Media lies about O'Donnell's 1st Amendment answer

[parocks]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20020015-503544.html


**********************************

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20020015-503544.html

“The First Amendment does?” O’Donnell asked. “Let me just clarify: You’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?”

“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.”)

“That’s in the First Amendment...?” O’Donnell responded.

***********************************

What Coons said and the 1st Amendment are far different. O'Donnell noticed that Coons quoted the Constitution wrong and called him on it.

Any other reading of what happened is the kind of media lies that the Pauls are so used to.

[Aratus]

thomas jefferson's letter when he was our president is the way he saw the first amendment.
jefferson penned the phrase about creating " a wall between church and state" --- as an idea,
from the late 1800s onward this has been the way we interpret it in full as we live our lives.

[parocks]

Here's Ron Paul on the issue.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

What happened to the thread where everyone was wrongly attacking Christine (Rand Paul's tea party ally BTW) for her accurate reading of the constitution?

[Jeremy]

Here's Ron Paul on the issue.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

What happened to the thread where everyone was wrongly attacking Christine (Rand Paul's tea party ally BTW) for her accurate reading of the constitution?

Nobody accused her of anything, but it's in Hot Topics.

[FrankRep]

"Separation of church and state" Does Not Exist. O'Donnell is correct.


First Amendment to the United States Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)


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.


Watch the Video:
YouTube - Christine O'Donnell "Where in the constitution is the version of church and state?" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdOpo-pNhWc)

[parocks]

Nobody accused her of anything, but it's in Hot Topics.

Thanks.

[FrankRep]

Nobody accused her of anything, but it's in Hot Topics.

You accused O'Donnell of being a "complete embarrassment," but O'Donnell is Right.

[EndDaFed]

You accused O'Donnell of being a "complete embarrassment," but O'Donnell is Right.

It's in the first amendment in black and white. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. That is then systematically applied to the states via the 14th amendment. Sorry but she is an idiot. She does not even know what the 16th amendment is and she is running for office!

Here is a longer clip of the same event.

YouTube - Christine O'Donnell ignorant of the Constitution (go to 2:37) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miwSljJAzqg)

[FrankRep]

It's in the first amendment in black and white. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

"Separation of church and state" vs. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."


These two statements have different meanings.

[LibertyEagle]

It's in the first amendment in black and white. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. That is then systematically applied to the states via the 14th amendment. Sorry but she is an idiot. She does not even know what the 16th amendment is and she is running for office!



I'm sorry, but you are wrong.


The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. - Ron Paul


Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity. - Ron Paul

[EndDaFed]

"Separation of church and state" vs. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."


These two statements have different meanings.

Not in the context of the law they don't. It's for this reason it's not allowable for public schools to indoctrinate children with religious mind rot. The founders would be ashamed by such anti enlightenment mentality among the religious fundamentalist right.

Watch the video I linked to. She freely admits she has no clue as to what the 16th amendment is! Is she fit for office?

[Jordan]

I can't tell if she meant to imply that those words are not written word for word in the constitution, or she really didn't know. Either way, she looked like an idiot.

[LibertyEagle]

Not in the context of the law they don't. It's for this reason it's not allowable for public schools to indoctrinate children with religious mind rot. The founders would be ashamed by such anti enlightenment mentality among the religious fundamentalist right.

Watch the video I linked to. She freely admits she has no clue as to what the 16th amendment is!

Some of our FOUNDERS established schools and passed out BIBLES to them. Where have you been?

[EndDaFed]

Some of our FOUNDERS established schools and passed out BIBLES to them. Where have you been?

And Thomas Jefferson cut out all the bullshit from the bible.

[FrankRep]

"Separation of church and state" vs. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."


These two statements have different meanings.


Not in the context of the law they don't. It's for this reason it's not allowable for public schools to indoctrinate children with religious mind rot. The founders would be ashamed by such anti enlightenment mentality among the religious fundamentalist right.

