Posted on 10/19/2010 8:25:06 AM PDT by truthfreedom
And Coons was wrong when he quoted the Constitution and said
“Government” not “Congress”
Coons war wrong several times. But unfortunately Christine is not conversant enough with the document to keel haul him with it.
My concern is the teaching of subjects that are based on belief & faith, rather than fact, by an instructor who may have neither the belief nor faith. My concern is also that children will be force to learn beliefs that are completely opposed to those of the parents & family.
Given the diverse nature of American students, it is unreasonable to teach one belief system to the exclusion of all others, in gov't run schools. It is equally unreasonalbe to teach multiple belief systems re. creation & expect students to be anything other than confused.
“nobody is talking about having Creation class...”. It was certainly what O'Donnell & Coons were talking about.
As for way back when: This country was overwhelmingly Christian, school was not a function of gov’t, & there was no legal requirement for attendance. Our demographics are very different from 200+ years ago.
Forcing a Jewish child to memorize & be tested on the muslim version of creation in Dearborn, MI is just plain wrong, even if that is what the locals there prefer. That is indoctrination, not education.
I only have select quotes.
And perhaps it would’ve been better if she wailed on him on the spot.
But the fact is that she’s right. And if she wants to make a tv commercial proving it, she can.
She can talk about the real, important difference between Government and Congress. The 1A says Congress. Coons says Government.
Listen, Coons, people are fed up with the Government ignoring what the Constitution says. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the Federal Government to force you to buy anything, including health insurance.
It is the idea of religious instruction in gov’t run schools. Bad idea, legal or not.
In most places it won’t happen. In others, who knows? Very few.
But you’re talking school board policy.
It appears that the most recent articles are stepping back from all out lying and presenting a more accurate approach.
here’s a recent NYT
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/odonnell-questions-church-state-separation/?partner=rss&emc=rss
does include the accurate Coons 1A.
this link has the short 30 second audio of the relevant part.
Coons clearly says “Government” and not “Congress”
Beow is comment 190 in the NYTimes article to which you linked. It took 190 comments for someone finally to state clearly the point she had in mind but failed to make. There were a handful of people defending her up to this point, but 95 % of the comments ridicule her.
This is what we are up against. Most people do not understand the distinction between separation and non-establishment or that federal non-establishment did not affect state establishments.
Comment 190 makes these points well. What O’Donnell needed to do was to make these points concisely and clearly instead of asking rhetorically, “Are you saying that’s in the Constitution?”
If she had actually positively stated her underlying, real point, she would have come away as having taken him to the woodshed constitutionally. Instead, she opened the way to being portrayed in these and other comboxes as ignorant of the Constitution. She actually knows the Constitution better than Coons and better than the law students in the audience. But she missed her chance to demonstrate that.
It’s sad. I know it’s hard to think tactically on your feet but she had three chances to “teach” him and three times she resorted to rhetorical questions to which she knew the obvious rhetorical answer but to which neither Coons nor her audience nor 95% of Americans know the answer.
RHETORICAL QUESTIONS DON’T WORK IF THE TO-THE-QUESTIONER OBVIOUS ANSWER IS NOT OBVIOUS TO THE LISTENERS.
Here’s comment 190. Comments are now close. Read the other comments and weep for our Republic. And for Christine O’Donnell. I hope she wins despite this. But it was a huge lost opportunity.
xton1
San Francisco
October 19th, 2010
3:14 pm
I cannot believe the historical illiterates and Christian bashers on this site. Most states in early America had established churches in their constitutions, many survived till the end of the 20th Century. The First Amendment originally limited only federal government, not state governments, and contains two clauses on religion: Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause. For over 200 years the New England Primer was used in schools through out America to teach them to read, be good American citizens, and taught Catholicism. This was, and I believe still is, Constitutional.
It is a bad analogy to use the term “a wall of separation” in discussing the First Amendment, for it is used like a sledge hammer to attack religious freedoms and Christianity. When Jefferson used it in his letter to a Baptist minister, he meant it as a one way obstacle, meaning that Government should never influence religion, but religion should be allowed to influence government.
It is un-Constitutional and against the Free Exercise Clause to stop prayer in schools, preventing Nativity scenes on public property, or stopping Christians from using rooms in schools after hours for religious practices.
The whole attack on Christianity is Socialist, because Christians put God above all and believe in the sovereignty of the individual; whereas, socialist believe is that the State is all powerful and that people are mere cattle that need to be controlled.
she can take the video of Coons missing the point, saying the constitution wrong in 2 respects.
1) It should be Congress, not Government
2) “establishment of religion” is not the same at all as “law respecting an establishment of religion”
in the latter (the Constitution), “an establishment of religion” is presumed to be lawful. Why else prohibit Federal laws “respecting” it.
Hopefully Fox will teach people these finer details of Constitutional Law.
If that’s the quote she’s correct and not just technically. The term separation of church and state isn’t in the constitution it’s in a SCOTUS decision.
Congress and the Government can be as Christian as it wants, and we’d all be better off for it since that’s the way it started out, but:
Congress can’t create a “Church of the United States”
Right. We’re talking about things like school prayer, the teaching of creationism by local school districts.
I’m curious to know which version of Genesis you read that made you believe Cain’s murder was anywhere close to being ‘right’.
God makes it extremely clear that Cain must master his anger, and rule over the desire that sin will tempt him with. (Gen 4:5-7)
I've had several replies to my original comment, & they all leap to defend O'D as being correct on the 1st A. No thought to the possible consequences of teaching creationism in public schools. The one reply I did have wrote it off as not likely to be a problem. Duh!
Right now, there are numerous school districts in the USA that are not predominately Christian children. Those schools will not be teaching Genesis during creation studies. The minority students are screwed.
Most other schools have a student body that is very diverse. Jews, muslims, Hindus, Atheists, & Christians in the same classroom. How the Christine O’Donnells are gonna manage creation studies in this environment, I want to know?
I also want to know how the very PC education system is gonna handle a minority group of muslim students who refuse to hear any scripture but that of the koran.
I don't know about you, but “Jesus loves me” was probably the first song I learned. I imagine I knew about creation long before I attended public school. Wouldn't I & my parents have been surprised & horrified to find that my school was full of “Aztecs” & the creationism story starts with a human sacrifice? (I'm being facetious here about the Aztecs, but anybody that doesn't get my point need not reply).
As for the election, I have no use for the Marxist Spendocrat Coons. I wouldn't vote for him over Godzilla.
But I am just not impressed with O'D. She seems naive & inexperienced. She has had little success in life. Not married. No Children. That seems odd for such an attractive woman. Not the strongest person to send to the shark pool that is WDC, though I will reluctantly support her over Coons.
I asked “Will the story of Cain & Able DEGENERATE into victim-hood for Cain, who was abused, neglected, & disrespected to the point of being right to kill Abel?”
I certainly do NOT agree with this statement. I was making an example of how the Scriptures can be twisted by wrongheaded teachers, school boards, & textbook publishers.
Anyone that believes that our gov’t & union controlled, PC education system is gonna properly teach the Scriptures must also believe that OJ was innocent.
I know what you're talking about, and I know Coons doesn't know what he's talking about.
The schools should be totally controlled locally, and none of the fed-gov's damn business. The "Intelligent design theory" is no more far fetched nor less provable than evolution.
Creationism and whatnot should be a local decision. Most places won’t teach creationism or intelligent design.
You’re right, I missed that. I think such episodes would be extremely unlikely, but still I agree that religious teaching should be left to parents and the religious organizations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.