Senate nominee O'Donnell asks whether Constitution prohibits establishment of religion

[Heracles 417]

You're just so special.

I'm not the one who claimed he had a "high-profile case", you did.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Just so you realize...in case you are still in denial. ONLY Obama could make this woman a viable candidate. Just like the only way that Scott Brown could win in MA is because Obama is in the White House.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Strangely enough she was in front of "legal Scholars" when she suggested the phrase "Separation of Church and state" is not in the Constitution....... and it appeared they thought it was.

And what a prime example of Media bias.

The Lady asks "Where is ""separation of Church and State"" in the constitution"

And the story gets reported : O'Donnell asks whether Constitution prohibits establishment of Religion

When the Liberal Media (this is the AP) can't score honest points off of O'Donnell...you know things are bad.

Yup. Steve even did it with the title of this thread.

Stay home November 2nd Steve.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I'm not the one who claimed he had a "high-profile case", you did.

But you have connections, I should have called you.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Just so you realize...in case you are still in denial. ONLY Obama could make this woman a viable candidate.

Seems you're the one in denial, Gary. Christine O'Donnell trails Coons by significant margin in this race. She is NOT viable beyond the GOP. As well, the only reason that there is a neck-to-neck race for the NV Senate seat is that the GOP managed to nominate a nutjob for the seat. Had the GOP nominated an actually viable candidate, the race would be a slam dunk and Harry would have been sent packing w/o much of a fight.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[ready4ONE 5,400]

It's not in the Constitution, or the First Amendment. Try again.

It is early but either my sarcasm detector is broken or you intend to become another GOP RNW Senate candidate running on your vast support of the Constitution as it exists only in your minds...

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

It is early but either my sarcasm detector is broken or you intend to become another GOP RNW Senate candidate running on your vast support of the Constitution as it exists only in your minds...

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

Typical liberal reading fail. Amendment limits Congress, not religion.

[simpson_121919 0]

The idea was to prohibit a national religion, specifically favor one form of Christianity over the other, or establish "The Church of the United States". It did not prohibit the individual states, however, from favoring one religion over another, as many states already were predominately of one religion, or another, or even to allow Utah to be established as a Mormon territory.

ETA: Jefferson's "Wall of Separation" aside, the founders intended to keep government out of the affairs of religion, not keep religion out of governance.

I came across this - The phrase stemmed from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. He cited the language of the First Amendment and said that it built "a wall of separation between Church and State."

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Typical liberal reading fail. Amendment limits Congress, not religion.

You Right Wing yahoos become constitutional literalists only when it's ideologically convenient. Yes, the Amendment limits Congress...aka...the Legislative Branch of Government (aka 'the State'). Bill, if you believe that the Framers of the Constitution were in favor of state sponsored religion you are nuttier than a bag of pistachios.

Colonial support for separation

The Flushing Remonstrance shows support for separation of church and state as early as the mid-17th century. The document was signed December 27, 1657 by a group of English citizens in America who were affronted by persecution of Quakers and the religious policies of the Governor of New Netherland, Peter Stuyvesant. Stuyvesant had formally banned all religions other than the Dutch Reformed Church from being practiced in the colony, in accordance with the laws of the Dutch Republic. The signers indicated their "desire therefore in this case not to judge lest we be judged, neither to condemn least we be condemned, but rather let every man stand or fall to his own Master."^[10] Stuyvesant fined the petitioners and threw them in prison until they recanted. However, John Bowne allowed the Quakers to meet in his home. Bowne was arrested, jailed, and sent to the Netherlands for trial; the Dutch court exonerated Bowne.

New York Historical Society President and Columbia University Professor of History Kenneth T. Jackson describes the Flushing Remonstrance as "the first thing that we have in writing in the United States where a group of citizens attests on paper and over their signature the right of the people to follow their own conscience with regard to God - and the inability of government, or the illegality of government, to interfere with that."^[11]

Given the wide diversity of opinion on Christian theological matters in the newly independent American States, the Constitutional Convention believed a government sanctioned (established) religion would disrupt rather than bind the newly formed union together. George Washington wrote a letter in 1790 to the country's first Jewish congregation, the Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island to state:

All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it were by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

^[12]

There were also opponents to the support of any established church even at the state level. In 1773, Isaac Backus, a prominent Baptist minister in New England, observed that when "church and state are separate, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischiefs that have ensued." Thomas Jefferson's influential Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was enacted in 1786, five years before the Bill of Rights.

