Delaware candidate Christine O'Donnell questions church and state separation

[Crabtownboy]

This should cost her every Baptist vote in the state....however it will not do so because far too many Baptist do not know Baptist history nor the full wording and history of the First Amendment to the Constitution. I would not vote for any candidate, regardless of party, who showed such ignorance of the Constitution.

Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell, who has said she would make decisions in Washington based solely on the Constitution, suggested today that she doesn't believe the founding document calls for a separation between church and state.

"Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?" an incredulous O'Donnell asks her Democratic opponent, Chris Coons. The audience is heard laughing in the background. "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 responds.

"That's in the First Amendment," O'Donnell says.

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...nnell-questions-church-and-state-separation/1

 

[Salty]

O'Donnell is absolutely right. "Separation of church and state" is NOT in the Constitution. SCS was a decision by the SCOTUS, based on a letter written by Thomas Jefferson.

Yes, we have a good first amendment. I do want the government to stay out the business of the church.

However, it has went to the extremes - not allowing a student to pray to at a football game or graduation - IS NOT the intent of the first amendment.

When I first heard the story, I also thought O'Donnell was a bit nuts, Until I heard the entire discussion in CONTEXT!

 

[targus]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...out-separation-church-and-state#ixzz12ytP40cn

There is no seperation of Church and State.

The First Amendment says that Congress can't establish a religion and that they can't prohibit the free expression of religion.

Of course the State prohibits the free expression of religion every day.

BTW - it's convenient that the OP article left out the fact that O'Donnell said "the phrase seperation of Church and State" is not there.

Big difference between the what she actually said and what they are reporting.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Current day Baptists need to read and learn of their own history.

Long before the passage of the American Bill of Rights and its First Amendment, Baptists advocated full religious liberty and the separation of church and state.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NXG/is_3_43/ai_n31063945/

Our forefathers knew first hand of the dangers of not having the separation of church and state. When either the church or the state has power over the other very bad things have happened throughout history. Just look at Iran and other Islamic countries. Look at medieval Europe. Look at our own pre-revolutionary history when we had state churches and when the church and state were intertwined.

 

[targus]

Current day Baptists need to read and learn of their own history.

Our forefathers knew first hand of the dangers of not having the separation of church and state. When either the church or the state has power over the other very bad things have happened throughout history. Just look at Iran and other Islamic countries. Look at medieval Europe. Look at our own pre-revolutionary history when we had state churches and when the church and state were intertwined.

Having been shown that you are wrong on the Constitution you have decided to try to shift the emphasis to Baptist history.

Why don't you address the responses that you already received?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Having been shown that you are wrong on the Constitution you have decided to try to shift the emphasis to Baptist history.

Why don't you address the responses that you already received?

Actually I believe I am right on the Constitution as that was the clear intent of those Baptist in the past. Also the courts in case after case have agreed that was and was exactly what was meant by those folk and by that portion of the First Amendment.

The concept of the separation of church and state is clearly shown in the Constitution and in the writings and position statements of those who fought so hard for what became the First Amendment of the Constitution.

To say otherwise is to take a very liberal stance and to want activists judges to overturn clear precedence.

 

[Luke2427]

This should cost her every Baptist vote in the state....however it will not do so because far too many Baptist do not know Baptist history nor the full wording and history of the First Amendment to the Constitution. I would not vote for any candidate, regardless of party, who showed such ignorance of the Constitution.

Well, you are mistaken that she was wrong about separation of church and state being in the constitution. It is not. That congress shall make no law establishing a religion is not separation of church and state.

But she does seem to be dumb as a hammer. She could not name a single court decision that she disagreed with. If you are going to run for office you need to know these things.

We Republicans have got to stop nominating dumb people to run for office just because they are pretty and conservative. That is doing far more harm than good, I think.

 

[targus]

Actually I believe I am right on the Constitution as that was the clear intent of those Baptist in the past.

So if the Baptists are responsible for the First Amendment - we're they guilty of violating the very same concept of the seperation of Church and State by interjecting their beliefs into law?

Suddenly Crabby is good with no seperation of Church and State - while arguing for it at the same time.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Well, you are mistaken that she was wrong about separation of church and state being in the constitution. It is not. That congress shall make no law establishing a religion is not separation of church and state.

But she does seem to be dumb as a hammer. She could not name a single court decision that she disagreed with. If you are going to run for office you need to know these things.

We Republicans have got to stop nominating dumb people to run for office just because they are pretty and conservative. That is doing far more harm than good, I think.

Both parties would do well to follow your advice. Actually she did not seem to know that the First Amendment said anything about religion.

When Coons summarized the amendment as saying government shall make no law establishing religion, O’Donnell said: “That’s in the First Amendment?”

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/10/1...her.html?storylink=omni_popular#ixzz12zLXPSmB

I made the reply bold. But that alone shows great ignorance of the Constitution.

Of course her handlers tried to smooth it out by saying she meant the phrase or words "church and state" are not in the amendment ... and that is true. But the concept is certainly there and can be seen if she and others would read the writings of those supporting the amendment.

