O'Donnell questions separation of church, state

[topspin]

I missed quayle, it was as good as his spelling.
Not that I'm cracking on anyone's spelling or grammar!!!

 

[pinqy]

I forgot you were mentally challenged.

Here perhaps this will help:

arms [ɑːmz]
pl n
1. (Military / Firearms, Gunnery, Ordnance & Artillery) weapons collectively See also small arms
2. (Military) military exploits prowess in arms
3. (History / Heraldry) the official heraldic symbols of a family, state, etc., including a shield with distinctive devices, and often supports, a crest, or other insignia
bear arms
a. (Military) to carry weapons
b. (Military) to serve in the armed forces
c. (History / Heraldry) to have a coat of arms
(Military)
in or under arms armed and prepared for war
(Military)
lay down one's arms to stop fighting; surrender
(Military)
present arms Military
a. a position of salute in which the rifle is brought up to a position vertically in line with the body, muzzle uppermost and trigger guard to the fore
b. the command for this drill
(Military)
take (up) arms to prepare to fight
to arms! arm yourselves!
up in arms indignant; prepared to protest strongly

But it doesn't say "gun." That's implied by the use of the word "arms" which can mean any weapon. Right to bear arms also guaranteed the right to own a sword or bayonet, all of which were in common usage at the time. So technically, guns could be disallowed, swords and bows and arrows allowed and that could still be considered bearing arms. (Yes, that's a ridiculous argument...it's meant to show the ridiculousness of claiming lack of specific wording means the intent is not there).

And the 6th ammendment says nothing about a "fair trial," but that's implied by the rights it does mention, which set the framework for a fair trial.

And the 10th ammendment doesn't cover separation of powers. Separation of Powers refers to the powers of the different branches of the Federal government. The phrase is not in the Constitution, but is implied by the actual separation of powers in Articles I to III.

And since James Madison, who wrote the 1st Ammendment, used the phrase Separation of Church and State and Separation of religion and government when talking about the Constitution he clearly believed that separation was the effect. It was certainly his intent. Surely no one is dumb enough to claim that the author of the ammendment didn't know what it meant?

So you resort to arguing over semantics. Typical liberal.

Since you're the one claiming that there is no separation of church and state because that exact phrase isn't mentioned, that makes it a semantic argument.

So, try again...even though the exact phrase is not in the constitution, Jefferson (who heavily influenced the first ammendment) and Madison (who wrote it) clearly believed that the first ammendment established a separation. The Supreme Court has consistantly held that there is a separation (and never ruled otherwise). So on what grounds are you claiming that there is no separation except from a purely semantic argument?

 

[topspin]

she acted like it had nothing to do with it, as if the non jesus freaks made it up. Hillarious watch it.

 

[GHook93]

I didn't watch the interview but I'm curious...did anyone claim the words "separation of church and state" are in the constitution?

Somehow, I doubt it and O'Donnell was battling a strawman.

Coons did!

 

[CurveLight]

I'm gonna have to just go ahead and take a stab at that one.

It might have something to do with the fact that an opening prayer does NOT establish a State religion nor does it deny the right of anybody to freely practice their own religion.

The relatively new Motto of the USA is "In God We Trust." I know. I have seen it on the walls of Courtrooms (above the judges' benches) and on lots and lots of our coins. And you know what? One may agree or disagree with that motto, but having it imprinted on our coins does NOT create any official state religion nor does it deny anybody the right to practice their own religion (or no religion at all).

[Liability] is still livig in fantasies. An opening prayer and the religious motto on money does impose religion on people. Dumbasses like you who enjoy dominating others never object to impositions of your flavor but scream bloody murder when others object.

Bent tight pussy puddle is still LIVIG with an apparently deadly cold in da node. What a stupid little twat it is.

Yeah. The Motto on a coin imposes shit on him. Right.

Fucking asshole liars like Pussy Puddle

simply cannot be taken seriously.

Shit-Sucker Pussy Puddle says, "Oh nozies, the mean old American Government has a motto on my coin so I can no longer be an atheist or a Shintoist or an Animalist or a Zoroastrian! Sound the ALARUMS, sirrah!"

What an asshole.

The Snitch Bitch is still obsessed with typos.....since he can't debate for shit he has to seek compensation in sum form.

I never said having the motto prevents anyone from being an atheist, Snitch Bitch, or anything else. It's hilarious you can't respond to what posts actually say.

One more time Snitch Bitch. Having prayer in a government arena imposes religion onto everyone. Having a religious motto on all currency imposes religion onto the public. Ignore it again Snitch Bitch cuz skank punks like you are fucking parasites to America.

 

[topspin]

word
now if they want the gov to adopt Rastafari I'm all in.

 

[Ravi]

I didn't watch the interview but I'm curious...did anyone claim the words "separation of church and state" are in the constitution?

Somehow, I doubt it and O'Donnell was battling a strawman.

Coons did!

Link? I looked at the transcript and did not see it.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Texas is cheaper due in large part to much more widespread and efficient use of inexpensive, undocumented Mexican labor.


true story

Too bad you can't prove it.

What is true and can be proven is that more hispanics reside in California than in Texas.

Total Hispanic Population statistics - states compared - StateMaster

Those are documented spics.

I'm talking about the undocumented.

You can be talking about unicorns it doesn't matter you can't prove any of it, you stupid fuck!

 

[Ravi]

I didn't watch the interview but I'm curious...did anyone claim the words "separation of church and state" are in the constitution?

Somehow, I doubt it and O'Donnell was battling a strawman.

Coons did!

Link? I looked at the transcript and did not see it.

As a matter of fact all Coons said was that the 1st Amendment established a separation...as I thought, she was battling a strawman. What a maroon.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If mingling of Church and State isn't something the right is particularly concerned about, why do they throw fits over the idea of Sharia Law coming to some American communities?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

But it doesn't say "gun." That's implied by the use of the word "arms" which can mean any weapon. Right to bear arms also guaranteed the right to own a sword or bayonet, all of which were in common usage at the time. So technically, guns could be disallowed, swords and bows and arrows allowed and that could still be considered bearing arms. (Yes, that's a ridiculous argument...it's meant to show the ridiculousness of claiming lack of specific wording means the intent is not there).

And the 6th ammendment says nothing about a "fair trial," but that's implied by the rights it does mention, which set the framework for a fair trial.

And the 10th ammendment doesn't cover separation of powers. Separation of Powers refers to the powers of the different branches of the Federal government. The phrase is not in the Constitution, but is implied by the actual separation of powers in Articles I to III.

And since James Madison, who wrote the 1st Ammendment, used the phrase Separation of Church and State and Separation of religion and government when talking about the Constitution he clearly believed that separation was the effect. It was certainly his intent. Surely no one is dumb enough to claim that the author of the ammendment didn't know what it meant?

So you resort to arguing over semantics. Typical liberal.

Wait...are you trying to say that ONLY LIBERALS are arguing semantics? Isn't that the entire issue here? The question of semantics when referring to separation of church and state?


Seriously?

I'm saying arguing over semantics is typical liberal behavior. The issue here , at least to me, is the meaning of the establishment clause not what the courts have ruled but the actual words that are contained in the Constitution.

 

[Liability]

If mingling of Church and State isn't something the right is particularly concerned about, why do they throw fits over the idea of Sharia Law coming to some American communities?

Well, nobody knows what YOU mean by "mingling." And nobody on the right has said that they aren't particularly concerned by "mingling" anyway. You making stuff up doesn't qualify as factual, schmuck.

In any event, "Sharia Law" would, by definition, go far beyond what most people would consider "mingling," you dipstick.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Neither are part of the constitution and with out Supreme Court Rulings would have just been ideas from Smart Men on paper and nothing more!

Yeah, well the Supreme Court is part of the Constitution.

Let me ask you this one genius? Where does the Supreme Court get the power to decide whether a law is constitutional, hence hear cases of the Federal Question?

I guarantee you say from the constitution, but you would be wrong!

Marbury v. Madison , established the Supreme Court hears federal question cases. Originally the constitution gave the supreme court diversity subject matter jurisdiction.

Some Case Law doctrines, LIKE THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, are here to stay. However, some doctrines that were thought to be the established law, like Separate but Equal, can and have changed.

and?

 

[GHook93]

I didn't watch the interview but I'm curious...did anyone claim the words "separation of church and state" are in the constitution?

Somehow, I doubt it and O'Donnell was battling a strawman.

Coons did!

Link? I looked at the transcript and did not see it.

Look closer, he says its in the First Amendment!

 

[Ravi]

If mingling of Church and State isn't something the right is particularly concerned about, why do they throw fits over the idea of Sharia Law coming to some American communities?

That is the question of the century.

 

[Ravi]

Coons did!

Link? I looked at the transcript and did not see it.

Look closer, he says its in the First Amendment!

Uh, no, he does not.

So you all are melting down over a strawman. Big surprise!

 

[NYcarbineer]

If mingling of Church and State isn't something the right is particularly concerned about, why do they throw fits over the idea of Sharia Law coming to some American communities?

Well, nobody knows what YOU mean by "mingling." And nobody on the right has said that they aren't particularly concerned by "mingling" anyway. You making stuff up doesn't qualify as factual, schmuck.

In any event, "Sharia Law" would, by definition, go far beyond what most people would consider "mingling," you dipstick.

Ok, so you agree that 'separation of church and state' is a well established foundational constitutional principle.

That's what we're trying to tell you, Lardbelly.

 

[Vanquish]

This woman is obviously not fit for office. You don't have to be a constitutional scholar, but at least be a constitutional student.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If mingling of Church and State isn't something the right is particularly concerned about, why do they throw fits over the idea of Sharia Law coming to some American communities?

That is the question of the century.

It's because they think (and often say) that we are a Christian nation, and, one can reasonably conclude from the sum total of opinions on the subject, on the matter, from the right,

that they wish there was some way to more formally codify that notion. Why else would the right spend so much energy trying to deprecate and otherwise diminish the Constitutional principle of separation of church and state?

 

[NYcarbineer]

she was battling deer in the headlights syndrome, it was freaking hillarious if you didn't see it.

I think that when the audience was laughing at her, she thought they were laughing with her.