• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

Now you're catching on. O'Donnells views on Evolution are irrelevant. Wouldn't it be nice if they would discuss matters of substance in debates rather than asking about crap like this?

It's COD and her ilk that use the argument about local control of schools vs federal control -- where none exists on the federal level. They actually argue phantom arguments. It's pathetic, yet the 'people' fall for it.
 
If homeschooling teaches Creationism and/or Intelligent Design as equal scientific theories to evolution, then we are in trouble. Many who homeschool may do a good job, but there are whole sects of people out there with issues that go beyond whether or not a public school in their are is failing. Ideological and religious tenets are a poor metric for education.
We could drop evolution entirely and I doubt it would have much of an impact on the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of topics more important to preparing individuals for success in life.

But - politicians like to discuss evolution. It perks the interests of voters, where Jimmy's inability to read and do basic math at age 10 doesn't.
 
Substance? When one candidate is obviously a fool? Sorry, but not liking the current system and being angry is no excuse for dumbing down the expectations of qualifications for a US Senate candidacy. COD's views are relevant in that they expose her for being the imbecile she is.
I'm sure there are a lot of people who share your view. It's why politicians talk witchcraft and nazis rather than monetary policy and structural deficits.

Funny thing is, you think it's the "other guy" dumbing things down.
 
It's not philisophical at all. The words are very clearly used and chosen. The establishiment clause as it's called is a prevention of the State from "establishing" a religion. It does not use language that identifies a separation of church and state. Anywhere. At all. The Constituion is not subjective - what IS subjective are the Supreme Court rulings and subjective philisophical adjudications that create a separation of church and state based on what I believe is a misinterpretation of the 1st Amendment that has now stood for 60+ years.

I'd suggest reading of Rehnquists view in Jaffree as a good basis ...

(edit - here's the link)
Rehnquist, Wallace v. Jaffree: a Rebuttal


The bottom line is yes, the founders did not want a national religion. They had that in England with King George and escaped it. But that does not mean that religion and public policy must at all times be separate. Yet O'Donnell is portrayed as an idiot - when she was correct. Establishment of religion and a separation of church and state are two different things...

So what do you think separation of church and state means, what is the goal of people saying it exists??
 
Don't know, don't care.


"Evolution" when it refers to the body material taught in schools, is not "a fact."

You may wish to define evolution as narrowly as needed to make your claim, but all you're doing is obfuscating.

Evolution has already been defined... There is the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution. If you can't wrap your brain around that, then it's your problem.. not mine.

Science isn't about obfuscating.. it's about testing ideas, theories, and laws, and improving them. Obfuscating is for people who don't like what the facts say.
 
Last edited:
So what do you think separation of church and state means, what is the goal of people saying it exists??

I cannot know other people's minds and therefore their intent. I agree that the 1st Amendment prevents the creation of a Theocracy which is a good thing. Do I think therefore that the word "God" should be stricken from U.S. money? No. Do I think people praying on the steps of the Supreme Court should be told NOT to pray there because of some view that it's against the separation of church and state? No. Do I think it's ludicrous each Christmas, lawsuits and arguements occur over manger scene's on "public" propery? Absolutely. The Everson case did NOTHING and had NOTHING to do with increasing the separation of church and state yet it's cited as the bedrock legislation in which case law has challenged and attempted to drive out of the public domain --- Christianity. Not Judiasim, not Buddism, not Islam... Christianity. You make up your own mind what that means.
 
I cannot know other people's minds and therefore their intent. I agree that the 1st Amendment prevents the creation of a Theocracy which is a good thing. Do I think therefore that the word "God" should be stricken from U.S. money? No. Do I think people praying on the steps of the Supreme Court should be told NOT to pray there because of some view that it's against the separation of church and state? No. Do I think it's ludicrous each Christmas, lawsuits and arguements occur over manger scene's on "public" propery? Absolutely. The Everson case did NOTHING and had NOTHING to do with increasing the separation of church and state yet it's cited as the bedrock legislation in which case law has challenged and attempted to drive out of the public domain --- Christianity. Not Judiasim, not Buddism, not Islam... Christianity. You make up your own mind what that means.

It means the law is being improperly applied, Buddhism, Judiasm, Islam, etc should be in the same boat. Religion should remain a personal matter, it is better for the religion and better for society.
 
We could drop evolution entirely and I doubt it would have much of an impact on the nation.

Considering how little people who criticize evolution actually know about it.. I would have to agree..

