tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post653043781300381671..comments2023-10-24T11:23:31.580-04:00Comments on Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion: What If Christine O'Donnell Were Right About The First Amendment?William A. Jacobsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16433685588536441422noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-74943027935490907582010-10-22T22:46:40.161-04:002010-10-22T22:46:40.161-04:00"Todd said...
The US House, the DAY AFTER vo..."Todd said... <br />The US House, the DAY AFTER voting out the first Amendment as agreed upon in conference with the Senate did also vote to request a proclamation of thanksgiving [to Almighty God]"<br /><br />Todd, that info is absolutely devastating to the ACLU perspective. It indicates the very people who passed the first amendment did not intend to purge religion from government. Did you find that yourself or in someone else's research? Either way I would like to see more if you have links to point us in that direction. Thanks.madisonjrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12414952710107547847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-36282890682046938132010-10-22T20:22:39.068-04:002010-10-22T20:22:39.068-04:00serfdoof,
And teaching evolution as "fact&qu...serfdoof,<br /><br />And teaching evolution as "fact"... is not promotion of atheism? (particularly when there are actually MANY problems with evolution!)<br /><br />Moreover, the term "creationism" is a loaded term which... yes... DOES imply religion. That is why many prefer to use the term "intelligent design"... which doesn't deal in theology--just science... just the observable and provable scientific facts!<br /><br />Basically, if you were walking through a mountain, and you saw hyroglifics carved into the stone on a cave wall, you wouldn't think "wow, I wonder how long it took for those markings to evolve?". Instead, you'd recognize "intelligence" in the design. You wouldn't dare think that they happened by chance based on the elements like wind and sand and time, would you?<br /><br />In the same way, many honest science look at the fossil record, molecular structures, DNA, and behavior of life under observation in the lab... and they conclude (a) that they see signs of intelligent design, and (b) they see massive shortcomings and inconsistencies with the "goo-to-you" theory of evolution (i.e. macro evolution).<br /><br />Sure their is indisputable evidence of "changes" over time within "genus" and/or species, but even this has NEVER been absolutely proven to be upward evolution. Likewise, the vast majority (as in something like 100%) of mutations w/natural selection produced lateral or downward offspring (DEvolution!). A single example of non-controversial upward evolution has NOT EVER been observed in the lab. Ever! (I dare you to prove me wrong on this one!)<br /><br />So, again, given this brief summary, why not teach ALL viewpoints, and ALL theories (that are supported by a sizable number of scientists), and let the evidence speak for itself?<br /><br />How is it "scientific" to rule out possibilities like intelligent design based on pre-conceived philosophical biases?Rob McEwenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127813733187416006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-56852588134008019322010-10-22T19:44:09.725-04:002010-10-22T19:44:09.725-04:00Rob,
You are correct, I got a little of topic star...Rob,<br />You are correct, I got a little of topic starting with my first post, but I do see teaching creationism in schools is tantamount to Government promotion of religion. The local or state level already does decide on what to teach in schools; it just concerns me when people like O'Donnell espouse those types of beliefs, especially at the national level. What they say today might be a very different tune tomorrow if they happen to get into power. That goes for any candidate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-57003478933382951612010-10-22T19:13:20.734-04:002010-10-22T19:13:20.734-04:00SarahW, you are insisting on an anachronism. "...SarahW, you are insisting on an anachronism. "Separation of church and state," even when Jefferson said it, did not mean that there were not state churches; it meant Congress could not make laws about establishment of religion---neither for, nor against. Why not against? Because there were, at both the time of the Constitution's writing and adoption, and at the time Jefferson wrote his letter (his letter being legally irrelevant), established churches in some states.<br /><br />Fight this as much as you want, you are the one who is being ahistorical. You're trying to foist onto the First Amendment's establishment clause a 20th century liberal's meaning that it simply did not have until about 1947---and even then, only to people who accept a plainly fallacious argument from a Supreme Court justice.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-55353653536045483742010-10-22T16:39:57.289-04:002010-10-22T16:39:57.289-04:00serfdood,
