|
|
Post by waztec on Oct 20, 2010 14:22:27 GMT -8
>>>The absolute moron in Delaware has trouble with that one too. Never mind though, she doesn't even know what it says. (to the laughter of a whole room full of law students)<<< O'Donnell was right and Coons is the one who doesn't know what's in the 1A. He couldn't name the five freedoms in that article. The 1A does not contain the words "separation of church and state", and the Court had this to say as recently as 1984: No significant segment of our society, and no institution within it, can exist in a vacuum or in total or absolute isolation from all the other parts, much less from government. "It has never been thought either possible or desirable to enforce a regime of total separation. . . ." Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 760 (1973). Nor does the Constitution require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any. See, e.g., Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 314, 315 (1952); Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 211 (1948). Anything less would require the "callous indifference" we have said was never intended by the Establishment Clause. Zorach, supra, at 314. Indeed, we have observed, such hostility would bring us into "war with our national tradition as embodied in the First Amendment's guaranty of the free exercise of religion." McCollum, supra, at 211-212.www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0465_0668_ZO.htmlFor more on this so called 'gaffe', go here: pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/108280/" 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." Christine O’Donnell: “Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” I suppose it is in how you read the the amendment. In this case the audience, consisting of law students (I believe), determined that Christine O’Donnell was clueless. I agree. I heard her say what she said. Even so, I acknowledge, as a practical matter, the ruling you pasted is correct, it is impossible to completely separate entities in a complex society. You could argue that a public school teaching creationism is incidental and therefore not subject to the amendment, I suppose. But she did not make that argument. Still, the impossibility of total avoidance of one institution's involvement in the other is not a revolutionary concept and it affects my assertion that Ms. O’Donnell lacks a basic understanding of the Constitution not one iota. But, even you must conclude that the intent of the words indicate that the framers intended government to avoid state sanction of religious issues. Of course my reading comprehension might be off, but that is not likely. Certainly you are too sophisticated to be thrown off by the semantic consideration of the term separation. If you disagree I would be interested in knowing what you think, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, means if it is not an effort to keep the government from legislating religion or religious issues. Perhaps Ms. O’Donnell should go back to exposing the dangers of what we referred to in the confessional as self abuse. She will not become Delaware's U.S. Senator. Yes, God is truly good if he saves us from her.  |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Oct 20, 2010 15:33:23 GMT -8
>>>...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, means if it is not an effort to keep the government from legislating religion or religious issues.<<<
Exactly right. "Congress shall make no law".
As the Court said in the case cited, the amendment did not abolish religion from the public square.
That the law students 'laughed' is a reflection on the education indoctrination they are receiving.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 20, 2010 15:47:48 GMT -8
I think if all the facts were laid out and we really understood what was said and what was meant by what was said the "Dunce from Delaware" would not be the one wearing a skirt.
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Oct 20, 2010 15:54:55 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Oct 20, 2010 16:26:59 GMT -8
>>>...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, means if it is not an effort to keep the government from legislating religion or religious issues.<<< Exactly right. " Congress shall make no law". As the Court said in the case cited, the amendment did not abolish religion from the public square. That the law students 'laughed' is a reflection on the education indoctrination they are receiving. Nope. The First amendment is clear. A room full of people educated to read and interpret law laughing at that poor, stupid woman ought to be your first clue that you have a problem. I know, I know, to be highly educated in a field is no longer a prerequisite for authoritative assertions in the Republican realm. Otherwise you would not ridicule established science. Otherwise that poor stupid woman would have had no chance to win a nomination for the U.S. senate. Why did you attend college if knowing and understanding something well is a meaningless activity? The constitution's intent was and is to get religion out of anything sanctioned by the government. Please be obstreperous elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Oct 20, 2010 16:35:21 GMT -8
Your argument is not with me.... "Nor does the Constitution require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any."Please be obstreperous elsewhere. In case you skipped it.... pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/108286/  |
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Oct 21, 2010 5:06:55 GMT -8
I saw Odonnel in a debate the other day for the first time. She is just plain stupid. I wouldn't admit she is on my side... total embarrassment.
