Originally Posted By mele I haven't heard if voting was up or down throughout the country but voting was up in my area. It's not like Dem/GOP votes are equally split down the middle so I'm not quite sure the "who is stupider" argument quite works. More people believe now that Obama is Muslim than believed it 2 years ago. That's terrifying and shows that more and more people are going for truthiness over facts. No amount of facts are going to change that. One thing that keeps people away is the ugliness of politics. Sadly, the people who engage in the ugliness tend to win. It's hard to fight against that when you've got a million things in your own world to fight. I'm not saying it's right but even the most motivated voter can only vote once. It's so hard to see insanity ruling when you've done your part. Life is so hard...it can be daunting to participate in a losing battle. Again, not saying it's right, just that there are many adjectives you can use to describe political apathy. Stupidity isn't even in the top 5. (Believing outright lies when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary is STUPID.)
Originally Posted By Labuda "My family and I knelled in the middle of our family room before we went to bed and asked God to guide all the government officials democrat and Republican to whats right and build back up this great country." Well, I don't think it'll happen, but thank you nonetheless for doing that, Donny. Especially for including Democrats since you're not one of us.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < I don't believe that much of the country is stupid. I believe the country is desparate for leadership and in the absence of leadership they will choose whatever "looks" like it. We are naive...us Americans. We aren't going to be satisfied in two years and we will tilt the other way again...which will be good for the Democrats and Obama.> There may be something to that. Look the economy was terrible in 2008. It's slightly better now, but still very bad. Incumbents and the "in" party always suffers in bad economic times. Even in a case like this where it ought to be very clear the Democrats didn't cause the mess. The great American middle isn't particularly ideological. But there was definitely an anti-establishment mood in both 2008 and 2010, and so the "in" party gets punished. Viewed this way, even though the results were seemingly polar opposites, 2008 and 2010 can be seen to be of a piece. People know the economy is bad, and they're looking for outsiders promising change. Two years ago that was Obama, this year it's the tea partiers. Now, that's not very coherent, but I think there's something to it. People want to "shake things up," and when problems don't get fixed they get impatient. Many people just don't think these things through - not unlike the tea partiers who insist we need to "cut spending!!" but can't tell you what they'd cut on the rare occasions they're even asked about it. Two years from now, if the Republicans lurch too far right and overreach (as Gingrich did), it could all shift back.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Maybe now that she has some free time, Christine could brush up on the Constitution a little more. She seemed surprised that the first amendment provides for a separation of church and state. There's a lot more stuff like that in there sure to make for surprising and entertaining reading to her.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <She seemed surprised that the first amendment provides for a separation of church and state. > Actually...the first amendment doesn't quite put it that way. I don't know why this was such a huge deal. Allowing free practice of religion and deeming the govt not to establish a state religion is not exactly the same as "separation of church and state." Whether she was thinking that at the moment or not, I dont' know.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "We are naive...us Americans. We aren't going to be satisfied in two years and we will tilt the other way again...which will be good for the Democrats and Obama." Exactly. The GOP, namely the tea partiers, will shoot themselves in the foot in the next two years. They can't help it.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Allowing free practice of religion and deeming the govt not to establish a state religion is not exactly the same as "separation of church and state."<< It pretty much is. And anyone familiar with what the Founders - Adams, Jefferson, Madison, etc. - said on this understands that. There is a difference between state religion and public religion. They were fine with the latter and prohibited the former. Not much other way to interpret "separation of church and state."
Originally Posted By utahjosh <Not much other way to interpret "separation of church and state.> Sure there is. Some would say allowing prayers in congress would be violating the 1st amendment, or what some people call the separation of church and state. Same with "Under God" in the pledge. Certainly isn't a cut and dry issue.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<Some would say allowing prayers in congress would be violating the 1st amendment, or what some people call the separation of church and state. Same with "Under God" in the pledge.>> I would say both of those things violate the separation of church and state, and should both go. If congress members want to say private prayers before a meeting - fine, but it should not be a formal thing done by the whole Senate or House. And the "Under God" in the pledge and on our money should NEVER have been added. There's no doubt that the people who pushed to have that added during the 40s clearly were only thinking about ONE particular God - and that, to me, violates the idea of the separation of church and state.