You are entitled to your opinion, but t...serfdood,<br /><br />You are entitled to your opinion, but this is probably not the forum to argue creation vs. evolution, or whether creationism can be called a science.<br /><br />What is important, and actually relevant to this blog post, is that O'Donnell believes that this is a matter that should be left up to the States and the people, and simply isn't the job of the federal gov't.<br /><br />In contrast, if O'Donnell were running for school superintendent, or governor.. you'd then have a point worth discussing.<br /><br />But since she is running for a position in the Federal gov't --AND-- her position that the Federal gov't should stay out of such matters.. this trumps whatever her personal opinion may be regarding creationism vs. evolution.<br /><br />Personally, I find it refreshing that a candidate for higher office in the Federal Gov't actually understands the 9th and 10th amendments... and doesn't have the goal of endlessly expanding the Fed's power... delving into all aspects of our lives... and I also like the fact that she actually values the Constitution and desires to follow it!<br /><br />Sadly, such candidates like O'Donnell seem to be nearing extinction.Rob McEwenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127813733187416006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-44698934121959292312010-10-22T15:53:46.775-04:002010-10-22T15:53:46.775-04:00@serfdood
Please read what I said again... I am a...@serfdood<br /><br />Please read what I said again... I am a Catholic and I do not believe in Creation Science.<br /><br />When I was at school we learned about the Creation story in religious instruction. We read the Bible in context, and we understood that there was a wider meaning to that context.<br /><br />The argument that "It is simply not science" is pithy to say the least. <br /><br />If you have ever come across people who do in fact advocate Creation Science alone you would discover that they have gone into "the science" to try and prove others wrong!!<br /><br />My point is that if you open students up to both sides then they should be given the ability to test the theories of both sides.<br /><br />BTW Evolution is also NOT SCIENCE. It is nothing more than a theory. The theory, especially the the Darwinism theory requires rigorous testing. So far Darwinism has been failing because there are gaps. On the other hand, Creationism fails because of the belief in the young earth, and I disagree with that belief. <br /><br />It is something like this belief in the young earth which is why I believe that both should be taught, compared and contrasted. In that way students get the wider view.<br /><br />Liberals are stifling real scholarship by the stance that they take. At the same time, those fundamentalist Creationists are also stifling scholarship by refusing to allow their children to explore what we all know about the evolution of the earth.<br /><br />FYI as I Catholic, (and Christine O'Donnell is a Catholic too), I believe that Genesis (which is where you find the belief in Creation Science) can be reconciled to evolution of the earth, but not to Darwinism. The Creationists believe that each day is a literal 24 hour period. However, this is not how Genesis should be interpreted. A day, or where it says that day turned into night and then it was morning, represents in my view the passing of perhaps millions of years which is the passing of each era of the earth. <br /><br />If such comparisons were taught then people would be more comfortable with Genesis which is indeed story-telling, or giving a simple explanation for a complex situation to describe what has taken place over a long period of time.Maggiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00532250145038548627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-91640186676700687292010-10-22T13:12:57.446-04:002010-10-22T13:12:57.446-04:00Okay found it. He basically blew her off from the...Okay found it. He basically blew her off from the 5 freedoms question. I saw no fumbling and I can't really discern whether he could not answer the question or did not deign to do so. It was weird though. They were just done talking about whether or not faith-based organizations have a role providing services with federal money to those in need. That discussion was kinda relevant to the 1st amendment topic but her question seemed out of context. That might have worked if she asked it earlier but seems like it was an afterthought. If there was a "1st amendment" strategy she was way off the mark on when she really should have asked that question.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-47616098600313964102010-10-22T10:54:25.282-04:002010-10-22T10:54:25.282-04:00I'm trying to find where she or the moderators...I'm trying to find where she or the moderators specifically challenged him to name the 5 freedoms in the first amendment. If he couldn't then shame on him, but I can't seem to find a debate transcript or video that shows that. I see the exchange with the separation of church and state discussion, but haven't found anything with a specific question on the "five freedoms", as O'Donnell and others say that she followed up with. <br /><br />@Maggie<br />There IS a very good reason for not teaching what you (and other creationists call) "Creation Science" along side of evolution. It's simply not science; adding the word doesn't make it so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-43979539035306720202010-10-22T06:17:10.678-04:002010-10-22T06:17:10.678-04:00I am a Catholic and I believe in the concept of se...I am a Catholic and I believe in the concept of separation of Church and State. More than likely Christine O'Donnell believes in it as well. <br /><br />One has to understand the background and the history behind why the establishment clause was included in your Constitution. It has everything to do with the notion of a State religion. <br /><br />This history is in fact quite ancient. I can cite two examples (one is Biblical from the Books of the Maccabees) where people were persecuted in a cruel fashion because they refused to worship the "state" gods. The other example is that of the early Christians who were persecuted by the Romans, especially Nero and Diocletian (but I digress).