you idiot.

[CaiusWickersham]

At the risk of being utterly redundant, I'm just going to say this very slowly and with little words so perhaps even the denser lurkers can understand:

There is a separation of church and state expressed by the Constitution plain text: the two cannot be one. This was a major issue when the Constitution was being drafted as the colonies had a number of religious sects who all wanted to kill each other: Anglicans, Puritan Non-Conformists (Baptists, Methodists, etc.), Catholics, Quakers, Dutch Calvinists, among others. In order to bring these groups behind the Constitution, the Framers knew they had to be neutral, hence the "No religious test" requirement. Madison took it a little further with the First Amendment and described it in great detail in his "Remonstrance" essay. Madison borrowed from Locke almost lock, stock, and barrel the freedom of conscience, again establishing separation of church and state ("You can't make me worship in a way I don't want to.").
This wasn't a thought shared solely by Jefferson and Madison. George Washington wrote to the Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island:

All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent national gifts. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

If anyone wants some more examples, I can talk to my Constitutional Law professor and see if I can some more writings.

[Flagg]

You cannot fucking teach religion in schools, you idiot.

Of course you can. In fact my 9th grade social studies class had a whole section dedicated to teaching religion. You simply cannot instruct students to worship.

[Phantasee]

Comparative religion classes != teaching religion. Teaching about religions is different from instructing kids in one religion.

[General Zod]

You cannot fucking teach religion in schools, you idiot.

Of course you can. In fact my 9th grade social studies class had a whole section dedicated to teaching religion. You simply cannot instruct students to worship.

It's pretty clear Molyneux meant instructing students to worship from the context.

[Flagg]

You cannot fucking teach religion in schools, you idiot.

Of course you can. In fact my 9th grade social studies class had a whole section dedicated to teaching religion. You simply cannot instruct students to worship.

It's pretty clear Molyneux meant instructing students to worship from the context.

Then that's what he should have said.

[Phantasee]

He fucking did say it you idiot. You can teach about religions, you cannot teach religion as in indoctrinate them in one religion. Anyone with even a feeble grasp of the English language would have understood what he said.

[Elfdart]

O'Donnell is a complete moron. The 1st Amendment outlaws an establishment of religion, which means a separation of church and state to anyone with any kind of reading comprehension. Naturally, this excludes Fetus Christers, Teabaggers and other undesirables. Besides, if there's no separation of church and state then there's no separation between mosque and state, either. Thanks fundies and teabaggers, you've just approved of sharia law.

OH NOES! TEH MOOSLIMS ARE COMING!

Are you fucking kidding? He's not ignorant, he doesn't give a shit since she's just derailing the debate.

I mean, I'd bone her, but I wouldn't vote for her.

I thought as a Nigella fan you would have better taste than this. I just can't fuck stupid.

[Flagg]

He fucking did say it you idiot. You can teach about religions, you cannot teach religion as in indoctrinate them in one religion. Anyone with even a feeble grasp of the English language would have understood what he said.

No, he said "you can't teach religion" which is blatantly false. I corrected him. If you have a problem with it then feel free to go fuck yourself you stupid mewling cunt.

[Molyneux]

He fucking did say it you idiot. You can teach about religions, you cannot teach religion as in indoctrinate them in one religion. Anyone with even a feeble grasp of the English language would have understood what he said.

No, he said "you can't teach religion" which is blatantly false. I corrected him. If you have a problem with it then feel free to go fuck yourself you stupid mewling cunt.

You idiot, it was clear from context to everyone on this thread but you that I meant the teaching of religion as fact - that is, indoctrination. Teaching about religion is another kettle of fish entirely.

[Mayabird]

It was a valid nitpick/clarification because not everyone knows about the difference. Now that it has been said, everyone shut your stupid fucking yaps over this thread hijack and go back to talking about the stupid insane woman and legalese.

[Andrew J.]

O'Donnel has proven completely incapable of the sort of legal and intellectual analysis that should be required of a United States Senator (or of a county board member, for that matter). No one should want to vote for her, even if they agree with her political positions; anyone who does is a bad citizen, who values partisan dogma over basic competence.

[Broken]

O'Donnel has proven completely incapable of the sort of legal and intellectual analysis that should be required of a United States Senator (or of a county board member, for that matter). No one should want to vote for her, even if they agree with her political positions; anyone who does is a bad citizen, who values partisan dogma over basic competence.

