O'Donnell Intends to Make You All Convert to her Religion

.....

Originally posted by TKDRL
Let me break it down for you. There is no seperation of church and state. The document people often cite, is the constitution. The constitution limits the federal government's power, not the states' power. If a state wants to declare an official religion, it can do so, unless the state's constitution prohibits it. The federal government cannot however claim a national religion.

The 14th Amendment applies the 1st ammendment to state and local governments. As long as you agree that the 1st is valid, you must then agree the 14th is as well thus making a complete and specific ruling on the matter, no?

reply to post by Curiousisall


What part of the 14th ammendment do you interpret to say that?

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Curiousisall

 

What part of the 14th ammendment do you interpret to say that?

I am certain it will be more clear if I allow you to see for yourself where the Supreme Court found that in there. I think they wrote better than I could. Gitlow Vs. People

Christine O'Donnell is a sideshow distraction designed to deflect all the bad press away from the other Republican candidates.

GOP is hoping that if the MSM focuses on O'Donnell, they'll look the other way from other train wreck candidates.

Don't buy into the hyped up controversy surrounding her. Pay more attention to what candidates who actually stand a chance of winning are saying/doing that isn't getting covered.

reply to post by Curiousisall


This case is about freedom of speech, and freedom of press.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Curiousisall

 

This case is about freedom of speech, and freedom of press.

Yes, yes it is. I am not sure where you are but I am in a magical land where I have a thing called google. Give me a couple of minutes and I will go get this information and bring it right to you.


ETA

Originally, the First Amendment only applied to the Congress. However, starting with Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government.

Wiki You might have to click a link or two to fully understand it all but there you go. I hope that answers your question.

reply to post by Curiousisall


Lol, I have a copy of the constitution hanging on my wall now, I don't need google for that. Did you say that the 14th amendment applied the first amendment to state and local government because you heard someone else say it, or because you read it and interpret that way yourself?

reply to post by TKDRL


Yes, I heard someone else say it. I know, silly of me, right? I am saying it just because I heard the Supreme Court say it. Don't agree? Tell it to the judges, sister.

reply to post by Curiousisall


Ah that sucks, I was kind of hoping that I was talking to someone else that likes to read and interpret historical documents.

Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Curiousisall


And the Supreme Court has never been known to make decisions that lean either liberal or conservative based on the current makeup of the judges appointed?

Does anyone know what pedantic sarcasm is? I'll clarify. "separation of church and state" is not in the constitution. That is a heading in textbooks to DESCRIBE someones opinion as to the effect of the 1st amendment.
She asked where those WORDS appeared in a pedantic sarcastic question. Few people it seems have the reasoning power to understand more than literalness.

Originally posted by Curiousisall

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Curiousisall

 

This case is about freedom of speech, and freedom of press.

Yes, yes it is. I am not sure where you are but I am in a magical land where I have a thing called google. Give me a couple of minutes and I will go get this information and bring it right to you.


ETA

Originally, the First Amendment only applied to the Congress. However, starting with Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government.

Wiki You might have to click a link or two to fully understand it all but there you go. I hope that answers your question.

edit on 10/21/10 by Curiousisall because: had to use my googles

The case you bring to light has to do with free speech. It has nothing to do with "separation of church and state" which is being discussed here. From what I understand, this case dealt with the subject of free speech and the responsibility of such. This particular case dealt with speech that advocated overthrow of the current form of government and whether the state could take action against individuals or groups (socialists) for uttering such.