<br /><br />The founding fathers came from England and others came from Europe where there had bee a State religion. No dissension was allowed. Those who were non-conformist were persecuted. England's history, especially after Henry VIII declared himself as head of the Church of England was very bloody. <br /><br />These first settlers had set out from England and Europe in order to escape the various forms of persecutions and wars in their own countries. It is unsurprising that the constitution contains the establishment clause. <br /><br />However, like one person noted, modern jurists (of the 20th century) changed the meaning of separation of church and state to mean that the govt should not provide funding etc. etc. In more recent years it has taken on a more sinister meaning including the banning of reading Bibles in government schools. This kind of thing is not what was intended. <br /><br />The fact is that Coons supports this modern notion of the separation of church and state, since he wants to see all Christian practices such as school prayer etc. etc. banned, and O'Donnell believes in what the founding fathers originally believed. <br /><br />There is not one good reason for stopping the teaching of Creation Science (even if I disagree with the concepts of Creation Science). Likewise there is not one good reason to stop teaching Evolution. Students should be allowed to study each concept or theory so that they make up their own minds. At the moment such exploration in scholarship is being stifled by the liberals.Maggiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00532250145038548627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-76778999665312080422010-10-22T05:15:33.599-04:002010-10-22T05:15:33.599-04:00How interesting that so many of the commenters her...How interesting that so many of the commenters here and elsewhere who jumped on Christine O'Donnell's seeming lack of knowledge of the content of the First Amendment make no mention of the fact that she knew there were precisely five freedoms listed in the amendment.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16020376138494436861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-83603152499542262712010-10-21T21:19:31.465-04:002010-10-21T21:19:31.465-04:00bill you are correct and expressed the point beaut...bill you are correct and expressed the point beautifully.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-12378720218841573312010-10-21T13:04:10.538-04:002010-10-21T13:04:10.538-04:00@Robert
I did read the article. The whole thing. ...@Robert<br />I did read the article. The whole thing. What I see is a lot of "after the fact" analysis and assumptions of O'Donnell's intentions with this line of questioning during the debate. If she wanted to make a point, she obviously failed with much of the debate audience. What I see in the followup is "I/we/she meant to do that to make a point" Fine. Politicians do that all the time, clarify what the said previously. My personal opinion is that O'Donnell does not have the capacity for "nuance", as this article implied.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-62444302338258790462010-10-21T12:33:04.899-04:002010-10-21T12:33:04.899-04:00@Van: and where, I ask you, is that "principl...@Van: and where, I ask you, is that "principle" to be found in the Constitution, hmmm?<br /><br />If you guessed "nowhere," you'd be right. The Founders knew that legislators, like anyone else, would be human, and thus prone to make decisions and votes based on their faith and personal conscience (such as that may be in a politician.)<br /><br />NOWHERE do they state that an individual legislator's faith should not be used to formulate their decisions.<br /><br />The literal reading of the First Amendment is the correct one.<br /><br />The Founders, you see, resorted to plain language, in the (obviously forlorn) hope that later generations would be able to understand the words to mean the same things as they intended. The times when there are greater implications from the literal, exact words of the Constitution, they amplified and expanded upon their words in subsequent sections of text within the Constitution.<br /><br />Your comical notion seems to be that as a nation we were intended to freely interpret the laws set forth in the Constitution as required by the situation.<br /><br />This is not the case; the Constitution was intended to prevent the federal government entirely from doing certain kinds of things the Founders considered hallmarks of abusive government.<br /><br />Had there ever been an intent to manufacture a total separation of faith from every aspect of government, they would have set that forth in the text.<br /><br />In fact they did not do so.<br /><br />The fact that they did not do so proves, as supported quite extensively by their writings at the time, that such was not their intent.<br /><br />The Founders came here largely from England, a country which at that time had an official, legally-mandated religion to which all citizens were expected to adhere.<br /><br />The relevant portion of the First Amendment was intended to ensure that such could not happen in the United States, because the federal government would be expressly prohibited from doing so, and prohibited from interfering with the free exercise of religion.<br /><br />So, you know, try again.Will Dissolverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17074197931378722495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-57513368175630717882010-10-21T11:51:27.883-04:002010-10-21T11:51:27.883-04:00‘In God We Trust’ on coinage is not unconstitution...‘In God We Trust’ on coinage is not unconstitutional. No one is forcing you to believe, even read it. They could also say, ‘In Al Gore We Trust’, but how stupid would that be… we know that he’s a fraud…. and no one can prove that God does not exist as a supreme force of creation over the universe.