O'Donnel thinks homosexuality a identity disorder

Status
Not open for further replies.
deafskeptic said:
Don't worry. :D I use google as my spell checker. I can't spell either. :P
Click to expand...

That's the thing. I CAN spell! I was just over-tired, and, not paying attention to what I had typed! :lol:
 
DGirl101 said:
The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; 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."



Are the WORDS "Separation of Church and State" in the First Amendment?

Is "Separation of Church and State" used to EXPLAIN part the First Amendment?

Did anyone consider also: that she was asking, if the words Separation of Church and State LITERALLY is in the First Amendment?

What do you think?

Homosexuality is part of the norm in regards to Human Sexuality.
Click to expand...

It shouldn't matter if the specific words are there are not; the intent is clear and accepted. As a politician, she should certainly be able to infer intent, and should also be familiar with the Amendments.
 
DGirl101 said:
Are the WORDS "Separation of Church and State" in the First Amendment?

Is "Separation of Church and State" used to EXPLAIN part the First Amendment?

Did anyone consider also: that she was asking, if the words Separation of Church and State LITERALLY is in the First Amendment?
Click to expand...

The actual quote, "separation of Church and State" was not in the First Amendment but was attributed to Thomas Jefferson who inspired Madison to write the First Amendment. Jefferson emphasized it again afterwards that it was meant to be an amendment to support the "separation of Church and State." Like Jillo said, the intent was VERY clear from the beginning.

In order to enforce that concept, it has to be secular. Since Creationism is clearly a religious belief based on Genesis of the Bible and lacks scientific evidence, it should NOT be taught in public education.

A lot of people misquote the Constitution.
 
netrox said:
The actual quote, "separation of Church and State" was not in the First Amendment but was attributed to Thomas Jefferson who inspired Madison to write the First Amendment. Jefferson emphasized it again afterwards that it was meant to be an amendment to support the "separation of Church and State." Like Jillo said, the intent was VERY clear from the beginning.

In order to enforce that concept, it has to be secular. Since Creationism is clearly a religious belief based on Genesis of the Bible and lacks scientific evidence, it should NOT be taught in public education.

A lot of people misquote the Constitution.
Click to expand...

:gpost: I agree wholeheartedly!
 
netrox said:
The actual quote, "separation of Church and State" was not in the First Amendment but was attributed to Thomas Jefferson who inspired Madison to write the First Amendment. Jefferson emphasized it again afterwards that it was meant to be an amendment to support the "separation of Church and State." Like Jillo said, the intent was VERY clear from the beginning.

In order to enforce that concept, it has to be secular. Since Creationism is clearly a religious belief based on Genesis of the Bible and lacks scientific evidence, it should NOT be taught in public education.

A lot of people misquote the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If you want your child taught creationism, you have the option of sending them to a parochial school. This has no place in the public school system. The courts decided that years ago.
 
jillio said:
Exactly. If you want your child taught creationism, you have the option of sending them to a parochial school. This has no place in the public school system. The courts decided that years ago.
Click to expand...

I also thought of homeschooling a child. I know many who will do so for religious reasons.
 
jillio said:
Exactly. If you want your child taught creationism, you have the option of sending them to a parochial school. This has no place in the public school system. The courts decided that years ago.
Click to expand...

Nextrox, you made a excellent point.

Yes, I agree with you and public school is teaching based on secular that doesn't involve religious or only limited section, especially history courses.

Put children in private school is optional for religious parent but sucks for them to see their taxes still goes to public school while have pay extra tuition.
 
Oceanbreeze said:
I also thought of homeschooling a child. I know many who will do so for religious reasons.
Click to expand...

That happens quite often, as well. Point being, there are options for those who want their child taught creationism. The public school system is not the forum to do so.
 
Or parent can teach their children about creationism at home or church while attending public school.
 
Those are all valid options if one doesn't like what public school teaches.

Public schools are to teach the basics (and a bit more) of science, math and writing. Pubic schools should not be teaching topics that are not accepted by science or they would not be doing their jobs to prepare students for science and other related fields.
 
deafskeptic said:
Those are all valid options if one doesn't like what public school teaches.

Public schools are to teach the basics (and a bit more) of science, math and writing. Pubic schools should not be teaching topics that are not accepted by science or they would not be doing their jobs to prepare students for science and other related fields.
Click to expand...

That's it in a nutshell. Morality is not a subject to be taught in public school, and that is what it all comes down to.
 
deafskeptic said:
Those are all valid options if one doesn't like what public school teaches.

