>> ^lantern53:

She is correct. The amendment prohibits the establish of a religion, not the separation of church and state.


Congress shall make no law respecting AN establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (Catholic school?)(federal/state schools means...); or abridging the freedom of speech , or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Re-read the bold part and post back when you know the answer.

>> ^direpickle:

>> ^shuac:
I'm getting a new passport ready just in case the 2012 election goes from "Entertaining as the 2008 Election" to "Holy Shit, I've got to leave this country now."
Can anyone make a good suggestion of where I can go? I don't really speak any other languages. I took some French in high school and I know a little German (he's sitting over there <- awesome Top Secret reference).
Seriously though. Any ideas?

Don't be one of those guys, man.
Also, you're probably fooling yourself if you think there's anywhere better. Corruption is a huge problem the world over. The UK is a nanny state, surveillance state, and general purpose Orwellian nightmare. It sounds like much of mainland Europe is being flooded with Fundie Muslims, and the governments are kowtowing before all of their demands (hence all of the anti-heresy laws). Oceania is going crazy with their Internet Filtering and whatnot. Canada's far too easily influenced by the US.
They're all bowing before the American Intellectual Property Juggernaut.
You will pretty much never be able to become a citizen in most of Europe. The Japanese government is corrupt, and the people will never accept you as one of them. I'd be leery of settling in in most of the rest of Asia. North Korea and South Korea could go to war again at any moment. China's not exactly the place I'd go to flee from an insane government. Maybe India, Nepal, something.
Maybe there's some amazing place in South America or Africa.


Bogus. UK is just as free as the USA, if not freer, with the exception of libel laws and traffic cameras. And you're not goinh to move to any other european country just because of the few percent Muslim minority that has emigrated there? Racist.

>> ^pavel_one:

A "separation" of "church" and state would prohibit Muslim lawmakers breaking for prayer 5 times a day and so possibly missing a potentially crucial vote. The "free exercise" words specifically allow for this.


No, it wouldnt, thats exactly what its there for, there IS a separation, which means you can ask for extra breaks citing religion, (assuming you are employed by the govenrment/state), but the government is under no obligation to give it to you, and it cant pass a law that says "the establishment of islam requires extra breaks in the workplace" because that would be unconstitutional, because congress shall pass no law respecting.. and so on. As I tried to explain this sentence DOES separate church and state, as in what we mean when we say "Separation of church and state."

YOU DUN GOOFD UP!!
/calling cyberpolice!!/
>> ^gwiz665:

Despite all evidence to the contrary, your mom actually has a slender frame.
>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, evolution never happened.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, climate change isnt real.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, teens can abstain from sex.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, homosexuality is a "threat to the family".
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, a fertilized embryo and a person is the same thing.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Bush was an excellent president.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Obama wasnt born in the US.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Obama isnt a Democrat leaning center.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Obama is actually a muslim.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Obama is actually a marxist.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Obama is actually a socialist.
BREAKING NEWS!
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, the 1st amendment doesnt separate church and state!

So, I guess we've found the latest in reality denial now.

Despite all evidence to the contrary, your mom actually has a slender frame.
>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

Despite all the evidence to the contrary, evolution never happened.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, climate change isnt real.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, teens can abstain from sex.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, homosexuality is a "threat to the family".
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, a fertilized embryo and a person is the same thing.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Bush was an excellent president.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Obama wasnt born in the US.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Obama isnt a Democrat leaning center.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Obama is actually a muslim.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Obama is actually a marxist.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Obama is actually a socialist.
BREAKING NEWS!
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, the 1st amendment doesnt separate church and state!

So, I guess we've found the latest in reality denial now.

Oh dear lord, Herp and Derp together. What a mindfuck.

>> ^raverman:

She'll make a perfect VP for Palin. They can be ignorant together.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Are leftists really upset every conservative candidate doesn't have the Constitution memorized when they disregard this 'inconvenient document' at every turn?
Good luck with bald, White obama Jr.


Because she claimed to be a constitutional scholar, and yet doesn't know what the various articles mean... yes.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Are leftists really upset every conservative candidate doesn't have the Constitution memorized when they disregard this 'inconvenient document' at every turn?

There's a difference between memorizing it, as in being able to recite the exact wording from memory correctly, and knowing it, as in being able to give a paraphrase of what it's about. In particular, when you're part of a political movement that's calling for the repeal of said amendments, you should have some clue what they do when people ask if you're in favor of repeal.

Also, the left doesn't disregard the Constitution. On the contrary, you guys on the right are the ones who ignore it, or pretend that when you disagree with Supreme Court decisions, your own interpretations supersede theirs.

You guys can pretend that the Separation of Church and state is some sort of liberal myth if you want, but in reality, it's just plain incorrect to say it isn't a real concept with a great deal of force in our actual legal system, whether you agree with it or not.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Are leftists really upset every conservative candidate doesn't have the Constitution memorized when they disregard this 'inconvenient document' at every turn?
Good luck with bald, White obama Jr.


