Not just that, but he starts off by saying that the First Amendment prohibits establishment of religion, and that case law since then has refined precisely what that means. Which is, of course, the way the process works.
Quoth Starving Artist:
Then again, though, that’s what I expected from W, too. He would have been considerably better had he been a do-nothing.
And I personally think it’s quite telling that Republicans are always claiming things like, “Oh, nobody actually knows off the top of their head what the Constitution actually says”, or “Oh, nobody actually read that whole health care bill”, while Democrats take it for granted that everyone does know the basics of the Constitution, and that it’s legislators’ job to read bills. Personally, I’d rather be governed by folks who at least profess to know how government works, not by the folks who are proud of their ignorance on the subject.
Fun fact for everyone (well I think its fun): If Ms. O’Donnell had walked about 50 feet down the hallway from where she was sitting, she would have seen a framed copy of the Constitution hanging in a big display on the wall. Depending on the way she entered the building she may have walked directly past it.
Though it may have been moved to the library in the past couple of years, so grain of salt on that one.
Well, speaking for myself I’ve seen zero evidence that Obama is attempting to govern ‘for blacks’. I can see how people like Maxine Waters and Charlie Rangel might be perceived that way, and I can understand how some people might be resentful and object if they feel that certain people in government may be attempting to govern so as to favor one group over another. Many people resent and oppose income redistribution for the same reason, and I’ve known people in the past in my own life who I’d say are not only not racist but who actively favor legislation to eliminate it who still felt that things like affirmative action were neither fair nor equitable and amounted in effect to reverse discrimination. So I think it’s possible to oppose certain politicians or certain types of governance that might be perceived as being unfairly ‘pro-black’, without it ipso-facto making the person who believes it a racist himself.
Then you might be interested in this poll, which was conducted by the New York Times and shows that members of the Tea Party skew more well educated and more affluent than the population in general.
My personal opinion, based upon things I’ve read and heard myself is that many in the Tea Party are unhappy to the point of being angry because of the direction the country and society in general have taken. They’re angry about government spending, they’re angry about taxes, they’re angry about income redistribution and the fact that 50% of American income-earners pay no income tax, and they’re angry about the ever-increasing size and scope of the government itself. And I think that a good many of them are angry at direction society itself has taken and the fact that it’s so difficult these days for people to raise their children without them being constantly exposed to the glamorization of one type of negative behavior after another. And finally, I think they’re angry at attempts to marginalize Christianity and drive it underground. This country has always been predominately Christian and, provided the majority of the population wants it to be that way, there’s nothing wrong with that. As many of the board’s defenders of Islam like to remind us, people and countries have a right to religious self-determination, and in the minds of many Tea Partiers the government has been doing exactly what the First Amendment is intended to prevent, which is to prohibit the free exercise of religion. When you are told - by the courts, by Congress, or by its opponents in society - that you can’t display words and imagery of your religion in public places, your right to free exercise is being prohibited just your free speech would be if you could only practice it behind closed doors. And I think much of the evidence for this anger can be found not only in the speeches of people like Sarah Palin and Christine O’Donnell, but from rank and file members of the Tea Party as well.
Actually, several Democrats are on record as not knowing what was in the health care bill, including John Conyers who seemed to find the idea ridiculous: “I love these members that get up and say, Read the bill! Well, what good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you’ve read the bill?”, and said in so many words that you can’t tell what’s in the bill even if you read it unless you have two lawyers and two days to figure out what it says Cite, and Nancy Pelosi, who so incredibly said, “We have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what’s in it, away from fog of the controversy.”Cite Well, I’m sorry but isn’t it our leaders’ job to inform us in advance what’s in it, controversy be damned, rather than expecting us to wait until it becomes law to find out what’s in it, and especially not after they’ve admitted they don’t know what’s in it themselves?
No, just the ones who already claim to be consitutional scholars. Because otherwise we get into that whole “lying out your ass” kind of thing. We all know how familiar you are with that, eh.
Why would you expect that, given that 4 years after her first failed attempt, and 2 years after her second failed attempt, she still is completely uninformed?
It must be some of the same reasoning that led you to assume she was telling the truth earlier in the thread, even tho she has a history of telling lies.
How would you feel about it if the country became predominately Muslim and decided to outlaw Christianity? What if we become predominately Atheist?