Public schools are to teach the basics (and a bit more) of science, math and writing. Pubic schools should not be teaching topics that are not accepted by science or they would not be doing their jobs to prepare students for science and other related fields.
Click to expand...

:gpost: as well!
 
Somehow I have a feeling that what I am saying is not clear.

I was asking because it seemed to me that O' Donnell was being funny about her opponents actual wording of the first Amendment.

She was asking if 'The Separation of Church and State' is literally written in the first amendment.

It looked like a hidden joke she had up her sleeve that her opponent was not catching.

Don't you think that; if she was smiling asking that question to her opponent she would know, what the first amendment is?

If she didn't, wouldn't she have a look of confusion while asking her opponent?

Upon looking up several articles, there were some information that was not matching up to allegations made against her by the media. She is not the only one that isn't clear on the Consitution.

That's sad isn't it? The only amendments that are known so well is all because they are the focus of many debates among politicians.

While everyone latched on Ms. O' Donnells mishap, noone thought to point out that Mr. Coons could not name the Five Freedoms that the First Amendment provided.

An article among many I have looked at:

Christine O'Donnell: I Won That First Amendment Debate! (VIDEO) | TPMDC

Christine O'Donnell: I Won That First Amendment Debate! (VIDEO)
Evan McMorris-Santoro | October 21, 2010, 9:28AM799
Share 32
tweets
retweet34diggs
digg

Delaware Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell (R)
Read More
1st Amendment, 2010 elections, Chris Coons, Christine O'Donnell, DE-SEN, Senate '10
Share
Send to a friend!To email: Your Name: Your email:

The media and most viewers of the Oct. 19 Delaware Senate debate thought Republican Christine O'Donnell's question about the First Amendment directed at Democrat Chris Coons was a pretty epic gaffe for the hardcore tea party favorite and Constitution proponent.

O'Donnell did not see it that way, however.

"It's really funny the way that the media reports things," O'Donnell told ABC News this morning. "After that debate my team and I we were literally high fiving each other thinking that we had exposed he doesn't know the First Amendment, and then when we read the reports that said the opposite we were all like 'what?'"

As a refresher, here's how we reported the moment at the Oct. 19 debate:

"You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?" O'Donnell asked, when Coons brought up the fact that the very First Amendment to the Constitution "bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion."O'Donnell told ABC News "her line of questioning to Coons was not because she didn't know the First Amendment, but to the make the point the phrase 'separation of church and state' does not appear anywhere in the Constitution." (As ABC's Jon Karl and Gregory Simmons point out in their report, "the Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment's declaration that Congress 'shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion' as a legal separation between government and faith.")

[TPM SLIDESHOW - Christine O'Donnell: Anti-Masturbation Crusader. Witchcraft Dabbler. Republican Senate Nominee.]

"I asked him where in the Constitution is the phrase 'separation of church and state,'" O'Donnell explained. "He said the First Amendment. I followed up with, 'Can you name the five freedoms that are guaranteed to us that are protected by the First Amendment?' And he could not."

Watch (First Amendment stuff starts at about 2:30):

The TPM Poll Average shows Coons leading the Delaware Senate race by a margin of 55.5-37.2.
Click to expand...

Another one, The New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/weekinreview/24schwartz.html


Name That FreedomBy JOHN SCHWARTZ
Published: October 23, 2010

So now we know that Christine O’Donnell, the Republican candidate for senator in Delaware, isn’t a constitutional scholar.


O’Donnell Questions Church-State Separation (October 19, 2010)

On Tuesday, during a debate, Ms. O’Donnell asked her opponent, Chris Coons, “Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” The question drew gasps and laughter from the law school audience.

When Mr. Coons pointed out that the first words of the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” are the foundation of the concept, she replied, “You’re telling me that’s in the First Amendment?”

She was, she later said, attempting to point out that the actual words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the text of the Constitution. This is true in the strictest sense, and has become a popular argument among religious conservatives who believe that courts have gone too far.

Still, the moment has been held up as a flub of the first order.

Yet in her comments, Ms. O’Donnell may have been, to an extent, fulfilling a catchphrase from one of her campaign ads: “I’m you.” Because Americans really don’t know a lot about the founding documents of our republic. Later in the debate, Mr. Coons himself could not recite the five main freedoms protected by the First Amendment.

