Does Christine Odonnel represent your views?

[PLC1]

OK, the "separation of church and state" phrase has been explained. Perhaps Christine was looking for that particular phrase in the Constitution, or maybe she had heard from someone that it wasn't stated that way. She did seem confused as to just where the church/state question was mentioned.

The word "gun" does not appear in the Constitution, either, but subsequent SC rulings make it pretty clear that we do have a right to own them.

But, that's an aside, a dangerous one that could derail this thread, so on to the next question:

How about her views on teaching "creationism" as opposed to teaching the science of evolution? Are you on board with that one?

 

[GenSeneca]

OK, the "separation of church and state" phrase has been explained.

Yet you still do not grasp the concept... CONGRESS shall make no law...

Would you like to explain how a local school board allowing ID and/or Creationism into the classroom equates to CONGRESS respecting the establishment of religion?

The word "gun" does not appear in the Constitution

It is our right to keep and bear arms, ALL arms, not just those deemed acceptable by the government for private ownership.

How about her views on teaching "creationism" as opposed to teaching the science of evolution? Are you on board with that one?

First, she never suggested that creationism should be taught IN PLACE OF evolution.

Second, she didn't even suggest that creationism SHOULD be taught but that the decision should be left to the local school board.

So the real question is: Do you agree with Christina Odonnel that a schools curriculum should be left up to the local school board or do you think it should be a one-size-fits-all curriculum designed by the federal government?

 

[steveox]

Shes such a babe!

 

[PLC1]

Yet you still do not grasp the concept... CONGRESS shall make no law...

Would you like to explain how a local school board allowing ID and/or Creationism into the classroom equates to CONGRESS respecting the establishment of religion?

It is our right to keep and bear arms, ALL arms, not just those deemed acceptable by the government for private ownership.

First, she never suggested that creationism should be taught IN PLACE OF evolution.

Second, she didn't even suggest that creationism SHOULD be taught but that the decision should be left to the local school board.

So the real question is: Do you agree with Christina Odonnel that a schools curriculum should be left up to the local school board or do you think it should be a one-size-fits-all curriculum designed by the federal government?

Does that mean you are on board with the idea of teaching creationism in public schools? That was my original question.

I've said before that it is not up to the federal government to run the schools, and that the Department of Education should be closed down. That' my position on the matter.

If the feds got out of the business of education, then it wouldn't matter whether the Congress believed in teaching creationism or not.

 

[GenSeneca]

Does that mean you are on board with the idea of teaching creationism in public schools?

I'm in favor of local school boards deciding what gets taught in their schools. Whether or not creationism makes it into the classroom is no concern of mine, I don't care one way or the other... If you agree that it's no business of the federal government, then why do you care?

 

[PLC1]

I'm in favor of local school boards deciding what gets taught in their schools. Whether or not creationism makes it into the classroom is no concern of mine, I don't care one way or the other... If you agree that it's no business of the federal government, then why do you care?

I suppose you do have a point, but for one thing; The federal government does make decisions about what is taught. No, they shouldn't, I agree, but they do, so it does matter when a candidate for federal office spouts total nonsense about science in general, or the theory of evolution in particular. Moreover, we have enough ignoramuses in office. We don't need any more.

Since a senator, representative, or even president can't change Roe V. Wade, why would it matter what position they hold on abortion?

 

[GenSeneca]

I suppose you do have a point, but for one thing; The federal government does make decisions about what is taught. No, they shouldn't, I agree,

Then you are agreeing with the point O'Donnell was making... Or didn't you realize that?

...when a candidate for federal office spouts total nonsense about science in general, or the theory of evolution in particular.

I heard no such "spouting" taking place in that clip. Her statements were clear, that the decision should be left to the local school board, not the federal government. Nowhere in that clip can you find her saying that evolution is bogus, or that creationism should be taught in it's place...

You've fallen for the propaganda. Her opposition want's you to believe that O'Donnell is wanting to force schools to stop teaching evolution and replace it with creationism, that is the context they fabricated to make clips such as the one you posted appear to support the fabricated accusation.

If you actually listen to what she says, she never once makes any such statements... Her position is that such decisions should be left to the local school boards. It is only taking that out of context that you are left with the impression that she wants to impose - through the force of law - some kind of religious indoctrination on the public schools.

Moreover, we have enough ignoramuses in office. We don't need any more.

I would prefer a genuine person with some obvious flaws to the current class of arrogant, groomed from birth, ivy league politicians who are so polished and refined that they sound great on TV but spend all their time in Washington doing the bidding of their largest campaign supporters and funding it all with taxpayer money.

Since a senator, representative, or even president can't change Roe V. Wade, why would it matter what position they hold on abortion?

SC judges have to be nominated and voted into their judgeship by the people in the other two branches of government.

 

[Rick]

Interestingly, the "Wall of separation between church and state" that Jefferson referred to in a letter to a friend (the only place that phrase was ever used by any Framer), was not there to prevent government from being affected by church doctrine. It was there to prevent the church from being contaminated by government.

Jefferson wasn't even at the convention -he was in France. To interpret the Constitution in terms of a stray comment by someone who wasn't at the convention, didn't write the document, and didn't sign it shows how bankrupt leftwing jurisprudence is. The religious clause only prohibits an established church - to the founders, that meant not creating an official state church or religion, eg like the UK's Church of England.