|
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Oct 21, 2010 7:58:59 GMT -8
Your argument is not with me.... "Nor does the Constitution require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any."Please be obstreperous elsewhere. In case you skipped it.... pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/108286/ I disagree with that interpretation. It says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . ." Since Congresses function is to make law most people would see that as no involvement. "Accommodation" is the same semantic game as "separation". Introducing "Intelligent Design" into a public, government run school, can reasonably be seen to promote a specific type of Christianity, thereby establishing the ideas as government sanctioned. We will not get into the argument about how irrational the concept is from a scientific perspective. But my sense is that you don't believe in scientific analysis or you would not support the ideas of that stupid woman. That piece, by the way is pure crap. It is a dodge crafted by a soul whose perception of reality is subservient to his belief set. Literal interpretation, my pimply behind. I am not depending on a pundit to help me understand the first amendment to the constitution. I am depending on my ability to comprehend what I read. Why don't you try it, instead of depending on some self appointed pundit who may or may not know what the F they are doing. You haven't told me why you went to college if you do not trust the thought process of an educated person. Why did you go to college if you repudiate what college offers you and choose ridicule the results? Isn't that like saying your own thought process is flawed, because you experienced an education? Really now. Why did you waste your time? I would be absolutely fascinated to know. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Oct 21, 2010 13:28:07 GMT -8
Your argument is not with me.... "Nor does the Constitution require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any."Please be obstreperous elsewhere. In case you skipped it.... pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/108286/ I disagree with that interpretation. It says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . ." Since Congresses function is to make law most people would see that as no involvement. "Accommodation" is the same semantic game as "separation". Introducing "Intelligent Design" into a public, government run school, can reasonably be seen to promote a specific type of Christianity, thereby establishing the ideas as government sanctioned. We will not get into the argument about how irrational the concept is from a scientific perspective. But my sense is that you don't believe in scientific analysis or you would not support the ideas of that stupid woman. That piece, by the way is pure crap. It is a dodge crafted by a soul whose perception of reality is subservient to his belief set. Literal interpretation, my pimply behind. I am not depending on a pundit to help me understand the first amendment to the constitution. I am depending on my ability to comprehend what I read. Why don't you try it, instead of depending on some self appointed pundit who may or may not know what the F they are doing. You haven't told me why you went to college if you do not trust the thought process of an educated person. Why did you go to college if you repudiate what college offers you and choose ridicule the results? Isn't that like saying your own thought process is flawed, because you experienced an education? Really now. Why did you waste your time? I would be absolutely fascinated to know. Your argument ought to be with the Court, not me or the pundit. O'Donnell might have handled her point better, but she was right. "Separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution, and those words appear nowhere in it. The Court's words in the case I cited are pretty clear: Nor does the Constitution require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any. See, e.g., Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 314, 315 (1952); Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 211 (1948).The law students were foolish to laugh, and Coons was wrong in relying on the establishment clause to mean separation; it forbids establishment of a state religion. And then he couldn't even name the five freedoms guaranteed in the 1A, and he's an educated lawyer? The argument over creationism versus evolution is a point I understand... science versus faith. But I think it would be silly not to allow public schools to familiarize students with beliefs that hundreds of millions of people throughout the world hold. Not to be taught in Physical Science class, to be sure. Philosophy or Social Science seems appropriate for that subject. By the way, it appears O'Donnell may be having the effect of pulling Coons to the right. I notice that today he came out in favor of extending ALL of the 'Bush' tax cuts. Of course, he could be lying. He is, after all, a Democrat. As for me, I'm not the subject of the thread. Why I attended college is irrelevant. I consider myself auto-didactic. (yeah, yeah, I know... you're going to say "it shows"). |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Oct 21, 2010 13:31:45 GMT -8
I saw Odonnel in a debate the other day for the first time. She is just plain stupid. I wouldn't admit she is on my side... total embarrassment. Kinda like Patty Tennis-Shoes, and Barbara Box-of-Rocks. Are those dopes on your 'side'? |
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Oct 21, 2010 13:48:35 GMT -8
I saw Odonnel in a debate the other day for the first time. She is just plain stupid. I wouldn't admit she is on my side... total embarrassment. Kinda like Patty Tennis-Shoes, and Barbara Box-of-Rocks. Are those dopes on your 'side'? Give me a break Davesid. I can't stand Pelosi and I have said so before. Odonnell is a dope...what's to argue??? I don't blind follow, I analyse... I hope you do as well.l... but the subject is Odonnell. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Oct 21, 2010 14:14:35 GMT -8
