Does Christine Odonnel represent your views?

[GenSeneca]

Can you point out a post of mine in which I've said that we should have the government step in and force schools to teach a curriculum I agree with? That's a strawman, and the exact opposite of what I actually said.

So once again I point out that you agree with O'Donnells position... You offered a strawman in claiming O'Donnell wanted to replace evolution with creationism... but you can't point to actual statements from your 8 min clip where O'Donnell is calling for "the government step in and force schools to teach a curriculum" she agrees with.

The Gregorian calendar is used throughout the Western world. It would be pretty absurd to ignore it because it's based on the birth of Christ.

So as long as it is popular and widely accepted, we can ignore the separation clause? Good to know...

The proof is in the clip I posted.

Clearly it's not or you would have quoted an actual statement by now.

I'm not going to take the time to transcribe her words.

I'll take that as an admission of defeat. You've made several posts since I first asked for you to offer proof and in the time it's taken you to dance around the thread avoiding quotes of her actual statements, you could have done just that.

If your interpretation is that she has been swiftboated, then by all means, show us how that has happened.

The burden of proof lies with you. You are the one claiming that O'Donnell wants to replace evolution with creationism but you cannot offer even one single quote from the 8 min clip you posted as proof of your claim.

 

[GenSeneca]

take it up with the courts

You guys are the anti-theists who demands a zero tolerance application of the separation clause everywhere else in public life...

You're the ones who insist that the 10 commandments on a courthouse is a violation of church and state, that a nativity scene on public property is a violation of church and state, that the phrase "one nation under God" in the pledge of allegience is a violation of church and state, that having "In God We Trust" on our money is a violation of church and state.

So the question is, why aren't you and your fellow zero tolerance anti-theists taking it up with the courts? Why aren't you demanding that our calendar year, which is based on the life of Jesus Christ, be removed from government and the public schools?

I'm just trying to understand how something as innocuous as having "In God We Trust" on our currency is a violation of church and state but government recognizing the birth of Jesus Christ and establishing that event as the seminol reference point of all time before or since is not in violation of the same clause.

 

[Rick]

What else will they do in the future with the warped "wall of separation" myth?

Take "in God we trust" off the money?

Demand that the California cities of Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco ("The Angels", "Saint David" and "Saint Francis") be renamed?

Forbid chaplains in the military to give dying soldiers the last rites?

 

[Gipper]

What else will they do in the future with the warped "wall of separation" myth?

Take "in God we trust" off the money?

Demand that the California cities of Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco ("The Angels", "Saint David" and "Saint Francis") be renamed?

Forbid chaplains in the military to give dying soldiers the last rites?

Yeah and what about religious organizations not having to pay taxes? That is without question unconstitutional...

Maybe libs think if they can continue the welfare state by taxing churches...

 

[Rick]

Yeah and what about religious organizations not having to pay taxes? That is without question unconstitutional...

Maybe libs think if they can continue the welfare state by taxing churches...

- Forbid New York City's St. Patrick's Day parade?

- Take Moses and the Ten Commandments off the supreme court building?

-

-Forbid soldiers in combat from praying?

 

[PLC1]

You guys are the anti-theists who demands a zero tolerance application of the separation clause everywhere else in public life...

I hope you're not including me in that, as I've argued the exact opposite.

You're the ones who insist that the 10 commandments on a courthouse is a violation of church and state, that a nativity scene on public property is a violation of church and state, that the phrase "one nation under God" in the pledge of allegience is a violation of church and state, that having "In God We Trust" on our money is a violation of church and state.

Again, see above.

So the question is, why aren't you and your fellow zero tolerance anti-theists taking it up with the courts? Why aren't you demanding that our calendar year, which is based on the life of Jesus Christ, be removed from government and the public schools?

The calendar we use is based on the year in which it is supposed that Christ was born. It is not based on the "life of Christ."

I'm just trying to understand how something as innocuous as having "In God We Trust" on our currency is a violation of church and state but government recognizing the birth of Jesus Christ and establishing that event as the seminol reference point of all time before or since is not in violation of the same clause.

There is no need for confusion.

The separation of church and state clause does not mandate atheism.

