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

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Typical RNW fail as the candidate wants Creationism i.e. Biblical Creationism taught in public school science class. A clear violation of the amendment and one this dandy doubted existed when quoted verbatim.

Back to the drawing board of snappy RNW comebacks for you!

[Danno 1,228]

Typical RNW fail as the candidate wants Creationism i.e. Biblical Creationism taught in public school science class. A clear violation of the amendment and one this dandy doubted existed when quoted verbatim.

Back to the drawing board of snappy RNW comebacks for you!

Actually it may be you who needs to get back to the draWing board.

"Biblical" Creationism is just one part of it. But I don't think she expressed any interest in mandating any such thing be taught in schools, as it's a local issue and not one for the US senate anyway. (which is what she said.

Now on to more learning.

Creationism in its self is the believe that - God or some other supreme being had a hand in creating the universe.

Which is hardly an endorsement of any religion... certainly not any more than printing "In God we trust" on our money.

See, learnins fun!!

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

Yes - what better way to pay homage to God than to invoke His name stamped on our money, which has made both Vegas and Wall Street the Holiest of Holies.

[Danno 1,228]

Yes - what better way to pay homage to God than to invoke His name stamped on our money, which has made both Vegas and Wall Street the Holiest of Holies.

Actually it is more of a "proclamation" Paying homage is something all together different.

By proclaiming "In God we trust" we merely state the nations condition as a whole... doesn't mean that "everyone" trusts in God, it proclaims -as a nation we do.

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

Actually it is more of a "proclamation" Paying homage is something all together different.

By proclaiming "In God we trust" we merely state the nations condition as a whole... doesn't mean that "everyone" trusts in God, it proclaims -as a nation we do.

Teddy Roosevelt thought placing it on our money was a bad idea. Here's a letter he wrote about it:

My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good, but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege. A beautiful and solemn sentence such as the one in question should be treated and uttered only with that fine reverence which necessarily implies a certain exaltation of spirit.

Any use which tends to cheapen it, and above all, any use which tends to secure its being treated in a spirit of levity, is from every standpoint profoundly to be regretted. It is a motto which it is, indeed, well to have inscribed on our great National monuments, in our temples of justice, in our legislative halls, and in buildings such as those at West Point and Annapolis - in short, wherever it will tend to arouse and inspire a lofty emotion in those who look thereon. But it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps or in advertisements.

http://query.nytimes...9679D946697D6CF

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Now you choose to reveal your literacy guide...

Edited October 21, 2010 by ready4ONE

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Now on to more learning.

Creationism in its self is the believe that - God or some other supreme being had a hand in creating the universe.

Which is hardly an endorsement of any religion... certainly not any more than printing "In God we trust" on our money.

See, learnins fun!!

God having a hand in creation isn't an endorsement of religion??? Learnin ain't your thang Danno my man.

She didn't believe the exactly quoted language was actually in the Constitution she alleges to believes in and holds so dear. Enough said.

[Danno 1,228]

God having a hand in creation isn't an endorsement of religion??? Learnin ain't your thang Danno my man.

Let me go slower this time.

Creationism= the concept that a god or supreme force created the universe.

If you feel that is a religion ... please name what religion it is?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Let me go slower this time.

Creationism= the concept that a god or supreme force created the universe.

If you feel that is a religion ... please name what religion it is?

Christianity is behind the push for Creationism being used as a valid 'scientific' theory about why we are here. Theology class fine, science class no.

Religion named.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Now you choose to reveal your literacy guide...

What If Christine O'Donnell Were Right About The First Amendment?

The mainstream media and blogosphere have erupted because in a radio debate Christine O'Donnell appeared to dispute whether "separation of church and state" was required by the First Amendment. (O'Donnell's campaign walked back the position after the debate, saying O'Donnell merely meant that the words were not in the First Amendment.)

The concept of separation of church and state is not, indeed, in the wording of the First Amendment. Rather, as explained in the 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lynch v. Donelly:

This Court has explained that the purpose of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment is

to prevent, as far as possible, the intrusion of either [the church or the state] into the precincts of the other.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 614 (1971).

At the same time, however, the Court has recognized that

total separation is not possible in an absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable.

Ibid. In every Establishment Clause case, we must reconcile the inescapable tension between the objective of preventing unnecessary intrusion of either the church or the state upon the other, and the reality that, as the Court has so often noted, total separation of the two is not possible. [p673]

The Court has sometimes described the Religion Clauses as erecting a "wall" between church and state, see, e.g., Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 18 (1947). The concept of a "wall" of separation is a useful figure of speech probably deriving from views of Thomas Jefferson.

[n1]

The metaphor has served as a reminder that the Establishment Clause forbids an established church or anything approaching it. But the metaphor itself is not a wholly accurate description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists between church and state.

The reference to Jefferson relates to this passage from a letter Jefferson wrote in 1802, as recited in the 1878 case Reynolds v. United States (emphasis mine):

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions -- I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus

building a wall of separation between church and State

. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

So, O'Donnell unquestionably did not agree with the popular liberal conception that the First Amendment by its written terms requires a "separation of church and state," but she was not wrong.

And what an embarrassment to Widener Law School that as soon as O'Donnell questioned whether "separation of church and state" was in the First Amendment, the crowd erupted with gasps of disbelief and mocking laughter.

And if O'Donnell's imperfect -- or perhaps nuanced? -- understanding of the First Amendment were so outrageous, how about the inability of Chris Coons, a Yale Law School graduate, to identify the other freedoms protected by the First Amendment, and his misquoting the text of the First Amendment in his challenge to O'Donnell:

"Government shall make no establishment of religion," Coons responded, reciting from memory the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (Coons was off slightly: The first amendment actually reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.")

