More @ hardlynews.org “where in the constitution is separation of church and state?”
Home » The Constitution » Christine O’Donnell “Where in constitution is the separation of church and state?”
Christine O’Donnell “Where in constitution is the separation of church and state?”
Posted in The Constitution and tagged as Christine, Church, Constitution, O'Donnell, Separation, State
25 comments on “Christine O’Donnell “Where in constitution is the separation of church and state?””
Leave a Reply
joealaniz
October 28, 2010 at 1:50 am
@83Hammerhead Im agnostic and a democrat. She is trully clueless and I was not defending her in any way.
Remembermylai
October 28, 2010 at 2:24 am
@velvetsoldier713
“The 1st amendment was meant to prevent the govt from messing with religion, not viceversa.”
Yeah, walls of seperation go both ways. James Madison (who wrote the bill of rights ) said that first amendment intended to build a “total wall of separation between church and state” In other word both and and miss o’dumbass have no idea what these things mean.
Remembermylai
October 28, 2010 at 2:51 am
@MetalDetroit
The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State.
— James Madison
James Madison drafted the bill of rights. Do you think that he may have know something about intend of the very thing he created? If you had any “intellectual honesty” I think you know what the answer would be!
Remembermylai
October 28, 2010 at 3:45 am
@MetalDetroit
“Liberals” aren’t saying the the phrase “separation of church and state ” appear in the constitution. Their saying the the PRINCIPLE separation Church and state appear in the constitution. And the reason that phrase is used is because the originators of the constitution used it describe what the first amendment was intended to do
Useyno
October 28, 2010 at 4:32 am
WOW she really believe this stuff!!
83Hammerhead
October 28, 2010 at 5:03 am
@godroxdahowse Of course everyone’s allowed to practice whatever religion they want. But if institutions like courts and public schools which are funded by the government have christian displays or mandatory prayer then that’s the gov’t endorsing a religion over others. No one’s keeping anyone from putting up (privately funded) nativity scenes or praying in school. It’s not a law against christianity it’s a law protecting religious freedom for those that are in the minority.
godroxdahowse
October 28, 2010 at 5:15 am
@83Hammerhead My point exactly, you have laws being made against Christianity which is unConstitutional. The Constitution gives the freedom of religion no matter what religion people are, whether it be Christianity, Islam, Satanism, etc. As long as that particular religion is not breaking other laws (murder, child molestation, etc) then the Govt does not have the right to shut it down. The satanist kid has the same right to pray in school as the Christian. The “Church & State” is being raped!
83Hammerhead
October 28, 2010 at 5:30 am
@godroxdahowse wrong, it’s because things like the 10 commandments and nativity scenes endorse one religion (christianity) over others…which is prohibited by the constitution (“congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”). moron.
godroxdahowse
October 28, 2010 at 6:28 am
This is ridiculous, “Separation of Church & State” is NOT in the Constitution, it was mentioned in a letter from Benjamin Franklin to the Danbury’s.
Now, you could say the 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, HOWEVER, if that is REALLY the case, then why are the 10 Commandments pulled OUT of Courts? Why are people w/nativity scenes sued around Christmas?
Simply because too many people in our Gov’t actually believe that “Sep of Ch&St” is IN the Constitution…morons.
xtian22801
October 28, 2010 at 7:07 am
@Vebrotube saw your reply – the PHRASE isn’t in there, but you insist that the 1st Amendment doesn’t even assert this “conceptually”? You must be reading a different version of the thing, then. No mandated religion by governments, state or federal, please. Not what the friggin’ country’s about.
83Hammerhead
October 28, 2010 at 7:27 am
@joealaniz common now, that’s clearly not what she means when she says this…
rickrocker
October 28, 2010 at 8:10 am
Which idiot do you vote for? The one that is wrong but logical or the one that is logically right but doesn’t know why? Christine O’Donnell and Barack Obama should be running-mates in 2012. Neither of them know what’s in the Constitution.
axis462
October 28, 2010 at 8:29 am
@Vebrotube Sure it does. The phrase was actually coined by Thomas Jefferson himself, who when asked to clarify the meaning of the establishment clause stated that it was meant to erect a “wall of separation between church and state.” That statement was later referenced by the Supreme Court who ruled that the First Amendment indeed exists to prevent the government from stymieing the expression of religion as well as endorsing a particular religion as truer than another.
joealaniz
October 28, 2010 at 9:06 am
Al though the DUMB ASS is laughed at, she is right. The actual words, separation of church and state don’t appear in the constitution.
Edenariel2012
October 28, 2010 at 9:52 am
@fluxfaze What’s frightening is how little most Americans know what is in the library of congress under religion and the founding of the American Republic VI Religion and the Federal Government–“The state becomes the Church:Jefferson and Madison. Hope you can still learn like Washington that it is Almighty God that blessed this nation-hope you’ll get to know the God Washington knew so that your name too can be written in heaven.
Vebrotube
October 28, 2010 at 10:13 am
@xtian22801: You are reading something into the Constitution that doesn’t exist, literally or conceptually. No confusion here.
Vebrotube
October 28, 2010 at 11:01 am
@axis462: Excuse me, but the concept of “separation of church and state” doesn’t exist, either.
LiberalDrivel
October 28, 2010 at 11:11 am
@Lightstrikers Not all religions worship at churches. Our friends the Jews and Muslims are the largest two examples. You wear your bikini. I’ll bring the Coronas.
Lightstrikers
October 28, 2010 at 11:21 am
@LiberalDrivel What else is “church” associated with besides religion, a beach? “hey lets grab our bikini and head down to the church for sand and sun!”
LiberalDrivel
October 28, 2010 at 12:12 pm
There is nothing about “a wall of separation between church and state” in the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment prohibits the government from creating a state religion, much like many of the original 13 states had. The word “church” never once appears in the Constitution. The current secularization of our government occurred as a result of a 1947 Supreme Court decision written by Justice Hugo Black, a former lawyer for the KKK and FDR appointee. O’Donnell is absolutely correct.
dangputerz
October 28, 2010 at 12:58 pm
Evolution as taught in school is actually bundled from two separate things. Micro-evolution, varies in species. FACT. Big dog, little dog, wolf, coyote all came from the same kind. They can produce new kinds of dogs. Macro-evolution is NOT a fact at all, it has NEVER been observed and studied and it is why it is a theory. We have never observed a species via beneficial mutation produce another breeding species. No two dogs ever created a new animal. Dumber then the idea of a God to me.
blackhawks116
October 28, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Where does it say that? The first ten words of the first amendment…Sometimes I really wonder if this is a conspiracy to make us feel so hopeless that we become politically apathetic.
Stingerbillion
October 28, 2010 at 1:56 pm
@travisthurston Love it too. Have you watched the full version of this debate? Or 8min of it? It goes far. Just curious.
Stingerbillion
October 28, 2010 at 2:33 pm
@N21X I agree.
Stingerbillion
October 28, 2010 at 2:38 pm
@fluxfaze hhhaah i agree. It’s sad that this country, world and economic power, has to reduce to idiots like her. Seriously, this is who we are electing to beat democrats? What ideas has the republican party given since out of power. Zero! What policies she will bring when she has issues of her own? And lastly, how is she going to protect YOUR constitution when she doesn’t know it? Really sad.