• 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

Liberals' continued twisting of the intent of the first amendment would be sad, if they weren't so successful in spreading misinformation.

The key word is "establishment". The founders (Madison) sought to provide a mechanism to prevent what had happened in England. (The Church of England had gained so much power that it had ESTABLISHED itself as basically the court system in England. As such, it controlled law and could change it on the whims of the church's political interests.) The intent was to protect the legislative branch's ability to protect Constitutional law from unforeseen changes or attempts from religious movements to change it.

That does not change the fact that the Constitution and American law is based on Judao-Christian values. Nor does it ostracize Christianity, or religion in general, from government altogether. It simply doesn't.

What liberals hate is that the Consitution is also written to protect LIBERALS from changing it as well. LOL. Liberals hate the Constitution because it is a capitalistic manifesto that flies in the face of their big government ideals.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone find it creepy how conservatives droll over our Founders? You'd think that there was no possible way to improve or adapt 240 year old ideas, especially when they aren't actually enshrined in any legal documents.
 
Patria Antiqua said:
Does anyone find it creepy how conservatives droll over our Founders? You'd think that there was no possible way to improve or adapt 240 year old ideas, especially when they aren't actually enshrined in any legal documents.
Click to expand...



Would YOU have any problem with Amending the Constituion a lot easier than the prescribed way now (??)
 
Patria Antiqua said:
Does anyone find it creepy how conservatives droll over our Founders? You'd think that there was no possible way to improve or adapt 240 year old ideas, especially when they aren't actually enshrined in any legal documents.
Click to expand...

Conservatives by their nature are traditionalists, so this is normal for them. In another country, a conservative will proclaim that country's traditions to be superior, even if they are vastly different from the USA's.
 
Ned Racine said:
Would YOU have any problem with Amending the Constituion a lot easier than the prescribed way now (??)
Click to expand...
I'm not sure exactly what it is you're asking me.

If you're asking me if I want to amend the Constitution, the answer is "not in any concrete way, no." There's no need to. Whatever the Founders "meant" when they wrote the Constitution, they wisely left their interpretations out of the document itself.
 
Patria Antiqua said:
Does anyone find it creepy how conservatives droll over our Founders? You'd think that there was no possible way to improve or adapt 240 year old ideas, especially when they aren't actually enshrined in any legal documents.
Click to expand...

As I said, liberals detest the Constitution.

Consider this: the President of the United States is the most powerful person in the world, and yet, he has no power over you individually, as a citizen, whatsoever.

If you don't see the genius in that, you are beyond help. And 240 years later, it still stands, where others have been crumpled and trashed.

Liberals want to crumple it, I understand. Good luck with all that.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
There is no real "separation of church and state", there is an "establishment clause". Read the link then comment intelligently, I won't hold my breath.
Click to expand...

It would appear that O'Donnell didn't even realize there was an "establishment clause" in the Constitution.
 
Erod said:
As I said, liberals detest the Constitution.

Consider this: the President of the United States is the most powerful person in the world, and yet, he has no power over you individually, as a citizen, whatsoever.

If you don't see the genius in that, you are beyond help. And 240 years later, it still stands, where others have been crumpled and trashed.

Liberals want to crumple it, I understand. Good luck with all that.
Click to expand...
I'm trying to find where you actually addressed anything I said.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
There is no real "separation of church and state", there is an "establishment clause". Read the link then comment intelligently, I won't hold my breath.
Click to expand...

:lol:

Hate to break it to you, Rev, but you're not really dropping a huge bombshell on us. I don't think anybody is arguing that the Constitution contains the phrase "separation of church and state."

That particular phrase actually comes from Thomas Jefferson in his Letter to the Danbury Baptists. Those of you who like divine the Secret Intentions of our Founding Fathers can read into that whatever you like. Frankly, it doesn't matter, because the letter of the Constitution says "establishment" and that is what it is called.

But if you think that this is the argument O'Donnell had with Coons you are quite mistaken. Watch the video and read the article, it is obvious she is unaware that the "establishment clause" is contained within the First Amendment. It's like she thinks she's catching Coons in a mistake. Spin it all you like, but for objective observers it's clear that what's going on is not an intelligent debate about the meaning of the first amendment.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
It would appear that O'Donnell didn't even realize there was an "establishment clause" in the Constitution.
Click to expand...




ahh gotcha politics, gotta love dumbing down the discussion..... :roll:


O’Donnell was later able to score some points of her own off the remark, revisiting the issue to ask Coons if he could identify the “five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment.”

Coons named the separation of church and state, but could not identify the others — the freedoms of speech, press, to assemble and petition — and asked that O’Donnell allow the moderators ask the questions.

“I guess he can’t,” O’Donnell said.



Read more: Christine O?Donnell questions separation of church, state - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com
Click to expand...



Why not 4 threads on this? again hypocritical partisan hacks strike again.
 
Erod said:
Liberals' continued twisting of the intent of the first amendment would be sad, if they weren't so successful in spreading misinformation.

The key word is "establishment". The founders (Madison) sought to provide a mechanism to prevent what had happened in England. (The Church of England had gained so much power that it had ESTABLISHED itself as basically the court system in England. As such, it controlled law and could change it on the whims of the church's political interests.) The intent was to protect the legislative branch's ability to protect Constitutional law from unforeseen changes or attempts from religious movements to change it.

That does not change the fact that the Constitution and American law is based on Judao-Christian values. Nor does it ostracize Christianity, or religion in general, from government altogether. It simply doesn't.

What liberals hate is that the Consitution is also written to protect LIBERALS from changing it as well. LOL. Liberals hate the Constitution because it is a capitalistic manifesto that flies in the face of their big government ideals.
Click to expand...