Its not about having them memorized, its about understanding what they mean. For example the phrase "Separation of church and state" doesnt appear there, but thats because such a phrasing would be too vague to have any legal meaning. The phrase is a simplified description of the intention of whats in there. Lets pretend for a second that it instead used the phrase "separation of church and state"

1) Original version:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

2) Fictive version "There shall be a Separation of Church and State"

Now, lets say you wanted to put some commandments outside the courthouse. How does 2) help you decide anything here? does it mean a physical separation of buildings, does it mean the two entities should just generally be kept apart, does it mean that you cant have churches in the state at all?

1), on the other hand, could not be clearer. Since you are pandering to the will of a specific religious group, you must be following a law that permits such behaviour, but look! Congress shall not make laws like that, so if they exist, they are unconstitutional, so so is the mixing of commandments and proper law.

This is the way all "separation" issues end up, because the authors of the 1st amendment used very specific, very conscious wording when they wrote that sentence. Not only does it separate church and state, but it explains HOW they are separated. All in a single sentence.

Congratulations! Your video, Christine O'Donnell is Unaware of the 1st Amendment, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 5 Badge!

seems like that Asian man knows more about the constitution then Christine O'Donnell.

No, it doesn't say "keep Church and State separate". But the entire document is a living gray area. That's why we employ 9 people to constantly apply the document as appropriate. Currently, that is the piece of the Constitution that supports it. 100 years might change this, but Christine, and the rest of us, live now. It's certainly unreasonable to say the first amendment doesn't hint at the idea of separation, which is what Christine seems to do during the debate. Right or wrong, it shows a complete disregard for, or ignorance of contemporary civic issues, and a poor point of contention for her jump on in that forum.

In short, Christine O'Donnell FAILS at politics.

Two points of clarification here.

First, Christine O'Donnell never said the word "phrase". Had she said "the phrase 'Separation of Church and State' isn't in the Constitution" she'd have been right, but it would've been a total non sequitor, since the larger conversation was about whether public schools could legally teach creationism. To address that, you have to talk about the legal principle of Separation of Church and state, which Coons and the audience correctly note derives from the 1st amendment.

Second, this is the law of the land, according to several Supreme Court decisions, and honestly, according to even the most basic understanding of the words that make up the 1st amendment itself. Even arguments about "original intent" (which are questionable to begin with) fall flat here, since we have plenty of historical evidence that shows the framers intended that there should be a separation of church and state.

If you want to watch the longer, unedited version, you can see her asking the moderator for what the 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments did, because she didn't "have them memorized". To emphasize that, she didn't need help with the exact wording, she was at a basic loss to be able to describe in any way what those amendments did.

Yes, it's all a neolib fantasy.

Time to get rid of the highways. And anti-child-porn-legislation. And any of these other newfangled neo-liberal shackles.>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

This vid is good at illustrating the intellectual divide in this country that has resulted in our crappy educational system. The fact that Coons, a bunch of college law students, and all of you here find what she said "crazy" illustrates how far our nation has fallen in basic civics. Sad really.
O'Donnel was absolutely right. The entire idea of "seperation of church & state" is not in the constitution. It does not exist as a phrase, or even as a concept. The phrase originated from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist group. The entirety of Jefferson's context was to assuage their fears that the Constitution would potentially be used to impose a NATIONAL FEDERAL religion on them. It was not written with the concept that Church & State were to be completely and utterly vivisected.
Hence the language of the first ammendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." It is not in any way implying the neolib concept of a 'wall of separation'. It - like all the Constitution - is a LIMITING document that is telling the U.S. Government what it is not allowed to do. In this case, the federal government is not allowed to establish a religion or prevent people from exercising their faith of choice. Any of you wondering why it is only the Daily Kos & HuffPo that are pimping this? It's because they are the only ones so blatant and naked in their bias as to think they can get away with making this sound like it was an O'Donnel flub. Everyone else in the media (except maybe MadCow) still has the brains to know that she was right and it was Coons & the Law Idiots that were wrong.
It was not in any way meant to imply ALL church and ALL goverment should be completely seperate. That is a modern neolib fantasy. At the time, many of the 13 colonies had OFFICIAL STATE RELIGIONS. It was not until 1947 that the liberally packed FDR courts because to misapply the Establishment Clause in such a way as to allow them to further misapply the whole 'wall of seperation' idea.
Even Coons has to wag his finger a bit at these law students before they completely embarrassed themselves with their utter and complete ignorance of the Constitution. I really don't know why I'm surprised though. Our law schools generated such "constitutional scholars" as Barak Obama. Is it any wonder that they nothing but a bunch of brainless "social justice" twits that have not one historical fact in their heads?