20 Oct

Allegedly unintelligent Republicans make fools of Democrats [Reader Post]

                                       

It’s been quite the 24 hours.

Liberals just love trying to beat up on Sarah Palin. They repeatedly question her intelligence. And she just wipes the poop off the floor with them.

Mark Hemingway had a glorious article at the Washington Examiner and I am posting the whole thing:

So the Los Angeles Times reported on a recent Sarah Palin event:

Seeking to channel the sign-bearing, flag-waving enthusiasm of the “tea party” movement into ballot-box victories, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told hundreds of supporters Monday they couldn’t “party like it’s 1773″ until Washington was flooded with like-minded conservatives.

Immediately, Palin’s critics leapt into action. Here’s The Daily Kos himself on Twitter:

Sarah Palin to supporters: “Don’t party like it’s 1773 yet”. http://is.gd/g7rRb. She’s so smart.

And here’s PBS’s Gwen Ifill, moderator of presidential debates, also on Twitter:

Sarah Palin: party like its 1773! ummm,

Blogger Cuffy Meigs rounds up all kinds of similar “HAHAHAHAHA! She’s so stupid!” reactions to Palin’s reference to 1773. So what did happen in 1773? Oh, right.

That, ummm, would be the Boston Tea Party.

Moulitsas and Ifill were in such an orgasm to insult Palin they stuck their feet not only into their mouths but up where the Sun doesn’t shine as well. Idiots.

Nicely done, Sarah.

Then there’s Christine O’Donnell and her debate with Chris Coons:

WILMINGTON, Del.—Republican Christine O’Donnell challenged her Democratic rival Tuesday to show where the Constitution requires separation of church and state, drawing swift criticism from her opponent, laughter from her law school audience and a quick defense from prominent conservatives.

“Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?” O’Donnell asked while Democrat Chris Coons, an attorney, sat a few feet away.

Coons responded that O’Donnell’s question “reveals her fundamental misunderstanding of what our Constitution is. … The First Amendment establishes a separation.”

But O’Donnell probed again.

She interrupted to say, “The First Amendment does? … So you’re telling me that the separation of church and state, the phrase ‘separation of church and state,’ is in the First Amendment?”

That’s pretty clear. And as any Constitutional scholar should know, the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution. O’Donnell was right, yet Ben Evans, the author of the piece, characterized the exchange as another controversy to “befall” O’Donnell.

Why is being right something that “befalls” someone? Because she’s a Republican?

Point, O’Donnell.

Then Coons tried again to school O’Donnell.

“He noted again the First Amendment’s ban on establishment of religion” reported Evans.

(There is no ban on the establishment of religion in the Constitution.)

O’DONNELL: “Let me just clarify, you’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?”

COONS: “‘Government shall make no establishment of religion’”

O’DONNELL: “That’s in the First Amendment?”

It’s not.

For the record, the First Amendment says:

Amendment I: 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.

Point, O’Donnell.

Then a local law school professor chimed in:

Erin Daly, a Widener professor who specializes in constitutional law, said, “She seemed genuinely surprised that the principle of separation of church and state derives from the First Amendment, and I think to many of us in the law school that was a surprise.”

This is something I despise about both academicians and reporters. Liberal bias.

It’s pretty obvious that O’Donnell was being literal and it’s painfully clear that she was right on both counts. O’Donnell was surprised that Coons, Daly, Evans and the rest of the smug twits in the audience could actually believe that the phrase “separation of church and state” resides in the Constitution and that the Constitution bans the establishment of religion.

Entirely unreported by Evans was O’Donnell’s challenge to Coons:

O’Donnell was later able to score some points of her own off the remark, revisiting the issue to ask Coons if he could identify the “five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment.”

Coons named the separation of church and state, but could not identify the others — the freedoms of speech, press, to assemble and petition — and asked that O’Donnell allow the moderators ask the questions.

“I guess he can’t,” O’Donnell said.

Game, set, match- O’Donnell.

Another report of the debate went this way:

Ms. O’Donnell likened Mr. Coons’s position on evolution to those of “our so-called leaders in Washington” who have rejected the “indispensible principles of our founding.”

When Mr. Coons interjected that “one of those indispensible principles is the separation of church and state,” Ms. O’Donnell demanded, “Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?”