Kinda like Patty Tennis-Shoes, and Barbara Box-of-Rocks. Are those dopes on your 'side'? Give me a break Davesid. I can't stand Pelosi and I have said so before. Odonnell is a dope...what's to argue??? I don't blind follow, I analyse... I hope you do as well.l... but the subject is Odonnell. Pelosi? I didn't mention Pelosi. Patty is the ditz in the Evergreen State, and Box-of-Rocks is 'missus don't call me Ma'am'. They are both 'senators'. They are both 'dopes'. O'Donnell may be a dope, too. But she can't lower the intelligence level of the 'dope' wing of the Senate beyond what it already is. And Coons proved himself to be a 'dope', too. Glad to hear your take on Pelosi, though. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Oct 21, 2010 16:31:05 GMT -8
I disagree with that interpretation. It says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . ." Since Congresses function is to make law most people would see that as no involvement. "Accommodation" is the same semantic game as "separation". Introducing "Intelligent Design" into a public, government run school, can reasonably be seen to promote a specific type of Christianity, thereby establishing the ideas as government sanctioned. We will not get into the argument about how irrational the concept is from a scientific perspective. But my sense is that you don't believe in scientific analysis or you would not support the ideas of that stupid woman. That piece, by the way is pure crap. It is a dodge crafted by a soul whose perception of reality is subservient to his belief set. Literal interpretation, my pimply behind. I am not depending on a pundit to help me understand the first amendment to the constitution. I am depending on my ability to comprehend what I read. Why don't you try it, instead of depending on some self appointed pundit who may or may not know what the F they are doing. You haven't told me why you went to college if you do not trust the thought process of an educated person. Why did you go to college if you repudiate what college offers you and choose ridicule the results? Isn't that like saying your own thought process is flawed, because you experienced an education? Really now. Why did you waste your time? I would be absolutely fascinated to know. Your argument ought to be with the Court, not me or the pundit. O'Donnell might have handled her point better, but she was right. "Separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution, and those words appear nowhere in it. The Court's words in the case I cited are pretty clear: Nor does the Constitution require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any. See, e.g., Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 314, 315 (1952); Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 211 (1948).The law students were foolish to laugh, and Coons was wrong in relying on the establishment clause to mean separation; it forbids establishment of a state religion. And then he couldn't even name the five freedoms guaranteed in the 1A, and he's an educated lawyer? The argument over creationism versus evolution is a point I understand... science versus faith. But I think it would be silly not to allow public schools to familiarize students with beliefs that hundreds of millions of people throughout the world hold. Not to be taught in Physical Science class, to be sure. Philosophy or Social Science seems appropriate for that subject. By the way, it appears O'Donnell may be having the effect of pulling Coons to the right. I notice that today he came out in favor of extending ALL of the 'Bush' tax cuts. Of course, he could be lying. He is, after all, a Democrat. As for me, I'm not the subject of the thread. Why I attended college is irrelevant. I consider myself auto-didactic. (yeah, yeah, I know... you're going to say "it shows"). O'Donnell might have handled her point better, but she was right. "Separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution, and those words appear nowhere in it. The above is Semantics without context.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Well, I think any law regarding religion that favors one over another is in fact establishing one. The issue was the introduction of a Christian (and stupid idea) into a public classroom has the effect of establishing a religion in the minds of someone who is not Christian, especially if they fail a test on it. Don't you think?
The students were not stupid to laugh because they got the context, which you refuse to acknowledge.
Nor does the Constitution require completeseparation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any. Where does it say accommodate in the amendment? Who interprets the term accommodation? What is complete?"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; They can make no law favoring religion and they can make no law prohibiting it. So, whats left? The effect is to separate it except in trivial instances.As to your education, I had to look that up, but I understand. I was talking to my first father in law once and remarking to myself how as a college student I was hot s^%t and he wasn't. He had an eighth grade education and his language was crude. Then he proceeded to tell me how he devised a system for estimating the volume of concrete he needed to fill a form, with out algebra. I remember that I could not help wondering which one of us was really the smart one. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Oct 22, 2010 7:25:23 GMT -8
The argument over creationism versus evolution is a point I understand... science versus faith. But I think it would be silly not to allow public schools to familiarize students with beliefs that hundreds of millions of people throughout the world hold. Not to be taught in Physical Science class, to be sure. Philosophy or Social Science seems appropriate for that subject. A comparative religion class would be OK. However, creation theory varies greatly between religions therefore many different views should be presented. Not just the Judeo-Christian version. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Oct 22, 2010 7:49:19 GMT -8