The First Amendment was intended to protect all religions, and I believe, the ability to not have the government or the majority force a religion upon you. It seems to me that the very thing that many of the Tea Party Republicans want to prevent is what they could get.
Interestingly, in some of the countries that the TP finds uber-Liberal, church and state are not separate, and the citizens essentially support a few select religions, whether they practice them or not.
I’d probably the same way I’d feel if Christians were to try to outlaw other religions or atheism. Fortunately they haven’t, and even if they were to try it would clearly be unconstitutional, so it hasn’t been much of a concern.
Nor has the government nor the majority tried to force Christianity upon anyone. Note that “force” is the operative word. Certainly many Christians have tried to influence or persuade people to Christianity, but I think any attempt to prevent that would be an unconstitutional infringement upon the right to free speech.
I don’t believe that could happen if the Constitution were properly applied.
Yes, but our Constitution prohibits church and state being the same, and as long as the Constitution holds that will remain the case. In the view of many Tea Partiers - and frankly in my own - the Founding Fathers wanted not only to make sure that the government would never be run by religion, but also that freedom of expression of religion should not be abridged. And I believe that in the mind of many Tea Partiers it has.
The fact that this woman seems utterly ignorant of one of the bedrock principles of the United States should instantly disqualify her from holding national office. “Separation of church and state” is not some arcane bit of constitutional minutia. It’s as fundamental to the identity of America as freedom of speech or the right to bear arms. How can we survive as a nation if we elect leaders who don’t even know the first thing about what America represents?
But the ‘Tea Partiers’ aren’t in favour of free expression of religion, they are in favour of the free expression of religion providing it’s Christianity. Do you honestly think they’d be ok with praying to Mecca before a football game? Or passages from the Koran being put on a public monument?
It is just another example of the hypocracy of the movement. Cut government spending, but not the bits we like! I support freedom of religion as long as it’s my religion! The government should stay out of our lives but keep the gays the hell away from me!
Besides that the freedom to express your religion is more of a thorny issue than it is often portrayed by Christians. Consider the ‘praying before a football’ game scenario from the position of someone who is an Atheist or, god-forbid, a muslim. By having a specifically Christian ceremony you are forcing them to participate in something they are opposed to or risk bullying and social exclusion. That’s not free-practice of religion, it’s discrimination.
Besides, I find the American habit of worshiping the Founding Fathers and the Constitution to be quite disturbing. To argue that political and social thinking peaked in the 18th century and hasn’t advanced much since is pretty stupid. Modern societies require modern rules and the constitution will sometimes be at odds with that given that it is 200+ years old. By all means hold it up as the basic of the American system, but the right’s constant invokation of it as some sort of divine truth is as dogmatic as it is moronic.
On the contrary, taht story makes perfect sense. He knew how difficult it was to recite all Ten Commandments, so he supports a bill to post them to help himself, and others, remember them.
I clearly remember the part about not coveting my neighbor’s maidservant’s ass. But my neighbor doesn’t have a maidservant, so I get a pass on that one. Which is good, because I’ll have a tough enough time as it is.
Robot Arm, check out this video, at 3:00 in where, O’Donnell, in her own words, claims to have studied the Constitution in depth through a graduate fellowship at Claremeont Institute (and as Anderson Cooper says, comes close to claiming to be a constitutional expert).
Although it was with a think tank and was only for seven days, O’Donnell makes this statement in response to a question about what qualified her to be a senator – a senator she herself has said will make the Constitution the linchpin in her decisionmaking in regards to working on legislation and deciding the constitutionality/unconstitutionality of current and future laws, programs and policies.
So, while not exactly what rocking chair said, the above and further false statements she’s made about her eductional background point to obfuscation.
I don’t think that link goes where you think it goes.
And no one should mistake me for a defender of Christine O’Donnell. I think she is manifestly unqualified to be a senator. I just wanted to make sure that the case against her here had all its t’s crossed and i’s dotted, so it didn’t digress into a squabble about whether she had or had not claimed to have studied the Constitution.
It is pounded through your brain endlessly when you are raised Catholic. You can recite it like the Lords Prayer or your own address. If you claim to be defending the right to display the ten commandment, you should know what they are. I would guess most Christians on this board could recite them with little trouble, at least 8 or 9 of them. Three is weak.