<br /><br />DavidCustisKimball.comUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16284418511617120593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-36478786915721392262010-10-21T10:49:04.303-04:002010-10-21T10:49:04.303-04:00Nevermind this huge gaffe. Anyone who takes a sta...Nevermind this huge gaffe. Anyone who takes a stance against masturbation deserves the maximum amount of mockery and ridicule that can be heaped upon them.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04664379363169516265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-14108808286286795912010-10-21T09:49:43.750-04:002010-10-21T09:49:43.750-04:00Remember that the Constitution limits the authorit...Remember that the Constitution limits the authority of the federal tyrant. It does not limit the authority of the church. The federal government is prohibited from establishing a church and from regulating the free exercise thereof. This is different creating a wall of seperation. The federal government is denied access to the church. The church has free access to the federal government. Jefferson (who was not at the Constitutional convention or at the adoption of the Bill of Rights) and the courts have gotten this wrong.JD Lintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17281103949001850691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-82326061753089342682010-10-21T09:36:37.291-04:002010-10-21T09:36:37.291-04:00The US House, the DAY AFTER voting out the first A...The US House, the DAY AFTER voting out the first Amendment as agreed upon in conference with the Senate ( http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001%2Fllac001.db&recNum=475 ) did also vote to request a proclamation of thanksgiving: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001%2Fllac001.db&recNum=476<br /><br />The text:<br /><br />Br. Boudinot said, he could not think of letting the session pass over without offering an opportunity to all the citizens of the United States of joining, with one voice, in returning to Almighty God their sincere thanks for the many blessings he had poured down upon them. With this view, therefore, he would move the following resolution:<br /><br />Resolved, That a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States, to request that he would recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a Constitution of government for their safety and happiness.Toddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10376797807745873679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-19748146617481947962010-10-21T09:01:01.496-04:002010-10-21T09:01:01.496-04:00Well duh. Of course the exact phrase "Separa...Well duh. Of course the exact phrase "Separation of Church and State" doesn't appear in the Constitution. To imply that Christine O'Donnell was somehow making a point is really reaching. The thing is, I have a real problem with people who think that creation myths should be taught as an alternative to evolution in public schools. Okay then, which version SHOULD be taught? Christian? Babylonian? Native American (of which there are many)? Whether it's at the local or state level, no such mandate should be made because it is in fact mythology attempting to be passed off as science.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-81595660624540198352010-10-21T08:26:13.927-04:002010-10-21T08:26:13.927-04:00No, she was wrong and did not recognize a citation...No, she was wrong and did not recognize a citation of the First Amendment.<br /><br />But by extending your logic, the Second Amendment doesn't use the word "guns" so guns are not protected by the constitution, just your arms.<br /><br />/Waves!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02477205781850486816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-84308275753278274792010-10-21T07:46:47.753-04:002010-10-21T07:46:47.753-04:00They can't abort a dead child. Only if the chi...They can't abort a dead child. Only if the child is living can they make their beloved "choice".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-14680012533919477652010-10-21T07:37:06.786-04:002010-10-21T07:37:06.786-04:00If the media mishandles O'Donnell's statem...<b>If the media mishandles O'Donnell's statements, however, it's because of her history of radical, inarticulate statements and positions which are well documented.</b><br /><br />Uhh..no - it's because they are campaigning against her.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-86399164113833640492010-10-21T05:23:51.163-04:002010-10-21T05:23:51.163-04:00Wow. So... this is what you guys are going with? ...Wow. So... this is what you guys are going with? Just let it go, bro. She's not going to win, and she's not going to have sex with you.<br /><br />If it were just the separation thing, sure, I could see it. Pretty much the entire right wing agrees that the "wall of separation" is a liberal myth, that this is One Nation Under the Lord Jesus Christ, and that Real America is allowed to outlaw heathen religions like Islam and science. Or something like that.<br /><br />But to assume that, in the span of a second, she was able to identify Coons's words as a misquote, read the misquote as a deliberate reinterpretation, parse the legal implications of that interpretation, and dismiss them as being identical to the separation metaphor is just plain wackiness. Her brain doesn't work that quickly. No one's does.