How much do we need to know? Clearly, many of us are lacking even the basics. The First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University has looked at Americans’ familiarity with its eponymous portion of the Bill of Rights, and the results would make Thomas Jefferson weep. While 61 percent of those surveyed this year knew that the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, just 23 percent volunteered that it also supports freedom of religion, and 18 percent cited freedom of the press. Freedom of association? Fourteen percent. Only 6 percent of those polled could cite the right to petition the government for grievances, the fifth major freedom guaranteed under the First Amendment.

The Delaware candidates are not alone: Sarah Palin and others also seem a bit in the dark about the First Amendment. Ms. Palin has seen violations of the Constitution in the hubbub over remarks about Muslims by the commentator Juan Williams, whose contract was terminated by NPR. But the First Amendment restricts the ability only of government to censor, not of private employers.

Still, the Delaware controversy, at least, does not mean that each of us must become a scholar who memorizes every jot and tittle, argued the libertarian conservative Eugene Volokh, a constitutional scholar at the University of California, Los Angeles, school of law.

“I would care if people didn’t realize that the Constitution protects freedom of the press, or that the Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures,” he said. “But I don’t care whether they know if it’s in the First and Fourth Amendment as opposed to, say, the Sixth and Eighth Amendments. What’s still important is to know what they are, rather than where they happen to be in the particular numbering system of the Constitution.”

As for Ms. O’Donnell, he said, “I don’t think she acquitted herself terribly well there,” since whatever she might actually know, she did not leave the impression that she was conversant in basic constitutional concepts.

Jack Balkin, a liberal constitutional expert at Yale Law School, said he was pleased to see Ms. O’Donnell and Mr. Coons actually discuss the nation’s founding texts. “I’m on Christine O’Donnell’s side in terms of constitutional literacy,” he said, wryly. “If her remarks in the debate cause Americans to pull out a copy of the Constitution and read it, that’s all for the good.”

Though they lived two centuries before the Internet, the founders knew that they were creating the first information-based nation, a new kind of republic powered by ideas and argument. To give the people who would vote for their leaders the tools to vote wisely, ideas and debate, conscience and faith had to be protected. And it all happens in the First Amendment.

On the question of church-state separation, at least, a majority of Americans do seem to get the gist: The First Amendment Center poll showed that 66 percent of Americans agree with the statement that the First Amendment requires it, wherever the concept may be found. Oddly enough, however, the poll also showed that 53 percent of Americans agree with this statement: the Constitution “establishes a Christian nation.”

Hmm. This is the sort of thing that leads the nation’s constitutional scholars to cite a venerable jurisprudential doctrine: go figure.

Gene Policinski, the executive director of the First Amendment Center, said he puzzled over the apparent conflict between those two poll questions, but recalled an elderly woman who once chastised him for saying that the United States was not a Christian nation.

It most certainly is, she said, though the Constitution allows anyone to choose other faiths. “Young man, of course those people have every right to be wrong,” she explained.
Click to expand...

The one and only thing I have to say is this: Before latching on the flaws of someone, take the time to do a little research first.

If you find too many conflicting articles from the media, you might want to wait and watch.

The media doesn't always present facts. They present 'Persuasive Essays' more often than "Informative Essays'

Which is why I like '60 Minutes' because they give 'Informative Essays'

As for Ms. O' Donnell, if she meant what she said about Homosexuals have an Identity Disorder. To someone standing next to her I would say 'Please slap her upside the head'

(I realize this post is long, but that is because I provided quotes to the articles because I am NOT going to have accusations flying at me for providing links that won't open.)
 
I could be wrong but your first choice doesn't appear to be a reliable source. Second, according to your first choice, it said that the viewers and the media thought that she made a major gaffe. I don't think that was doctored up since I assume that this was live. Given the context, I don't think that was intended to be a joke.

I should think a political candidate would know enough to be much more cautious about the media.

And while there is bias in the media, much of Christine O'Donnel problems seem to be of her own making.
 
deafskeptic said:
I could be wrong but your first choice doesn't appear to be a reliable source. Second, according to your first choice, it said that the viewers and the media thought that she made a major gaffe. I don't think that was doctored up since I assume that this was live. Given the context, I don't think that was intended to be a joke.

I should think a political candidate would know enough to be much more cautious about the media.

And while there is bias in the media, much of Christine O'Donnel problems seem to be of her own making.
Click to expand...

Which goes back to the point that she is either incredibly naive, or, she's just flat out stupid. If naivete' is her issue, then she should have learned from her "mistakes" by now. However, if she is just plain stupid, then we just don't need her in office.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top