U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: Christine O'Donnell Asks Where Constitution Calls For Separation Of Church, State
Source:
Associated Press
URL Source: http://www.bnd.com/2010/10/19/14432 ... nell-questions-separation.html
Published: Oct 19, 2010
Author: Associated Press
Post Date: 2010-10-19 11:29:00 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 199481
Comments: 236
WASHINGTON -- Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware is questioning whether the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from establishing religion. In a debate at Widener University Law School, O'Donnell criticized Democratic nominee Chris Coons' position that teaching creationism in public school would violate the First Amendment by promoting religious doctrine. O'Donnell asked where the Constitution calls for the separation of church and state. When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?" Delaware Senate The exchange Tuesday aired on radio station WDEL generated a buzz among law professors and students in the audience.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-86) not displayed.
.
.
.
#87. To: mcgowanjm (#61)
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Muslim Prayer in Public Schools http://www.suite101.com/content/muslim-prayer-in-public-schools-a26209
This is what the Superintendent says: "At Carver, we provide afternoon recess for students to play, pray, talk, study or just have a break. Some Muslim students use this time for a prayer that, according to their faith, must be prayed during a specific time window each afternoon. That occurs at recess. Students of other faiths are free to pray or not pray, as they wish, but teachers and staff are prohibited from encouraging or discouraging prayer or from praying with students. " Try again padlock.
Why?
And that's really believable, huh? -- At Carver Elementary School in San Diego students are praying 15 minutes during an afternoon recess and an hour after lunch. Extra breaks were put into the school day this year to accommodate 100 Muslim students that transferred from a closed Arabic languge program. No Child Left Behind Because of the No Child Left Behind mandate, many schools are eliminating recesses to allow more time for reading and math. Even science is being pushed to the back burner to allow more time for teaching. Lengthening the schools day is being considered and all-year school is becoming popular to aid in student information retention. With all this being demanded in other schools, it is surprising that some public schools are adding a recess for religious prayer. (Muslim religious prayer) Christian Demands Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute is asking the school district to provide rooms for Christians to pray, as well. "The school policy presumes that Christians are less religious and less inspired to worship and praise the Lord and come together," says Dacus." [Randy Dotinga, The Christian Science Monitor, scmonitor.com, July 12, 2007] Court Involvement Lisa Soronen, attorney with the National School Boards Association, says, "Most Americans don’t think about the fact that schools naturally accommodate Christians. There’s no school on Sunday, and we get days off for most of the major Christian holidays." Soronen added that the courts have not ruled on this issue so there is no precedent. Since the American Civil Liberties Union has remained silent on Muslim prayer, it may be up to Christian groups to take this matter to the courts. Meanwhile, schools are unclear how to handle the issue.
O’Donnell is running for the Senate, isn't she? Shouldn't she know what laws Congress may and may not pass within the meaning of the Constitution? The point is that she doesn't know what's in the Constitution. Second he seems to have completely forgot the first amendment also says that Congrees shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion, something he seems to fully support any form of government doing. How so? You might find this article interesting: religion.blogs.cnn.com/20...irst-amendment-ignorance/ As the author of Religious Literacy and adviser to the recent Pew Forum U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey, each of which demonstrated the ignorance of Americans about most things religious, I am not surprised that candidates for the U.S. Senate seem as surprised to learn about the Bill of Rights as I am by the latest plot turns in "Glee." (Emma? With John Stamos? Really?)
Limbaugh is having a ball with this topic right now.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
The point is is O'Donnell did know; Coons didn't. The 1st Amendment does not say GOVERNMENT can't establish laws establishing religion as Coons said; it specifically references Conrgress. O'Donnel was right to question him on this, especially since this entire matter was in regards to a local school decision to teach creation. Did you even read my earlier post as you seem to be comnpletly disregarding it. The fact is that Coons was wrong and O'Donnel was right as clearly articulated here.
Government shall make no establishment of religion And he's correct: Few years back, before my biz partner woke the hell up, he insisted 'seperation of Church and State is in the Constitution!' to both myself and my wife, right here in my office. I looked at my wife, then at him and said 'Thousand dollars, right now, says you cannot find that phrase ANYWHERE within the Constitution.' He said 'Your ON!' and went back to his office. Five minutes later he came back and said 'You want a check?' Told him 'nope, you buy all of us (office staff) lunch today'. He's a staunch Conservative these days. LOL. GOOD one!
Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.