The audience exploded in laughter

One would have to say that an awful lot of law students overpaid for their education and that some law professors are overpaid.

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
This entry was posted in Constitution, Liberal Idiots, Politics, Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Wednesday, October 20th, 2010 at 11:35 am
| 1,315 views

44 Responses to Allegedly unintelligent Republicans make fools of Democrats [Reader Post]

  1. Jae says: 1

    Same thing that happened with the Palin/Biden debate. He was flat our wrong about a dozen times, and never got called on it by the media. She still wiped the floor with him. Can I call ya Joe? Brilliant!

    ReplyReply
  2. Nan G says: 2

    And….speaking of ”where the sun don’t shine….”
    You’ll never guess what!

    The organizers of Jon Stewart’s Rally to Restore Sanity and Stephen Colbert’s March to Keep Fear Alive, both to take place Saturday, Oct. 30, are having a hard time finding port-o-potties!

    You’d think they would have planned ahead. (a “head,” get it?)

    LOL!

    Now, in truth, the Comedy Central guys are expecting 65,000 so they officially ”need” 1 per 300 folks.

    But they didn’t ”reserve” any.
    So, the U.S. Marines did.

    The Marine Corps Marathon planners snatched up about 800 of them for the same weekend.

    The little commies (I mean the planners of the two rallies) expected the Marines to SHARE their own port-o’s but the Marines aren’t budging — they plan to lock the toilets until the morning of their race the day after.

    More here:
    http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=2085956

    ReplyReply
  3. Jarhead68 says: 3

    @ Nan….ROFLMAO….Semper Fi….Oooorahhh! I’m busting a gut but those dumb commies will be busting their bladders and colons…awesome. :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

    ReplyReply
  4. Greg says: 4

    She interrupted to say, “The First Amendment does? … So you’re telling me that the separation of church and state, the phrase ’separation of church and state,’ is in the First Amendment?”

    No, but the central concept is.

    Where in the Constitution does it say that all women are created equal?

    The fact that something isn’t explicitly and literally stated doesn’t mean that the intention isn’t there. “Separation of church and state” is simply how we’ve come to summarize the intended concept. We have that convenient short-hand phrase by way of Thomas Jefferson.

    ReplyReply
  5. drjohn says: 5

    ‘Scuse me, Greg, but the question wasn’t

    “What’s the central concept?”

    And yes, we do have interpretation subsequently, but again, that wasn’t the issue, no matter how many times you want to try to make it so.

    And Nan, that’s a great story.

    ReplyReply
  6. drjohn says: 6

    “Separation of church and state”

    Actually, Greg, it was there to keep government out of religion, not the other way around.

    ReplyReply
  7. Greg says: 7

    Actually, Greg, it was there to keep government out of religion, not the other way around.

    Huh.

    Maybe Obama should begin arguing for a more agressive progressive tax rate schedule by citing Luke 3:11, Luke 18:25, Mark 10:25, Matthew 19:21, etc.

    ReplyReply
  8. drjohn says: 8

    Sorry, Greg, Marxists tend to be atheists.

    Like Obama.

    ReplyReply
  9. @Greg:

    Maybe Obama should begin arguing for a more agressive progressive tax rate schedule by citing Luke 3:11, Luke 18:25, Mark 10:25, Matthew 19:21, etc.

    Will the more aggressive progressive tax rate schedule have compliance which is voluntary and based on individual choice as Christ advocated?

    Oh, wait! We’ve got that sort of system in place already by golly….

    Hey Greg….how much extra have you voluntarily sent in?

    How much do you truly believe in an aggressively progressive tax rate?

    Have you put your money where your mouth is?

    Or…do you only believe in an aggressively progressive tax rate schedule when you’re talking about someone else’s money?

    I think we both know the answer to that question now don’t we?

    ReplyReply
  10. Wm T Sherman says: 10

    Well, Jarhead, if the last few Progressive rallies on the National Mall have taught us anything, it is that Progressives don’t have much use for garbage cans or trash bags. I think that on Oct. 30, this principle will be extended to porta-potties as well. Nothing prevents one from taking a dump on the Mall except the corny old bourgeois impediment of common decency – which in the context of Progressive Thought, is nothing at all.

    ReplyReply
  11. Pingback: Tweets that mention Allegedly unintelligent Republicans make fools of Democrats [Reader Post] -- Topsy.com

  12. minuteman26 says: 11

    Marxists/Commies/Progessives are good for one thing and one thing only………targets.

