Did you see the debate in Delaware where the Bearded Marxist showed his ignorance of the consitution?
1st he thought the idea that there is a separation between church and state is in the First Amendment. Its not, see below for yourself.
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. The amendment is also interpreted as the constitutional origin of the separation of church and state as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States.
What it says is the Government can't form their own religion like they did in England with the Church of England.
2) The Marxist second mistake was he couldn't name even one of the four freedoms we have guaranteed in the first amendment, freedom of religion, speech, press, and assemble. He couldn't name one of them.
Why are the elected Democrats so dense and unqualified? He should just drop out of the race for being incompetent don't you think?
It doesn't mean that.
Liberals have misused the above statement to imply things like you can't practice your religion in government buildings at school, etc. when in fact its just the opposite it means we can, the government just can't force us to do it. I guess if you didn't know the back ground on the issue you wouldn't understand the difference. Just like the Bearded Marxist. I guess that makes you qualified to be President of Senator too.
O'Donnell only asked the Marxist to name four so I only named four. Very good there are five. But preventing the free practice of religion in government buildings is not one of them (the separation of church and state). You can pretend you don't know what the statement means and you might convince a few ignorant people.
Bob you should be ashamed of yourself, what a disgusting answer. If you can't deal with the issue at hand just don't answer next time. Look at the two answers above as an better example of not getting personal. Yes I know I let the one guy slide for calling me stupid but he just didn't know the context of the question. He at least tried to answer the question.
Thanks JW, I heard it listened to it the other day. That's why I asked the question it was Coons that is ignorant. Granted O'Donnell could have done a better job to make Coons look bad I will give you that.
The Roe v Wade was hilarious. The question was which recent supreme court decision do you disagree with. It was asked of O'Donnell and she said she couldn't think of one and then Coons interrupted and said what about Roe V Wade and she said he said recent not ages ago.
Wow the combination of ignorance and anger on the understanding of separation if church and state are amazing. Let me be perfectly clear making it impossible for you guys to ignore the real issue I'm raising instead of the straw man issue that I'm not raising.
1) the first amendment protect the church from the state. Meaning we are free to practice any religions beliefs we want without the state intrusion. The exception for would be if your religion for example believes human sacrifice. The government had the right and duty to protect an innocent from being murdered even if the murderer use his religion as their excuse. A real life example of this that is being misinterpreted intentionally by islamofacsist and sharia law. Islamofascist want us to believe Sharia law can be practices in the USA and is protected by the constitution. Not true because sharia law takes away other natural rights and its there where the freedom if religion stops.
2) it's this misinterpretation of #1 that is often called "separation if church and state" that people who belong to the religion of atheism. The Atheists and other religious bigots misuse the constitution to discriminate against religion. Atheists have equal standing for their religious beliefs as any other religion. Not more or less standing.
3) In the context of the debate. If you misuse the understanding of the first amendment then you say things like creationism can't be taught, a judge can't have the ten commandments in his court house, congress can't have a Chaplin, congress can't start each day with a prayer, the dollar can't have the words " In God we trust", a student speaker at a public school can't stand up in front of his classmates and say a prayer.
Liberal progressives use the first amendment to discriminate against religion and they call that discrimination "The separation of Church and State".
This is what O'Donnell and I have been trying to point out. The mistake I made is I assumed the radical left that have attacked me and are attacking O'Donnell actually understood the original intent of the first amendment argument laid out above. Now you can't use that excuse for your future discrimination. One of the first times this term came up in politics was to prevent JFK or disqualify him from running or being President because he was catholic. Thankfully that argument didn't prevail. It is the 1st amendment that allows us to all carry our religious beliefs be they christian, Jewish, or even atheist with us when we go into our public service. Its those beliefs that makes us who we are and forms our morality. I can't imagine telling an atheist they must believe in God, but Atheist seem to be telling the rest of use that we can't believe in him. AND THAT IS THE POINT O'Donnell and I have been making.
- 9 years agoFavorite Answer
You religious-fundamentalist extremists seemed bound and determined to cram your fake religion down everybody's throats (no pun intended), but the FIRST Amendment DOES provide for Separation of Church and State---something that has been upheld by the Supreme Court for more than one hundred years now. Justice Black, in Everson v. Board of Education (1947) gave a written opinion which stated, "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. The wall must be kept high and imprenable." In Lempn v. Kurtzan (1971), the Supreme Court set up a three-prong test to strictly solidify government NEUTRALITY regarding religion.
