Silly O'Donnell...

Is she wrong?

Where in the constitution is "separation of church and state"??? HMM?

THEORY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

Linus wrote: Actually, there IS no part in the constitution that says "Seperation of church and state" and on top of that, IMO and many others as well, the courts have gone a bit too far in interpreting what the 1st admendment actually says. Last I checked "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" A) Technically only applies to Congress (ehh, ehh?) And B ) only pertains to laws, and not to actions. To argue differently, as many a judge has, is to fail at reading comprehension, or to succeed at pushing a loose interpretation as law. Forcing everyone to pray before they go to bed would be bad. Having people walk by a replica of a stone tablet when they go to court? Not bad.

As counter to modern Judicial interpretations as I think that is, it's important to note that no matter what you think the Constitution says, all that matters is that 5 Supreme Court justices agree with your interpretation (Dred Scott) and that the other branches actually follow their rulings (Jackson V. Cherokee Nation). Based on the fact that such a large percentage of the population believes in creationism, at least familiarizing them with the theory could be beneficial, although I think comparative religions would be a much more appropriate venue since it undermines science as a whole. 

agentwhale007 wrote: Is the stone tablet religious in nature, purchased by state funds or sitting on state property. Sorry, that there is an endorsement.

Sorry, but it seems as though the US Supreme Court disagrees with you there... on 2 of those points atleast.


People need to quit being so butt-hurt over a stone tablet being in a courthouse. It's not like you have to pray to it. You don't even have to look at the damn thing. You can flip it the bird every single day and praise the devil every time you pass it, and no one can do anything but look at you oddly.


I'd personally have no qualms with the Jewish or Islamic versions of the same idea being placed next to the 10 commandments... I guess that makes me more tolerant, doesn't it?

brihard wrote: Ah, so the entire body of American jurisprudence on the matter is wrong. Duly noted. Laws are interpreted in part based on the underlying intent that went into writing them, and it's clear that part of the intent was that religion, while very much a part of social life in the early U.S., was to be kept separated from the functions of state. I'm gonna go with a couple centuries of legal decisions by very learned jurists on this one.

Ah, so you think they did contrary to what I stated and did a STRICT interpretation of the wording?

And that's not a legit argument... there have been legal decisions on BOTH sides of the matter, one side I'm in line with, the other you're in line with. Both by 'very learned jurists'. Only difference? Countless counter-suits, followed by a looser interpretation.    Doesn't make one side or the other 'more right'.

Linus wrote: agentwhale007 wrote: Is the stone tablet religious in nature, purchased by state funds or sitting on state property. Sorry, that there is an endorsement. Sorry, but it seems as though the US Supreme Court disagrees with you there... on 2 of those points atleast.

Linus wrote: the courts have gone a bit too far in interpreting what the 1st admendment actually says.

I see someone has abandoned the doctrine of original intent for a strict constructionist method of interpreting the constitution.

Is there a reason we should look only at the text for the first amendment, but look at original intent for the fourteenth amendment?

brihard wrote: Ah, so the entire body of American jurisprudence on the matter is wrong. Duly noted.

It's happened before. I forget the specifics, but the SCOTUS made a ruling that had something to do with currency, and it was later deemed horribly incorrect, but the effect of the ruling had become such an engendered part of society that undoing it would be bad.

I won't comment on the validity of separating church and state on the legal level, since I don't yet have my J.D., but I'll trust the American jurisprudential system as a whole until I have reason not to.

It should be pointed out that Congress sets the budget, by law.  If that budget is used for religious monuments, then congress has just made a law respecting an establishment of religion. 

Linus wrote: Van Orden v Perry

Linus wrote: Nope, my view is now and always has been, a mixture.

A mixture grounded in what?