    ReplyReply
  13. braininahat says: 12

    The caption below the pic should read “They’re everywhere”, not “There everywhere”.

    Of course the outright lie of Evans will go neither punished nor mentioned by the Liberal media or his bosses. It’s their strategy, and you can’t expect them to punish people implementing their strategy — see Obama pardons New Black Panther Party.

    ReplyReply
  14. anticsrocks says: 13

    @Greg: You just keep plugging away, but drjohn really nailed you to the wall when he said –

    Actually, Greg, it was there to keep government out of religion, not the other way around.

    He is right on the money. Any “concept” of the separation of church and state was intended to keep the Federal Government out of religion. That is what they were trying to get out from under in England, or have you conveniently forgotten that part of history? You know, where the King wanted a divorce, so he established a state religion.

    ReplyReply
  15. Skookum 2 says: 14

    Dr John, this piece makes for a nice combination punch. Well done! There is a slight problem, it’s hard to keep from laughing when I am baby sitting my grandchildren; they look at me with the strangest expressions. They will get over the trauma.

    ReplyReply
  16. Greg says: 15

    Why do I suspect that if the question of incursions of religion into government were centered on Islam, I’d be hearing entirely different interpretations of what the First Amendment was intended to protect against?

    ReplyReply
  17. Old Trooper 2 says: 16

    @ Greg, start here as your education has more than a few shortfalls.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mayflower

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayflower_Compact

    It was a tough life but got tougher in the 1770s when a certain Brit King started to tax the hell out of their descendants…Skip to 1776…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_to_the_United_States_Constitution

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers

    (BTW, it does not have dick to do with Islam)

    Do some homework.

    ReplyReply
  18. drjohn says: 17

    @Greg #7

    A more progessive tax was one of Karl Marx’s Ten Planks.

    @ braininahat #12

    You’re quite right, but that image was already in photobucket and it just cracked me up. The “Enemy of the State” image is my own satire.

    @ Skookum 2 #14

    Thanks! And not to worry, there are far worse traumas than laughter.

    :wink:

    ReplyReply
  19. anticsrocks says: 18

    @Greg: You said:

    Why do I suspect that if the question of incursions of religion into government were centered on Islam, I’d be hearing entirely different interpretations of what the First Amendment was intended to protect against?

    Strawman

    ReplyReply
  20. Greg says: 19

    How’s that a strawman?

    If the intention of the First Amendment is actually to protect religion from government intrusion rather than to protect the workings of government from religious intrusion, the back door is left open for the entry of any religious influence into the house of government. Someone else’s religious ideology could affect the writing of laws that ultimately affect me.

    Someone else’s religious beliefs concerning when a human life begins might take control of the reproductive choices of a person not sharing those beliefs, for example. Or maybe Sharia law might actually begin to exert some influence. (I understand that’s a matter of concern to some conservatives, which was obviously the reason I chose it as an example.)

    I prefer a First Amendment interpretation that keeps the back door closed and locked.

    ReplyReply
  21. johngalt says: 20

    @Greg

    The first amendment:

    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.

    The intentions of the first amendment were to prevent the government from recognizing any one religion, or denomination of a religion as THE state sponsored religion everyone was to adhere to. The push for it was due to the lack of religious freedom in England that drove people into the new world.

    It was never meant as a deterrent from religion, any religion, to have influence or voice in the government. Indeed, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution both recognize a God as being the inspiration and the point from which all of our individual liberties are granted, and because of this, government cannot take them away. Our country has lost sight of this due to ignorance and idiocy, such as displayed by Mr. Coons and numerous other modern day “enlightened” politicians.

    What you wish, and what the progressives and liberals wish, is that any and all reference to God be removed from government. What you get is a government that determines that your rights and those of everyone else, are granted by the government, and as such, can be taken away by government. Government becomes the new idol to which people worship and obey, or else. The founding father’s never meant for this, and their numerous writings and quotes on the subject explain it very clearly.

    Charles Carroll – signer of the Declaration of Independence
    ” Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure…are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.”

    “It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” – Patrick Henry

    “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” – Thomas Jefferson

    “To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. . . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all blessings which flow from them, must fall with them.” – Jedediah Morse

    Ms. O’Donnell was correct to question Coons’ interpretation of the first amendment, and history shows her view to be correct. Your own statement, preferring to keep the back door closed and locked, shows a complete lack of understanding on the topic.

