ODonnell was right!!
 

There is no first amendment separation of church and state. People have heard liberals say this so much they think it is a fact.
The first amendment 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.
ESTABLISHMENT of religion was INTERPRETED by judges beyond the words themselves,, and that is why we have such a mess with words like In God we trust on our money, Under God, etc..
I am NOT a religious person.. but I do think that our founding fathers were smart enough to know how to say wall of separation if they intended to mean more than Establishment of religion.
O Donnell is right.. Separation of church and state is not in the constitution and she was RIDICULED for saying it.. and they were absolutely WRONG.

Read the Federalist Papers. Jefferson, himself, addressed this in a letter to a Danbury Baptist congregation and said that the "Establishment" clause, combined with the "free exercise" clause meant that a wall was put up between Church and State. In 1802, President Jefferson wrote:
I'll also quote James Madison ("Father of the Constitution) from 1819:

She should be viewed as a "new broom" to the citizens of Delaware.
 

She is certainly qualified when one looks at a cross section of the incumbents capabilities and capabilities.

Most importantly as I have said before she does not know, and does not need to know why things are as they are or why they need to stay as they are.

Al the incumbents have been there for years and are quite content with business as usual which does not include much of the need for we the people.

There may not be term limits but we sure can dump the duds.

She most certainly can do no more harm than the establishment.

It is quite comforting to see/hear we the people finally get off their couches and get out and stand to be counted (there it is again!).

If I lived in Delaware I would support and vote for her. Then I would keep in touch with constant contact to remind her of why we put her in office.

Ditto for the Florida newbie candidates. The establishment needs to be removed....no ifs ands or buts.

btk

I think you're misunderstanding this DJ. JimJoe was referring to the Constitution of the United States and it's lawful Amendments.
He was not referring to other writings of Jefferson that anti-constitutionalists list as if they were part of the Constitution that was ratified by the Congress of the United States.
I hope that clears this up. (I'm so sure that's going to happen)

Exactly!!
 

RichieLion: You are EXACTLY CORRECT.. Liberals constantly want to add words to the constitution to fit their interpretations.
I do not care what any individual founding father wrote before or after the constitution was ratified.
It was ratified by far more than ONE or two or a few founding fathers..
It was a compromise document that should stand on its words.
Why do we allow liberals to do to our founding fathers what they do to conservatives: treat them like they are stupid.
Our founding fathers could have easily said WALL OF SEPARATION instead of Establishment of Religion, if that is what they meant. Many documents of that era including the Declaration of Independence which THOSE FOUNDING FATHERS signed refer to god and creator, and would have violated that WALL if they intended a WALL. They signed onto Establishment of Religion.. don't accuse them of being too stupid to sign one document and MEAN something else.
JJ

Just great. Someone says "well, that's not what they meant in the COnstitution" so I provide the text where the writers explain what their intent was.

You don't put a whole dialogue into law. The idea used to be to make a law as succint and brief as possible (unlike today's 2000 page bills).

They said "respecting an establishment of religion" because that's what they meant. When people asked for an explanation, that's what they got. 2nd Ammendment defenders are *constantly* referring to the Federalist Papers where the founders made it CLEAR that citizens were to be allowed to arm themselves.

So why is it any different when it's YOUR ox being gored? When the framers explain what they meant, which has been backed up by the Supreme Court - why the sudden change of heart concerning this kind of material when it's the FIRST Ammendment?

...and yes, they referred to God and the Creator. But you'll notice they did NOT refer to any specific religion - and with *damn* good reason.

There's not much to say about your answer than to say that you are completely and utterly wrong. If the meaning you glean out of the Constitution was meant to be in the Constitution, it would have been in the Constitution. You have a very concise and succinct bill with no hidden meanings and this was done on purpose. After the fact and after ratification you want to say that Jefferson meant something else than was written and voted on. Hogwash!!!

You want to use the language of the Constitution as if it was a metaphor and not a definitive statement and that is just ridiculous. The activist court is wrong and you are wrong and no amount of redefinition can change that.

Answer this..
 

Answer this: Was ODonnell right? If you cannot say yes or no, the answer is yes.
JJ

The other thing liberals like to ignore is all the other reams of information from the other founders, the regular chuch services held each week in congress, the Bibles printed by congress, The Bible lessons in public schools and so on. Actual History I guess is over rated this days.

Liberals would much rather dazzle you with bull crap then answer your question yes or no if the answer is not to their liking.

Yoda

On another thread, thought this might apply!!!!!
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by eweissenbach
It seems to me that internet chat boards in general bring out the combativeness in people. Often people say things in response to a post that they would never say face to face. Just check out the politics board if you want to see the extreme example of contenscious debate. If I disagree with someone I try to always frame my response in a way that shows respect for their viewpoint, but asking them to consider a different view. Unfortunately a fair number of people respond by putting down the other person and their viewpoint, which does not further understanding and creates enemies. This seems to be the way of our political discourse in this country, making compromise impossible as both sides insult, mock, and even slander the other as a matter of course. It is not only distasteful, but ultimately very harmful. JMHO. Ed

We all know, as you have lectured us before, how you feel about those of us who post here, but I am wondering about the "harmful" attributes of posting here against the "harmful" outcome of things as I just posted in the Juan Williams thread...let me share with you...

"National Public Radio and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting should both be defunded permanently. Speech in those two venues is only free if the views expressed are those of the super-Liberal, Progressive Ideology. George Soros just gave them 1.8 million dollars to hire 100 new reporters for NPR right before Mr. Williams’ firing.

George Soros gives money to the TIDES Foundation, which is a Communist organization."

http://www.worldnewsheardnow.com/sor...williams/3496/

Now, my question for you is this...which is more harmful...discussing what is going on in the world, albeit with passion, or IGNORING things like this ?

Agree with djplong.
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separat..._United_States

There is quite a lot of evidence that the Fouding Fathers meant to build up a strong wall between church and state.

Both Jefferson and Madison, in the previous examples, were speaking about the establishment of a religion by law.

"It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law, was right & necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; and that the only question to be decided was which was the true religion. The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects, dissenting from the established sect, was safe & even useful. The example of the Colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all Sects might be safely & advantageously put on a footing of equal & entire freedom.... We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Gov. [James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt]


An example of what they were talking about being harmful to the states' rights and individual liberties is what we are seeing happen with the current government promoting Islam and supporting Muslims' and their religion. See what a mess happens when the govenment gets involved in religion and sets out to promote one religion over another.

I think they did mean to protect churches from the government and make sure that "congress" couldn't pass any laws as the constitution states.

I'd be willing to bet that founders didn't intend to remove God or prayer from schools or sue city governments from putting a nativity scene in front of the local city hall at Christmas.

In San Diego where I'm from, I grew up watching this total stupidity over the years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_S...ss_controversy

Nothing more than continued left wing, liberal, atheist attempts to remove God from our country. Starting in 1962, this is just another chapter to change and rewrite our history.

Shame on them.