Flabbergasting!

[ducknwork]

The government cannot establish or promote a religion. Teaching the theory of creationism alongside the THEORY of evolution is doing neither. Perhaps her sentence was just worded poorly, because I don't see how the Constitution allows the outlaw of teaching an alternative theory. Of course, I did leave my liberal bias goggles at home today...

[david gibson]

No I don't. People who outright deny any separation of church and state are very scary to me, and they should be to you too. And people who are too stupid to even know the First Amendment should scare all of us. I wonder if she knows that the constitution gives us the right to bear arms? Oh, where is that one?

And by the way, exposing one's ignorance of a vitally important subject, one that person claims to be well-versed in, is NOT a gaffe.

yet it shouldnt scare us to hear a democrat say he thinks the constitution is wrong.

there goes your wonderful "independence" again...

[YardleyLabs]

O'Donnell's comment was not a "mis-speak". Actually, the religious right, with whom O'Donnell identifies when she is not playing with candles and crystals, has been saying for years that the first amendment was never intended to impose a separation of church and state. Rather, the argument is made that the first amendment was intended solely to keeo government from interfering with religion, not to keep religion out of government. Of course, the laughter from the audience suggests that she might want to pick better audiences than a law school if she wants to spout such drivel. While the words "separation of church and state" are not in the Constitution, historical evidence certainly suggests that was the common understanding of the establishment clause in the first amendment when the Constitution was drafted and adopted.

[road kill]

I agree, I think she was going to try to force a religion on us, great catch Dave!!!


So you think she was just being stupid? I can go along with that. She's no mastermind. (I think she's opposed to masterminding, isn't she?)

Nope, I think you have nothing to stand on in regard to issues or record so you concoct cheap shots to try to make her or any other conservative look bad.

"For the first time in my life" and "57 state regards......."




RK

[david gibson]

Nope, I think you have nothing to stand on in regard to issues or record so you concoct cheap shots to try to make her or any other conservative look bad.

"For the first time in my life" and "57 state regards......."


RK

and lets not forget Jeremiah Wright! Pookies favorite uncle and mentor!

nooooo....not scary at all

[BonMallari]

Know what you mean. My wife's family is Filipino....they can pass for Hispanic, Asian, Italian, Native American......just about anything but African!


I agree, I think she was going to try to force a religion on us, great catch Dave!!!


So you think she was just being stupid? I can go along with that. She's no mastermind. (I think she's opposed to masterminding, isn't she?)

So there is a slight chance we are relatives...very cool...wouldnt that make for one heck of a family dinner

[starjack]

So, we have frontrunners in key senate races that say things like:

"some of you look Asian to me" to a group of Hispanic schoolchildren

And:

"show me where in the Constitution it mentions separation of church and state"

You could hear the crowd erupt in gasps and then laughter at that last one.


Tell me, tea-party supporters.....is this the best you've got?
You want to trust the reigns of our government at a time of economic uncertainty, unemployment, war......to someone who asks where in the Constitution it mentions separation of church and state??

Its not even funny anymore. Its sickening and scary. Since when is being stupid en vogue in America? If you pronounce names properly, you're called elitist and snobbish? I have no problem with having someone who's proud of being smart in office.

YOUR SPIN ON THINGS MAKE ME ILL.

[Don Horstman]

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.

The actual first amendment Yardley, and not there is nothing there about the separation of church and state.

I think we have taken things like this way to far, and we often forget the context of the time period. Our founding fathers were not attempting to exclude religion, but rather trying to keep the goverment from establishing an official religion and from persecuting people for their religious beliefs. They had just watched the royal family leave the Catholic church, establish the Anglican church, and then persecute all of those who didn't follow their teachings.

The founding fathers mention things like God and divine rights in a multitude of writings including the Federalist Papers and the Declaration of Independence. They were not anti-religion, and there is even a picture of our very first president putting his hand on (gasp) a Bible while the Oath of Office was administered. I am always amazed that liberals are able to add things to the Constitution that are not there, but unable to see the entire Second Amendment which is actually in the original document. These are the same people that think it is okay for federal judges to reference foreign law when making decisions for United States citizens who live under the U.S. Constitution.

I just read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to make sure, but I do not see anything that leads me to believe that the government can do something like force me to purchase a product (say like health insurance). They are able to levy taxes on citizens though. As a matter of fact President Obama expressly said this was not a tax during the health care debate, but now has the Justice Department using the governement's ability to levy taxes as the rationale behind the legality of nationalized health care. It is a tax now! Go figure a politician talking out of both sides of his mouth.

[Cody Covey]

I imagine they were laughing because the liberal left has tried to pound it into peoples heads that separation of church and state is in fact in the constitution when in fact it is taken out of context from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote. Not really sure how you can say with a straight face that it was what the founders intended when the first time it was ever addressed by courts wasn't for about 100 years after the formation of the country. Sounds to me like it was judges using the bench to make laws....never seen that before /sarcasm.

[Gerry Clinchy]

Well put, Don.

I think our founding fathers would be amazed by the tumult caused by the first part of that first sentence. As Jeff has often pointed out, not all the founding fathers were of a religious nature (I believe Thomas Jefferson is the one Jeff usually cites), but even so, I think that they might be surprised at today's furor over those few words. An atheist surely has substantial interest in not allowing the govt to "establish" any preferred religion.

When I was a kid, schools gave "released time" once a week to go to church instruction. Those who did not wish to participate got a study hall. Perhaps that is the epitome of "not interfering" with religous instruction, while not favoring any one religion (or non-religion) over another. I understand that is not a common practice any longer. Confirmation classes and Jewish instruction might often ALSO took place in non-school hours (after school or on weekends).