When people get mad at the term Tea Bagger, isn’t this video a good example of why Tea Bagger remains the perfect way to describe folks who are either stupid and/or think the U.S. Constitution is a pick-and-choose menu and not an entire meal?
This article appears in Oct 14-20, 2010.
Mari,
I think you over reached a bit with your post. There is no separation of church and state mentioned in the constitution. It simply bars the federal government from establishing a state religion. The concept of separation of church and state actually came in a Supreme Court decision (Everson v. Board of Education 1947) that was based on a letter written by Thomas Jefferson.
In 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, heard a rumor that the Congregationalist denomination was about to be made the national denomination. That rumor distressed the Danbury Baptists, as it should have. Consequently, they fired off a letter to then President Thomas Jefferson voicing their concern. On January 1, 1802, Jefferson wrote the Danbury Baptists, assuring them that “the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state.”
The First Amendment never intended to separate religious principles from government. The First Amendment simply states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
Obviously, the words “separation,” “church,” or “state” are not found in the First Amendment; furthermore, that phrase appears in no founding document.
The Courts began regularly to speak of a “separation of church and state,” broadly explaining that, “This is what the Founders wanted—separation of church and state. This is their great intent.” The Court failed to quote the Founders; it just generically asserted that this is what the Founders wanted.
The courts continued on this track so steadily that, in 1958, in a case called Baer v. Kolmorgen, one of the judges was tired of hearing the phrase and wrote a dissent warning that if the court did not stop talking about the “separation of church and state,” people were going to start thinking it was part of the Constitution. That warning was in 1958!
I guess he was right, because now you and you allies at the Daily Kos actually believe it.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” is what the Tea Bagger didn’t understand and, despite being corrected, continued to interrogate her opponent over whether he’s standing by the use of that statement in the first amendment. Pure folly.
By the way, Mari didn’t mention “separation of church and state”. Just politely offered the public a choice between calling by association all Tea Baggers as stupid or stating that all Tea Baggers pick and choose what’s in the constitution. I can’t speak for all of them, but I think some of them are confused children suddenly realizing they’re not getting a seat underground when everything turns to shit!
Ummm, Ms O’Donnell was referring to her opponents use of the term of Separation of Chruch and State not the establishment clause WHICH ARE NOT RELATED.
Separation of Church and State DOES NOT MEAN the prohibiting the establishment of a state religion. An established religion means the it is funded by the state and the people pay taxes. The 1st amendment prohibits the FEDERAL government from establishing a state religion. At the time of its writing several of the states had established religions which is perfectly valid since the constitution was a limit on FEDERAL power.
The separation of church and state is a fantasy dreamed up by progressive judges based on a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. BTW Jefferson was referring to keeping government out of religion not the other way around. There were church services routinely held in the first capital building in the early years of our country.
I do not know how much clearer of an explanation you can get than the first post. You, the daily kos and the fools on MSNBC are useful idiots of such caliber that would make V Lenin proud. Read the constitution and educate yourself.
Mari, you once again show why you should not be given internet access.