    ReplyReply
  22. Old Trooper 2 says: 21

    @ johngalt, Thanks. You have far more patience than I possess and I reckoned that Greg had a bit more common sense, education and critical thinking skills. Great posting Pardner!

    ReplyReply
  23. johngalt says: 22

    @Old Trooper

    Actually, I have no patience for the likes of Greg or BRob or any others that wish to destroy our republic from within by destroying the foundation of our very existence. They only desire to gain from life all that can be given to them, and not that which they can do for themselves.

    They, by their very words, are made my enemy and I do what I can and must by virtue of an oath I took years ago.

    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

    Those who have never taken the oath, or the similar oath taken by officers, cannot hope to understand that even upon separation from active service, we still hold that oath and will fight as needed, and as we can, to uphold it.

    ReplyReply
  24. anticsrocks says: 23

    @Greg: You said:

    Why do I suspect that if the question of incursions of religion into government were centered on Islam, I’d be hearing entirely different interpretations of what the First Amendment was intended to protect against?

    and

    How’s that a strawman?

    Oh, I dunno. Seems pretty self explanitory, but here ya go…

    A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

    You made up the “strawman” of “incursions of religion into government” being centered on Islam. Then knocked down that strawman with the supposition of claiming that Conservatives would be singing a different tune.

    Pretty basic stuff. Sorry you can’t grasp the concept. I will strive to type slower from now on. :roll:

    ReplyReply
  25. Greg says: 24

    I understand the informal fallacy of a strawman argument well enough. I don’t believe this one fits the definition. What I did was provide a couple of specific examples of what could happen if some particular group’s religious precepts are allowed to become central considerations when laws are written that affect everyone. They illustrate why I consider the broader interpretation of the First Amendment religious clause more logical, and better alligned with our intended individual rights and freedoms.

    I understand why certain conservative elements want to promote a narrow interpretation of the clause. The most obvious motivation has to do with the desire of some to restrict the range of all womens’ reproductive choices, so as to bring them into agreement with their own religious precepts.

    As the Constitution stands, there’s absolutely no basis for government to intrude so deeply into an individual’s personal life that it can dictate that a pregnancy must continue. Those who would forbid termination even from the moment of conception are motivated by their own religious views, and want those religious views to be translated into law and policy. In my view, and in this case, their interpretation of the First Amendment is actually secondary to the results they hope to achieve.

    Where the Constitution gets in their way they would reinterpret it, or if possible change it. On the far right, that seems to be part of an emerging pattern.

    ReplyReply
  26. @Greg:

    I understand why certain conservative elements want to promote a narrow interpretation of the clause. The most obvious motivation has to do with the desire of some to restrict the range of all womens’ reproductive choices, so as to bring them into agreement with their own religious precepts.

    As the Constitution stands, there’s absolutely no basis for government to intrude so deeply into an individual’s personal life that it can dictate that a pregnancy must continue.

    Greg, the right to life has nothing to do with the First Amendment. In fact, it goes beyond the US Constitution, although the principles enshrined in the Constitution ie equal protection could easily be applied to an unborn baby.

    The right to life is endowed by our Creator and is inalienable as stated in the US Code.

    The belief that life begins at conception is not strictly a religious belief. It is based in both scientific fact as well as medicine.

    Because life begins at conception, the inalienable rights begin there as well.

    ReplyReply
  27. drjohn says: 26

    Those who would forbid termination even from the moment of conception are motivated by their own religious views, and want those religious views to be translated into law and policy.

    Well, I think you’ve clarified something- for you, the First Amendment is all about abortion and you see that magical privacy clause in the Constitution.

    A couple of things.

    Let me go O’Donnell for a minute- where is the abortion clause in the First Amendment?

    Second, a government running over a religion to not only allow abortion but to force us to pay for it really is a total violation of the intent of the First Amendment, which was meant to keep government out of religion.

    ReplyReply
  28. johngalt says: 27

    From Greg:

    Where the Constitution gets in their way they would reinterpret it, or if possible change it. On the far right, that seems to be part of an emerging pattern.

    One of the most common actions by liberals and progressives is to accuse the opposition of doing the exact same thing that they themselves are doing, even when there is no proof.

