Did Christine O'Donnell pass High School Civics?

[The United Good]

Do witches need to pass high school civics? And what about the pledge of allegiance? Could they say, "one country over our dark lord"? And exactly what does this have to do with masterbation?

Could someone explain O'Donnell to me?

[Farnhamia]

Do witches need to pass high school civics? And what about the pledge of allegiance? Could they say, "one country over our dark lord"? And exactly what does this have to do with masterbation?

Could someone explain O'Donnell to me?

Okay, let's see ... no, I can't. The Wiki article on her is intriguing, to say the least.

[Ashmoria]

Alot of people seem to confuse Freedom of Religion with Freedom from Religion... theres a difference. Separation of church and state does not appear in the constitution, or the Bill of Rights. You are free to practice or not practice, no laws can be made regarding such... theres nothing more stated. O'Donnell has a point, and everyone has their own interpretation.
Ya, Jefferson has a letter talking to a friend about it, but I believe even that letter is spun by a specific interpretation.

that was the point i expected her to make

but she didnt.

[Sailsia]

she probably only failed the test on the contents of the constitution, not the whole class.

depends on if her teacher was a man

[Caninope]

Technically, it really doesn't say anything there about "seperation", only that the government can't establish a state church. I believe it was actually put in there to prevent the government from making a "Church of the United States", along the lines of the Church of England.

No, it doesn't just say that the government can't establish a state religion. It also prohibits the Congress from passing any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

These two clauses taken together clearly mandate separation of church and state.

Not really. Even the Lemon Test doesn't require complete separation of church and state.

[Urcea]

Separation of Church and State is not in the Bill of Rights, but rather, an interpretation.

Freedom of religion thnx.

While it is an interpretation indeed, Amendment I of X's freedom of religion clause pretty much rules out a national religion.

Establishment of national religion =/= separation of Church and State. The modern usage of SOCAS is that local and state governments, as well as the Federal Government, is and ought to be totally secular, as guaranteed by the Constitution. This is completely false. State and local governments are allowed to establish state-wide official religions if they damn please; Connecticut had one until 1818.

[Vonners]

Freedom of religion thnx.

While it is an interpretation indeed, Amendment I of X's freedom of religion clause pretty much rules out a national religion.

Establishment of national religion =/= separation of Church and State. The modern usage of SOCAS is that local and state governments, as well as the Federal Government, is and ought to be totally secular, as guaranteed by the Constitution. This is completely false. State and local governments are allowed to establish state-wide official religions if they damn please; Connecticut had one until 1818.

are they? where are these religions? what happened to the one in Connecticut in 1818?

[Urcea]

Establishment of national religion =/= separation of Church and State. The modern usage of SOCAS is that local and state governments, as well as the Federal Government, is and ought to be totally secular, as guaranteed by the Constitution. This is completely false. State and local governments are allowed to establish state-wide official religions if they damn please; Connecticut had one until 1818.

are they? where are these religions? what happened to the one in Connecticut in 1818?

They changed their Constitution, I think they still may have been using the original charter, don't quote me on that. Are you disputing the ability of state and local governments to have an official religion? You have no Constitutional leg to stand on; in addition, these states do not have an official religion, and are not allowed to display religious symbols (such as the Tenth Amendments) because some weenie cries "It's violating my First Amendment Rights!". The First Amendment doesn't guarantee you the right not to be annoyed by other religions (including Christianity, Islam, etc.). The First Amendment explicitly begins with "CONGRESS shall make no law...", not "CONGRESS AND THE STATES shall makes no law..."

[Vonners]

are they? where are these religions? what happened to the one in Connecticut in 1818?

They changed their Constitution, I think they still may have been using the original charter, don't quote me on that. Are you disputing the ability of state and local governments to have an official religion? You have no Constitutional leg to stand on; in addition, these states do not have an official religion, and are not allowed to display religious symbols (such as the Tenth Amendments) because some weenie cries "It's violating my First Amendment Rights!". The First Amendment doesn't guarantee you the right not to be annoyed by other religions (including Christianity, Islam, etc.). The First Amendment explicitly begins with "CONGRESS shall make no law...", not "CONGRESS AND THE STATES shall makes no law..."

thanks! you have said more than I ever could...

[Ashmoria]

Freedom of religion thnx.

While it is an interpretation indeed, Amendment I of X's freedom of religion clause pretty much rules out a national religion.

Establishment of national religion =/= separation of Church and State. The modern usage of SOCAS is that local and state governments, as well as the Federal Government, is and ought to be totally secular, as guaranteed by the Constitution. This is completely false. State and local governments are allowed to establish state-wide official religions if they damn please; Connecticut had one until 1818.

no theyre not.

14th ammendment, eh?

[Bluth Corporation]

are they? where are these religions? what happened to the one in Connecticut in 1818?

They changed their Constitution, I think they still may have been using the original charter, don't quote me on that. Are you disputing the ability of state and local governments to have an official religion? You have no Constitutional leg to stand on; in addition, these states do not have an official religion, and are not allowed to display religious symbols (such as the Tenth Amendments) because some weenie cries "It's violating my First Amendment Rights!". The First Amendment doesn't guarantee you the right not to be annoyed by other religions (including Christianity, Islam, etc.). The First Amendment explicitly begins with "CONGRESS shall make no law...", not "CONGRESS AND THE STATES shall makes no law..."

Had you been paying attention to this thread, you would know that I addressed precisely this issue already.

The First Amendment, by itself, does not prohibit states from establishing religions; and in fact some states did, as in the examples I gave earlier in this thread (which you didn't read).