Watch the video I linked to. She freely admits she has no clue as to what the 16th amendment is! Is she fit for office?

I follow the Constitution, which the the Supreme Law of the Land.

[FrankRep]

And Thomas Jefferson cut out all the bullshit from the bible.

Your statement is Irrelevant.


Jefferson also said this:


"I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."

--The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.

[LibertyEagle]

And Thomas Jefferson cut out all the bullshit from the bible.

So? He was still a Christian. Why does it upset you so much? No one is saying that you need to be.

If you're interested, there is all kinds of good stuff in this Wiki, complete with references. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=175069

[EndDaFed]

Your statement is Irrelevant.

Jefferson also said this:


"I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."

--The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.

He enjoyed the philosophy of Jesus which is a different context than the magic sky deity version.


In an 1803 letter to Joseph Priestley, Jefferson states that he conceived the idea of writing his view of the "Christian System" in a conversation with Dr. Benjamin Rush during 1798–99. He proposes beginning with a review of the morals of the ancient philosophers, moving on to the "deism and ethics of the Jews," and concluding with the "principles of a pure deism" taught by Jesus



The Jefferson Bible begins with an account of Jesus’s birth without references to angels, genealogy, or prophecy. Miracles, references to the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, and Jesus' resurrection are also absent from the Jefferson Bible.[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

That is beyond the point and off topic. If she does not know what the 16th amendment is how is she fit for office?

[furface]

The Constitution, like the Bible, is often quoted, but rarely read and even more rarely memorized and understood, and that's especially true among the people ranting the most about the Constitution.

The 1st Amendment has to do with Congress passing laws establishing religion. The 10th Amendment makes it not apply to States. The 14th Amendment along with a broad interpretation of of the word "liberty" by the Supreme Court makes the 1st Amendment (and all other parts of the "Bill of Rights") apply to States.

In a more narrow interpretation of the Constitution, the 1st Amendment would only apply to "Congress," and not to States. There's very little legitimate debate that the word "establishment" doesn't effectively separate Church and The Federal Government. The issue is whether it, along with free speech, press, etc actually applies to States.

Christine O'Donnell rants about the Constitution, but she knows little about it other than how she can morph it into her view of an authoritarian, interventionist, totalitarian state.

[LibertyEagle]

He enjoyed the philosophy of Jesus which is a different context than the magic sky deity version.

Seriously, you need to read some of the actual documents, instead of relying on Wikipedia or the latest God-hating website.


Thomas Jefferson
And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest.

[silentshout]

Great post. I can't believe that this woman is supposed to represent "liberty" at all.

The Constitution, like the Bible, is often quoted, but rarely read and even more rarely memorized and understood, and that's especially true among the people ranting the most about the Constitution.

The 1st Amendment has to do with Congress passing laws establishing religion. The 10th Amendment makes it not apply to States. The 14th Amendment along with a broad interpretation of of the word "liberty" by the Supreme Court makes the 1st Amendment (and all other parts of the "Bill of Rights") apply to States.

In a more narrow interpretation of the Constitution, the 1st Amendment would only apply to "Congress," and not to States. There's very little legitimate debate that the word "establishment" doesn't effectively separate Church and The Federal Government. The issue is whether it, along with free speech, press, etc actually applies to States.

Christine O'Donnell rants about the Constitution, but she knows little about it other than how she can morph it into her view of an authoritarian, interventionist, totalitarian state.

[Depressed Liberator]

What Coons said and the 1st Amendment are far different. O'Donnell noticed that Coons quoted the Constitution wrong and called him on it.


Nope, she's just a retard. I think she is literally mentally handicapped.

[FrankRep]

In a more narrow interpretation of the Constitution, the 1st Amendment would only apply to "Congress," and not to States. There's very little legitimate debate that the word "establishment" doesn't effectively separate Church and The Federal Government. The issue is whether it, along with free speech, press, etc actually applies to States.