<br /><br />The more likely scenario is that Ms. O'Donnell did not know (and therefore did not recognize) the exact wording of the First Amendment, instead assuming it merely guaranteed "freedom of religion" the same way it guarantees "freedom of speech [and] of the press" and so on. By itself, that's no sin. I can't recite the Third Amendment by heart, but I know it's the anti-Quartering Act one. And if someone quoted (however poorly) the Free Exercise Clause to O'Donnell, she'd probably nod in approval. The problem is that, unlike the other four freedoms in the First Amendment, the free exercise of religion has a flipside of which she was apparently unaware. And that flipside is what causes problems for creationism in public schools, at least if you buy into the incorporation doctrine or if the school receives federal funding. O'Donnell would be better served by focusing her ire on those two issues rather than on the frickin' Bill of Rights.Andrew N.P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15754481755812619563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-68729813144812920262010-10-21T01:32:33.291-04:002010-10-21T01:32:33.291-04:00The problem isn't that Ms. O'Donnell belie...The problem isn't that Ms. O'Donnell believes that the Establishment Clause doesn't mean "seperation of Church and State". The problem is that she is completely unaware that the establishment clause exists in the first place. After having been read the exact text of the First Amendment verbatim she asks bewilderedly, "That's in there?". She doesn't seem to be making the semantic argument that a distinguished Cornell law professor might make to get people confused about the founder's intentions with the 1st Amendment's establishment clause, but rather she is demonstrating her complete lack of understanding of the Bill of Rights itself, which most children learn in junior high and something that I'd expect all people running for office would have a basic understanding of prior to having the gall to attempt to represent people in a law-making body.<br /><br />When you are told the exact wording of the 1st Amendment and then say, "That's in there?", then you deserve to be chided as an ignoramus.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-2541478409796736002010-10-21T00:42:05.445-04:002010-10-21T00:42:05.445-04:00I don't pretend to know what was in Christine ...I don't pretend to know what was in Christine O'Donnell's mind; I wish she had been more clear in her statement. But I do want to point out that the argument here -- that the Constitution does not mandate a "separation of church and state" -- is not sophistry. It is in fact a fight against sophistry of a particularly invidious sort.<br /><br />Even a cursory examination of the birth of our nation makes it clear that the Founders were attempting to foster religious freedom, and especially to encourage its expression over its suppression. Regardless of your position about whether or not this country is a Christian one, only the stubbornest of viewpoints could say the Founders expected government to be without God. References to God and the Creator are too numerous.<br /><br />Given that context, the phrasing of the First Amendment couldn't be plainer: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Why is the second half of that clause always left off? It explicitly states that Congress cannot prevent the exercise of religion. The sophistry I alluded to is the way that the radical anti-religious have insisted that this phrase means that all people should be free FROM religion, and that this goal should be accomplished by removing every vestige of religion from all public places, lest some non-religious person be offended.<br /><br />That's just not true. The First Amendment simply makes the point that in America we are free -- indeed encouraged! -- to exercise our religious beliefs, and like so many things we are free to do so as long as we don't impinge on the rights of others. But note there is NO RIGHT anywhere in the Constitution, express or implied, to not being offended. In fact, our great strength is our ability to embrace that which offends us, and to fight and even die for the rights of someone to be offensive.<br /><br />So, to sum up, the First Amendment doesn't say there is no religion in the public sphere, simply that there is no single state-sponsored religion. Someone can put up a Christmas tree as long as someone else can put up a menora.AJsDaddiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02322147619027300486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-53344817729810761322010-10-20T23:26:14.965-04:002010-10-20T23:26:14.965-04:00Frankly, whether O'Donnell has memorized the e...Frankly, whether O'Donnell has memorized the entire Constitution or not is irrelevant. I would wager most, even those currently serving in Congress, haven't. <br /><br />And whether leftists or the media (redundancy alert) laugh, gasp and mock her makes little difference either.<br /><br />What makes a whole heap of difference is that she won her primary against all odds while being scoffed at and will be a dependable advocate for the Constitution should she be elected in November.<br /><br />I doubt Thomas Jefferson told members of the Constitutional Congress that they needed to pass the Constitution "so you can find out what is in it."<br /><br />Pelosi et al are the one's we need to worry about.<br /><br />This entire debate is a distraction.<br /><br />Keep your eye on the ball folks, i.e. America needs Constitutional conservatives serving in Congress and at the local levels to keep the Progressive freight train from steamrolling this country and sinking us into a Marxist abyss.<br /><br />NEW POST:<br /><br />HOMELAND SECURITY UNVEILS NEW BORDER SECURITY STRATEGY: LOSE YOUR JOB!<br />http://heir2freedom.blogspot.com/2010/10/homeland-security-unveils-new-border.htmlheir2freedomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01918271062520918572noreply@blogger.com