O'Donnell Intends to Make You All Convert to her Religion

page: 5
28
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   
there is no " separation of church in state" It only means that the Government can not have a Church of America
Nationalized Religion, She only asked a question... Why can't they teach both Evolution and Creationism?
Thats all she means. and of course they never play the whole interview...The MSM has done nothing but try to destroy this woman, and of course everybody buys into it...




posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by pirhanna
 


I'd like to see her question the separation of my church and her state.



I think she just needs to get laid.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Target Earth
 




The MSM has done nothing but try to destroy this woman, and of course everybody buys into it...


Not sure about the MSM but every clip I've seen of her it is her own words that are coming out of her mouth. If anything she is self-destructing.

Anybody who thinks that Creationism deserves to be in science classrooms, or even be CONSIDERED for possibly being put in science classrooms, has no place in a position of authority of any kind - end of story. And questioning the separation of church and state, whether its directly implied in the Constitution or not, is just as bad an idea. Freedom of Religion is a big part of what makes America great, we can't have the government coming out in favor or one religion over another.

As for the stupid statements about masturbation, birth control and dabbling in a satanic branch of witchcraft, those are just hilarious tidbits, like icing on the cake.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 

look I get the fact she says stupid stuff... but she was dead on, about the church and state question?
there are many different aspect to creationism, it's not just the book of Genesis. Intelligent design can mean so many things, and for somebody to say it is just Evolution, that is just silly. The last thing we can trust is science, and scientist. "they say they are working for us, but what they really want is to take over the world".



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Target Earth
 



and for somebody to say it is just Evolution, that is just silly.


What part of teaching the scientifically accepted theory of Evolution in science class and NOT teaching the religiously biased myths of intelligent design sounds silly?

Evolution is science.

Intelligent Design is myth and religion.

Only one belongs in science classes. Now I have no issue with Creationism being taught in a World Religions course or heck even offer an elective called "Creation Beliefs" and teach all the different religious myths. The point is to keep science in science classes and non-science out.


The last thing we can trust is science, and scientist. "they say they are working for us, but what they really want is to take over the world".


What a load of paranoid nonsense. Yes, those sinister mad scientists and their evil peer reviewed papers and conclusions backed by solid evidence, obviously so evil


When was the last time you heard about a scandal where a group of scientists molested little kids? Now compare that to religion. When was the last time science got together and murdered someone for being a witch or a homosexual? Compare that to religion. When was the last time you saw a scientist gain any semblance of power or sway over anyone. Compare that to the Pope. I could go on and on, the point is that religion is far more interested in control and power while science is interested in facts and evidence.



edit on 19-10-2010 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   


It clearly means that Congress cannot establish or promote a specific religion which is a far cry from the total separation of church and state. It should be pretty clear.




“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”


Over the years it was the Supreme Court who eventually interpreted this clause in the first amendment: [Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion] to not only refer to the federal but also the state governments.


The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion. Originally, the First Amendment only applied to the federal government. Subsequently, McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948) incorporated certain select provisions. However, it was not until the middle to late twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by state governments. In the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."[1]



To me the clause logically, explicitly and implicitly separates established religion of any kind with any association with the governmental institutions of the land. That is the way the Supreme Court over the years has interpreted its meaning. This is not any thing instituted by the federal or state governments . . . they are following the lead of the Supreme Court decisions.

For any governmental institution to align itself directly or indirectly with any religious institution or philosophy obviously would constitute that said governmental institution basically establishing a religion or supporting its establishment.
edit on 19-10-2010 by inforeal because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-10-2010 by inforeal because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 08:58 PM
link   
This O'Donnel character is my new favorite politician. Not because I think she's smart or qualified, but because she's just so unintentionally hilarious. And if there one thing I love above all else, it's unintentional hilarity. She's Sarah Palin 2.0 - Younger, dumber. A real up n' commer.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   
The phrase “separation of church and state,” which has no legal meaning, and does not exist in the constitution, is a concept that refers to the way the first amendment establishment clause actually operates ... that is to essentially create a separation of governmental power from any religious philosophy or institution, which the Supreme Court over the years has concluded is the correct real world meaning of the clause: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,”


The term is an offshoot of the original phrase, "wall of separation between church and state," as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists Association in 1802


So there we have it . . . our modern day constitutional Nit-Wit Sarah [sic] O’ Donnell who wont even take the time of a few minutes to research such an important topic versus Thomas Jefferson!



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Target Earth
there is no " separation of church in state" It only means that the Government can not have a Church of America
Nationalized Religion, She only asked a question... Why can't they teach both Evolution and Creationism?
Thats all she means. and of course they never play the whole interview...The MSM has done nothing but try to destroy this woman, and of course everybody buys into it...


I agree with your assessment that the idea of separation of church and state has been taken far beyond what the Framers of the Constitution intended, but perverting the Constitution is not a new game, nor is it limited to the First Amendment.

Anyone with an eighth grade education could probably understand the question O'Donnell was raising, therefore in most cases most who are shouting the loudest are not concerned with honesty, but in advancing their agenda at the cost of Ms. O'Donnell and anyone else who gets in the way.

Look how many people voted for Obama based on the flimsiest platform in history and who are now kicking themselves in the butt. Most of those folks voted for Obama not because he was qualified or that he ever made any sense whatsoever.

They voted for Obama because the eight year smear campaign against Bush worked so well. The same tactics are at work here and people really need to pay attention to the issues and not the politics of personality.