Not just Liberals know all this---moderates, progressives, bluedog conservatives, and independents also are fully aware of the separation of church and state provisions and PROTECTIONS set into our founding documents. Only the teabagging evangelicals (home-schooled with a literal interpretation of scripture, a.k.a., "buybull," in many instances, according to Goldberg's research, 2006) and far-right-wing extremists seem to be "out of the loop" on this one.Source(s): Goldberg, Michelle (2006), "Kingdom Coming: The Rise of 'Christian' Nationalism." NY: WW Norton.
- 9 years ago
1) While the exact words are not present, the idea and concept is. Jefferson wrote later that separation of church and state was his primary goal for the 1st. The US Supreme Court has also interpreted the 1st as "separation of church and state". Your argument is like some chick wearing a tube top to school, when the dress code says "Shirt straps must be at least 1 inch wide". Because technically, it doesn't say anything about shirts without straps.
2) Are you so dense as to not realize there are FIVE freedoms in the 1st Amendment? You forgot the freedom to petition the government.
- 3 years ago
in accordance to the polls he feels like he could take it. I have not have been given any clue why the folk of Delaware might take a common marxist/communist over a laymen person who's attempting to do what's nice. O'Donnell will possibly no longer say each thing completely yet who does all the time while they are being scrutinized via each word and the lame circulate media takes issues out of context and blows it as much as be some massive freakin deal. yet another occasion of a woman being smeared via the Obama camp. Delaware.....You deserve what you get!!
- Huh?Lv 79 years ago
A separation of church and state is the shorthand used by Thomas Jefferson to address the ideal expressed in the first amendment. I know that conservatives are too obtuse to understand that although the "wall of separation between church and state" is not the language used in the first amendment but it is the concept. It certainly justifies not teaching creationism in a public school science class since creationism is religious doctrine and not science.
But it is irrelevant, the Democrat has a double digit lead in that race.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous9 years ago
Boy you guys spin spin spin to make her look better. The spin over this on the right wing blogs has been hysterical. SHE tried to say "that's in the amendment" but he NEVER said that.
"“The first amendment, the first amendment establishes the separation, the fact that the federal government shall not establish any religion, and decisional law by the Supreme Court over many, many decades …,” Coon stated.
“The first amendment does?” O’Donnell says as she interrupts Coons.
“The first amendment clarifies and enshrines that there is a separation of church and state, that our courts and our laws must respect,” Coons says.
“So you are telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the first amendment”? O’Donnell asks again.
“In the Griswold question earlier, the zone of privacy is something that the Supreme Court interpreted the bill of rights and several of those amendments to create. It is important for us in modern times to apply the constitution and in my view as it exists today, and interpreted by our justices,” Coons said.
Coons then starts talking about Roe v. Wade when O’Donnell interrupts for a second time
“You are telling me that separation of church and state is found in the first amendment?”
“Government shall make no establishment of religion,” Coons responds.
‘That’s in the first amendment? O’Donnell asks for a third time.
The crowd then reacts with quieted gasps and laughs as O’Donnell smiles."
See, Coons QUOTED the First Amendment and her response was "That's in the First Amendment?." Prior to that, he made the point (that the Supreme Court agrees with) that the First Amendment ESTABLISHES the separation. He NEVER said it was IN the amendment, he said it ESTABLISHES.
O'Donnell then tried to play "gotcha" interjecting into other questions "Name the FIVE freedoms (you were wrong on that too by saying "Four").
You left out Petition.
So I have to say...you are totally wrong.
- bobLv 79 years ago
It looks like the "bearded Marxist" was right and the teabagging slut was wrong. EVERYONE outside the delusional, ignorant right wing knows that this is interpreted as separating church and state. Continuing to press this issue in the face of reality and logic does nothing to enhance the image of the right wing as total moronic sludge. Thanks for the reinforcement. I think we already see how people lean on this issue. The teabagging slut trails by a wide margin. She will be lucky to get the 20% of the population that still thinks GW Bush was anything but an utter failure.
EDIT: I am never ashamed of calling moron a moron. You are disgusted by my answer. I am disgusted by your ignorance. We're even! BTW, I answered the question. The constitution advocates separation of church and state. The fact that you are too dense to follow this is not my fault.
- Anonymous9 years ago
""What it says is the Government can't form their own religion like they did in England with the Church of England.""
"" separation between church and state""
What makes you think that either of these interpretations are any less or more valid or different for that matter?
- B ManLv 59 years ago
yea just like O'Donnell and her claimed extensive knowledge of the constitution, pffft.
cant make a law respecting a religion.....that actually is a separation of church and state
- 9 years ago
No, but I have never really cared what a Marxist has to say anyway. I suppose there is no reason to expect a Marxist to have any knowledge of the Constitution.