    Question for you Greg. Can you actually name a topic or issue that conservatives are concerned with that they REINTERPRET the Constitution, without stretching or spinning the facts?

    Probably not, since even the recent lib/prog idea of health care as a “right” for all is found no where in the Constitution, and they have stretched the meanings of the general welfare and commerce clauses in order to include it. Who’s really doing the reinterpreting, or complete changing of ideas?

    ReplyReply
  29. anticsrocks says: 28

    @Greg: You most certainly did prop up a strawman. And then since you knew I called you on it, you conveniently switched the issue to abortion. (which you got wrong as well)

    Sad, but predictable.

    ReplyReply
  30. Greg says: 29

    @ Aye Chihuahua, #25:

    Greg, the right to life has nothing to do with the First Amendment. In fact, it goes beyond the US Constitution, although the principles enshrined in the Constitution ie equal protection could easily be applied to an unborn baby.

    I completely agree that equal protection under the law is one of the essential foundation stones that everything else is built on. The problem with asserting an unconditional right to life on that basis, however, has to do with the differing opinions concerning the point at which a second human being having a claim to equal protection comes into being. Until that undefined point, the rights of a pregnant woman are the issue. If that point is rolled back to conception in accordance with the religious views of some, religion has most definitely entered in, and the religious views of some could diminish the individual rights of all. That’s why I figure interpretation of the First Amendment is central to the issue.

    Maybe that serves to answer the question drjohn put to me, also: “Let me go O’Donnell for a minute- where is the abortion clause in the First Amendment?”

    @ anticsrocks, #28:

    I don’t think examples are the same as strawmen. Discussion of First Amendment interpretation isn’t an abstraction that takes place in a vacuum. The real-world implications are what matters. I believe concrete examples bring things into sharp focus.

    @ johngalt, #27:

    Yeah, that comment I made was accusational and unfairly one-sided. I concede you’re correct in observing that liberals do the same thing, most often attempting to expand their own interpretations through the judicial mechanism. There’s been a lot of discussion on the conservative side recently involving more fundamental changes to the Constitution by way of the adding and repealing of amendments. I guess I’m reacting to that.

    Wouldn’t repeal of the 14th or 17th amendment constitute reinterpretation?

    ReplyReply
  31. anticsrocks says: 30

    @Greg: Examples of what exactly? You made up a pretend argument that is not happening. Then you made assumptions based on that pretend scenario.

    Strawman.

    ReplyReply
  32. Greg says: 31

    @anticsrocks, #30: Surely I get long-winded enough, without adding argument about the nature of my argument to the mix? I actually do see all of this stuff as being part of the same discussion. Maybe that’s just me, and the way I see things.

    ReplyReply
  33. B-Rob says: 32

    @ johngalt –

    I doubt anyone has an issue with religious people being involved in political life. Liberal prof Stephen Carter wrote an entire book about that, as did Jim Wallis. The beef people have is where evangelicals on the right want to use GOVERNMENT to advance a RELIGIOUS AGENDA. THAT the Constitution does not permit.

    Intelligent design/creationism was the suibject in Delaware — O’Donnell thinks that local school districts have a “constitutional right” to teach creationism. This is so obviously WRONG on so many levels. First, I think it is quite an open question whether any governmental agency has a “constitutional right” to do anything; but they certainly do not have a “constitutional right” to promote religion in the classroom. There she was flat out WRONG and about 50 years of Supreme Court precedent explain why.

    Second, there is no neutral non-religious purpose for teaching the non-scientific fiction that is “intelligent design.” There is no rooting or grounding in science for i.d.; natural selection and evolution, on the other hand, can be replicated in a classroom using fruit flies.

    What O’Donnell and fellow social cons want to do is to use classrooms as a platform for religious teaching* and teaching of a strictly fundy Christian bent. That is what the Constitution proghibits, the sectarian take over of government decisionmaking. Want to teach your kid creationism? Fine . . . send them to a fundy school or teach it at home. But don’t indoctrinate anyone else’s kids with that b.s.

    * Sometimes I wonder if the governments of China, India, Japan, Germany, Russia and Brasil are funding the wingnuts, trying to destroy science curricula in the US and therefore create a generation of kids who are non-competitive in math and science because we have been teaching them intelligent design and a young earth, “carbon dating is a tool of Satan” based science while BRIC, Germany and Japan teach their kids real science.