Most Anglican ministers, and many Anglicans, were Loyalists. The Anglican establishment, where it had existed, largely ceased to function during the American Revolution, though the new States did not formally abolish and replace it until some years after the Revolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

[Heracles 417]

Sorry Steven this is common sense. Hence why no other first world country practices the status-quo definition of it.

I tend to want to listen to the rest of the first world whose citizens are living a higher Q.O.L and are renowned for their HDI, than the status-quo of one failing country.

It is amazing how you stick to this view with both illegal immigration and this topic. Surely common sense would kick in at some point and at least have you ponder why no other first world country shares your view on these issues.

If that does not work, the clause speaks for itself. Anyone educate by her majesty's English, like the founding fathers, has a clear grasp of its meaning and context. Same goes with the first amendment really.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Heracles

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You Right Wing yahoos become constitutional literalists only when it's ideologically convenient. Yes, the Amendment limits Congress...aka...the Legislative Branch of Government (aka 'the State'). Bill, if you believe that the Framers of the Constitution were in favor of state sponsored religion you are nuttier than a bag of pistachios.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

Do you honestly believe a Christmas tree is unconstitutional?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Do you honestly believe a Christmas tree is unconstitutional?

Excuse me, Mr. Constitutional Scholar? Perhaps you'd like to frame that better as to what exactly you are talking about.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Excuse me, Mr. Constitutional Scholar? Perhaps you'd like to frame that better as to what exactly you are talking about.

You know what I'm talking about.

Do you honestly believe placing a Christmas tree out in front of a city hall is unconstitutional?

How about congress saying their daily prayer? Is that unconstitutional?

Congress can make No Law regarding such things. This does not prevent a city/state government from celebrating whatever they want, nor does it honestly prevent a city/state government from actually making their own law for their individual state to be quite honest.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You know what I'm talking about.

Do you honestly believe placing a Christmas tree out in front of a city hall is unconstitutional?

How about congress saying their daily prayer? Is that unconstitutional?

Congress can make No Law regarding such things. This does not prevent a city/state government from celebrating whatever they want, nor does it honestly prevent a city/state government from actually making their own law for their individual state to be quite honest.

What do you think the authors of the Flushing Remonstrance would say about it? Decorating a tree during the holidays has no direct reference to any specific set of beliefs (religion). Neither does saying a prayer in public (unless it specifically declares a belief). Hanging the Ten Commandments or a crucifix in a government building however is being explicit in a set of beliefs.

Whenever these kinds of questions come up, it would be beneficial to think of the worst, most hideous example you can think of, and see if your opinion remains the same. For example, if the Governor of California, along with all his cabinet members in the capital building were sworn Satanists, could they decorate the halls with Satanic imagery? Upside down crucifix? When you think about it, you understand why a separation of church and state is rational conclusion.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

What do you think the authors of the Flushing Remonstrance would say about it? Decorating a tree during the holidays has no direct reference to any specific set of beliefs (religion). Neither does saying a prayer in public (unless it specifically declares a belief). Hanging the Ten Commandments or a crucifix in a government building however is being explicit in a set of beliefs.

Whenever these kinds of questions come up, it would be beneficial to think of the worst, most hideous example you can think of, and see if your opinion remains the same. For example, if the Governor of California, along with all his cabinet members in the capital building were sworn Satanists, could they decorate the halls with Satanic imagery? Upside down crucifix? When you think about it, you understand why a separation of church and state is rational conclusion.

just because it's rational, doesn't mean it's the way things there. There's no such thing right now. Until congress passes a law saying such, then it's really a fruitless argument. The only thing that the first amendment does is makes sure Congress cannot create any law that establishes a religion... This does nothing to stop a city/state from decorating/establishing whatever rules/laws they want to have regarding the subject.

I don't agree with religion being shoved down everyones throat, but I'm not going to hold it against a city/township who wants to put a nativity scene out front...