I usually hold that to be a requirement for discussion on 'Separation' as well. What do you mean by 'Separation of Church and State', and why does that make you for or against it.

I personally believe in 'Separation', which for me means that the Government is not allowed to interfere with religious beliefs (at least as long as they don't break any laws governing other rights of the individual), and Religion is not allowed to interfere with the Government. This does not mean that religious people can't hold government office - quite the opposite. It means that Religions organizations can't tell the government what it may or may not do.

As to my comment on 'Literal Construction' and 'Original Intent', it's something that I trot out sometimes in cases like this. I observe that sometimes the same people who insist on Literal Construction (i.e. "If it doesn't say it, then it doesn't mean it") in this context are the same ones are the same ones who follow Original Intent ("You have to explore what they really meant") in cases like the Militia Clause of the Second Amendment.

I'm not saying you do that, which is why I asked. But some do, which is why I felt the need to ask.

* deleted out of respect for the thread * :salute:

Yea lets bring things she 'might' say into the discussion now that were diverted away from the out of context original topic. Thats solid stuff there !

Sorry Steamwake. I'll edit that out.

Me too

"out of context original topic"? I resent that...:D

I don't think I misrepresented her views and if you read the blurb I quoted, it does appear that she does not believe that the Constitution defends separation of church and state, not that she does not know what the First amendment means.

I don't think O'Donnell is dumb. Her stand on the separation of church and state (or lack thereof) is followed by many conservatives.

My problem with her is more her extreme right wing views and her attack dog style of politics, but then there are many candidates like her running for office right now. She just seems to attract more publicity.

Picking on her now is more of a trial run for 2012 when Palin squares off against Obama ......now that should be fun...:arrgh!:

Are you really CaptainHaplo in disguise?

It seems to me, this has already been discussed ad nauseum, and any further discussion is beating a dead horse.


PS. I "love" how bible thumping zealots continually try to turn our country into a theocracy. Really, i do!

The same claim being made once again, so the same answering link being given once again:

http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/separation.html

http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/index.html

The purpose behind the US being secular is to allow people to make a choice unhindered by others (not needing to fear discrimination, pressure or disadvantages) what they want to confess to regarding religion - or not want to confess to. That way, it means no problpoem for anyone - as long as nobody claims the right to make the state and it'S institutions defining the playground of the nation's society according to dermands and commandements by any given relgion, at the cost of all those who do not share that belief/view.

This necessary self-limitation is something that fundamentalists - Christian fanatic sects, Islam - have big problems to accept, because they do not want equal rights and chances for everybody and all other beliefs. They want domination of their own belief, and ultimately turning the country into a tyranny of that one faith exclusively, excluding all others. In this regard, many American Christian radicals are not any different from Muhammad's teachings. Both are offsprings of one and the same mindset, and it is a most intolerant one.

It may seem incredible, but when you watch the full exchange she appears even dumber than she does when you simply read the transcript.

I wish I could stay away from this, but this is priceless:

a creationist also?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43826.html

She is entirely correct though, Evolution is only a theory and is not fact. Being that it is a theory created by us, it is flawed and not the "truth" (we will never discover the "truth" as it is fundamentally impossible for us to). But it is far better supported by available evidence then creationism is, which is thoroughly disproven by available evidence (ID theory on the other hand cannot be disproven, but is utterly useless because you can't disprove it.. ever).

Nor can you prove it, precisely because there is no real evidence at all one way or the other. This means it is not 'theory' at all, but belief based on speculation.

Of the worst sort, yes.

like many she clearly doesn't understand what a theory actually is in science. She is also likely unaware that the evolution part is uncontroversial as it is an observation (that the balance of species on earth has changed over time, which is pretty clear as I walked around the block last night and was not eaten by a T. rex), not at all part of the theory that attributes a mechanism.

This is my first post on my new, i7 iMac, too. Wow this screen is frickin HUGE. Gotta get dual boot set up then try SH4.

That irks me to no end. When ignorant people say "just a theory."

Evolution is not a theory. It is an observable and recordable fact. The theory of evolution through natural selection is the currently accepted explanation for the FACT of evolution. Nevermind that the word "theory" carries a completely different meaning to science than it does in casual use.

Gravity is a "theory" too. But I bet I can tell you what happens if you jump off a bridge.

http://notjustatheory.com/

A "Theory" is not the same as a Scientific Theory. :roll:

Somedays I just want to hit these people... :damn:

A Scientific Law describes a small set of actions or a single action. When one observes something and analyzes what is occurring based on known Scientific Law they develop a Hypothesis. When that Hypothesis is analyzed by others and confirmed it becomes a Theory.