O'Donnell questions separation of church, state

[teapartysamurai]

Quick question........

If you don't believe in a separation of church and state, exactly WHICH church should the state be joined to?

And why?

Quick question.

WHY does it INSTANTLY mean there will be an establishment of an official state religion contrary to the EXACT WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION, unless we apply words THAT DO NOT exist in the Constitution?

I mean that's stupid.

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.

It's already in the Constitution. Congress shall make no law establishing a religion. It's already there.

So, why do we NEED words that DO NOT EXIST in the Constitution to prevent what is already contained IN the Constitution?

I'll tell you why? Because that isn't ENOUGH for liberals. They do not want to stop Congress from establishing a state religion.

Quite the contrary. They WANT Congress to establish a state religion. THEIR RELIGION OF LIBERALISM. And thus they can tolerate no other religion. All other religions must be censored with the supposed "separation."

That's the dirty little secret, and as usual liberals hide this not so dirty little secret behind a veneer of nobility, a visage of freedom.

But as usual, it always SCREAMS that someone has to be censored for "freedom" to shine. Thus we can't have God showing up! That's competes with their false religion and they don't like that!

 

[Big Fitz]

Quick question........

If you don't believe in a separation of church and state, exactly WHICH church should the state be joined to?

And why?

Wow, talk about an intellectually dishonest question.

Did many of us not rattle off the Establishment Clause preventing JUST what you stated?

Come on... don't make me lol you.

 

[Political Junky]

Just saw a clip of an interview in which O'Donnell thought she won that part of the debate with Coons.
Ignorance is, indeed, bliss.

 

[Ravi]

I see no ambiguity.

In 1788 - 1791, the words "law", "respecting", "establishment" and "religion" are all ambiguous.

Nonsense.

Well, Liarbility, I am patiently awaiting your moving on to the next point...

 

[ABikerSailor]

Oh yeah........don't forget........when O'Donnell was asked what Democrat currently serving in the Senate she would reach across the aisle to work with, she named Hillary Clinton.

How the fuck is someone in the Senate going to get something done if they are unable to reach across the aisle? And how the fuck can you reach to someone if you DON'T KNOW WHO THE FUCK THEY ARE?????

Nope, O'Donnell is a total twit. But then again, look who she learned from, the Twitter Quitter Wasilla Chihuahua turned Momma Gerbil, the illustrious batshit crazy Palin.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Quick question........

If you don't believe in a separation of church and state, exactly WHICH church should the state be joined to?

And why?

Quick question.

WHY does it INSTANTLY mean there will be an establishment of an official state religion contrary to the EXACT WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION, unless we apply words THAT DO NOT exist in the Constitution?

I mean that's stupid.

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.

It's already in the Constitution. Congress shall make no law establishing a religion. It's already there.

So, why do we NEED words that DO NOT EXIST in the Constitution to prevent what is already contained IN the Constitution?

I'll tell you why? Because that isn't ENOUGH for liberals. They do not want to stop Congress from establishing a state religion.

Quite the contrary. They WANT Congress to establish a state religion. THEIR RELIGION OF LIBERALISM. And thus they can tolerate no other religion. All other religions must be censored with the supposed "separation."

That's the dirty little secret, and as usual liberals hide this not so dirty little secret behind a veneer of nobility, a visage of freedom.

But as usual, it always SCREAMS that someone has to be censored for "freedom" to shine. Thus we can't have God showing up! That's competes with their false religion and they don't like that!

Nice to see you agree with a separation of church and state Teabagger Sumo Lie.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

The words in the 1st amendment MEAN there is a wall of separation between religion and our government.

The Amendments were intended to deceive the people.

You will find our Amendments to the Constitution calculated merely to amuse, or rather to deceive.​

Source: Representative Thomas Tudor Tucker to St. George Tucker, 2 October 1789, Roberts Autograph Collection, Haverford College, Haverford, Pennsylvania
​

 

[Big Fitz]

Just saw a clip of an interview in which O'Donnell thought she won that part of the debate with Coons.
Ignorance is, indeed, bliss.

