Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
ALBUQUERQUE — President Obama expounded Tuesday on the reasons he became a Christian as an adult, telling a group of residents here that he was a “Christian by choice” and that “the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead – being my brother and sister’s keeper.”
Of course, when the precepts say the things leftists love, there are no issues.
O'Donnell questions separation of church, state - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101019/ap_on_el_se/us_delaware_senate - broken link)
Wheee! This just gets funnier and funnier... Thank you, Delaware Tea Party voters, for providing us with such quality entertainment!
I'm cool with Obama's folks being voted out and opposing ideas being voted in, but next time...can we at least pick some half-way intelligent people? Is that too much to ask?
The term seperation of church and state appears nowhere in the Constitutions, including amendments. The only restriction was against Congress, not the states or other entities, which the founders intended, could do what they wanted re: religion, including establish official state religions, if they so chose.
You tell me....Does Creationism teach a specific religion? How is it ok to allow obama to push his liberal agenda to the nation's Christian pastors but schools can't decide to teach the concept of Creationism?
Since Creationism is a story from the Christian Bible, and other religions don't share that story, then yeppers, creationism teaches a specific religion. And I don't think it's okay for the President to ask ministers to endorse particular legislation, but I do think it's okay for the President to point out that healthcare that is made more widely available to all is something that people who are charitable and generous would support, regardless of their religious beliefs.
And public schools can teach the concept of creationism. No one has ever said they couldn't. Just that they couldn't teach the concept as science. They can teach the concept in other disciplines, but since creationsim (nor intelligent design) has no scientific basis, but are, rather, matters of faith, they cannot be presented as science. Philosophy or religion or even literature are all places creationism can be presented.
The term seperation of church and state appears nowhere in the Constitutions, including amendments. The only restriction was against Congress, not the states or other entities,
Which religion has ODonnel endorsed? Islam, Christianity (i'll include Mormonism) and Judaism support creationism.
O'Donnell:
"Well, creationism, in essence, is believing that the world began as the Bible in Genesis says, that God created the Earth in six days, six 24-hour periods. And there is just as much, if not more, evidence supporting that." -- March 30, 1996, CNN
Regardless of which of the Abrahamic faiths she's endorsing, she is endorsing one of them (any guesses which one? )
She isn't pushing a watered-down "creation science" that merely looks for a "divine" cause for our world. She's proposing full-blown, literal interpretation of the Genesis creation myth, as scientific fact with evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigV
While it's true that the Rev. Jessie Jackson does not currently hold a public office, which leftist objected to him running for President a few years back based on the separation of Church and State?
I don't see the point here. Some liberals may not like Mike Huckabee because he's a Baptist minister, but I haven't heard any liberal argument that Huckabee should be ineligible to run for office because of it. The objection to O'Donnell isn't her private faith, it's that she has stated a prefererence to putting her faith into our government and its institutions, like schools.
Which religion has ODonnel endorsed? Islam, Christianity (i'll include Mormonism) and Judaism support creationism.
Also, when Obama quotes Jesus Christ, as Obama understands Him, is Obama endorsing a religion or practicing his own?
I'm trying to understand your logic that states ODonnel is endorsing any particular religion while the left simply practices theirs.
While it's true that the Rev. Jessie Jackson does not currently hold a public office, which leftist objected to him running for President a few years back based on the separation of Church and State?
O'Donnell is free to endorse any religion she pleases. I certainly never said otherwise. That's not what this thread is about. This thread is about her belief that schools should be allowed to teach creationism in public schools as a creditable scientific theory alternative to evolution theory. Since creationism is not the result of scientific enquiry, it has no place in a science classroom. It is Christian doctrine. It can be part of the curriculum in other classes, but not science.
And, to reiterate, nothing about the Separation of Church and State prohibits someone of a religious faith from running for office. Nobody has ever suggested that, so what's your point?
You are way off base. What you described is making religious laws which would then be considered a State Sponsored Religion. That is unconstitutional. What exactly did O'Donnell propose that has you people all freaked out?
Um, you said it only prevents the FEDERAL government from doing so. Here was your quote:
"Separation of Church and State ONLY refers to the Federal Government not being allowed to setup a national State Sponsored religion."
I have no idea why it is so hard for you progressives to understand this. Separation of Church and State ONLY refers to the Federal Government not being allowed to setup a national State Sponsored religion. It has nothing to do with anything else, not even teaching some aspects in school. O'Donnell was right, there is no separation to speak of but the one thing that it actually means. No national religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD
Yes, you are correct, NO NATIONAL RELIGION. That's all there is to it. It has nothing to do with teaching religious aspects in school. That's what O'Donnell was talking about, she was right.
No national religion means no teaching religious precepts as fact, e.g. creationism, ID, etc, in pubic schoos. What about teaching some Mormon theology in public schools, such as, the Native Americans are the lost tribe of Israel, Christ came to the American continent, etc? Not all parents would be so happy about that.
It certainly does not. Point out where it corrected that:
Quote:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
