So about Christine O'Donnell saying the Constitution does not say there is separation

[gateley]

between Church and State.

Apparently Rush Limbaugh said "she's absolutely right!".

Now this will become a RW talking point and the woman filling in for Randi said "Do you see what they're doing? They're trying to nationalize Religion - to make Christianity the national religion."

So although the First Amendment doesn't say those words ver batim, it is what it means as we all know.

Then she had on a guest that referenced the Treaty of Tripoli written by John Adams and which DOES say:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

I'd heard about that before but wanted to look it up so am posting it for others who may have been interested, too.

And, like her guest said, you want a country with a national religion? Go to Iran, see how it is.

[Barack_America]

1. Meh. What does John Adams know about the Constitution anyway?

Just predicting the next talking point.

[pacalo]

2. Gateley, this is an awesome post!

[jesus_of_suburbia]

3. Thank you for posting this. It is educational for those of us who have to talk to fundies.

K&R!


Everyone should know this. It can never be posted too many times.

[NYC_SKP]

4. Recommend.

"Go to Iran, see how it is."

Spot on!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

5. All the sheeple were calling into liberal talk shows today regurgitating

these talking points. Even when they conceded that that the Constitution prohibited Congress from establishing a religion or "free exercise" of a religion, the wingnuts are saying that the states are allowed to pursue overtly religious practices.

In other words, it's a "states rights" issue. Fuck the Constitution!!!

[Hosnon]

8. "Incorporation" handily destroys the states' rights argument. nt.

[pokerfan]

11. Long list of incorporation decisions

Including the second amendment if the right-wingers wish to pursue that line of argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

[Hosnon]

14. The incorporation of the Second is the best ammo against this crap.

"Okay, fine, then the states are free to take your guns."

[Zebedeo]

12. OMG!!

You said "the Constitution prohibited Congress from establishing a religion or "free exercise" of a religion."

NO!!

The First Amendment to the Constitution states, in pertinent part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The Constitution does not prohibit the free exercise of religion. It prevents Congress from prohibiting it.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

13. It was a typo. Sue me!! n/t

[spanone]

6. they revel in their stupidity

[patrice]

7. This is what they are working on:

The Constitution Restoration Act

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109%3AS.520%3A

I know it appears absurd, but I thought that about the idea of the War on Iraq when I first heard of it.

The repetition of the "States Rights" meme that we are hearing in the media and locally here in Cupcake Land is pretty troubling too, not to mention the fact that one of the co-sponsors of the bill linked above, Subsidy-Sam Brownback, is running for governor here, on Koch money.

The Constitution Restoration Act could be the perfect protection for top-heavy faith-based initiatives privatizing government services on less and less tax resources, resulting legally in less and less services for which the CRA will provide protection from legal liability.

[TwilightGardener]

9. Concerted media effort: yesterday ABC News on the radio station

I listen to had the story, played the clip of her questioning the 1st amendment and the audience laughing. BUT after the clip, the ABC News reporter said something along the lines of "however, even constitutional experts cannot agree that the first amendment mandates separation of church and state"--essentially they aired the story solely for the purpose of defending her, the Teabag party, etc. Edit to add--it's sickening, the lengths they'll go to to prop the whole Teabag numbnuttery up.

[K8-EEE]

10. Then they shriek about "Sharia law" HELLO we are protected from it

already by the first amendment!

If Christine O'Donnell had her way the local authorities would be able to decide about Sharia law!