Lots of clips of that debate show she smoked Coot's ass like a chunk of turkey jerky.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

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.

Liability I'm a she.

But that's the point. There are idiot liberals who claim "Separation of church and State" is in the Constitution.

You want a stupid lib who claims it's there?

See the Civil Liberties Union!

The separation between Religion & Govt is strongly guarded in the Constitution of the United States. See James Madison's Detached Memoranda

 

[Big Fitz]

The separation between Religion & Govt is strongly guarded in the Constitution of the United States.

Find it. Just find it. Don't assume it. Don't try a flexible definition. Find it. And after you do, explain to me why congress opens with a prayer. Then explain to me as to why one of the very first acts of congress IF NOT the first was to print the Bible.

You can of course say that Federalist #40 but that does not imply a ban on religion as you seem to think is the case.

 

[teapartysamurai]

I see no ambiguity.

In 1788 - 1791, the words "law", "respecting", "establishment" and "religion" are all ambiguous.

Apparently, because Jagger says so!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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???

How about when you post quotes keep them in context

Mr. Coons began reciting the Establishment Clause, as it is known, prompting Ms. O’Donnell to ask, “That’s in the First Amendment?”

Coons, O’Donnell Debate Constitution - Washington Wire - WSJ

 

[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!

no one cares what you do, and no one thinks that you *think* in the generally accepted sense of the term.

carry on

Excuse me, but it's not about what I *think.*

It's what liberals claim is in the Constitution and have been claiming since 1960, which IS "Separation of Church and State."

Just because libs insist it's in the Constitution doesn't make it so, and that's why I set up my bet.

Just because YOU don't like the way I put it, doesn't change it's validity.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Factually she is correct. No where in the first amendment does it say the Separation of Church and State!!! NO WHERE in the constitution does it say this.

The concept of the Separation of Church and State came from Case Law based on the preceived legislative intent of the first amendment! Reynolds v US Case, during the middle 1800s establish the WELL ACCEPTED concept of the Separation of Church and State.

While she was factually correct, her tactic was beyond a doubt stupid and I have no doubt that she is far from a constitutional scholar. Not knowing one recent Supreme Court case she disagrees with is outrageous! Nice prep work moron.

She should have stated, "Coon, while the concept, which I support, of the Separation of Church and State, came about via case law interpretation of the Establish Clause of the First Amendment, it is NOT stated in the First Amendment. If you or ANYONE can show me specifically in the first amendment or the CONSTITUTION for that matter, where it says stated SPECIFICALLY word for word Separation of Church and State, then I will drop out of the race! Will you take the same pledge that its in the constitution?"

Remember case law can change! Separate but equal came about after the 13th and 14th amendment in Plesy v. Ferguson. It was the law of the land for over a half century. Case law interpretations of the constitution can change!

Note: I am not saying Separation of Church and State will ever change and I would cry if it ever got changed, but O'Donnell is factually correct.

No she's not.

This whole "exact words" argument is a little silly.

Exactly, when coon quoted the 1st amendment she responded, "that's in the first amendment?" showing that she had no clue as to what is actually in the 1st amendment.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meGy9J_kIJI&feature=related[/ame]

The video doesn't work.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Liability I'm a she.

But that's the point. There are idiot liberals who claim "Separation of church and State" is in the Constitution.

You want a stupid lib who claims it's there?

See the Civil Liberties Union!

The separation between Religion & Govt is strongly guarded in the Constitution of the United States. See James Madison's Detached Memoranda

Really? Why do we have a U.S. Congressional chaplain?

 

[teapartysamurai]

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

Who's brainless. That'w what this stupid thread is about. That O'Donnel supposedly doesn't "know" that separation of church and state is in the Constitution.

Problem is, SHE'S RIGHT, IT ISN'T THERE!