That does not mean that the US Constitution does not prohibit states from establishing their own religion. It's just not the First Amendment--by itself, anyway--that does it. The Fourteenth Amendment (which was adopted long after Connecticut and Massachusetts ceased to have established churches) extends the prohibition on Congressional establishment to the states.

[Urcea]

Establishment of national religion =/= separation of Church and State. The modern usage of SOCAS is that local and state governments, as well as the Federal Government, is and ought to be totally secular, as guaranteed by the Constitution. This is completely false. State and local governments are allowed to establish state-wide official religions if they damn please; Connecticut had one until 1818.

no theyre not.

14th ammendment, eh?

The Fourteenth Amendment argument is bull, and the interpretation thereof is also bull; establishment of a state or local religion in no way necessarily depriving anyone of anything (without due process) and is in no way depriving anyone of equal representation of law. It's such a fallacy, that, frankly, I don't even understand.

[Parnassus]

On some level, I actually feel sorry for her. She appears to be both well-intentioned and incredibly uninformed and naive. I think she is genuinely concerned about the terrible state of things in the US - or rather, the state of things as they are presented in the ignorant, platitude-like, reactionary slogans that the Tea Party and their supporters embrace.

From what I saw in the video on CNN, I think she was honestly surprised that the SoCS *is* in the Constitution, especially since all of her buddies have told her that it isn't.

Edit - here's the CNN video link: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2010/10/20/ac.odonnell.constitution.gaffe.cnn?hpt=C2

[Tekania]

Alot of people seem to confuse Freedom of Religion with Freedom from Religion... theres a difference. Separation of church and state does not appear in the constitution, or the Bill of Rights. You are free to practice or not practice, no laws can be made regarding such... theres nothing more stated. O'Donnell has a point, and everyone has their own interpretation.
Ya, Jefferson has a letter talking to a friend about it, but I believe even that letter is spun by a specific interpretation.

Here's my theory:


Many people view atheism as a "religion." Probably falsely, although I have run into a few who appear to have blind faith in Richard Dawkins. Nonetheless, if you view atheism as a religion (As O'Donnell probably does) than you could interpret the establishment cause as prohibiting an establishment of all religions, including atheism. Therefore, by not establishing a religion you're establishing atheism, which means you're...

Wow, thinking rarely makes my head hurt this much. I think the pain and the way I keep pausing in typing and saying "Wait..wha..huh?" out loud indicates I'm on the right track for O'Donnell's thoughts.

Well, O'Donnell isn't encumbered by what I've highlighted in red.

[Southern Patriots]

Is this thread's title incredibly misleading? Does it imply there's a possibility she didn't? Is it a baseless question designed to attack a speaker?

Does the original post selectively quote the article to support it's point? Is it possible the OP is misinterpreting her actions? Does this thread's discussion question have a blatantly obvious answer that will produce no real debate? Is it simply thinly veiled ad hominem that didn't merit a thread?

You mad she so dumb in da head?

[Schlauberger]

The Fourteenth Amendment argument is bull, and the interpretation thereof is also bull; establishment of a state or local religion in no way necessarily depriving anyone of anything (without due process) and is in no way depriving anyone of equal representation of law. It's such a fallacy, that, frankly, I don't even understand.

Multiple Supreme Courts over the last 100 years disagree with you. Incorporation is a well-established legal doctrine that has been affirmed in case after case.

[Supreme Marshal Petan]

The woman is an idiot.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

The woman is an idiot.

Got it in one.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Did Barney Frank pass High School Economics? ANY Economics?
'' for Harry Reid
'' for Nancy Pelosi
'' for Chuck Schumer
etcetera.

[Ashmoria]

no theyre not.

14th ammendment, eh?

The Fourteenth Amendment argument is bull, and the interpretation thereof is also bull; establishment of a state or local religion in no way necessarily depriving anyone of anything (without due process) and is in no way depriving anyone of equal representation of law. It's such a fallacy, that, frankly, I don't even understand.

lololol

that is why we have legal scholars on the supreme court. they understand it very well.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

Did Barney Frank pass High School Economics? ANY Economics?
'' for Harry Reid
'' for Nancy Pelosi
'' for Chuck Schumer
etcetera.

Why, instead of acknowledging the obvious and many faults of people like Palin, do you attempt to deflect criticisms on to people from the other party? O'Donnell is possible the most idiotic, insane candidate to ever run for national office, and yet instead of realizing she is completely nuts you attempt to shift criticism onto people who have much, much better track records and who have displayed far greater intelligence. You and your ilk confuse me with your doublethink.

[Vandengaarde]

I hate the generalizations and assumptions at someone's intelligence based on something they said. It could have been a mistake, or perhaps something else, but anything in the air shall be gripped by those wishing to cause chaos and be used as an instrument of propaganda.

[Ashmoria]

Did Barney Frank pass High School Economics? ANY Economics?
'' for Harry Reid
'' for Nancy Pelosi
'' for Chuck Schumer
etcetera.

you should hope to know as much as they do someday.

[Conserative Morality]

I hate the generalizations and assumptions at someone's intelligence based on something they said. It could have been a mistake, or perhaps something else, but anything in the air shall be gripped by those wishing to cause chaos and be used as an instrument of propaganda.

I know, judging people on what they say when running for office, as opposed to...

Uh...

What you want them to say.

[MisanthropicPopulism]

The Fourteenth Amendment argument is bull, and the interpretation thereof is also bull; establishment of a state or local religion in no way necessarily depriving anyone of anything (without due process) and is in no way depriving anyone of equal representation of law. It's such a fallacy, that, frankly, I don't even understand.

lololol

that is why we have legal scholars on the supreme court. they understand it very well.

What could constitutional lawyers know about the Constitution that politicians with bachelor degrees in political science and public speaking don't know?