I know, I know, to be highly educated is no longer a prerequisite for authoritative assertions in the Republican realm. Fixed that for ya. Sadly, knowledge, intelligence---even curiosity---are traits to be scorned by the republicans these days. To a certain point I get it (as I myself pretty conservative in many ways)---common sense could be considered more important than only book knowledge. But these people make reagan and bush II look like Winston Churchill. I can set up the links for you if you want, but Democrat Congressman Pete Stark, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson and others clearly lack knowledge, intelligence---even curiosity (as you put it) and a couple of them have been the best and brightest of the Democrat party for years. Dare we post Joe Biden's best moments? Spare us the Liberal's intellectual superiority crap. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Oct 22, 2010 14:44:31 GMT -8
Nor does the Constitution require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any.>>>Where does it say accommodate in the amendment? Who interprets the term accommodation? What is complete?<<< Who interprets? The Court. In the case I cited above. Read the whole thing. Q.E.D.O'Donnell may be a 'dope', but no more of a 'dope' than Coons ("the Court has interpreted... yada, yada, humma, humma..."). This is not the issue to use to prove O'Donnell's 'dopeyness'. But it's the best the left has, along with 'witches, 'carrot-whacking', 30 year old water-polo team pranks, and the old tired screams of 'extreeeeeeeeeemist', 'raaaaaaaaaacist', and so on. Expect more 'surprises' in the next few days. Fiorina diddles little girls? It's the Demagogue Party's stock in trade. Maybe they could talk about the economy and jobs or trillion dollar deficits? No, of course not. I won't be voting for either one. (I don't live there)
|
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Oct 22, 2010 17:56:23 GMT -8
Nor does the Constitution require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any.>>>Where does it say accommodate in the amendment? Who interprets the term accommodation? What is complete?<<< Who interprets? The Court. In the case I cited above. Read the whole thing. Q.E.D.O'Donnell may be a 'dope', but no more of a 'dope' than Coons ("the Court has interpreted... yada, yada, humma, humma..."). This is not the issue to use to prove O'Donnell's 'dopeyness'. But it's the best the left has, along with 'witches, 'carrot-whacking', 30 year old water-polo team pranks, and the old tired screams of 'extreeeeeeeeeemist', 'raaaaaaaaaacist', and so on. Expect more 'surprises' in the next few days. Fiorina diddles little girls? It's the Demagogue Party's stock in trade. Maybe they could talk about the economy and jobs or trillion dollar deficits? No, of course not. I won't be voting for either one. (I don't live there) We aren't going to agree. The effect of the first amendment is to keep government separate from religion. Yes, I am stubborn and opinionated, just like the rest of us Aztec fans. We could not be Aztec fans if we were weak and retiring. In a political system full of interesting people O'Donnell stands out. Republicans hold their own in the realm stupid over simplification and character assassination. The Delaware race is a obvious example of a rash of very stupid people running for office this year. And they are mostly Tea Partiers, but all conservatives. I am tired of simple minded sound bytes to address complex issues. But the Conservative's real issue is simple and unchanging. Conservatives do not want to pay taxes. Any taxes. For any reason. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Oct 23, 2010 7:40:18 GMT -8
I think if all the facts were laid out and we really understood what was said and what was meant by what was said the "Dunce from Delaware" would not be the one wearing a skirt. Win, ODonnell just isn't very smart. She needs to concentrate on her advocacy against what I euphemistically call self abuse. That is certainly a subject with "witch" she has both figurative and literal experience. Defending her insults your intelligence. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 23, 2010 11:02:40 GMT -8
I think if all the facts were laid out and we really understood what was said and what was meant by what was said the "Dunce from Delaware" would not be the one wearing a skirt. Win, ODonnell just isn't very smart. She needs to concentrate on her advocacy against what I euphemistically call self abuse. That is certainly a subject with "witch" she has both figurative and literal experience. Defending her insults your intelligence. I am not defending O'Donnel in general, just that she was technically right in the exchange in question. I would rather have her represent me than Coons. That is not saying all that much since I would rather be represented by a donut than O'Donnel's liberal opponent, Chris Coons. I think you and other are failing to see that even if she loses as is probable, the Republican Party has been cleansed a bit by defeating a liberal RINO in the primary. Somehow that idea does not get across. That you would rather lose a seat in the Senate than retain that seat if he will in fact vote with the liberals much of the time does not sink in. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Oct 23, 2010 12:47:22 GMT -8
Win, ODonnell just isn't very smart. She needs to concentrate on her advocacy against what I euphemistically call self abuse. That is certainly a subject with "witch" she has both figurative and literal experience. Defending her insults your intelligence. I am not defending O'Donnel in general, just that she was technically right in the exchange in question. I would rather have her represent me than Coons. That is not saying all that much since I would rather be represented by a donut than O'Donnel's liberal opponent, Chris Coons. I think you and other are failing to see that even if she loses as is probable, the Republican Party has been cleansed a bit by defeating a liberal RINO in the primary. Somehow that idea does not get across. That you would rather lose a seat in the Senate than retain that seat if he will in fact vote with the liberals much of the time does not sink in. She was wrong. To say that she is preferable to someone who served with distinction in Delaware is just bizarre. |
|