 

[Gipper]

Over 100 years of Supreme Court decisions overrules your view.

Once again you prove your lack of knowledge. If you were a baseball player, you would strike out at every at bat....

But first, its really adorable when libs cite the Constitution to promote their tyrannical agenda...because they don't believe in one word of the Constitution.

Okay now for your schooling. Justice Hugo Black pushed the BS that is "separation of church and state" in Everson v. Board of Education (1947). See below...

And guess who Black was? Well my son, Hugo was a longstanding Democrat who just so happened to be a longstanding KLANSMAN...like most Dems of the time....if you don't believe me see this from the hard left NPR http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4828849

So we can conclude, you venerate a KLANSMAN...oh oh oh....the hypocrisy

The "high and impregnable" wall central to the past 50 years of church-state jurisprudence is not Jefferson's wall; rather, it is the wall that Black--Justice Hugo Black--built in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education.

The differences between the two walls are suggested by Jefferson's record as a public official in both Virginia and the nation, which shows that he initiated practices and implemented policies inconsistent with Justice Black's and the modern Supreme Court's "high and impregnable" wall of separation. Even among the metaphor's proponents, this has generated much debate concerning the proper dimensions of the wall. Whereas Jefferson's wall expressly separated the institutions of church and state, the Court's wall, more expansively, separates religion and all civil government.

Jefferson's wall separated church and the federal government only. By incorporating the First Amendment non-establishment provision into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Black's wall separates religion and civil government at all levels--federal, state, and local.

By extending its prohibitions to state and local jurisdictions, Black turned the First Amendment, as ratified in 1791, on its head. A barrier originally designed, as a matter of federalism, to separate the national and state governments, and thereby to preserve state jurisdiction in matters pertaining to religion, was transformed into an instrument of the federal judiciary to invalidate policies and programs of state and local authorities. As the normative constitutional rule applicable to all relationships between religion and the civil state, the wall that Black built has become the defining structure of a putatively secular polity.
http://www.heritage.org/research/re...changed-church-state-law-policy-and-discourse

 

[Rick]

Also there's long been speculation that's Black's invention of a "wall of separation" from whole cloth stemmed from the anti-catholic hatred he learned in the Klan.

 

[PLC1]

Then you are agreeing with the point O'Donnell was making... Or didn't you realize that?


I heard no such "spouting" taking place in that clip. Her statements were clear, that the decision should be left to the local school board, not the federal government. Nowhere in that clip can you find her saying that evolution is bogus, or that creationism should be taught in it's place...

You've fallen for the propaganda. Her opposition want's you to believe that O'Donnell is wanting to force schools to stop teaching evolution and replace it with creationism, that is the context they fabricated to make clips such as the one you posted appear to support the fabricated accusation.

If you actually listen to what she says, she never once makes any such statements... Her position is that such decisions should be left to the local school boards. It is only taking that out of context that you are left with the impression that she wants to impose - through the force of law - some kind of religious indoctrination on the public schools.


I would prefer a genuine person with some obvious flaws to the current class of arrogant, groomed from birth, ivy league politicians who are so polished and refined that they sound great on TV but spend all their time in Washington doing the bidding of their largest campaign supporters and funding it all with taxpayer money.


SC judges have to be nominated and voted into their judgeship by the people in the other two branches of government.

Two things are very clear in the tape:

Odonnel does not know what is in the First Amendment of the constitution, and
She believes that "creationism" should be taught as being as valid as evolution.

If you think that's OK in a senator, then she represents your views.

 

[Rick]

Two things are very clear in the tape:

Odonnel does not know what is in the First Amendment of the constitution, and
She believes that "creationism" should be taught as being as valid as evolution.

If you think that's OK in a senator, then she represents your views.

You don't know what's in the first amendment. Stand up and debate the issue, or shut up.

 

[PLC1]

You don't know what's in the first amendment. Stand up and debate the issue, or shut up.

Debate the issue? What is the issue? The question was whether Odonnel represents your views.

As for the first amendment, it says,

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.

I wouldn't think the text would be in doubt, but who knows. Maybe you want to dispute it.

As for the wall of separation, that phrase was coined by Andrew Jackson.

So, does Odonnel represent your views? why, or why not?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Debate the issue? What is the issue? The question was whether Odonnel represents your views.

As for the first amendment, it says,



I wouldn't think the text would be in doubt, but who knows. Maybe you want to dispute it.

As for the wall of separation, that phrase was coined by Andrew Jackson.

So, does Odonnel represent your views? why, or why not?

let the states decided it all, with no framework, and next you will have the south with text books from saying that the world was just created in 6 days, 10 thousand years ago and that people lived with Dinosaurs ...also Alaska it seems...Palin, I am looking at you...the US can't be a world leader in science if we teach kids pure crap because a state is run by bible thumpers.

Also if the Fed has no say, then let the low tax paying poor education southern states pay there full share...most of those states in the deep south that complain...get more in education funds back then they put in...if they want to have dumb kids they can pay for it them self...also please don't then send them the the other states after when there states econ fails because no company wants there workers, as the new econ will be heavy based on real science, not the church teachings ( of course all religions views will be equal lol)

 

[orogenicman]

It is our right to keep and bear arms, ALL arms, not just those deemed acceptable by the government for private ownership.

Would you be ok with a radical jihadist living next to you owning a fully loaded and operational tank?