Its 100% true. Today he's a Conservative blogger in his free time.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
From the posted article: O'Donnell asked where the Constitution calls for the separation of church and state. When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?" From the article you linked The First Amendment establishes that Congress shall declare no official nationwide religion. The First Amendment does not ban the mention of religion in public. In fact, it protects same. Who is arguing that the mention of religion in public is banned? I can't remember a president that did not end a major speech with "God bless America", can you? But then God and religion are not the same thing are they? From James Madison: Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together. The Civil Government, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success; whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the TOTAL SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH FROM THE STATE. (thank you to you know who) (The use of the word "state" in the above should not be confused with "state" as in one of the fifty states.)
... He's a staunch Conservative these days. He's not very bright is he?
Coons is arguing it is unConstitutional for school districts to teach creation. O'Donnell argues there is nothing in the Constitution itself which would indicate such. And she is right. It's as simple as that. And given that Madison lead prayers before Congress invoking his Calvinistic belief of Divine Providence, I would say he would agree with O'Donell, too.
She is correct,the United States Constitution doesn't. Am I am no church supporter.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Goofy, you are the last person that should be casting negative comments on anyone's intelligence levels. As I noted, he woke the hell up. While you choose to remain a idiot, as we see daily.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Based on your post, I challenge you to copy and paste the section. Or remain the fool we see here each day.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Not fair, you know thats going to be the case no matter what goofy does, or doesn't do./
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Not so fast CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, MARSH v. CHAMBERS Jay and Rutledge specifically grounded their objection on the fact that the delegates to the Congress "were so divided in religious sentiments . . . that [they] could not join in the same act of worship." Their objection was met by Samuel Adams, who stated that "he was no bigot, and could hear a prayer from a gentleman of piety and virtue, who was at the same time a friend to his country." This interchange emphasizes that the delegates did not consider opening prayers as a proselytizing activity or as symbolically placing the government's "official seal of approval on one religious view." Rather, the Founding Fathers looked at invocations as "conduct whose . . . effect . . . harmonize[d] with the tenets of some or all religions." webcache.googleuserconten...nk&gl=us&client=firefox-a Teaching creationism is this context is not the same thing as a Congressional prayer.
Based on your post, I challenge you to copy and paste the section. The phrase is not in the Constitution and the principle is, so to say the phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution is correct. To say, however, that the concept of separation of church and state is not in the Constitution is false. To be accurate one must distinguish between form and content.
or he just substituted what you said for what someone before you told him.
Not fair, you know thats going to be the case no matter what goofy does, or doesn't do. It is common courtesy to ping a person you mention in your post.
What facts, my dear Eric? Maybe you should STFU and let the adults talk. No can do. 1st Amendment and all that. You're free however, to put me on filter at any time of your choosing.
Funny, in this day and age, it most certainly would be. Madison didn't just say a prayer; he invoked his Calvinist beliefs. The first amendment limits the power of CONGRESS in the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to not establish any national religion or prohibit the exercising of any one's religious rights (paraphrasing). It says nothing about what local school boards (or any other local government entity, for that matter) can do. In fact, if a local government chooses to actually teach religion (not just an alternative form of the origins of life) it would be unconstitutional for Congress to pass a law prohibiting it. O'Donnell was simply right.
The issue becomes a bit cloudy when the local school accepts federal money.
And you wonder why I call you 'goofy'....lol
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Or remain the fool we see here each day. Not fair, you know thats going to be the case no matter what goofy does, or doesn't do. It is common courtesy to ping a person you mention in your post. Riiight, cause thats what you do with me all the time....lol And you wonder why I call you 'goofy'....
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Still pretending you post from Japan? rotfl!
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
I don't? You have proof?
Riiight, cause thats what you do with me all the time....lol I don't? You have proof? I've seen it a few times with you and mingster...the difference is I don't really give a shit.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Compared to anything you post? Absolutely.
Not really. The Feds might make it a condition of receiving the money, but that has nothing to with the Constitutionally of the matter. Except that it might be construed as such conditions by the Feds are unconstitutional as making an end run around the legislative duties of Congress. Fact is O'Donnell was right.
A US military base isn't considered US soil? Legally, the answer is "no." That is, the Constitution does NOT apply on U.S. military bases. If you'd served in the military, you'd already know that. It's one of the realities of what sneakypete was stating, when he said "The Bill of Rights ONLY applies to people who are on American soil." That you don't KNOW about this, and instead choose to argue from a position of overt ignorance, demonstrates that you don't give a shit... about FACTS. Yeah, you're guaranteed the right to make yourself look like a complete asshat. Congratulations on successfully exercising that right. Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.