    ReplyReply
  34. Donald Bly says: 33

    Get the federal government out of k-12 education and leave it to the local community. The local government can have their children taught according to accepted community standards. That way the little boys in San Francisco won’t be deprived of learning the many varied uses of a dental damn and the boys and girls of the bible belt can pray before a football game. Of course if those boys in SF need information about dental dams they could always contact B-Rob for instructions.

    ReplyReply
  35. johngalt says: 34

    @Greg

    Wouldn’t repeal of the 14th or 17th amendment constitute reinterpretation?

    No. That would be a recognition that either one of those is not beneficial, nor in accordance to the way people want things run. It is not taking a current right, delineated in the Constitution, and changing the suppositions to support one’s view. As well, the mechanism for adding, changing, or repealing an amendment is long and arduous, as it should be when one wishes to change an accepted part of the Constitution. Quite a bit different than getting a court case into a preferred court and letting judicial activism change the meaning for you.

    @BRob

    The beef people have is where evangelicals on the right want to use GOVERNMENT to advance a RELIGIOUS AGENDA. THAT the Constitution does not permit.

    Really? Where does it prevent it? Certainly not the First amendment, which states only that Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion. An establishment of religion, using accepted definitions of words concerned in the phrase, means that Congress cannot make a law stating that a certain religion, or religious denomination, is to be the one and only religion practiced in the United States. It means nothing more, and nothing less, than that which I have stated. To read anything more into it is disingenuous, and outright substitution for what is written and what was meant by the founding fathers in using the phrase.

    Second, there is no neutral non-religious purpose for teaching the non-scientific fiction that is “intelligent design.” There is no rooting or grounding in science for i.d.; natural selection and evolution, on the other hand, can be replicated in a classroom using fruit flies.

    There are many scientists nowadays who disavow Darwin’s theory, based on numerous examples that do not follow the basic premises of that theory. So, that being said, what is the reasoning behind the allowance of evolution being taught, but not that of intelligent design, or creationism, of which there are examples of happenings in the Bible and Torah, for which science does not have an answer as to why the event(s) occurred. In short, the theory of evolution has darn near as many holes in it as creationism does. Which is right? If neither, then why teach one, but not the other. If one is right, does it not make sense, in a scientific theory, to present opposing viewpoints? Or, do we just accept it, like we were being railroaded into accepting global warming theory, even when facts have disproved much about the AGW crowds’ most important evidence? Just saying something is wrong, does not make it wrong.

    Faith. That is what people use to believe the theory of creationism. Can you prove that it didn’t happen? No, you cannot. Can others prove it did? No, they cannot. Both, together, simply mean that no one can definitively state that it did, or didn’t happen.

    The above two paragraphs are only meant as a counter to your condescending tone you take with everyone around here. Who is the one not tolerating others views?

    As for schools teaching it, it doesn’t seem to me that I remember anywhere in the Constitution that schools were a federal matter, nor that they were part of government. Do you?

    ReplyReply
  36. Greg says: 35

    @ johngalt, #34:

    An establishment of religion, using accepted definitions of words concerned in the phrase, means that Congress cannot make a law stating that a certain religion, or religious denomination, is to be the one and only religion practiced in the United States.

    That’s simply a statement of the narrow interpretation itself.

    If you’re establishing a law or policy that stems directly from a religious precept when there’s wide disagreement with it outside of the religious context, and there’s no other obvious basis for it, you’re essentially establishing an element of religion in the law.

    I’m pretty sure that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” wasn’t written with an intention of allowing for the piecemeal establishment of religion, arriving in a series of boxes marked “Some Assembly Required”.

    Jefferson’s “wall of separation” suggests the meaning wasn’t so narrow as some argue.

    ReplyReply
  37. Smorgasbord says: 36

    Throw the tea in Boston Harbor AGAIN. It worked the first time!

    ReplyReply
  38. johngalt says: 37

    @Greg

    If you’re establishing a law or policy that stems directly from a religious precept when there’s wide disagreement with it outside of the religious context, and there’s no other obvious basis for it, you’re essentially establishing an element of religion in the law.

    Please list then, the laws or policies to which conservatives are desiring that fit this statement of yours.

