Delaware candidate Christine O'Donnell questions church and state separation

If the things being advocated by Crabby were know by his "heros" from the past they would throw him under the bus.

 

Crabby, you know very well that she did not misquote anything. Only someone with an agenda would come to the conclusion that you have. I listened to what she said it is evident that you are drinking the bed wetting kool-aide and deliberately trying to ruin the reputation of someone you disagree with. You owe everyone here an apology for twisting the truth to fit your twisted agenda.

 

She wasn't questioning if it was in the First Amendment. Her opponent made it sound as if it were in the First Amendment. She was questioning his knowledge. You know that, I know it and yet, for the sake of political expediency, you are playing an ugly game. How would you like it if your words were twisted to make it appear that you said something stupid? In the raw, Crabby, it's called lying and that's exactly what you are guilty of by perpetuating this attack.

 

It was a question - but that says nothing about context.

How can you say this?

I watched it - you didn't.

There is still that pesky little context issue.

So is the phrase "seperation of church and state" in the Constitution?

She asked the question as a form of statement that the phrase "seperation of church and state" is not in the Constitution.

More than that, I am saying that they are purposely taking it out of context so that people like you can climb on the bandwagon.

Don't you think that context matters?

So having been called on Obama's ignorance concerning the number of States you want to qualify what ignorance is acceptable and not acceptable in a candidate?

How very convenient - and typical - for you.

I think you just painted with a pretty broad brush there.

I think that it means just what it says...

Congress can not establish a religion...

And Congress can not inhibit my practice of religion.

 

I want so bad to call someone a liar but the mod's would probably get me. But, I'm thinking it in my heart.

 

I am afraid that it is you who does not know the constitution. She is correct. The first amendment does not says separation of church and state. That is what the socialists want it to say but it does not. The constitution forbids the government from making laws that prevent religion from practicing its faith as well as preventing the government from requiring religion. It is not a separation.

 

Yes - voters can vote according to their personal beliefs.

Some can even vote contrary to their claimed beliefs - like Christians who voted for Obama and his abortion agenda.

 

What the first amendment says is this, and it is so simple that one has to intentionally miss it: Congress is not allowed to make a law concerning religion at all. They can't make a law establishing religion. They can't make a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Congress cannot make a law concerning religion. It's incredibly simple. The amendment says nothing of a separation of church and state as we see today. In fact, it says that Congress is violating its first amendment obligation in trying to carry out this separation of church and state nonsense.

 

Religion is a broad term and can conjure up many different and wild notions. In the case of Christianity yes it should be practiced in our government. That does not mean that the government sets the standards for the nation, but rather the faith of the Christian's sets the standards for the government.

 

The answer is yes. The predominate religious faith should be the one dictating to the government not the other way around. There is no separation of church and state in our constitution.

 

Who said they didn't?

You asked a questiona and I answered it.

No and no one is advocating that it should.

For government to stay out of individuals rights to practice their religion.

The government interfers in the practice of religion at many levels - with the purpose preventing someone who has different beliefs from being subjected to being exposed to it - in the name of seperation.

 

Because you are cherry picking.

 

They haven't. It seems that you have bought the lie. The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. The phrase itself does not appear in the U.S. Constitution, although the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

However perhaps there is some problem here with semantics. Would you explain what you mean by separation of church and state? Thank you.