Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution
posted at 10/21/2010 1:37 PM EDT
In Response to Re: Constitution-loving TP candidate typically clueless about Constitution
[QUOTE]Yes, they have. I'll quote it once more, since you apparently missed it the first time: Abington Township School District v. Schempp (1963): "Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment," I'm still waiting on your well-reasoned argument based on primary source documents.
Posted by johnny02110[/QUOTE
The Religion Clauses of the First Amendment provide: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The first of the two Clauses, commonly called the Establishment Clause, commands a separation of church and state.
Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 719 (2005)
1. You haven't directly replied to anything I said to you; you're just responding to something I said to Skeeter.
2. I didn't respond to the quote you pasted but don't understand because you said it to 12-angry-men, in the first page of the thread. Think I pointed that out already and you missed it.
3. The separation of church and state IS the government neutrality toward religion (hence teaching things objectively and secularly) that the Supreme Court SAID is enshrined in the First Amd.
So no, you cannot teach the bible in school as if it is religious truth.
If the first explicit quote above didn't do it for ya, check out: Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 839-840 (1995)
(discussing religious neutrality of government university program, which is what is required via "separation of church and state", which is enshrined in the First Amendment - regardlless of what O'Donnell thinks).
4. Again, this was the thread: Christine O'Donnell is a goddamned moron for thinking she made a point by saying the exact words "separation of church and state" is not in the First Amd. The Supreme Court's decisions make that clear. It IS in the First Amd. That's what the Establishment Clause means. Hence; religion-neutral secular instruction is not a problem.
It seems the real problem here is that the people who support O'Donnell don't understand what "separation of church and state" means as per the Supreme Court, and hence, do not understand why she made a complete jack-ass out of herself by trying to hang her hat on the fact that the First Amd. doesn't contain the exact phrase.
So to refresh your recollection:
The Religion Clauses of the First Amendment provide: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The first of the two Clauses, commonly called the Establishment Clause, commands a separation of church and state. Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 719 (2005)
And that means secular/neutral approach, and that means O'Donnell can't get her Christian Bible taught. Sorry for the anti-masturbation whackjob ex-witch.
I have a sneaking suspicion that if I go to O'Donnell's website, I'll find the case and quote you copied/pasted.