    As for simply restating the narrow interpretation, like you think I’ve done, I suggest you read more on the founding fathers’ writings on the subject. It should enlighten you a great deal more than simply accepting the falsehoods put out by modern day liberals.

    ReplyReply
  39. Greg says: 38

    @johngalt, #37:

    “Please list then, the laws or policies to which conservatives are desiring that fit this statement of yours.”

    There’s the one I’ve already suggested. Some conservatives don’t believe abortion should be an option, even in cases involving rape or incest. It’s obvious there’s an ungoing effort to reimpose restrictions based on religious views that aren’t shared by a large portion of the population.

    The push to include intelligent design in public school science classes has been mentioned. Most science teachers don’t believe the theory to be sufficiently credible to be taught in the context of a science classroom. Many parents agree. (One objection is that the theory has been constructed as an effort to affirm a pre-existing religious precept, with the supporting “scientific method” consisting of a search for evidence to prop the theory up rather than to challenge it. That’s not actually how science is supposed to go about testing a theory–a point that hasn’t been lost on critics of anthropomorphic global warming theory.)

    ReplyReply
  40. Pingback: Liberal Elitists Believe American People Need Their Wisdom; But THEY’RE The Stupid Ones « Start Thinking Right

  41. johngalt says: 39

    @Greg

    Again, list the LAWS that conservatives are pushing that extend beyond the boundries set by the Constitution regarding religion. You’ve listed policies, which I asked for, but nothing so far that has violated the First Amendment.

    ReplyReply
  42. chipset says: 40

    Greg,

    According to you, you’d think the Republicans would have killed off abortion, added creationism, given everyone access to all forms of arms (not limited to firearms), instituted Mosiac law, etc, when they had the White House and Congress.

    Oh, wait, they didn’t.

    What people don’t realize is that some people’s hot button issues are things that can’t or won’t be addressed.

    Abortion, for example, there’s always a contingent of the voting public that uses that to define whether or not they will vote for or support a candidate. In reality, that hot button issue is rarely dealt with once they get into office.

    I would much rather see consistency in the law. For example, if a woman is pregnant and she is killed, why is the murderer typically charged with two counts of murder? Think Lacey Peterson. Yet, Lacey could have had an abortion the same day as she was murdered and it would have only been one count?

    Why does criminal law consider it a murder of two people but civil law says it’s ok?

    The law hasn’t changed due to the who is in office. And it won’t.

    Your world view that if the Republicans took all the offices and the world would instantly become a theocracy is completely flawed..

    I heard a report the other day. The US has the highest diversity of religions of any major country. It also has the highest rate of people practicing religion, even higher than theocracies, like Iran. So, if the religious component were so interested in controlling everyone’s lives, wouldn’t they? It’s called tolerance. The right seems to practice it, whereas the left seems to be very hypocritical about it.

    ReplyReply
  43. Pingback: Truth Derangement Syndrome [Reader Post]

  44. ditto says: 41

    Jon Stewart & Stephen Colbert will no doubt look into the absence of Port-A-Pots at their events but they will have nothing to go on.

    Democrats keep forgetting that religious speech is also protected under free speech.

    @Greg

    You absolutely tried to create a strawman argument. We all recognised it as such. You were called on it. Get over it.

    @B-Rob

    Second, there is no neutral non-religious purpose for teaching the non-scientific fiction that is “intelligent design.” There is no rooting or grounding in science for i.d.; natural selection and evolution, on the other hand, can be replicated in a classroom using fruit flies.

    Reputable scientific fact is supposed to be based on the proving of theories to be the truth, and not on the blind acceptance of theory. Of course there is good reason and purpose for teaching the theory of intelligent design along with the theory of evolution in regards to human development. Darwin’s theory has been shown to have flaws and is in fact still only theory. There has never been found a credible “missing link” (in fact all “found” so far have been proven to be frauds). The Intelligent Design theory is a possible explanation for the inability to fully solve for the missing links and flaws in examination of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. As such, it is fully reasonable to include it in the teaching of the subjects. Incidentally, the Intelligent Design theory makes no specific distinction that a particular form of intelligence was the designer(s). Neither claims of gods, aliens or other entities are proven in said theory, they are only provided as possible as theoretical sources of the intelligence. We do know that the early apes lacked gen splicers or any other ability to genetically create humans, so they can clearly be ruled out as the designers.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>