The idiots are the law students who laughed at O'Donnel when she said, "you are telling me that's in the Constitution."

It isn't!

God you conservatives are stupid. The words in the 1st amendment MEAN there is a wall of separation between religion and our government.

Jesus H Roosevelt Christ.

I think we see who's stupid when liberals claim something there simply because they insist it's there!

If it was "meant to be there" it WOULD be there.

It's NOT, so it isn't.

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.

No wall, no separation. Only that Congress shall make no law. It also says they won't prohigit the FREE EXERCISE THEREOF, like at football games, graduation ceremonies or at schools.

But don't tell liberals that. No, the SCHMART people INSIST that wall is there.

Just because there isn't even a HINT of it IN the Constitution is beside the point!

 

[teapartysamurai]

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

Who's brainless. That'w what this stupid thread is about. That O'Donnel supposedly doesn't "know" that separation of church and state is in the Constitution.

Problem is, SHE'S RIGHT, IT ISN'T THERE!

The idiots are the law students who laughed at O'Donnel when she said, "you are telling me that's in the Constitution."

It isn't!

Anyone trying to defend o'donnell is brainless. The CURRENT spin of her campaign and her defenders is that she was referring to the exact phrase "separation of church and state" but as I showed earlier coons quoted the 1st amendment and o'donnell asked, "That's in the 1st amendment?". The attempt at damage control as her defenders try to spin and argue that the exact phrase is what she was referring to doesn't match what was actually said in the debate.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meGy9J_kIJI&feature=related[/ame]

She is referring specifically to Separation of Church and State and your video does not work.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Oh yeah........don't forget........when O'Donnell was asked what Democrat currently serving in the Senate she would reach across the aisle to work with, she named Hillary Clinton.

How the fuck is someone in the Senate going to get something done if they are unable to reach across the aisle? And how the fuck can you reach to someone if you DON'T KNOW WHO THE FUCK THEY ARE?????

Nope, O'Donnell is a total twit. But then again, look who she learned from, the Twitter Quitter Wasilla Chihuahua turned Momma Gerbil, the illustrious batshit crazy Palin.

Have a url to prove any of that?

 

[teapartysamurai]

Quick question........

If you don't believe in a separation of church and state, exactly WHICH church should the state be joined to?

And why?

Quick question.

WHY does it INSTANTLY mean there will be an establishment of an official state religion contrary to the EXACT WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION, unless we apply words THAT DO NOT exist in the Constitution?

I mean that's stupid.

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.

It's already in the Constitution. Congress shall make no law establishing a religion. It's already there.

So, why do we NEED words that DO NOT EXIST in the Constitution to prevent what is already contained IN the Constitution?

I'll tell you why? Because that isn't ENOUGH for liberals. They do not want to stop Congress from establishing a state religion.

Quite the contrary. They WANT Congress to establish a state religion. THEIR RELIGION OF LIBERALISM. And thus they can tolerate no other religion. All other religions must be censored with the supposed "separation."

That's the dirty little secret, and as usual liberals hide this not so dirty little secret behind a veneer of nobility, a visage of freedom.

But as usual, it always SCREAMS that someone has to be censored for "freedom" to shine. Thus we can't have God showing up! That's competes with their false religion and they don't like that!

Nice to see you agree with a separation of church and state Teabagger Sumo Lie.

This is what liberals do when they lose. They claim you said something you didn't say or agree with them anyway.

Just as they are lying about what O'Donnel said.

That's what liberals do when they lose!

 

[teapartysamurai]

The words in the 1st amendment MEAN there is a wall of separation between religion and our government.

The Amendments were intended to deceive the people.

You will find our Amendments to the Constitution calculated merely to amuse, or rather to deceive.
​

Source: Representative Thomas Tudor Tucker to St. George Tucker, 2 October 1789, Roberts Autograph Collection, Haverford College, Haverford, Pennsylvania
​

How about a url for that?