O'Donnell questions separation of church, state

[Micky G. Jagger]

Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?

Where does the Constitution unite church and state?

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Our founding fathers did intend to keep government out of the religious arena.

If you mean the Constitution totally excludes religion - or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it - from the authority of the U. S. Government, you are correct.

by disallowing a national religion such as existed in England with the Church of England

All religion - or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it - is excluded from the authority of the U. S. Government.

the intent was never to keep the church out of government.

The intent was to totally exclude religion - or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it - from the influence of the government.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

So according to The Bearded Marxist "Separation of Church and State" is in the Constitution?

Would someone please point out where?

First, you point out where the Constitution unites the Church with the State?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?

Its not in the constitution. The reference to religion in the constitution is very clear cut "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Plain and simple.

Translation if its not so plain and simple: The federal government can not ordane any one religion as a "State" or "Government sponsored" religion. The federal government also can not limit anyones ability to practice any specific religion or to exercise that practice freely.


Take from it what you will.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

The term "Separation of Church and State" is a legal principle.

The term "Separation of Church and State" is just symbol, which is ambiguous in the sense that it is used to signify a number of different intellectual ideas.

I use the term to signify the idea of no civil authority over religion - or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it - which all men are equally entitled to freely exercise, according to the dictates of conscience.

 

[Liability]

So according to The Bearded Marxist "Separation of Church and State" is in the Constitution?

Would someone please point out where?

First, you point out where the Constitution unites the Church with the State?

Nobody has claimed that the Constitution unites the State and religion. So your faux "gotchya" question is just a fail.

The CLAIM that is under discussion is that the Constitution provides this alleged "WALL OF SEPARATION."

Not only is it true that the Constitution does not use that particular phrase, but it is also true that the words that ARE used do not require that interpretation.

Jefferson's words were a kind of catchy shorthand way of describing the two very simple things that the FIRST AMENDMENT did spell out. (1) No official or required state religion and (2) no state impediment to the free exercise of anybody's particular religious beliefs.

Some folks (they tend to be libs) place WAY too much stock on the unfortunate shorthand expression and read too much into it. Thankfully, that's not necessary. What IS necessary is to give allegiance to the two basic requirements.

The government is not allowed to set up a State religion. Check.

The government is not allowed to deny people the right to worship under any religion of their choosing. Check.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

The far left has embarked on a massive propaganda campaign to socialize the masses into believing that Religion should be anathema in politics.

You lie, dude. No one on the far left has ever said that religion should be anathema in politics. It is only wing nuts like you who spew that sort of crap.

 

[DiveCon]

O'Donnell questions separation of church, state - Politics - Decision 2010 - msnbc.com

"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?"

Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.

I thought these Tea Party candidates were all about Constitutionalism? WTF???

Do you have a link to the transcript or a video of that? I need to see it in its full context.

That being said in this current incomplete context O'donnel is a bonehead.

Hello?!?!?!?! Its the constitution "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."

If she doesn't know that then she looks like she is just jumping on the tea party bandwagon and not partaking in any tea party principles.

see the link in the second post
it had a much longer video of it and it was much more eye opening than the short one in the OP

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

So according to The Bearded Marxist "Separation of Church and State" is in the Constitution?

Would someone please point out where?

First, you point out where the Constitution unites the Church with the State?

Nobody has claimed that the Constitution unites the State and religion. So your faux "gotchya" question is just a fail.

The CLAIM that is under discussion is that the Constitution provides this alleged "WALL OF SEPARATION."

Not only is it true that the Constitution does not use that particular phrase, but it is also true that the words that ARE used do not require that interpretation.

Jefferson's words were a kind of catchy shorthand way of describing the two very simple things that the FIRST AMENDMENT did spell out. (1) No official or required state religion and (2) no state impediment to the free exercise of anybody's particular religious beliefs.

Some folks (they tend to be libs) place WAY too much stock on the unfortunate shorthand expression and read too much into it. Thankfully, that's not necessary. What IS necessary is to give allegiance to the two basic requirements.

