http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/19/christine-odonnell-church-and-state_n_767910.html

BAHAHAHAHAA!!

Typical teabagger. What a nutjob. How ANYONE this stupid can get nominated blows my mind.

But she is correct, there is no "seperation of church and state" in the first amendment of the US constitution. The first amendment prohibits the ESTABLISHMENT of religion and Guarantees the free right to religion.

How can anyone so stupid as to not realize this be allowed to vote?

From the 1st Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion."

Is that clear enough for you? The reason the law was written was because the Church of England ruled the roost and the forefathers didn't want to see the same thing happen here. They wanted a clear separation of government and religion.

The 2nd amendment doesn't specifically say you can keep and bear AK-47s and fully automatic machine guns. It's just assumed that's what it says, because IT'S WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE CONSTITUTION.


"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion."

No.

That's not clear enough for him.

He's going to defend the same idiot that said that scientists are growing mice with human brains because the words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution even though the intent is clear.

Election time can be fun as we get to see people go down in flames, as victims of their own stupidity.

I'd still let her blow me.

That's your, along with many others misinterpritation of the first amendment. Had the constitution wanted a wall seperating church and state, there would be no mention of God in our founding documents, prayer in congress etc.

You are correct in that the founders didn't want a repeat of the mess with the church of England, but they only intended to keep government out of religion, not the other way around. No matter who twists it how they do it, there is no "seperation of church and state" in the US constitution. Ms.O'Donnell is correct, it's not written anywhere in the constitution.

Exactly how many times is God mentioned in the Constitution? How about prayer?

Just wonderin'...

Thank you Justice bait dunker for your explanation of what the writers of the Constitution intended.

I'm glad that you've been around long enough to have spoken to those that wrote it so that you know what their intent was.

This is what the Supreme Court has had to say.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html

I believe that allowing religion and state to mix is what brings us Iranian type governments. No doubt the same craziness would develop here if we let the two merge. Moderates typically lose out to the true believers. How would you like the government to be influenced by the likes of Pat Robertson, David Koresh, Mitt Romney, et al?

Interesting that Dunker doesn't mind wearing his ignorance in public. Unfortunately there's no arguing with visceral knowledge.

DV,

I'm not a Romney fan, but lumping him with Robertson and Koresh does seem over the top.

Sg

"Supreme Court " pfft...what do they know.

I'd like to see O'Donnell and Palin on the same ticket. I bet the debates would smash ratings records.

Politically, he HAS to! He is Mormon. Even the Christians that support him look at him with skepticism.

Now mix in some turkey or chicken processing and I think you would be on the right track. Santeria is a religion, isn't it? A Santeria case on religion and sacrifices made it to the supremes, there in linking them all together. FOR THE WIN!

"God" and "Creator" are mentioned in the appendix of the US Constitution. We both know that the constitution is not the only founding document, so let's not twist things.


@DanS if your not sure what the founders intended, wouldn't the right thing to do is take it literally? The funny thing about the constitution is that it is spelled out very simply so there is no ambiguity or need for interpratation. With few exceptions the groups that need interpratation are usually those trying to pervert or change the constitution.

bd,

No, the right thing to do is to have the justices of the Supreme Court decide what the Constitution says.............because that's what they do.

The 2nd amendment doesn't say individuals have the right to bear arms, but the SC has interpreted the "well-regulated militia" to mean the individual. If you want to go with the simple spelling in the Constitution, then your days of individual firarm ownership are over.

Unless, of course, you want to admit that it wasn't the intent of the Constitution to forbid you, the individual, to bear arms, and you want to continue living with the SC's interpretation of the 2nd amendment, rather than the simple language in the Constitution which never mentions individual firearm ownership.

And now the Constitution has an appendix?




Really?

Constitution appendix = the amendments? But there I go again, interpreting what Bait Dunker means, rather than just taking him literally.

Dan - 'zat good enough for zzzzing?

Sg

Yeah.

That's a 'Zzzzzing' right there.

You're slightly off there Dan,..... depending upon your interpretation

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Militia - Civilians trained as soldiers but not part of a regulated army.

The only reference to a militia is that it is "necessary to the security of a free state". Nothing about the rights of militias or the necessity to belong to a militia to exercise the right.

"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" seems pretty clear to me.

You're not the only one who says I'm slightly off.