The court decided that the due process clause protected these individuals from the State in the 14th ammendment, the same way we are protected federally with the Constitution. Therefore, unless an individual or group "leads to actual disturbances of the peace or imminent danger of the State's destruction", by way of their
"free speech" then they shall not have this right infringed upon at the state level.

reply to post by pirhanna


O'Donnell was absolutely correct. The term "seperation of church and state" is not found in the constitution or the Declaration of Independence. The constitution simply states that congress shall not establish a religion or prevent any individual from practicing their own religion.
There is no statement made that precludes allowing citizens to pray in school, at football games or printing "in god we trust" on currency. This is an invention of liberals.
As far as O'Donnell trying to convert everyone, that's a fabrication. A liberal lie. A lie based on a lack of character. A lack of character that shows in liberal policies designed to control the populus so that they may steal our money via the power of police. Many such lies come from muslims with computers posing as "objective" citizens.
Perhaps you are refering to the fact that, as stated in the koran and virtually all muslim leaders, that it is they're stated objective to convert the entire world to islam and kill those who don't reply. Facts are stubborn things. When muslims make such allegations against christians and jews, it's called projecting.

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
reply to post by Curiousisall

 

And the Supreme Court has never been known to make decisions that lean either liberal or conservative based on the current makeup of the judges appointed?

I never said anything about that either way, did I?

Originally posted by Freenrgy2

Originally posted by Curiousisall

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Curiousisall

 

This case is about freedom of speech, and freedom of press.

Yes, yes it is. I am not sure where you are but I am in a magical land where I have a thing called google. Give me a couple of minutes and I will go get this information and bring it right to you.


ETA

Originally, the First Amendment only applied to the Congress. However, starting with Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government.

Wiki You might have to click a link or two to fully understand it all but there you go. I hope that answers your question.

edit on 10/21/10 by Curiousisall because: had to use my googles

The case you bring to light has to do with free speech. It has nothing to do with "separation of church and state" which is being discussed here. From what I understand, this case dealt with the subject of free speech and the responsibility of such. This particular case dealt with speech that advocated overthrow of the current form of government and whether the state could take action against individuals or groups (socialists) for uttering such.

The court decided that the due process clause protected these individuals from the State in the 14th ammendment, the same way we are protected federally with the Constitution. Therefore, unless an individual or group "leads to actual disturbances of the peace or imminent danger of the State's destruction", by way of their
"free speech" then they shall not have this right infringed upon at the state level.

Did you read what you quoted or just whip out a response without so much as glancing? I added bolding and an underline to help you spot what you missed.

Originally posted by astrogolf
reply to post by pirhanna

 

O'Donnell was absolutely correct.

Which time was she correct?

The term "seperation of church and state" is not found in the constitution or the Declaration of Independence.

She also denied the very "concept" of seperation of church and state was not found there. Was she correct about that too?

The constitution simply states that congress shall not establish a religion or prevent any individual from practicing their own religion.

That is how you interpret it, is it not?

There is no statement made that precludes allowing citizens to pray in school, at football games or printing "in god we trust" on currency. This is an invention of liberals.

Who is arguing that point? Pray at all the football games you want.

Originally posted by yoesse
Does anyone know what pedantic sarcasm is? I'll clarify. "separation of church and state" is not in the constitution. That is a heading in textbooks to DESCRIBE someones opinion as to the effect of the 1st amendment.
She asked where those WORDS appeared in a pedantic sarcastic question. Few people it seems have the reasoning power to understand more than literalness.

I beg to differ.

"The First Amendment does?" O'Donnell asked. "Let me just clarify: You're telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?"

Show me "words." Explain her use of "does."

reply to post by Curiousisall


"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."

I still don't see the words she was asking about. They aren't there. That was the whole point. Her opponent seems to think there are words in the amendment that in fact do not exist. "Separation of Church and State" is just a paraphrase/translation/opinion of what the amendment covers.

Originally posted by yoesse
I still don't see the words she was asking about. They aren't there. That was the whole point. Her opponent seems to think there are words in the amendment that in fact do not exist. "Separation of Church and State" is just a paraphrase/translation/opinion of what the amendment covers.

I still do not see how you come to that conclusion. She did not just ask if those words where there, she asked if that was what the 1st amendment did. BIG DIFFERENCE. What does it do? It establishes the seperation of church and state.

I really hope none of you look to the constitution to justify owning guns if this is how it is.