The proper answer on the "Seperation of Church and State"....

[louis c]

Christene O'Donnell's repsonse about "Seperation of Charch and State", which she contends does not appear anywhere in the Constitiution, should have the proper response. The First Amendment wording is subject to interpertation. However, that interpertation should be by those who actually have the expertise on the subject. "I contemplate, with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American People which declared that their ligislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of releigon, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'. Thus building a wall of seperation between Church and State". Thomas Jefferson, Jan. 1 1802.

Now, let me see if I understand this. The guy who actually wrote the Bill of Rights (with Madison), who actually wrote the First Amenedment to the Constitution, that's the guy whose interpretation should matter the most. Seperation of Charch and State. The man who said it is the man who wrote it.

Link to Jefferson Letter, 1802
http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

[fascisthunter]

1. thank you

I think these quotes need to be repeated often here and in the media.

[wryter2000]

2. The morons think Jefferson never said that

Seriously. That's what they've been told, and they believe it. We're arguing with a bunch of people who have a different set of facts.

[elleng]

3. Excellent!

However, it is often stated, in case law, that 'legislative history' is a relatively minor aspect of interpreting law. And we know she's not particularly concerned with 'csse law!'

[woodsprite]

7. What? You mean she didn't take a 2 wk seminar is Case Law?

But I'm sure she's seen some old Perry Mason episodes. That should qualify her, right?

[elleng]

11. Not 'xacly! Perry's a TRIAL LAWYER, ya know!

:rofl:

[GodlessBiker]

4. I agree. Jefferson's quote is very important. But I don't believe that we should be a ...

technocracy, where only those elite few who have some technical knowledge or specific education are permitted to justifiably interpret the meaning of the words in the Constitution.

And, no, while Jefferson's quote is important, his interpretation is no more or no less valid than mine of yours. We might disagree with anyone's interpretation, but they should have the right to interpret it just like Jefferson did. In essence, once he wrote the words, they no longer belonged to him but to everyone.

[alcibiades_mystery]

10. I agree with you

This notion that the only worthy interpretation is that of the author is fetishism of the highest sort, and it is, indeed, the foundation of the utterly anti-democratic "strict constructionist" discourse. The Constitution is a living document.

Full stop.

[H2O Man]

5. Recommended.

Well said.

The thing that I believe we should focus on is exactly what Amendment 1 clearly does say. It clearly defines the restrictions that have followed through a series of USSC decisions.

It's interesting to note that Amendment 1 was revolutionary at the time. Parts of it were things that were practiced by other nations -- "free speech" by the Haudenosaunee, for example. But, even some of Chief Paul Waterman's grandfathers' grandfathers had told Franklin, Jefferson, and others that there were risks in not having a "state" religion. Because of the Church of England, the Founding Fathers disagreed.

Thank you for this important OP.

[flor-de-jasmim]

6. Jefferson probably wrote "separation" - An English teacher used to say that...

there is "a rat" in sepARATion...
works for me!

[H2O Man]

9. huge

[unorthodox]

8. Great quote.

Thank you.

[opihimoimoi]

12. Me thinks she is so naive...thinks Consitution in the original sense

noit realizing the Amendments are de facto part of the Constitution...

Its a flexible System in play...via Ammendments...

She is using the "Const" as a means of gaining credibility....as a tool....w/o fully understanding of the work...

She is a disgrace to the Baggers....makes them look foolish

[nykym]

13. ANd what will become

of all the schoolchildren in Texas not that Jefferson has been banned from the history books?

[DonCoquixote]

14. "Render onto Caesar

That which is Caesar's." The phrase itself implies that the speaker has set aside things that are Caesar's, as opposed to "that which is God's."

Then again most GOP types will ignore this guy; he also said crap like "it is easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into the kingdom of Heaven" and "blessed are the poor" and even said that those who do not feed, clothes and help the "least of these" might go to Hell, didn't this little creep read Jean Calvin and other Theology?

SARCASM of course

[county worker]

15. The question that should be asked is why the right persists in their meme.

They want a theocracy which should scare the hell out of us. They are Christofacists.