Christine O'Donnell was RIGHT

[Cseeman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separat..._United_States

Separation of church and state in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
Contents [hide]
1 Early history
1.1 Former state churches in British North America
1.1.1 Protestant colonies
1.1.2 Catholic colonies
1.1.3 Colonies with no established church
1.1.4 Tabular Summary
1.2 Colonial support for separation
1.3 Jefferson, Madison, and the "wall of separation"
1.4 Patrick Henry, Massachusetts, and Connecticut
1.5 Test acts
2 Article 6 of the United States Constitution
3 Bill of Rights
4 The 14th Amendment
5 The Treaty of Tripoli
6 The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine
7 Supreme Court since 1947
8 Interpretive controversies
8.1 Politics and religion in the United States
9 See also
10 References
11 Bibliography
12 External links
12.1 American court battles over separation
12.2 Other



The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from various documents of several of the Founders of the United States. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The modern concept is often credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. His purpose in this letter was to assuage the fears of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them. The metaphor was intended, as The U.S. Supreme Court has currently interpreted it since 1947, to mean that religion and government must stay separate for the benefit of both, including the idea that the government must not impose religion on Americans nor create any law requiring it. It has since been in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court,[1] though the Court has not always fully embraced the principle.[2][3][4][5][6]

[Odysseus]

What's scary is that a roomful of law students didn't know it. I can see where the future Democratic judicial nominees will be coming from.

[Cseeman]

of course at my age it is really difficult to remember exactly where and when i learned stuff especially since i have been going to college my entire life

[noonwitch]

I wondered why they were ridiculing her for that statement, when she was factually correct as far as the Constitution goes.

After all, she should be ridiculed for thinking that creationism is on scientifically equal terms with evolution, and that schools should teach it that way. :D

[Gingersnap]

I heard the clip today and I thought it was odd. Of course, acquiring a college degree today is more a matter of money and stamina than intellect or knowledge.

This how we end up with Supreme Court Justices who believe that vagina possession and Spanish oppression bestows superior moral wisdom on judges.

[Arroyo_Doble]

What is with this bizarre pride in being ignorant?

[Odysseus]

I wondered why they were ridiculing her for that statement, when she was factually correct as far as the Constitution goes.

After all, she should be ridiculed for thinking that creationism is on scientifically equal terms with evolution, and that schools should teach it that way. :D

Being factually correct doesn't make you politically correct. In fact, it's more often than not the exact opposite.

Coons has called himself a "bearded Marxist." That means that he thinks that the universe is too complex to have been created by God, but the economy isn't too complex to be run by bureaucrats. You tell me which one is crazier.

What is with this bizarre pride in being ignorant?

Beats me. Ask Chris Coons. He couldn't name the rights protected by the First Amendment.