O'Donnell on the constitution

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by richard, Oct 22, 2010.

  1. richard

    richard Guest


    I watched the video again to make sure I had this right.
    At approximately 1:35 on the timeline she makes a remark that [imposing
    religious doctrines] "Is a blatant violation of our Constitution".

    Then about a minute later the guy makes a comment about "seperation of
    church and state". A comment is made by the off camera moderator. Then
    O'Donnell asks "Where in the Constitution is the seperation of church and

    At this point there is laughter from the audience.

    I do not believe this laughter was directed AT O'donnell for any particular
    reason. Rather, the audience was reacting to the question being directed at
    the guy who was obviously not that well versed in the Constitution.

    As he tried desperately to claim the first amendment defined seperation.

    And to Mr. Platt and others, where exactly on that page is the word

    Here is what is posted directly below the video:
    For something really basic like not knowing the First Amendment. Don`t kids
    in the US learn that it like, 3rd grade?

    Which was taken from this:
    Christine O`Donnell Laughed At By Students. For something really basic like
    not knowing the First Amendment. Don`t kids in the US learn that it like,
    3rd grade?

    The person who posted this video obviously wants to try and make it sound
    like O'Donnell is a fool when in fact, the guy most certainly is.
    richard, Oct 22, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  2. richard

    Mike Easter Guest

    I didn't see the vid and I have no dog in this hunt as I don't care one
    way or the other about O'Donnell or who Delaware wants to have for their
    senator, but...

    .... the subject/ elaboration/ of what 'separation of church and state'
    actually means in the US, which *term*/phrase doesn't appear in the
    constitution or its amendments is a rather complex thing to get into.

    Someone who is 'laughing' about/during the debate about what does or
    does not appear or what it means that *does* appear should read some
    discussion about that subject in depth.

    Here's a good place to start
    The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle
    derived from various documents of several of the Founders of the United
    Mike Easter, Oct 22, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  3. richard

    richard Guest

    For simply asking a question? If she was being laughed at, then those who
    laughed have no clues. So tell me oh highly educated one, exactly where in
    the Constitution does it state that "Church and State shall be separate"?

    I'm sure if you asked a hundred people that question, ninety of them will
    tell you that it is in there but they may not know exactly where.

    It is kind of like the old rule of the road where "the person on the right
    has the right of way". This is true. Except that the words are taken out of
    context. This rule applies only to uncontrolled intersections. It does not
    apply to say an on ramp of an interstate highway.
    richard, Oct 22, 2010
  4. richard

    OldGringo38 Guest

    The basic terminology is there it's just a bit difficult for some to
    OldGringo38, Oct 22, 2010
  5. richard

    richard Guest

    Please feel free to point out exactly where in the US federal laws this is
    so stated.

    To my knowledge, this law has never been enacted.
    richard, Oct 22, 2010
  6. richard

    richard Guest

    So where is the proof then?
    The first amendment only directs Congress to not establish any laws
    restricting religion. This does not in any way infer a "separation of
    church and state".

    SCOTUS has ruled that no government may impose religious fundamentals of
    any type upon the public at large. But still, there is no law, anywhere,
    defining separation.
    richard, Oct 22, 2010
  7. richard

    Anyone Guest

    On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 08:22:16 -0700, richard wrote:

    That isn't terribly surprising, when it comes from you.

    His description actually was quite accurate.
    How do you suppose that matters to anything?

    Again that is not terribly surprising for you, Bullis.
    Anyone, Oct 22, 2010
  8. richard

    Anyone Guest

    No, you imbecile, for her demonstrated lack of understanding.
    Why does that matter? Decades of settled case law have established that
    the only way to abide by 1st amendment precepts is to impose such
    separation (for one).
    Bullis, can you describe the last time that your personal assurance on
    anything carried more weight than a three-day-old mosquito carcass?
    Anyone, Oct 22, 2010
  9. richard

    Meat Plow Guest

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
    prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

    If this isn't a definition of separation of church and state then I don't
    know what is.
    Meat Plow, Oct 22, 2010
  10. richard

    OldGringo38 Guest

    You'll probably find out if he answers. :)
    OldGringo38, Oct 22, 2010
  11. richard

    Aardvark Guest

    Are you trying to ascribe some modicum of verbal comprehension to RtS,
    despite the fact that he continually proves a total dearth on his part of
    such a skill?
    Aardvark, Oct 22, 2010
  12. richard

    Meat Plow Guest

    Makes a person wonder just what mental impairments Dick suffers from.
    Meat Plow, Oct 22, 2010
  13. richard

    Meat Plow Guest

    Yes I guess I can be described as a perpetual optimist.
    Meat Plow, Oct 22, 2010
  14. richard

    Jordon Guest

    You see richard, it all started a couple hundred years ago with these
    words... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
    religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." and then a couple
    hundred years of judges rulings have turned it into what it is

    Every expert in the field (but you and O'Donnell) knows exactly what
    the first amendment means. At least you are in good company.
    Jordon, Oct 22, 2010
  15. richard

    OldGringo38 Guest

    Nice try <g>
    OldGringo38, Oct 22, 2010
  16. richard

    Mike Yetto Guest

    Amendment I

    "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've just showed you where. Now it is up to you to learn the
    difference between words and concepts.
    New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law, Title 7 "Rules of the
    Road", Article 26 "Right of Way", Section 1140 "Vehicle
    approaching or entering intersection"

    " § 1140. Vehicle approaching or entering intersection.

    (a) The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection shall yield
    the right of way to a vehicle which has entered the intersection
    from a different highway.

    (b) When two vehicles enter an intersection from different
    highways at approximately the same time the driver of the vehicle
    on the left shall yield the right of way to the vehicle on the

    (c) The right of way rules declared in subsections (a)
    and (b) are modified at through highways and otherwise as stated
    in this title."

    This says nothing of "uncontrolled intersections", however, it
    does specify that these rules are modified at other places in
    Title 7.

    Mike "this is a *current* rule of the road" Yetto
    Mike Yetto, Oct 22, 2010
  17. richard

    OldGringo38 Guest

    10 to 1 odds. <g>
    OldGringo38, Oct 22, 2010
  18. richard

    OldGringo38 Guest

    So I see <g>
    OldGringo38, Oct 23, 2010
  19. Don't worry. RtS will find some reality TV show to explain it all to
    him. *Those* he believes!
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Oct 23, 2010
  20. richard

    RickMerrill Guest

    Meat Plow wrote:...
    That is correct. But people add their own interpretation to it.
    Well, saying a prayer before beginning a meeting of the senate
    is not establishing a religion is it?

    What happens is that the courts take "establishment ...", chomp
    on it, and come out with prohibiting federal funds from being
    sent to "churches" - THAT"S where the "separation" gets us today.
    RickMerrill, Oct 26, 2010
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.