Yep, and Coons looked ridiculous.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
rotfl! Still pretending anyone takes you seriously? Chuckle.
I find that hard to believe. Madison wrote: s the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them, and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation? The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional pnnciples. The tenets of the chaplains elected shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious pnnciples are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers, or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor. I whole-heartedly agree with Madison when he writes Were the establishment to be tried by its fruits, are not the daily devotions conducted by these legal Ecclesiastics, already degenerating into a scanty attendance, and a tiresome formality?
You posted to me for four YEARS after I left LP, dumbass. Thanks for playing.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Thanks for playing. I did? Just how many years? Didn't know you cared enough to check. So you were lurking all these years after your sorry ass was tossed from LP? Chuckle!
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Wow, you know how to copy and paste. I'm impressed.
Comments (127 - 236) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestoff your meds again, huh?
#88. To: Skip Intro (#78)
#89. To: no gnu taxes (#88)
#90. To: A K A Stone (#53)
So should the churches kick the voting booths out of their churches?
#91. To: Skip Intro (#89)
#92. To: no gnu taxes (#54)
First of all, the 1st Amendment limits the powers of CONGRESS, not government, an important distinction as the basis of the discussion was allowing local schools to teach creation.
#93. To: Brian S (#0)
#94. To: lucysmom (#92)
#95. To: no gnu taxes (#42)
He said:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.
#96. To: Badeye (#50)
Ya know, this is one of those topics that clearly displays who actually knows whats IN THE CONSTITUTION, and who gets their information from the Eliot Spitzers of the world.
#97. To: Capitalist Eric (#96)
#98. To: no gnu taxes (#94)
The fact is that Coons was wrong and O'Donnel was right as clearly articulated here.
#99. To: Badeye (#50)
I looked at my wife, then at him and said 'Thousand dollars, right now, says you cannot find that phrase ANYWHERE within the Constitution.' He said 'Your ON!' and went back to his office.
#100. To: lucysmom (#98)
#101. To: Brian S (#0)
Christine O'Donnell Asks Where Constitution Calls For Separation Of Church, State
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.
-In discussions to release J.Pollard.
#102. To: lucysmom (#99)
He's not very bright is he?
#103. To: lucysmom (#99)
you cannot find that phrase ANYWHERE within the Constitution.'
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.
-In discussions to release J.Pollard.
#104. To: WhiteSands (#103)
Or remain the fool we see here each day.
#105. To: no gnu taxes (#100)
And given that Madison lead prayers before Congress invoking his Calvinistic belief of Divine Providence, I would say he would agree with O'Donell, too.
#106. To: WhiteSands (#103)
you cannot find that phrase ANYWHERE within the Constitution.'
#107. To: Badeye (#102)
As I noted, he woke the hell up.
#108. To: Badeye (#104)
Or remain the fool we see here each day.
#109. To: Capitalist Eric (#46)
You don't give a shit about FACTS, either.
#110. To: lucysmom (#105)
This interchange emphasizes that the delegates did not consider opening prayers as a proselytizing activity or as symbolically placing the government's "official seal of approval on one religious view.
#111. To: no gnu taxes (#110)
It says nothing about what local school boards (or any other local government entity, for that matter) can do. In fact, if a local government chooses to actually teach religion (not just an alternative form of the origins of life) it would be unconstitutional for Congress to pass a law prohibiting it. O'Donnell was simply right.
#112. To: lucysmom (#107)
As I noted, he woke the hell up. or he just substituted what you said for what someone before you told him.
#113. To: lucysmom (#108)
#114. To: meguro (#109)
#115. To: Badeye (#113)
Riiight, cause thats what you do with me all the time....lol
#116. To: lucysmom (#115)
#117. To: no gnu taxes (#91)
And that's really believable, huh?
#118. To: lucysmom (#111)
The issue becomes a bit cloudy when the local school accepts federal money.
#119. To: meguro, sneakypete (#109)
Your statement:
No can do. 1st Amendment and all that.
#120. To: no gnu taxes (#118)
Fact is O'Donnell was right.
#121. To: Badeye (#114)
To: meguro Still pretending you post from Japan?
#122. To: no gnu taxes (#110)
Madison didn't just say a prayer; he invoked his Calvinist beliefs.
#123. To: meguro (#121)
Still pretending anyone takes you seriously?
#124. To: Badeye (#123)
(Edited)
You posted to me for four YEARS after I left LP, dumbass.
#125. To: meguro (#124)
You posted to me for four YEARS after I left LP, dumbass. Thanks for playing.
#126. To: Badeye (#125)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]