Nonetheless, the most I ever learned about evolution was in college and not in a public school. I think we touched on some basic concepts, but it was never presented as part of evolutionary science. That might explain why some of you think it's just a bunch of loose concepts and factoids about getting taller.. :shrug:

There are dozens if not hundreds of topics more important to preparing individuals for success in life.

Ask Christine O'Donnel in a month... she might disagree

:lamo

But - politicians like to discuss evolution. It perks the interests of voters, where Jimmy's inability to read and do basic math at age 10 doesn't.

Politicians on both sides like to talk about evolution.. The problem that I have with people making it a political issue, is that nowhere does science or evolution teach God doesn't exist. However, science has always been at odds with the religious community..

Again.. it just goes back to understanding the scientific method. It's a great way to learn about logic and theory, and intellectual exchange of ideas.. design a hypothesis or a theory, improve theories.. constantly test them. If you don't really agree with some aspect of evolution.. guess what?

If you know the scientific method, you take the steps to disprove evolution on a scientific level.

Teaching kids science isn't about indoctrinating them.. it's about teaching them how to think for themselves
 
Last edited:
I cannot know other people's minds and therefore their intent. I agree that the 1st Amendment prevents the creation of a Theocracy which is a good thing. Do I think therefore that the word "God" should be stricken from U.S. money? No. Do I think people praying on the steps of the Supreme Court should be told NOT to pray there because of some view that it's against the separation of church and state? No. Do I think it's ludicrous each Christmas, lawsuits and arguements occur over manger scene's on "public" propery? Absolutely. The Everson case did NOTHING and had NOTHING to do with increasing the separation of church and state yet it's cited as the bedrock legislation in which case law has challenged and attempted to drive out of the public domain --- Christianity. Not Judiasim, not Buddism, not Islam... Christianity. You make up your own mind what that means.

I feel the same way about most of the things you are saying.. but I don't agree that Judaism, Buddhism, and Islam are treated better than Christianity.. If one religious group is allowed to display their religious speech on public property, then so should every other religious group.

The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or the free exercise thereof." If people are interpreting it the same, but view it as meaning "separation of church and state".. then I don't have a problem with people using that phrase.
 
You're right, those words are not in the constitution. It is phrased differently, but its in the first amendment.

Those words aren't in the 1st Amendment, no matter how you think they may be phrased. The only thing that the 1st Amendment says, is that the United States government can't create a state sanctioned religion. The purpose being, to prevent a theocracy.

There's nothing there that says the 10 Commandments can't be displayed on government property, nor that a Nativity scene can't be displayed in front of a volunteer fire station. It means, that any religion is allowed to display religious items at those places and the government can't show preference to any one religion.
 
It means the law is being improperly applied, Buddhism, Judiasm, Islam, etc should be in the same boat. Religion should remain a personal matter, it is better for the religion and better for society.

You must be mad as hell that tax money has been used to build mosques in other countries. Yes?
 
I'm sure there are a lot of people who share your view. It's why politicians talk witchcraft and nazis rather than monetary policy and structural deficits.

Funny thing is, you think it's the "other guy" dumbing things down.

I like how you act like it's just partisan politics..

Conservatives are known for running against the boogyman too... just look at the Palin/McCain campaign against Obama.

If a tape surfaced of Obama saying he dabbled in witchcraft, people at Fox News would be throwing office parties while the right wing, stricken with fear, would actually cling to their guns and religion
 
Last edited:
Those words aren't in the 1st Amendment, no matter how you think they may be phrased. The only thing that the 1st Amendment says, is that the United States government can't create a state sanctioned religion. The purpose being, to prevent a theocracy.

There's nothing there that says the 10 Commandments can't be displayed on government property, nor that a Nativity scene can't be displayed in front of a volunteer fire station. It means, that any religion is allowed to display religious items at those places and the government can't show preference to any one religion.

Congress shall make no law

Make no law

respecting an establishment of religion

Regarding a religion

, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Or to stop people from practicing a religion.

Put that together and it forms a barrier between government and religion.

You must be mad as hell that tax money has been used to build mosques in other countries. Yes?

I wouldn't say mad as hell, as I see the offense minor with it being outside our borders. But I agree that is something they should not be doing.
 
Last edited:
Make no law



Regarding a religion



Or to stop people from practicing a religion.

Put that together and it forms a barrier between government and religion.

You're part right: it creates a barrier between government and the creation of a single, government sanctioned religion.



I wouldn't say mad as hell, as I see the offense minor with it being outside our borders. But I agree that is something they should not be doing.

LMAO!!! So, just because it happened somewhere's else, it's all good? I don't think I've ever seen anyone contradict themselves so severely in a single post.


