O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

[Deuce]

O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate - FoxNews.com

Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that "religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools."

"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

I LOVE how Fox News lowballs the headline. She "questions" separation of church and state. She didn't question it, Fox, she doesn't seem to have ****ing read the constitution!

TEA PARTY

THIS

IS

YOUR

CANDIDATE

It's one thing to have a different interpretation of the "establishment of religion" clause, it's another entirely to be unaware it existed.

 

[texmaster]

O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate - FoxNews.com



I LOVE how Fox News lowballs the headline. She "questions" separation of church and state. She didn't question it, Fox, she doesn't seem to have ****ing read the constitution!

TEA PARTY

THIS

IS

YOUR

CANDIDATE

Read the Constitution Deuce.

Separation of Chruch and State is not in the Constitution.

She is right. Its amazing you didn't know that.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Read the Constitution Deuce.

Separation of Chruch and State is not in the Constitution.

She is right. Its amazing you didn't know that.

You're right, those words are not in the constitution. It is phrased differently, but its in the first amendment.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Read the Constitution Deuce.

Separation of Chruch and State is not in the Constitution.

She is right. Its amazing you didn't know that.

And you should read the article. The phrase "separation of church and state" is used as shorthand for the establishment clause. It's not surprising that Deuce didn't know that, most people don't unless you have some ax to grind about prayer in school or something. Everybody else knows that "separation of church and state" is what the establishment clause basically means. And anyway, it's obvious that O'Donnell wasn't aware of the nuanced distinction between the separation of church and state and the protection against the establishment of religion. She's just clueless about the constitution altogether. Reminds me of the Sarah Palin "Africa" thing.

 

[texmaster]

Your right, those words are not in the constitution. It is phrased differently, but its in the first amendment.

Separation of Church and state isn't in the first ammendment either.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Separation is never mentioned.

 

[Deuce]

Hey, boneheads, did you even read the quote?

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion

(basically verbatim from 1st amendment)

O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

 

[Guy Incognito]

Separation of Church and state isn't in the first ammendment either.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Separation is never mentioned.

You're pivoting the issue. Read the article and take O'Donnell's quote in context. You can tell she meant it as, "There's nothing about separation of church and state in the first amendment, because that's the amendment about freedom of speech... right?"

 

[Slartibartfast]

Separation of Church and state isn't in the first ammendment either.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Separation is never mentioned.

Well, if a government cannot make a law promoting or prohibiting a religion, where is its room to be involved? That lack of room would be the separation piece.

 

[texmaster]

And you should read the article. The phrase "separation of church and state" is used as shorthand for the establishment clause.

Its a lazy and innaccurate cooreletation.

It's not surprising that Deuce didn't know that, most people don't unless you have some ax to grind about prayer in school or something.

I'm not the one who started an all caps thread lambasting someone for something that wasn't true.

Everybody else knows that "separation of church and state" is what the establishment clause basically means.

Apparently not.

And anyway, it's obvious that O'Donnell wasn't aware of the nuanced distinction between the separation of church and state and the protection against the establishment of religion. She's just clueless about the constitution altogether. Reminds me of the Sarah Palin "Africa" thing.

You're right. She stated the accuracy that separation of church and state isn't the constitution so naturally she's the stupid one.

 

[Slartibartfast]

You're right. She stated the accuracy that separation of church and state isn't the constitution so naturally she's the stupid one.

If she fails to use basic logic to understand the meaning of the first amendment, then yes she is stupid.

 

[Deuce]

Its a lazy and innaccurate cooreletation.



I'm not the one who started an all caps thread lambasting someone for something that wasn't true.



Apparently not.



You're right. She stated the accuracy that separation of church and state isn't the constitution so naturally she's the stupid one.

Read post #6.

 

[texmaster]

Well, if a government cannot make a law promoting or prohibiting a religion, where is its room to be involved? That lack of room would be the separation piece.

Sorry that isn't true. The idea of the phrase was based off a plea from a local minister who was conscerned about state established religion like the one he fled in Europe. That never meant that religion was to be pulled out of goverment altogether. It simply meant government would not establish a single relgion.

