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.
There is no clause in the first amendment that requires seperation of church and state.
Additionally, schools are a state issue and what they teach is a state issue. The federal Government has no say in the matter.
Schools do receive federal monies. Are you suggesting that states should turn back any federal money designated for education? And that states should then foster religious teaching in public schools? So, where there are Catholics, the schools should require EVERY student to attend catechism? And where there are Mormons, every student should abide by the teachings of Joseph Smith? And where there are Muslims, EVERY student should pray to Allah and learn the Koran? That's what you are proposing?
Again O'Donnell was still right in what she said...read the constitution.
O'Donnell is right according to whom? O'Donnell? You? As I said if you read article three it spells out exactly who's opinion on constitutional matters counts...And that would be the Supreme court's opinion and the opinions of any other inferior courts congress shall ordain and establish (e.g. circuit courts and district courts). So saying that "[There is a difference] of what's in the constitution and what some judge "interprets" the meaning of the constitution [as]....2 different things." Is incorrect, because the constitution itself, if you read it, clearly vests the settlement of controversies involving the constitution, and presumably the meaning and scope of the constitution, with federal courts and no one else. So if the Supreme court in a case says it's permissible under the constitution it is in fact either in the constitution, or allowed by something in the constitution until there is an amendment, or the court changes its' mind.
I don't see anything wrong with teaching creationism so long as it is posed as a theory just as the Big Bang theory is taught. What are you afraid of here? It doesn't have to be taught from a relious pov. Just like one can teach the Muslim religion within its historical context, one can teach Christianity in the same way.
The only people that wish to ban ideas are the ones who are afraid they may take root and differ with what they see as the almighty truth.
Creationism isn't a theory. Theories explain observable phenomena. Creationism is a belief. A religious belief. How do you teach a religious belief from a non-religious point-of-view? It doesn't belong in the science classroom, because it's not science.
And Christianity is taught about in historical classes. I don't think any World History class doesn't teach about Christianity, about how the Catholic Church was founded, about the division between East and West and how that impacted the Catholic Church, about the Crusades, about the Dark Ages and how the Catholic Church was a repository of knowledge during those times, about the Reformation. All these things ARE taught in history classes.
You are still harping on this? Seriously? Geez, let it go already. O'Donnell never said anything about forcing anyone to learn anything. Creationism is fine to be taught in schools as long as it isn't taught in science class right? So what is your problem with what she said? She was right, Progressives don't know what Separation of Church and State actually means and it does not say that in the 1st amendment. It says what every other poster has told you it says including me.
She has actually said it should be taught in Science class.
"Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."
Now if you want to call that BS and play cafeteria constitutionalism that's up to you.
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 first amendment starts off with;
congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, nor the free exercise there of.
so what part of that indicates a separation of church and state? the answer is there is NONE. the separation of church and state came from the jefferson papers, and they are NOT part of the constitution.
congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, nor the free exercise there of.
so what part of that indicates a separation of church and state? the answer is there is NONE. the separation of church and state came from the jefferson papers, and they are NOT part of the constitution.
To answer your question I bolded above - the whole part you quoted clearly indicates the concept of separation of church and state.
If government cannot make laws respecting the establishment of religion, and if government also cannot prohibit free exercise of religion, then, in concept, how can church and state be anything but separate?
Schools do receive federal monies. Are you suggesting that states should turn back any federal money designated for education? And that states should then foster religious teaching in public schools? So, where there are Catholics, the schools should require EVERY student to attend catechism? And where there are Mormons, every student should abide by the teachings of Joseph Smith? And where there are Muslims, EVERY student should pray to Allah and learn the Koran? That's what you are proposing?
I am suggesting that if one reads the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, one understands that the federal government should not be taxing it's citizens and spreading money to state public schools. it's the job of the STATE to collect the funds it needs to support their schools.
Having the federal government take money from people and "spread the wealth", for reasons not covered as the responsibility of the federal government is wrong. People are so up in arms over a supposed mistake, "separation of church and state", but turn their backs on an obvious, and determinate mishandling of what tax dollars are to be used for.
If government cannot make laws respecting the establishment of religion, and if government also cannot prohibit free exercise of religion, then, in concept, how can church and state be anything but separate?
No buts, you people actually believe that you are not allowed to read a bible in public schools or pray in a public building or park. Oh how wrong you are.
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.
Federal Government