Originally Posted By utahjosh The phrase "separation of church and state" is understood differently by different people. The phrase does not appear in the 1st amendment. I'm not a fan of O'Donnel, but she wasn't really wrong in this case.
Originally Posted By mele <<"The government shall make no establishment of religion," Coons said, summarizing the gist of the specific words in the First Amendment's establishment clause. "That's in the First Amendment?" O'Donnell asked again, eliciting further laughter from the room. >>
Originally Posted By fkurucz "The phrase "separation of church and state" is understood differently by different people." FWIW, this term originated from the fact that in the past most European nations had (and many still do) an official "state church". Back in the good old days the state church was the the only church (try being protestant in in 16th century Spain or Catholic in 16th century England.) It is true that that 1st admendment does not have the words "separation of church and state" in it, but in guaranteeing the free exercise of religious beliefs and forbidding the establishment of an official state church (which many of the 13 colonies had) they clearly defined that church and government are two separate entities. One can split hairs over congressional chaplains but I have noticed that when muslims or pagans lead the congress in prayer that some folks get bent out of shape. Of course they cannot stipulate that only Christian ministers or Jewish Rabbis be allowed to give their benediction to congress, as that would establish Christianity and Judaism as our state religions, which they are not. Now perhaps the founding fathers simply meant to say that no Christian denomination would have official state primacy over the others, but they didn't write it down that way.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Jefferson gave us the phrase "separation of church and state" in a famous letter in which he was...describing the founders' intent of the first amendment. So those who say there is no separation simply because the phrase isn't there are doing what they so often accuse others of doing--ignoring the founders' intent (which in this case we know, due to that letter).
Originally Posted By mawnck Witch vs. cannibals: "It's all the GOP's fault!" <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/04/christine-odonnell-election-results_n_778699.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...699.html</a> (OK, show of hands ... who seriously thought she would go away now? Tsk tsk.)
Originally Posted By Mr X ****The phrase "separation of church and state" is understood differently by different people**** Only people who are un-American. ***The phrase does not appear in the 1st amendment*** Fortunately, the intent appears quite clearly. Congress shall MAKE NO LAW. Separates things quite clearly as far as I'm concerned. And as for prayers in Congress and "Under God"...yes those are CLEARLY unconstitutional but don't run that by our largely CATHOLIC Supreme Court, you might not like what they have to say on the matter. Nor would you like it if they insist that CATHOLICISM should be the national religion. Thankfully, they have no power over the separation of church and state (assuming they don't over-ride the 1st amendment from the bench). You should be so lucky as to have a constitution that prevents the Vatican from taking control of America (because if you really look at it, THAT'S the way it would go according to the Judiciary if they had their personal religious druthers).
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 I think this will be interesting to watch, now that some tea party candidates won seats. The in-fighting has already begun between the Republican establishment, and these "outsiders". Look at what was recently said about defeating Sarah Palin, and her reaction to it. Now, Christine O'Donnell is saying similar things. I think this will start to fracture the GOP and things could get really nasty running up to the 2012 elections.
Originally Posted By fkurucz "You should be so lucky as to have a constitution that prevents the Vatican from taking control of America" Now that would give the Protestant Fundies the heebie jeebies, the RCC becoming the official state church of the predominantly Protestant USA. I guess stranger things have happened (not that I think it will).
Originally Posted By Mr X Stranger things HAVE happened...and at the moment the Supreme Court stands at 7 Catholic, 2 Jews (no Protestants). Likely one of the Jewish members will retire sooner than later (given the latest result in Congress, I'd suggest she retire sooner if she wants a liberal replacement, but she's a stubborn old gal!)... Possibility of 8 Catholics is a decent one. I'm very glad the Separation of Church and State exists in America, I'd hate to see the Vatican and Pope Ratz take control of our Religious operations here (you know they'd dearly LOVE to...don't kid yourselves!).
Originally Posted By Mr X On second thought, I freaking HOPE it happens. It would be the ultimate kick in the ass for the idiot fundies who think separating church and state is kind of a bad idea. That'd be so funny to see. It really would!