The Constitution was written by liberals...
 
Guy Incognito said:
:lol:

Hate to break it to you, Rev, but you're not really dropping a huge bombshell on us. I don't think anybody is arguing that the Constitution contains the phrase "separation of church and state."

That particular phrase actually comes from Thomas Jefferson in his Letter to the Danbury Baptists. Those of you who like divine the Secret Intentions of our Founding Fathers can read into that whatever you like. Frankly, it doesn't matter, because the letter of the Constitution says "establishment" and that is what it is called.

But if you think that this is the argument O'Donnell had with Coons you are quite mistaken. Watch the video and read the article, it is obvious she is unaware that the "establishment clause" is contained within the First Amendment. It's like she thinks she's catching Coons in a mistake. Spin it all you like, but for objective observers it's clear that what's going on is not an intelligent debate about the meaning of the first amendment.
Click to expand...





Your really didn't do much other than display yourself as a partisan hack, here you are running your mouth on o'donnell, and her opponent did not fare any better. Why the hypocrisy?
 
Deuce said:
Hey, boneheads, did you even read the quote?
When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion
Click to expand...
(basically verbatim from 1st amendment)
Click to expand...
As your video makes clear, the reason the AP chose not to quote Coons was because they wanted to make up a story about Coons correctly stating the First Amendment (he didn't) to which O'Donnell replies "that's in the first Amendment?" - a comment she was clearly directing at the reference to "separation of church and state."

I'm not an O'Donnell fan - but I almost want her to win just because of this kind of crap and all the "gotcha" questions they use to try to make her look dumb.
 
Guy Incognito said:
:lol:

Hate to break it to you, Rev, but you're not really dropping a huge bombshell on us. I don't think anybody is arguing that the Constitution contains the phrase "separation of church and state."

That particular phrase actually comes from Thomas Jefferson in his Letter to the Danbury Baptists. Those of you who like divine the Secret Intentions of our Founding Fathers can read into that whatever you like. Frankly, it doesn't matter, because the letter of the Constitution says "establishment" and that is what it is called.

But if you think that this is the argument O'Donnell had with Coons you are quite mistaken. Watch the video and read the article, it is obvious she is unaware that the "establishment clause" is contained within the First Amendment. It's like she thinks she's catching Coons in a mistake. Spin it all you like, but for objective observers it's clear that what's going on is not an intelligent debate about the meaning of the first amendment.
Click to expand...


It's fascinating that an entire political movement developed for a single phrase by a single president in a letter. Part of this movement seems to think that the abolition of the Christian religion in all places and times is the logical end to that phrase.
 
Taylor said:
As your video makes clear, the reason the AP chose not to quote Coons was because they wanted to make up a story about Coons correctly stating the First Amendment (he didn't) to which O'Donnell replies "that's in the first Amendment?" - a comment she was clearly directing at the reference to "separation of church and state."

I'm not an O'Donnell fan - but I almost want her to win just because of this kind of crap and all the "gotcha" questions they use to try to make her look dumb.
Click to expand...

Are we watching the same video?

How does a debate equate to "gotcha"?
 
Jetboogieman said:
So for those who say Seperation is not part of the constitution.

Do you advocate Religious Government then?
Click to expand...
Complete failure of logic. What does one have to do with the other?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
yes, you just have your typical blinders on. :shrug:
Click to expand...

So...basically whenever anyone you support is caught on tape saying something stupid that is considered "gotcha politics"? That is one of those conservative catch phrases like "activist judges" that you guys use when reality just doesn't coincide with what you believe?
 
Patria Antiqua said:
Does anyone find it creepy how conservatives droll over our Founders? You'd think that there was no possible way to improve or adapt 240 year old ideas, especially when they aren't actually enshrined in any legal documents.
Click to expand...
Why would you think that there's no possible way to improve the Constitution? Ever hear of an "amendment?"

What I find creepy is lack of basic education in this country.
 
CriticalThought said:
So...basically whenever anyone you support is caught on tape saying something stupid that is considered "gotcha politics"? That is one of those conservative catch phrases like "activist judges" that you guys use when reality just doesn't coincide with what you believe?
Click to expand...




No you hack, when you only talk about the one sides gaffe and ignore the follow up gaffe of the opponnent, your gaffe that's gotcha politics.

Tell me we have 2-3 threads on this already where is the one on.


O’Donnell was later able to score some points of her own off the remark, revisiting the issue to ask Coons if he could identify the “five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment.”

Coons named the separation of church and state, but could not identify the others — the freedoms of speech, press, to assemble and petition — and asked that O’Donnell allow the moderators ask the questions.

“I guess he can’t,” O’Donnell said.



Read more: Christine O?Donnell questions separation of church, state - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com
Click to expand...



Your one sided buffoonery betrays you.


where did I say I supported o'donnell by the way? Make crap up much?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
No you hack, when you only talk about the one sides gaffe and ignore the follow up gaffe of the opponnent, your gaffe that's gotcha politics.
Click to expand...

Oh, apparantly I missed something. What was the gaffe that Coons made?
 
CriticalThought said:
Oh, apparantly I missed something. What was the gaffe that Coons made?
Click to expand...



For the third time since you missed it in the post you are responding too. :doh:

O’Donnell was later able to score some points of her own off the remark, revisiting the issue to ask Coons if he could identify the “five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment.”

Coons named the separation of church and state, but could not identify the others — the freedoms of speech, press, to assemble and petition — and asked that O’Donnell allow the moderators ask the questions.

“I guess he can’t,” O’Donnell said.



Read more: Christine O?Donnell questions separation of church, state - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com
Click to expand...



:failpail:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom