Well, you're a conservative and instead of condemning Bush for holding it, you used it to refute an assertion that Bush's religiosity crossed the line.

I just read in the news today that one of the Tea Party candidates claimed that the First Amendment didn't _really_ have an Establishment clause in it pertinent to religion.

Oooops.


-Kerry O.

So...you think I should condemn President Bush for something he didn't say? Sorry, not going to happen. You want me to say meeting with Fatah to try to negotiate peace in the Middle East was stupid? Certainly, it was. Very much so. President Bush made many such blunders.




Yeah, O'Donnell from Delaware. She didn't say that the first amendment didn't have an establishment clause. What she said was that "Seperation of church and state" wasn't part of the first amendment. That's absolutely true. The 1st Amendment prevents the Congress from establishing a state religion, it doesn't prevent prayer groups in school or nativity scenes on the town square. If the majority of the people in an area want to use public land or schools for that purpose, that is their right...or at least it should be.

That's absolutely a lie.

She's an idiot...and worse are people who think there's no S of C&S. When she said that there's no separation the crowd laughed at her then she acted like they were laughing at her opponent.

Christine O'Donnell ignorant of the Constitution

Watch the whole thing or for this issue start at 2:40...unbelieveable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miwSljJAzqg

"evolution is a theory"....LOL...she does not even know the difference between pop theory and scientific theory...This woman IS an idiot.

Congress cannot establish a state religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion. There is absolutely nothing in the first amendment that calls for the "separation of church and state". A city that wants to celebrate a religious holiday has that right under the Constitution, so long as that celebration is not mandatory.

"Congress cannot establish a state religion"

Thanks...oh and how about this you've probably never read:

Article VI of the US Constitution:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

So quit asking a candidate what religion they are...why would that matter anyway except to people who can only make decisions based one ONE book. The woman IS an idiot...a con...six months ago she was paying her apartment rent with campaign donations...that's a FELONY.

Ummm... Okay, but only if you will quit changing the subject by making unfounded accusations against me.



I think that a judge will decide that. And it's actually perfectly legal to use campaign funds to pay your a campaign office and her office was in her apartment, so it's not clear to me that any laws were broken.

"The federal campaign finance laws and regulations are quite specific about certain things, including the prohibition that campaign funds may not be used for a candidate’s “personal use.” 2 U.S.C. §439a(b). “Personal use” is defined to include expenditures for (i) household food items and supplies, (ii) clothing, other than items of de minimus value such as campaign t-shirts, and (iii) mortgage, rent, and utility payments for the personal residence of the candidate. 11 CFR 113.1.

O’Donnell’s attempt to avoid these limitations by claiming her apartment is her campaign headquarters is precisely the sort of sham that the FEC regulations were designed to address. Expenses related to a candidate’s personal residence are not proper campaign expenses. Period. There is no exception for having the “headquarters” at the residence."

http://www.delawaretomorrow.com/is-christine-odonnells-home-office-a-violation-of-campaign-finance-law/

Actually...

113 (g)(1)(e)(2) disallows the use of campaign fund for...


So as long as she wasn't charging the campaign more than the fair market value, I think she was obeying the law.

he would drive a bentley

Seriously? There wasn't a single truth in his post. You are easily impressed...

No, that's a truism-- the phrase 'Separation of Church and State' does indeed NOT appear in the First Ammendment. However, one of its champions, Thomas Jefferson, IS on the record elsewhere saying that that WAS his intent of what WAS there. It's a legal doctrine as old as the Constitution itself. For O'Donnell to pretend it doesn't exist doesn't bode well for her candidacy.



And the Religious Right proved they were talking out of both sides of their mouths on the issue of religious freedom when they tried to prevent PRIVATE LAND from being used for a mosque in New York recently.

If one is the LEAST bit objective about American's Founding Principles, one sees over and over and over again in The Federalist Papers that the movers and shakers behind the Constitution fully understood how the rights of minorities needed protection against the tyranny of the majorities and the mischiefs they could inflict on law-abiding members of those minorities.

You yourself once wrote here that Unbelievers slaughtered at the direction of God Almighty in the Old Testament were indeed fortunate because they could sin no more. With that kind mindset, who WOULD trust fundamentalist Christians to NOT do legal violence to minorities were the First Amendment not there as a stumbling block to their religious and political ambitions?

-Kerry O.

James Madison, NOT Thomas Jefferson, proposed the bill of rights.

Here is what Thomas Jefferson said...the phrase the left uses to bash every politician who mentions religion (other than Obama, Bill and Jimmy)


That's an interesting quote and it can be interpreted many different ways, but it's a quote from a letter, NOT LAW. Thomas Jefferson didn't write the law, so looking at his letter to the Danbury Baptists doesn't give you any insight to the original intent.

If you want to convince me that the founding fathers intended the first amendment to prevent pray groups in schools and nativity scenes on public property, you are going to have to look elsewhere.



I am not aware of anyone saying that they didn't have the RIGHT, the arguments I heard from the right was that is was an offensive thing to do. Just as Greg Gutfeld has the right to build a gay bar that caters to Muslims next to a Mosque, it's a rude and offensive thing to do.



I'm going to chalk this up to your memory being clouded and your insessent belief that I am some sort of monster. I never said that and I would ask that you try to quote me when you want to talk about something I've said or just don't comment, because you don't grasp my arguments and constantly manage to mischaracterize me, my beliefs and my motivations.

Read it again. I said he was one of its champions. NOW who isn't grasping distinctions? Both Madison AND Jefferson worked on Virginia's religious freedoms bill, which predates the Constitution.



Of course it does. The VERY words "a wall of separation of Church and State" are spelled out by one of the Founding Fathers himself. In plain English! He said it! And, apparently, O'Donnell doesn't know he said them.

And if you want to get all 'insightful', puzzle me this: if they indeed intended this to be a CHRISTIAN nation, why aren't the names Jesus or Christ or Christian spelled out right in the Consitution or its amendments in equally plain English?



Sorry, not my job. The Courts have done that.





Oh please. Pat Roberston and Jay Sekulow, that dynamic duo who brought us the ACLJ, have filed a suit to prevent it. That's an easy-to-verify fact.

And this quote from Newt Gingich can't be interpreted any other way:







I never said you were a monster. I think you do have some bizarre Fundamentalist viewpoints you defend with equally bizarre Biblical paraphrasing and this is one of them. I'd make you a deal that if I searched the archives and found it, you'd recant, but you'd just complain I was taking your direct quote out of context or other such debating tactic. You've made a lot of those kind of "deals" in the past and then walked away from them when people held your feet to the fire.


-Kerry O.

Kerry O,

I'm not going to play this game. You mischaracterize me relentlessly. Maybe you just don't grasp the nuance of my beliefs. I honestly don't know. Please refrain from talking about me in the future. I'm not the topic of debate.

But, of course, Fundamentalists see nothing wrong with taking little digs at the Unbelievers like mischaracterizing them as liars when they rebut The Agenda with pesky facts. Of being incapable of understanding the Truth, of being like you stated above 'easily impressed', mischaracterizing them as rubes and pawns of Satan.

Doesn't your religion teach something along the lines of 'you get what you give'?

To boot, you didn't touch any of the facts posted above. Are you throwing in the towel?


-Kerry O.

You guys are 'driving' Jesus crazy.

All those eyes yet...



I've been wanting to work this one in..one of god's creations...wow, dude must have dropped acid that day.

I quite like spiders. Much to my g/f's chargrin.