PDA

View Full Version : Isn't he stupid



LWW
10-20-2010, 03:42 AM
Phony war hero can't name 1st amendment rights:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Delaware GOP Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell questioned on Tuesday whether the Constitution provides for the separation of church and state.

The comment came during a debate on WDEL radio with Democratic opponent Chris Coons, who argued that local schools should teach science rather than religion, at which point O’Donnell jumped in. “Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” she asked.

The audience at Widener Law School was taken aback, with shouts of “whoa” and laughter coming from the crowd.

Coons then pointed to the First Amendment, which states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

“You’re telling me the First Amendment does?” O’Donnell interrupted to ask.

Following the next question, Coons revisited the remark — likely thinking he had caught O’Donnell in a flub — saying, “I think you’ve just heard from my opponent in her asking ‘where is the separation of church and state’ show that she has a fundamental misunderstanding.”

“That’s in the First Amendment?” O’Donnell again asked.

“Yes,” Coons responded.

O’Donnell was later able to score some points of her own off the remark, <span style='font-size: 11pt'>revisiting the issue to ask Coons if he could identify the “five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment.” </span>

Coons named the separation of church and state, but could not identify the others — the freedoms of speech, press, to assemble and petition — and asked that O’Donnell allow the moderators ask the questions.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>“I guess he can’t”</span> O’Donnell said. </div></div>

This is where the far left determines that POLITICO (http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=1&subcatid=2&threadid=4644888) is a right wing nut blog funded by the Chinese and operated by Karl Rove.

It never ceases to amaze me how illiterate the typical democrook candidate is.

LWW

pooltchr
10-20-2010, 09:07 AM
They don't need to know anything about the constitution other than how can they ignore it.

Steve

LWW
10-20-2010, 03:49 PM
What amazes me is that so many on the left bought the lie on this one.

LWW

pooltchr
10-20-2010, 05:37 PM
Have a little sympathy for them. Many were educated in the government operated school systems, where they were taught that the constitution calls for separation of church and state. Since this is what they were told in those schools, there is no reason for them to question it by actually reading the constitution to see what it says.

This tendency has carried over into their adult lives, where now, that take what the party tells them as the truth, without questioning it for personal validation of the facts.

"Please, Sir, May I have some more?"

Steve

bobroberts
10-20-2010, 08:36 PM
Steve you hit the nail on the head.Actually the Dems are smarter then we think we are.
They keep the ignorant , ignorant and give them handouts so they can do whatever they want and be re-elected again and again.
The fools who are on the govn't dole are not going to go against their puppet masters.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Have a little sympathy for them. Many were educated in the government operated school systems, where they were taught that the constitution calls for separation of church and state. Since this is what they were told in those schools, there is no reason for them to question it by actually reading the constitution to see what it says.

This tendency has carried over into their adult lives, where now, that take what the party tells them as the truth, without questioning it for personal validation of the facts.

"Please, Sir, May I have some more?"

Steve </div></div>

Qtec
10-21-2010, 05:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Have a little sympathy for them. Many were educated in the government operated school systems, where they were taught that the constitution calls for separation of church and state. Since this is what they were told in those schools, there is no reason for them to question it by actually reading the constitution to see what it says.

This tendency has carried over into their adult lives, where now, that take what the party tells them as the truth, without questioning it for personal validation of the facts.

"Please, Sir, May I have some more?"

Steve </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> 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.</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," <span style='font-size: 20pt'>thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. </span>[Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802. </div></div>


<u>This point came up</u> when O'Donnell was arguing that schools had the right to teach Creationism alongside evolution if they wanted to.
Coons stated that Creationism was not based in science but came from a certain religion belief. The State, Fed or local, may not impose their religious beliefs on school children.
That's when O'Donnell came out with her dumb as a brick statement which everybody there LTAO.

Q

pooltchr
10-21-2010, 06:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> 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.</div></div>

Q

</div></div>

Thank you for making my point. The constitution prohibits the state from establishing an official state religion.
What does that mean? Does it mean that the government is not allowed to make a law that says the Catholic church will be the official church of the country?

It doesn't say anything about limiting access to the teachings of various religions.

So, like I said, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>there is nothing in the constitution about separation of church and state.</span>

If the writers on the constitution thought that completely separatinbg church and state was important, they would have put it in the constitution. But they understood the difference between <u>mandating</u> a certain religion as the official religion, and <u>allowing</u> religion to flourish throughout our society. One is control, the other is freedom.

Steve

LWW
10-21-2010, 05:10 PM
Actually if one researches history, the statement only prohibited the federal gubmint from establishing a religion.

As an example, Massachusetts established a state religion with no court filings as everyone understood what it meant ... that if a majority in one state wanted to designate a state religion they could. What was prohibited was seven states deciding that their majority could establish a state religion over the majorities in the other six states.

And, for the record, the result was disaster for Massachusetts as it lost large sections of it's population to other states which led the states to all adopt a similar clause in all fifty state constitutions.

LWW