Here's something that happened, within our borders. I don't recall alotta outrage about it, then. Were you pissed as all get out?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/mar/11/20070311-113356-1660r/
 
Last edited:
You're part right: it creates a barrier between government and the creation of a single, government sanctioned religion.

I don't see where it says that.

LMAO!!! So, just because it happened somewhere's else, it's all good? I don't think I've ever seen anyone contradict themselves so severely in a single post.

Another country's society is not my problem :shrug:

I object to American money being used to fund it, but as it is not done within this country, therefore having no effect or at least minimal on this culture, I see it as less of a problem.
 
Those words aren't in the 1st Amendment, no matter how you think they may be phrased. The only thing that the 1st Amendment says, is that the United States government can't create a state sanctioned religion. The purpose being, to prevent a theocracy.

There's nothing there that says the 10 Commandments can't be displayed on government property, nor that a Nativity scene can't be displayed in front of a volunteer fire station. It means, that any religion is allowed to display religious items at those places and the government can't show preference to any one religion.

I actually think most people agree on what "separation of church and state" means, regardless if it is in the constitution.. and most people share the same values on religion..

I think there is a separation of church and state.. that is why an atheist can be booted from teaching at a Catholic school despite their first amendment rights, and why any church can refuse to marry a gay couple.

The constitution might not say it outright, but the concept is right there in the first amendment. Religious establishments are treated separate from the state. The government can't prohibit the exercise of the churches free speech, the government won't intervene and shouldn't.
 
Last edited:
I actually think most people agree on what "separation of church and state" means, regardless if it is in the constitution.. and most people share the same values on religion..

I think there is a separation of church and state.. that is why an atheist can be booted from teaching at a Catholic school despite their first amendment rights, and why any church can refuse to marry a gay couple. It might not say outright, but the concept right there in the first amendment. Religious establishments are treated separate from the state. The government can't prohibit the exercise of the churches free speech, the government won't intervene and shouldn't.

An atheist can be booted from teaching at a Catholic school, because Catholic schools are all private and private orgs aren't bound by the 1st Amendment.
 
You don't see where it says that the government can't establish a state religion?

Not that being the sole thing to come out of that statement no. I see where making no law pretty obviously means no state religion since such a thing would require a law to happen.


The article does not address whether this meeting is solely used for religious purposes or if there is also a political interest there. If it was used for worship or other purely religious activity, it would be a huge problem and yes I would be angry about it. Right now though, there seems to be a lot of info left out.
 
An atheist can be booted from teaching at a Catholic school, because Catholic schools are all private and private orgs aren't bound by the 1st Amendment.

It isn't so easy in the non religious private sector.. People have protections like Title VIII that protects religious groups from being punished because of their religious beliefs.. A Catholic school can and has booted people for things that would have easily gone to a civil trial if they were a private company, expect they are protected under the first amendment to terminate employment for moral reasons.. such as being pregnant and unwed or a religious conversion.
 
Last edited:
Not that being the sole thing to come out of that statement no. I see where making no law pretty obviously means no state religion since such a thing would require a law to happen.



The article does not address whether this meeting is solely used for religious purposes or if there is also a political interest there. If it was used for worship or other purely religious activity, it would be a huge problem and yes I would be angry about it. Right now though, there seems to be a lot of info left out.

Do you even know what CAIR is? It doesn't matter if it was for prayer. A religious group held a meeting in the capital.
 
It isn't so easy in the non religious private sector.. People have protections like Title VIII that protects religious groups from being punished because of their religious beliefs.. A Catholic school can and has booted people for things that would have easily gone to a civil trial if they were a private company, expect they are protected under the first amendment to terminate employment for moral reasons.. such as being pregnant and unwed or a religious conversion.



But, again, Catholic schools are private and therefore not bound by the Constitution.
 
Do you even know what CAIR is? It doesn't matter if it was for prayer. A religious group held a meeting in the capital.

I am not aware of who they are. However, what they are doing is more important than who they are in these matters (unless they are criminals or something like that).
 
I am not aware of who they are. However, what they are doing is more important than who they are in these matters (unless they are criminals or something like that).

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh, ok! Nooooooow, we know!

CAIR is the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

If that were a Christian orginization, I'm sure you would be totally appalled at their presence in the capital.
 
I am not aware of who they are. However, what they are doing is more important than who they are in these matters (unless they are criminals or something like that).

Really?

There's another letter circulating on Capitol Hill affirming federal law enforcement's belief that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is the product of a Hamas-support network in the United States.


Read more at: DOJ: CAIR's Unindicted Co-Conspirator Status Legit :: The Investigative Project on Terrorism


j-mac
 
Back
Top Bottom