Ann Althouse has more on how Coons simply was wrong in his quotation of the First Amendment which led to O'Donnell's supposed major gaffe about the Establishment Clause, and how the press has taken O'Donnell's comments out of context:

O'Donnell reacts: "That's in the First Amendment?" And, in fact, it's not. The First Amendment doesn't say "government." It says "Congress." And since the discussion is about what local school boards can do, the difference is highly significant.

Also, it isn't "shall make no establishment of religion." It's "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." There's a lot one could say about the difference between those 2 phrases, and I won't belabor it here. Suffice it to say that it was not stupid for O'Donnell to say "That's in the First Amendment?" — because it's not. Coons was presenting a version of what's in the cases interpreting the text, not the text itself.

A literal reading of O'Donnell's comments reflects that she was correct, but of course, the press and the blogosphere don't want a literal reading, they want a living, breathing reading which comports with their preconceived notions.

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/10/what-if-christine-odonnell-were-right.html

[The_Dude 1,142]

Let me go slower this time.

Creationism= the concept that a god or supreme force created the universe.

If you feel that is a religion ... please name what religion it is?

Danno, at best you're being disingenuous. You know full well that the creationism taught is the Christian version of it.

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

What If Christine O'Donnell Were Right About The First Amendment?

The mainstream media and blogosphere have erupted because in a radio debate Christine O'Donnell appeared to dispute whether "separation of church and state" was required by the First Amendment. (O'Donnell's campaign walked back the position after the debate, saying O'Donnell merely meant that the words were not in the First Amendment.)

The concept of separation of church and state is not, indeed, in the wording of the First Amendment. Rather, as explained in the 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lynch v. Donelly:

This Court has explained that the purpose of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment is

to prevent, as far as possible, the intrusion of either [the church or the state] into the precincts of the other.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 614 (1971).

At the same time, however, the Court has recognized that

total separation is not possible in an absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable.

Ibid. In every Establishment Clause case, we must reconcile the inescapable tension between the objective of preventing unnecessary intrusion of either the church or the state upon the other, and the reality that, as the Court has so often noted, total separation of the two is not possible. [p673]

The Court has sometimes described the Religion Clauses as erecting a "wall" between church and state, see, e.g., Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 18 (1947). The concept of a "wall" of separation is a useful figure of speech probably deriving from views of Thomas Jefferson.

[n1]

The metaphor has served as a reminder that the Establishment Clause forbids an established church or anything approaching it. But the metaphor itself is not a wholly accurate description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists between church and state.

The reference to Jefferson relates to this passage from a letter Jefferson wrote in 1802, as recited in the 1878 case Reynolds v. United States (emphasis mine):

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions -- I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus

building a wall of separation between church and State

. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

So, O'Donnell unquestionably did not agree with the popular liberal conception that the First Amendment by its written terms requires a "separation of church and state," but she was not wrong.

And what an embarrassment to Widener Law School that as soon as O'Donnell questioned whether "separation of church and state" was in the First Amendment, the crowd erupted with gasps of disbelief and mocking laughter.

And if O'Donnell's imperfect -- or perhaps nuanced? -- understanding of the First Amendment were so outrageous, how about the inability of Chris Coons, a Yale Law School graduate, to identify the other freedoms protected by the First Amendment, and his misquoting the text of the First Amendment in his challenge to O'Donnell:

"Government shall make no establishment of religion," Coons responded, reciting from memory the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (Coons was off slightly: The first amendment actually reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.")

Ann Althouse has more on how Coons simply was wrong in his quotation of the First Amendment which led to O'Donnell's supposed major gaffe about the Establishment Clause, and how the press has taken O'Donnell's comments out of context:

O'Donnell reacts: "That's in the First Amendment?" And, in fact, it's not. The First Amendment doesn't say "government." It says "Congress." And since the discussion is about what local school boards can do, the difference is highly significant.

Also, it isn't "shall make no establishment of religion." It's "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." There's a lot one could say about the difference between those 2 phrases, and I won't belabor it here. Suffice it to say that it was not stupid for O'Donnell to say "That's in the First Amendment?" — because it's not. Coons was presenting a version of what's in the cases interpreting the text, not the text itself.

A literal reading of O'Donnell's comments reflects that she was correct, but of course, the press and the blogosphere don't want a literal reading, they want a living, breathing reading which comports with their preconceived notions.

http://legalinsurrec...were-right.html

This is like an argument of "what is is." A separation of church and state is a well understood concept of the limitations of government. By making the claim that because those words aren't literally in the Constitution, it implies that the jury is still out as to whether state sponsored religious activities are constitutional or not and that's flat out wrong. The Christian Right, which O'Donnell is a part of, believe that not only do they have a moral imperative to push for an integration of Christianity in public forums like schools, but they believe they have the Constitution on their side.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

This is like an argument of "what is is." A separation of church and state is a well understood concept of the limitations of government. By making the claim that because those words aren't literally in the Constitution, it implies that the jury is still out as to whether state sponsored religious activities are constitutional or not and that's flat out wrong. The Christian Right, which O'Donnell is a part of, believe that not only do they have a moral imperative to push for an integration of Christianity in public forums like schools, but they believe they have the Constitution on their side.

Thanks for proving the point:

A literal reading of O'Donnell's comments reflects that she was correct, but of course, the [Liberal Progressive] press and the blogosphere don't want a literal reading, they want a living, breathing reading which comports with their preconceived notions.

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

Thanks for proving the point:

Ah, yes. She didn't actually say what I thought she meant. Right. With a wink and a nod...nudge, nudge.

[mawilson 2,133]

The Christian Right, which O'Donnell is a part of

She is? I thought she was a witch. The Christian Right doesn't take too kindly to witchcraft.