Thats why we can have "In God we Trust" and the 10 commandments painted on the walls of the Supreme Court for example. They do not establish any particular religion.

 

[texmaster]

Read post #6.

And you are still wrong.

Separation of Church and State is not the Constitution. You really need to read the history of the 1st ammendmenet in reference to the establishment of a relgion to understand it fully.

 

[winston53660]

And you are still wrong.

Separation of Church and State is not the Constitution. You really need to read the history of the 1st ammendmenet in reference to the establishment of a relgion to understand it fully.

And you need to freshen up on the SCOTUS decisions about it.

 

[Deuce]

Weird how texmaster is doing EXACTLY the spin that Fox News comment writers used. "Oh she was saying separation of church and state isn't in the constitution."

No. That's not what she said. Coons quoted verbatim from the 1st amendment when he said that congress was barred from "making any law respecting establishment of religion."

That's when O'Donnell responded "you're telling me that's in the first amendment?"

 

[Guy Incognito]

Its a lazy and innaccurate coreletation.

Doesn't matter, that's just the way it is. You're hijacking the thread for your own hobby horse issue. This is about what O'Donnell thinks about the first amendment, not what texmaster thinks about it. Like it or not, everybody uses that phrase as shorthand for the establishment clause. Even you know what it is referring to, and O'Donnell does not.

If O'Donnell had an understanding of the first amendment that was up to your level, texmaster, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. As Deuce said, an interpretation of the Constitution is one thing, but completely misunderstanding it is another thing. But even Fox News couldn't sugarcoat the fact that she is clueless. Don't be a hack about this, tex, just admit that she's clueless, too.

 

[Deuce]

And you are still wrong.

Separation of Church and State is not the Constitution. You really need to read the history of the 1st ammendmenet in reference to the establishment of a relgion to understand it fully.

O'Donnell was specifically responding to "respecting establishment of religion."

 

[Guy Incognito]

Weird how texmaster is doing EXACTLY the spin that Fox News comment writers used. "Oh she was saying separation of church and state isn't in the constitution.""

Yeah, but at least Fox has the decency to use a deceptive headline and weasel words, which is tantamount to telling the truth, even though it is extremely deceptive. The last line of the article (where they hide the truly damning stuff from people who are too lazy to read) you see that there was an "audible gasp" from the crowd.

Hell, if Fox were even close to objective, that would have been the lead. They really are masterful at Republican damage-control though.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Yeah, but at least Fox has the decency to use a deceptive headline and weasel words, which is tantamount to telling the truth, even though it is extremely deceptive. The last line of the article (where they hide the truly damning stuff from people who are too lazy to read) you see that there was an "audible gasp" from the crowd.

Hell, if Fox were even close to objective, that would have been the lead. They really are masterful at Republican damage-control though.

Whats funny is that given she has stated that the Constitution is a covenant (in the religious sense), her not even knowing it is pretty alarmingly hypocritical.

 

[Patria Antiqua]

At least Pat Robertson has the decency to be openly contemptuous of our secular constitution.

 

[Coronado]

Whats funny is that given she has stated that the Constitution is a covenant (in the religious sense), her not even knowing it is pretty alarmingly hypocritical.

She knows what she wants it to say, which is close enough for most politicians.

 

[Slartibartfast]

She knows what she wants it to say, which is close enough for most politicians.

Truth be told, it doesn't 'say' anything, but is a document that by its nature has to be interpreted. However, interpretations should at least account for what is actually written on the thing.

 

[CriticalThought]

It's a painful debate to watch. It's sad when a politician has to ask what the amendments are. Her views on the 16th amendment were interesting was well.



@7:10 is the comment the OP mentioned.

There is no doubt that he says, "government shall make no establishment of religion" and she questions it.

 

[Whovian]

I, being a Republican and a Conservative, think this lady is a ditz. Thankfully, I do not live in her state, so I don't have to worry about who to vote for in this one.

 

[Jetboogieman]

So for those who say Seperation is not part of the constitution.

Do you advocate Religious Government then?