For the true believers to not vote for O'Donnel would require them to place something, anything over their ideology. And that just doesn't happen very often. Especially since there is a disconnect between the act of voting (just push a button/pull a lever; it doesn't really matter who I vote for, it's rigged anyway) and the delayed actions of government and bureaucracy. It is even worse with the Tea Bagger contingent since so many of them seem to view voting as a weapon to be used to punish those they view as actively ruining their country, not as a tool to promote the general welfare of the nation. Or at least that seems to be the vibe I get off the local conservatives/Tea Party folk.

[Broomstick]

However, it appears that O'Donnell has no idea what the text of the First Amendment is, which at least would seem to expose her as a hypocrite.

Does it really matter to Witch Christie whether she actually knows the text of the First Amendment or not?

Please do not call her "witch" Christie - we witches really wish she hadn't admitted to that dabbling bullshit and would disown her if it weren't for the fact she was never in our coven anyhow. It's insulting.

She's a bubble-headed Christer girl who claims "the devil made me do it".

[Gandalf]

Please do not call her "witch" Christie - we witches really wish she hadn't admitted to that dabbling bullshit and would disown her if it weren't for the fact she was never in our coven anyhow. It's insulting.

She's a bubble-headed Christer girl who claims "the devil made me do it".

What's the difference between that and making fun of any other politician who holds or has held wacky beliefs?

[Broomstick]

Because she didn't really hold those beliefs. She's mocking people she's never been a part of, and in manner that does not reflect the beliefs of those she is mocking. It's inaccurate and form of lying.

Basically, she had a midnight fuck with an asshole and used the illicit thrill of what she called a "satanic altar" to add some spice to the arrangement. It's akin to saying she had a fling with Islam by having a fuck in the middle of a mosque.

Mock her for the asstard stupidity of her falling for the jackass's line. Mock her for needing an excuse to fuck beyond "it feels good". Mock her for pretending to be something she wasn't. But don't humor her by allowing to her claim title to beliefs she spits on. That's just playing into her hand.

[Phantasee]

She went to so much effort to deny she was a witch, though. If we're going to oppose her we have to call her one now!

DL Hughley was on Parker Spitzer. On the Tea Party: "They have a fascination with semi-attractive middle-aged white women who shop at Lenscrafters."

Roughly, I cant recall the exact quote.

[Razorgeist]

She went to so much effort to deny she was a witch, though. If we're going to oppose her we have to call her one now!

DL Hughley was on Parker Spitzer. On the Tea Party: "They have a fascination with semi-attractive middle-aged white women who shop at Lenscrafters."

Roughly, I cant recall the exact quote.

I recall something to that effect as well but even I cant remember that whole quote. I believe the main fascination stems from an exuse to deflect allegations of sexism. Its gives them the ability to say "We're not sexist see we've got women! Pretty women too!". Im reminded of what Jason Mattera said at CPAC "Its like Woodstock except our women are beautiful..." something to that affect.

[Majin Gojira]

I would love to know the reaction of those who want to impose Christian laws as state laws and ask them this:

"What happens if Muslims get hold the majority of political offices shortly afterward? Or Buddhists? Or Hindus? And they start imposing their religious laws on the United States? Where does that leave you?"

Given they think there's a "Secret Muslim" in the White House, I wonder how they'd dismiss it?

[Elfdart]

However, it appears that O'Donnell has no idea what the text of the First Amendment is, which at least would seem to expose her as a hypocrite.

Does it really matter to Witch Christie whether she actually knows the text of the First Amendment or not?

Please do not call her "witch" Christie - we witches really wish she hadn't admitted to that dabbling bullshit and would disown her if it weren't for the fact she was never in our coven anyhow. It's insulting.

She's a bubble-headed Christer girl who claims "the devil made me do it".

Does Elvira count?



Bill Maher had it right when he pointed out that the reason the Teabaggers are so fond of these airhead female candidates like O'Donnell and Caribou Barbie is because most Teabaggers are middle-aged white men, whose ideal woman is a 30-40something dipshit housewife.

[Morilore]

I would love to know the reaction of those who want to impose Christian laws as state laws and ask them this:

"What happens if Muslims get hold the majority of political offices shortly afterward? Or Buddhists? Or Hindus? And they start imposing their religious laws on the United States? Where does that leave you?"

Given they think there's a "Secret Muslim" in the White House, I wonder how they'd dismiss it?

Dismiss it? I think they'd agree with you; deep down inside, anyway. I think that is precisely what they are afraid of, if you add "atheists criminalizing church" to that list. Everyone in their world wants to impose their ideas about God or gods on everyone else; no one sincerely wants the government to just stay out of that business. If they don't take control of the country and impose their sectarian rules, they think someone else will or already has. They think "no religion in government" is just a step down a slippery slope towards "no religion anywhere, enforced by guns" because they don't believe anyone sincerely believes in freedom of religion.