Christine O'Donnell rants about the Constitution, but she knows little about it other than how she can morph it into her view of an authoritarian, interventionist, totalitarian state.

You admit that O'Donnell is correct and then you smear her with unfounded allegations of being an "authoritarian."

[Imperial]

This is silly. Why can't people accept that sometimes the Founders disagreed with each other?

[tspark]

"Separation of church and state" vs. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."


These two statements have different meanings.


yes you are correct...

Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving and of "humiliation, fasting, and prayer" were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war. Congress was guided by "covenant theology," a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people. This agreement stipulated that they "should be prosperous or afflicted, according as their general Obedience or Disobedience thereto appears." Wars and revolutions were, accordingly, considered afflictions, as divine punishments for sin, from which a nation could rescue itself by repentance and reformation.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html

Kinda weird they would do all this and "insist on a separation"....

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/f0404s.jpg

[EndDaFed]

Jefferson writing to his nephew encouraging him to consider the possibility of the non existence of god. Such revelations in Jefferson's time would have branded him a heathen. Notice how Jefferson tells him to question anything in religion that is unsupported by the natural world? It's clear Jefferson's main driver was reason which is not surprising considering he was a product of the enlightenment.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_carr.html


"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." --- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr

[Original_Intent]

It amazes me that:

People can believe that the Separation of Church and State means that the Founders intended that prayer could not be said in school and yet THE BIBLE was one of the primary textbooks for probably the first 100 years at least, and somehow school prayer was at least allowed if not in most cases encouraged until the 1960s, and

somehow in the Consitution there is the right for a woman to kill her unborn child, and yet that very same act was criminal throughout the country for ~ the first 200 years of its existence....

clearly the founders did not know what they meant when they wrote it, it is up to much wiser minds to intepret the words 2 centuries later to figure out what they REALLY meant.

And we wonder how this country got into trouble when we allowed people to say that words meant whatever suited them at the moment instead of the clear Original Intent of the author(s) themselves.

Even Jefferson's letter, where the words separation of church and state came from, if read in context it is 100% clear it was meant as a ONE-WAY WALL to protect churches from the meddling influence of the government, and NOT the current interpreted meaning that religion had NO PLACE in the public square. (Again, ridiculous on its face because religion was not only evident in the public square but in many cases PROMINENT.)

[EndDaFed]

"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose." Thomas Jefferson Horatio letter

"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." Thomas Jefferson Virginia Notes

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose." Thomas Jefferson Humboldt letter

"On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind." Thomas Jefferson to Carey,

[tspark]

It amazes me that:

People can believe that the Separation of Church and State means that the Founders intended that prayer could not be said in school and yet THE BIBLE was one of the primary textbooks for probably the first 100 years at least, and somehow school prayer was at least allowed if not in most cases encouraged until the 1960s, and

somehow in the Consitution there is the right for a woman to kill her unborn child, and yet that very same act was criminal throughout the country for ~ the first 200 years of its existence....

clearly the founders did not know what they meant when they wrote it, it is up to much wiser minds to intepret the words 2 centuries later to figure out what they REALLY meant.

And we wonder how this country got into trouble when we allowed people to say that words meant whatever suited them at the moment instead of the clear Original Intent of the author(s) themselves.

Even Jefferson's letter, where the words separation of church and state came from, if read in context it is 100% clear it was meant as a ONE-WAY WALL to protect churches from the meddling influence of the government, and NOT the current interpreted meaning that religion had NO PLACE in the public square. (Again, ridiculous on its face because religion was not only evident in the public square but in many cases PROMINENT.)


it stems from people believing that truth and good are relative and not absolutes...

[tspark]

The first Continental Congress opened with a motion to pray this was objected to because the founders weren't sure which clergyman should give this prayer due to their being Episcopalians, Quakers, Anabaptists, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists present.

According to John Adams, "Samuel Adams arose and said that he was no bigot, and could hear a Prayer from any gentleman of Piety and virtue, who was at the same time a friend to his Country."