The Tea Party candidate seems even more out of touch. He said:

The Tea Party-backed candidate appears in a video in which he says: "Next time your liberal friends talk about the separation of Church and State ask them why they're Nazis."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20016873-503544.html

In fact, her ignorance of the Constitution is not just limited to the First Amendment.

More recently, O'Donnell was asked if she would support the abolition of 14, 16 and 17 amendments. She knew that the 17 th Amendment, but could not remember the others. "I'm sorry, I did not bring my Constitution with me ... Fortunately, the Senators do not need to memorize the Constitution. Remind me that another of them."

http://www.anewsalerts.com/tag/17th-amendment

I really do not care which party a candidate belongs to, I do not want any person displaying such ignorance elected.

 

[TomVols]

She's technically right. Separation of church and state isn't in the Constitution, but in the writings of Thomas Jefferson. What is in the constitution is that Congress shall not abridge the free exercise of religion, regardless of in the public or private sector, the church, the state...wherever. It's the last few words that tend to make people uneasy, but as a Baptist I am committed to religious tolerance and freedom so I must agree.

 

[targus]

I really do not care which party a candidate belongs to, I do not want any person displaying such ignorance elected.

Would that include Obama and his "fifty-seven States"?

 

[KenH]

Why did Ms. O'Donnell not know that the no establishment clause is part of the 1st amendment? I have watched the incident and when she said "That's in the 1st amendment" she was asking a question, not making a statement.

 

[targus]

Why did Ms. O'Donnell not know that the no establishment clause is part of the 1st amendment? I have watched the incident and when she said "That's in the 1st amendment" she was asking a question, not making a statement.

She was questioning whether the phrase "seperation of church and state" was in the 1st amandement.

It's not.

 

[Crabtownboy]

She was questioning whether the phrase "seperation of church and state" was in the 1st amandement.

It's not.

No, she was showing her ignorance that the First Amendment talked about religion and the state. She was showing her ignorance just as she did when ask about other amendments. It was a question, not a statement.

 

[targus]

No, she was showing her ignorance that the First Amendment talked about religion and the state. She was showing her ignorance just as she did when ask about other amendments. It was a question, not a statement.

Did you watch?

I did.

And what about my 57 State Obama question?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Did you watch?

I did.

And what about my 57 State Obama question?

It was a question ............

“You’re telling me that’s in the First Amendment?”

http://wonkette.com/427005/christine-odonnell-shocks-delaware-by-not-understanding-first-amendment

"That's in the First Amendment...?" O'Donnell responded.

http://www.wtsp.com/news/national/story.aspx?storyid=151827&catid=81

“You’re telling me that’s in the First Amendment?” Delaware Republican Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell said Tuesday night in a debate with Democratic candidate Chris Coons.

http://www.cw.ua.edu/2010/10/20/can-you-remember-your-first-amendment-rights/

Notice the quotes all have ? ... it was a question not a statement as you are trying to say ... as did her handlers.

 

[targus]

It was a question ............

Notice the quotes all have ? ... it was a question not a statement as you are trying to say ... as did her handlers.

Your quotes mean nothing without context.

Did you watch?

I did.

And why don't you answer my 57 State Obama question?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Your quotes mean nothing without context.

Did you watch?

I did.

And why don't you answer my 57 State Obama question?

Sources are given, i.e. Internet links so you can read the context.

Did I watch?

What time do you think it was here when the debate was televised?

Do you believe European TV carries US political debates?

You are raising red herrings my friend. Read the articles and others you can easily find ... it was a question asked from ignorance.

You 57 States is simply off topic and an attempt to derail the thread since you can see how totally wrong you are.

 

[carpro]

She's technically right. Separation of church and state isn't in the Constitution, but in the writings of Thomas Jefferson. What is in the constitution is that Congress shall not abridge the free exercise of religion, regardless of in the public or private sector, the church, the state...wherever. It's the last few words that tend to make people uneasy, but as a Baptist I am committed to religious tolerance and freedom so I must agree.

Such a calm , reasoned, and factual approach will have no affect on CTB at all.

He's wrong. Everyone here knows it. He will never admit it.

 

[targus]

Sources are given, i.e. Internet links so you can read the context.

Did I watch?

What time do you think it was here when the debate was televised?

Do you believe European TV carries US political debates?

You are raising red herrings my friend. Read the articles and others you can easily find ... it was a question asked from ignorance..

In case you missed it the first three times... I watched it.

I don't need to read your quotes.

I know the context because I watched it.

Have you never asked a question as a way of making a point?

She asked if it is in the Constitution - meaning the phrase seperation of church and state.

I find it funny that because you have found some opinion pieces with quotation marks you believe that you know more about it than someone who watched.

You 57 States is simply off topic and an attempt to derail the thread since you can see how totally wrong you are.

No, it is in direct response to a statement that you made.

I really do not care which party a candidate belongs to, I do not want any person displaying such ignorance elected.

Does this statement equally apply to Obama who said that there are fifty-seven States?