-
The Republican Senate nominee was not aware that the first amendment prohibits government from establishing a religion. When her opponent quoted it to her, she responded, dubiously, "that's in the first amendment?" It's a race to the bottom, folks.
-
Mike Shear revisits some of the more bizarre moments in the candidacy of the lesser-qualified candidates vying for office across the country. I hadn't heard about some of these.
-
Remember that exciting new theory about the cause of colony collapse disorder, jointly developed by a military and civilian research project? Fortune explains that the lead author of the study has received a large research grant from Bayer (which manufactures pesticides), a company that many suspect of making chemicals that are killing the bees. In fact, the lead author was prepared to testify against Bayer in a lawsuit against them over colony collapse disorder, but then dropped out of the case, and received a grant from them. His study made no mention of pesticides. This doesn't mean that the study's results are flawed, but it does mean that the peer review process is going to be really important here.
Comments are closed.
That’s blatantly not true. Here’s what the WaPo says:
She very clearly knew what the First Amendment says and was simply pointing out that the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution, as much as many liberals wish it would.
I take the interpretation under “Many argue”. While liberals toss around the phrase “separation of church and state” and pretend it’s in the Constitution, it’s not. I’m glad O’Donnell called him on his misrepresentation.
The clear fact of the matter is that there’s a big difference between a “separation of church and state” and a state religion (“law respecting an establishment of religion”).
When liberals misrepresent the Constitution, conservatives will call them on it, the Washington Post will report it accurately, and the liberal blogs will misrepresent it. Yay for the Washington Post! :-D
Hans: In which ways would you like to see the “wall of separation” lowered? And remember, if you lower the wall for Christianity, you also must lower it for Islam, paganism, Wiccan-ism(?), whatever.
So if you allow, for instance, a manger scene in a city park around Christmas, are you for allowing pagans to celebrate the solstice at the same public park? Will followers of radical Islam be allowed to hold their Friday meetings in local elementary schools?
My take is that conservative Christians want to allow prayer in schools, etc. — as long as it is CHRISTIAN prayer.
We can talk about this age-old debate all day, but my main concern was how you blatantly mischaracterized both the WaPo article and Ms. O’Donnell’s words.
—-
To answer your question, I think religion in the public square should match the demographic makeup of the constituents. Thus, in Dearborn, MI, Muslims could come have Friday prayers in schools. I actually think we strike a pretty decent balance ATM between over-involvement (establishment) and unnatural under-involvement. The fight does need to go on, however, to maintain that balance.
The one place that really makes me sad is the lack of government funding of faith-based social services. If you’re going to spend government money on social services, you might as well spend it on something that works. I have a friend who’s a paramedic in a nearby large city and laments the social services merry go round that doesn’t do a thing to help addicts, mentally ill, poverty-stricken, etc. It’s just a bandaid, not even on the wounds of the underprivileged, but on the conscience of middle-class America. The church is the only one that has been making a difference in these people’s lives, in my experience.
I’m perfectly content to see the church take on that responsibility like they should have more fully a long time ago and I’m also perfectly content to avoid government funding. But it does pain me to see that money going to waste, primarily because of Jefferson’s idea of “separation of church and state” which some folks have substituted for “establishment of religion”. I wish there was a feasible way for a public-private partnership between the state and churches where there could be accountability, but not control. It’s really an impossible situation. I don’t advocate that the gov start funding the church to do these things, there are too many complications. I’m just thinking out loud here.
See, I’m Anabaptist and we were the first ones to popularize the idea in Europe during the Reformation (they called us the Radical Reformation) that the church and state didn’t have to be one entity, indeed should not and could not be one entity. So I’m all for keeping the government’s nose out of religion, but when it crosses the line into preventing the free exercise of religion on public lands by public figures when those actions are in line with the demographics of the local populace, that annoys me greatly and is not what the Constitution is saying at all.
Oops, I thought that was Waldo talking. My main concern was how Waldo blatantly mischaracterized both the WaPo article and Ms. O’Donnell’s words.
What I find truly atrocious is when a country like France bans the free exercise of religion in the public square by private individuals by banning the wearing of any religious symbols.
It is worth your while to go here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miwSljJAzqg
…and scroll to the 7:00 mark and listen for a few sentences. She clearly has *no idea*.