The discussion was about teaching the theory of evolution, not about having "in god we trust" in the currency, or counting our years from the time of Christ. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with religion anyway. The problem comes when we begin to teach creationism instead of science. If the schools want to discuss creationism in classes about religion of philosophy, there is no harm in that.

The discussion was also about an unrelated issue, that of a candidate for the US Senate who appears not to know what is in the First amendment to the Constitution. If she merely appeared to be confused, as you seem to think, then of course, the issue is moot. If she really doesn't know what is written there, then it raises the question of what else she doesn't understand about the supreme law of the land.

I think that should clear up your confusion.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

You guys are the anti-theists who demands a zero tolerance application of the separation clause everywhere else in public life...

You're the ones who insist that the 10 commandments on a courthouse is a violation of church and state, that a nativity scene on public property is a violation of church and state, that the phrase "one nation under God" in the pledge of allegience is a violation of church and state, that having "In God We Trust" on our money is a violation of church and state.

So the question is, why aren't you and your fellow zero tolerance anti-theists taking it up with the courts? Why aren't you demanding that our calendar year, which is based on the life of Jesus Christ, be removed from government and the public schools?

I'm just trying to understand how something as innocuous as having "In God We Trust" on our currency is a violation of church and state but government recognizing the birth of Jesus Christ and establishing that event as the seminol reference point of all time before or since is not in violation of the same clause.

I don't care about in god we trust...having the 10 commandments in a court, yes...if you are a non Christian and go in that church...even if it is not true, it gives the appearance of bias against one faith in favor of another in court. It also is taking a set of laws of one faith, and pushing it out in front of other faiths...why is it that the same people who against the idea of Muslim law in the US courts ( as if it was a real issue anyway) but don't care if there own is?

what we teach in schools, the impartiality of our courts, those things matter to me...what my money says...only thing that matters to me, is the amount of zeros on the dollar amount.

as far as the calendar, I don't care its what standard of time we used when the US was settled, it matches with as far as I know all of Europe and Russia and I am not sure about Asian...and no one has come out with a new standard, and my life is not effected at all by the calendar.

 

[GenSeneca]

I think that should clear up your confusion.

LOL, my confusion

Once again you did not offer a direct quote from the 8 min clip where O'Donnell is claiming to want to replace evolution with creationism.

You fail.

 

[GenSeneca]

...it gives the appearance of bias against one faith in favor of another..

The Gregorian calendar actaully is biased in favor of one particular religion.

my life is not effected at all by the calendar.

Is that the measure by which you choose whether or not to apply the separation clause?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

The Gregorian calendar actaully is biased in favor of one particular religion.



Is that the measure by which you choose whether or not to apply the separation clause?

its called picking your battles, I am sorry if I am not offended by the Calender enough for you...why are not Christians more Offended its not even accurate to the birth of Jesus?

 

[PLC1]

LOL, my confusion

Once again you did not offer a direct quote from the 8 min clip where O'Donnell is claiming to want to replace evolution with creationism.

You fail.

Like the interpretation of the Constitution, it is easy to have more than one interpretation of the words of a candidate. Listening to the first part of the clip, my interpretation of her words is that she sees creationism as equally important to teaching the theory of evolution.

Maybe that interpretation is wrong.

Maybe she really does think that the local school board should make the decision to substitute science with creationism, however absurd such a decision might be, but her previous statements about evolution being a "myth" and asking the astoundingly silly question, "why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?" lead one to believe that she would like to see creationism substituted for science.

 

[gr8cooks]

To answer the question that started this thread - absolutely not!!

More then that, she is a nutcase plain and simple.

I think a majority of people think the same. Most of the tells on TelOnU (a site where people can post reviews on companies, people and politicians) confirm the it:

"This crazy lady is a life long politician, trying to find a way to live off the election cycle like a blood sucking vampire. She will say anything to get elected, and will hook on any extremist movement to gain attention to herself."

http://www.telonu.com/reviews/christine-odonnell?nt=33553&type=Tells

People think this crazy witch is a two faced liar, and will say anything to get elected.

Is this really the image that the Tea Party is really after?

 

[bododie]

"This crazy lady is a life long politician, trying to find a way to live off the election cycle like a blood sucking vampire. She will say anything to get elected, and will hook on any extremist movement to gain attention to herself."

It's the tried and true method for any politician trying to get elected, nothing new here.