As for teaching both Creationism and Evolution, the problem is not that one is based on religion and the other is not, but that one is based on science and the other is not.

I'll leave it to the membership to figure out which is which.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 



They voted for Obama because the eight year smear campaign against Bush worked so well.


I disagree with this part. People voted for Obama, because he was young, aggressive, charismatic, and the Republicans passed up two or three excellent candidates and chose to go with McCain and Palin as their show ponies? It was almost a concession on the Republicans part. The Republicans believed all the anti-Bush hype, and they decided to save their better candidates for 2012.

Obama won because he was smart enough to not self-destruct and savvy enough to play on his strengths and stay out of the weeds.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 



There may be some validity to your analysis, but the vote in my opinion was more reflexive than cerebral.

I've discussed this with Obama voters and while my sample is not scientific, the similarity in motivations leads me to my conclusions.

The dissatisfaction among Obama voters exhibited in so short a time also reinforces my opinion.

As I said, this is an opinion based on my personal observations of those whom I know and with whom I have personal contact and may in fact not reflect the actual situation.
edit on 2010/10/19 by GradyPhilpott because: (no reason given)
edit on 2010/10/20 by GradyPhilpott because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 


listen to the whole thing unedited and youll see she is questioning the person who is implying there is seperation of church and state in the 2nd amendment. she actually has to ask him twice before he admits the true answer. srsly reesearch any qoute u hear on the news and youll find its been completely taken out of context. btw i do not like o'donnell. she scares the crap outta me but in this case the media is really spinning the hell out of that qoute



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 11:33 PM
link   
If Christine wins the election after this, and the Tea Party gains more and more support, it's time to leave America. You don't want to be there when they eventually provoke the Chinese into a nuclear war.

She seriously believes that liberals made up the concept of Separation of Church and State, the idea that the founding fathers were actually going for such a thing is utterly mind boggling to her.

While technically accurate that the phrase "Separation of Church and State" never shows up in the constitution it is sure as hell implied. If I go to Taco Bell and say "I want a U-shaped tortilla with meat, cheese, and vegetables put in it", they give me a Taco.

PS: The irony of the whole thing is that she is a witch.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Fascism will return to America wrapped in an American flag and carrying a cross.

Upton Sinclair once said that.

The Christian Right are the Fascists of America. We must NOT let these people get into the White House.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 11:49 PM
link   
First off I did not read the thread, the title was enough for me, had to get the duct tape cause my head exploded.
The words 'separation of church and state' so NOT appear anywhere in the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, or the Bill of Rights!
Those words are a modern interpretation tacked on, often in a way that makes no sense. Go Ahead, find em - prove me wrong, prove O'Donnell wrong. And by the way read what Supreme Court Justice Scalia has to say on the subject.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Chett
 


You should actually read the thread then. No one is trying to say that those words actually appear. I am sure you would be just as reasonable to my pointing out that the right to own guns is NOWHERE in the constitution either, right? PROVE ME WRONG. She is saying that CONCEPT is not even in there and unfortunately, it is.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by eNumbra

Originally posted by inforeal
USE YOUR HEAD PEOPLE and take at least the worst of two evils or really get ready to suffer!


And this would be why we are where we are.

Vote for the lesser of two evils and you're stilled *snip*; so try voting for someone who isn't evil for once.



Evil is purely a subjective term.
No doubt whomever you vote for, many whom do not want the policys the person you voted for will label that person as evil

Evil, because if how its been cheapened into meaning not doing your agenda, has become yet another word destroyed into meaninglessness.

lets see..what is no longer a word with meaning:
Nazi
Socialist
Evil
Antichrist
"The People"

and a ton more...because extreme retoric is the name of the game all year long every year, attention is no longer being paid to any of it, because the politicians, and the tools they use (aka, the people calling politicians nazi's, evil, socialists, etc...yep, your the tool) have successfully destroyed rational discussion.

So...you know what...lets bring on a truely evil politician...then America can stop being a bunch of collective idiots and have something to compare to.

pathetic.



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Target Earth
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 

look I get the fact she says stupid stuff... but she was dead on, about the church and state question?
there are many different aspect to creationism, it's not just the book of Genesis. Intelligent design can mean so many things, and for somebody to say it is just Evolution, that is just silly.

Erm...no, there is only 2 options.
We are here either by a natural selection played out over a very very long time, which all...let me restate that important word there... -ALL- evidence suggests.

or

magic happened and tada, we are here.

Thats it..intelligent design can be summed up in 2 words. "magic happened". so yes, I think the subject actually should be taught in school. it should go something like this:
"Some people in society do not accept this heavy research done in this field, they do not accept evidence, they believe that magic happened and we appear. For some reason the school district made me say that...now, moving on..."


The last thing we can trust is science, and scientist. "they say they are working for us, but what they really want is to take over the world".


Says the man behind the computer science built, using the internet that science built, using language learned from a book mass produced by science, etc etc etc...how completely ironic. Glad all this science helped you get your message across that we should not use science.



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by pirhanna
 


Strange....how a different Thread Headline makes such a difference in attention/responses???

Guess mine was too subtle?

U.S. Senate Candidate Christine O'Donnel: 'Evolution is a myth'

Oh....I see....I spelled her last name wrong. That explains it. Has two "Ls"....


Well....hmmm. Explanation, satisfactory.





new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join