As a result of Sam Adams' intervention, the motion carried and an Episcopalian clergyman, Rev. Jacob Duche', was prevailed upon to open the next morning's session in prayer.

Duche' read Psalm 35 he then read a prayer:
"Be Thou present, O God of Wisdom, and direct the counsel of this Honorable Assembly; enable them to settle all things on the best and surest foundation; that the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that Order, Harmony, and Peace may be effectually restored, and that Truth and Justice, Religion and Piety, prevail and flourish among the people."

Duche' went on to ask God to preserve the delegates' health and vigor of mind, and to grant them "temporal Blessings" and "everlasting Glory in the world to come."

Rev. Duche' closed his prayer this way: "All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Saviour, Amen."

[furface]

You admit that O'Donnell is correct and then you smear her with unfounded allegations of being an "authoritarian."

You could be right. It's not clear what she meant when she questioned her opponent. Was she questioning the fact that he got the precise wording wrong or that she just didn't recognize the wording period. Her response should not have been to snicker, but to bring up an intelligent argument about State Rights.

Her talk of local control of schools is correct. However she doesn't talk about State Rights, but local rights. If she's advocating that the Federal Government force states to allow local schools to teach things like intelligent design, that is also a federalist power grab, much in the same way Roe V. Wade is.

YouTube - Christine O'Donnell Shows Stunning Ignorance Of First Amendment in Debate With Senate Opponent Coons (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYUvDjLPcwY)

Being anti-abortion on a federal campaign is also anti-state rights. It shouldn't be a federal issue at all.

http://christine2010.com/issues


Strongly believes in protecting the sanctity of life at ALL stages.

My biggest problem with her is her foreign policy positions for instance:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/10/christine-odonnell-chris-coons-debate-afghanistan.html


O"Donnell asks why Coons supports a "random troop withdrawal" that will "embolden the terrorists even more." She says benchmarks must be met before the United States can withdraw.

I'm not sure how propagating foreign wars decreases the impact of federal government. She talks a lot like a neocon on issues that are very important to me.

[FrankRep]

Being anti-abortion on a federal campaign is also anti-state rights. It shouldn't be a federal issue at all.

http://christine2010.com/issues


Christine O'Donnell "Strongly believes in protecting the sanctity of life at ALL stages."


Christine O'Donnell isn't allowed to have beliefs?
Repealing Roe v. Wade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade) is Constitutional.

[furface]

Christine O'Donnell "Strongly believes in protecting the sanctity of life at ALL stages."

Yes, that's her belief. She's welcome to it, but it's not a federal issue. I would prefer she talk about the rights of States to decide the issue instead of making a point of telling me about her federally irrelevant views.

Christine O'Donnell gets about a B+ from my personal point of view. Her problem is that a lot of her views contradict each other. For instance talking about military intervention and reducing federal spending at the same time.

[parocks]

Where do you get that from?

I heard Rand Paul wants segregated lunch counters. Discuss.



The Constitution, like the Bible, is often quoted, but rarely read and even more rarely memorized and understood, and that's especially true among the people ranting the most about the Constitution.

The 1st Amendment has to do with Congress passing laws establishing religion. The 10th Amendment makes it not apply to States. The 14th Amendment along with a broad interpretation of of the word "liberty" by the Supreme Court makes the 1st Amendment (and all other parts of the "Bill of Rights") apply to States.

In a more narrow interpretation of the Constitution, the 1st Amendment would only apply to "Congress," and not to States. There's very little legitimate debate that the word "establishment" doesn't effectively separate Church and The Federal Government. The issue is whether it, along with free speech, press, etc actually applies to States.

Christine O'Donnell rants about the Constitution, but she knows little about it other than how she can morph it into her view of an authoritarian, interventionist, totalitarian state.

[Southron]

How is it that she can be right and the media can turn it into a mistake?

These people have no shame when it comes to women they disagree with.

And why are her beliefs on evolution even brought up in the debate?