The government is not allowed to set up a State religion. Check.

The government is not allowed to deny people the right to worship under any religion of their choosing. Check.

The Constitution is ambiguous with respect to whether it grants the U. S. Government authority over religion.

Congress is granted power to provide for the general welfare of the United States and to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying that power into Execution. The term "general welfare" could be reasonably interpreted to include religion. However, the term could also be reasonably interpreted not to include religion.

Fortunately, for those of us who favor radical religious liberty; and unfortunately, for those like you, who favor civil authority over religion, the courts have for the most part, excluded religion from the cognizance of the civil authorities, as Jesus ordained.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Yeah well same challenge I've given to all my prey.

When you dumbasses can find the EXACT WORDS "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" in the Constitution, I'll not only leave this forum, I'll become a life long Democrat and ONLY vote liberal.

Then on top of that, I'll walk to the Center of the Oval on THE Ohio State Campus and sing "I'm a Little Tea Pot" at the strike of noon.

Hell, I'll go to the 50 yard line at half time of the Ohio State v. Michigan Game and sing the Michigan Fight Song, if you can find those EXACT words!

Until then "implied meaning" is just liberal for "the Constitution says what WE say it says!"

(And yes, I've actually had a liberals dumb enough to take me up on that bet. Morons, the lot of 'em!)

These are the same idiots who think abortion is in the Constitution because Roe v. Wade says so, BUT think Bush v. Gore or Citizens United proves a run away court system.

The USSC is only the last word on the Constitution when liberals LIKE the decision, NOT when they don't!

 

[Liability]

First, you point out where the Constitution unites the Church with the State?

Nobody has claimed that the Constitution unites the State and religion. So your faux "gotchya" question is just a fail.

The CLAIM that is under discussion is that the Constitution provides this alleged "WALL OF SEPARATION."

Not only is it true that the Constitution does not use that particular phrase, but it is also true that the words that ARE used do not require that interpretation.

Jefferson's words were a kind of catchy shorthand way of describing the two very simple things that the FIRST AMENDMENT did spell out. (1) No official or required state religion and (2) no state impediment to the free exercise of anybody's particular religious beliefs.

Some folks (they tend to be libs) place WAY too much stock on the unfortunate shorthand expression and read too much into it. Thankfully, that's not necessary. What IS necessary is to give allegiance to the two basic requirements.

The government is not allowed to set up a State religion. Check.

The government is not allowed to deny people the right to worship under any religion of their choosing. Check.

The Constitution is ambiguous with respect to whether it grants the U. S. Government authority over religion.

I see no ambiguity. The First amendment is damn clear. And the answer is "no." If the government cannot set-up an official State religion (it can't) and if the government cannot tell me that I may not have any religious faith I choose (and it can't) then what authority could be left?

Maybe the government can say, "your steeple is not permitted to be higher than our zoning laws permit." But that's not any authority over the religion. It's authority over buildings.

Congress is granted power to provide for the general welfare of the United States and to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying that power into Execution. The term "general welfare" could be reasonably interpreted to include religion. However, the term could also be reasonably interpreted not to include religion.

The general welfare clause is part of the Preamble and it is designed to be explanatory for what the GRANTED POWERS are intended to cover. The Preamble is not, however, itself, the law.

Your "reasonable interpretation" argument has no basis unless you make the mistake of assuming that the Preamble is part of the grant of authority and powers. It isn't. It never was.

 

[boedicca]

The Constitution is ambiguous with respect to whether it grants the U. S. Government authority over religion.

Congress is granted power to provide for the general welfare of the United States and to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying that power into Execution. The term "general welfare" could be reasonably interpreted to include religion. However, the term could also be reasonably interpreted not to include religion.

You are wrong.

General Welfare in no way includes meddling in people's individual spirituality.

 

[topspin]

stupid jesus freaks are everywhere
anti education pagans

 

[Ravi]

When you dumbasses can find the EXACT WORDS "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" in the Constitution, I'll not only leave this forum, I'll become a life long Democrat and ONLY vote liberal.

First show us the quote where someone said the constitution contains the words separation of church and state, brainless one.

 

[Liability]

When you dumbasses can find the EXACT WORDS "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" in the Constitution, I'll not only leave this forum, I'll become a life long Democrat and ONLY vote liberal.

First show us the quote where someone said the constitution contains the words separation of church and state, brainless one.

You mistook his meaning.

HE's just laying the foundation.

Let us start with the things upon which we can agree.

The phrase "Separation of Church and State" does not, in those words, appear anywhere in the Constitution.

To the extent that people believe that the phrase is somehow properly a part of Constitutional analysis, therefore, the notion cannot be founded upon the literal text.

And by your caustic reply to TPS's post, it appears you accept the premise. The precise phrase itself does not appear in the Constitution. Excellent.

Isn't it nice to agree.

Now, time to move on to the NEXT point on the subject.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

When you dumbasses can find the EXACT WORDS "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" in the Constitution, I'll not only leave this forum, I'll become a life long Democrat and ONLY vote liberal.

First show us the quote where someone said the constitution contains the words separation of church and state, brainless one.

You mistook his meaning.

HE's jjust laying the foundation.

Let us start with thethings upon which we can agree.

The phrase "Separation of Church and State" does not, in those words, appear anywhere in the Constitution.

To the extent that people believe that the phrase is somehow properly a part of Constitutional analysis, therefore, the notion cannot be founded upon the literal text.

And by your caustic reply to TPS's post, it appears you accept the premise. The precise phrase itself does not appear in the Constitution. Excellent.

Isn't it nice to agree.

Now, time to move on to the NEXT point on the subject.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Jefferson's words were a kind of catchy shorthand way of describing the two very simple things that the FIRST AMENDMENT did spell out. (1) No official or required state religion and (2) no state impediment to the free exercise of anybody's particular religious beliefs.

It really doesn't matter what Jefferson's words were, because the men who made the Constitution didn't do so with the belief that it would be interpreted according to a letter to be written a decade latter.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

O'Donnell questions separation of church, state - Politics - Decision 2010 - msnbc.com



I thought these Tea Party candidates were all about Constitutionalism? WTF???

Do you have a link to the transcript or a video of that? I need to see it in its full context.

That being said in this current incomplete context O'donnel is a bonehead.

Hello?!?!?!?! Its the constitution "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."

If she doesn't know that then she looks like she is just jumping on the tea party bandwagon and not partaking in any tea party principles.

see the link in the second post
it had a much longer video of it and it was much more eye opening than the short one in the OP

The 2nd post no longer contains any links

 

[Ravi]

When you dumbasses can find the EXACT WORDS "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" in the Constitution, I'll not only leave this forum, I'll become a life long Democrat and ONLY vote liberal.

First show us the quote where someone said the constitution contains the words separation of church and state, brainless one.

You mistook his meaning.

HE's jjust laying the foundation.

Let us start with thethings upon which we can agree.

The phrase "Separation of Church and State" does not, in those words, appear anywhere in the Constitution.

To the extent that people believe that the phrase is somehow properly a part of Constitutional analysis, therefore, the notion cannot be founded upon the literal text.

And by your caustic reply to TPS's post, it appears you accept the premise. The precise phrase itself does not appear in the Constitution. Excellent.

Isn't it nice to agree.

Now, time to move on to the NEXT point on the subject.

mmmkay....

 

[Liability]

Jefferson's words were a kind of catchy shorthand way of describing the two very simple things that the FIRST AMENDMENT did spell out. (1) No official or required state religion and (2) no state impediment to the free exercise of anybody's particular religious beliefs.

It really doesn't matter what Jefferson's words were, because the men who made the Constitution didn't do so with the belief that it would be interpreted according to a letter to be written a decade latter.

A good argument for the left not to do that today, then.