The Grassroots movement , and the Tea Party

[mheslep]

[...]a convoluted mix of hatred, delusion, ignorance, and fear.

I just read it as a big sham exploiting peoples anger and ignorance.

I am reminded of how Hitler rose to power. It was a case of a failing economy, conspiracy theories to point the blame at immigrants and jews, and a call for action.

Both Germany and Russia have neo-nazi political parties, with elected members in government right now.

I worry that when the economy crashes, Hitler esc manipulators will be empowered into government through exploitation of peoples fears, economic fustration, and ignorance etc.

Go read a news article about illegal immigration, and read the comments posted.

I know that the tea party isn't all about this, but one thing can lead to another, and it seams that the way tea party is lead, is similar in the aspect of ignorance, and manipulation, appeal to fear, and scapegoating.

Neo-nazis? Hitler? I don't know about some political group, but the above - appeal to fear, scapegoating - is a very apt description of what you are doing in your posts.

 

[mheslep]

Is that because racism is prevalent or because expressions of racism in the Tea Party are more newsworthy than their message?

Few signs at tea party rally expressed racially charged anti-Obama themes

Interesting study. Finally some data. Thanks BobG.

[...]Ekins's analysis showed that only about a quarter of all signs reflected direct anger with Obama. Only 5 percent of the total mentioned the president's race or religion, and slightly more than 1 percent questioned his American citizenship.

Ekins's conclusion is not that the racially charged messages are unimportant but that media coverage of tea party rallies over the past year have focused so heavily on the more controversial signs that it has contributed to the perception that such content dominates the tea party movement more than it actually does

The latter's no surprise.

 

[WhoWee]

I heard several ads today in Ohio calling Tea Party members "tea baggers" (a slang term seemingly popular in the gay male population). These ads were paid for by the American Federation of Government Employees.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Here is an example

You respond to criticism that you're using examples instead of statistics by giving an example?

When I type "racist", in google, and a list pops up under the search bar guessing what I am going to type, it reads:

racist jokes, racist black jokes, racist mexican jokes, racist asian jokes, racist world cup logos, racist white jokes, racist hallmark cards, racist names, racist indian jokes, and last, racist tea party signs.

Sure, and if I type "Obama is" I get "Obama is a joke" and "Obama is the antichrist", but that doesn't make them true.

 

[CAC1001]

The thing about the Tea Party is, that their leaders remind me of cult leaders. Glenn Beck is the phoniest tv personality I have ever seen.

I don't think there is anything phony about Glenn Beck, IMO that's the problem!

I just read it as a big sham exploiting peoples anger and ignorance.

I am reminded of how Hitler rose to power. It was a case of a failing economy, conspiracy theories to point the blame at immigrants and jews, and a call for action.

I worry that when the economy crashes, Hitler esc manipulators will be empowered into government through exploitation of peoples fears, economic fustration, and ignorance etc.

The Tea Parties are not angry gatherings of right-wing kooks. Many in the media wish they were, but they aren't.

BTW, so when the people voted in Barack Obama at the height of the financial crisis, that wasn't in part because of the failing economy? Were the people acting purely rationally then? But then when the people protest what they perceive as bad economic policies from Obama and the Democrats, they are immediately irrational, delusional, frustrated, etc...?

 

[CAC1001]

O'Donnell (GOP nominee and Tea Party darling) has demonstrated a profound ignorance of the Constitution and the principle of the separation of church and state.

Neither have Pelosi or Obama recently it seems.

 

[Jasongreat]

O'Donnell (GOP nominee and Tea Party darling) has demonstrated a profound ignorance of the Constitution and the principle of the separation of church and state.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101019/ap_on_el_se/us_delaware_senate;_ylt=Ah5RGSQCg4kDalCPXAJnZFas0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTFpZDViOXI5BHBvcwMzOQRzZWMDYWNjb3JkaW9uX21vc3RfcG9wdWxhcgRzbGsDb2Rvbm5lbGxxdWVz



What an intelligent and knowledgeable candidate! She must have missed Civics class that day.

Seperation of church and state, was in a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote, and was brought into the discussion by a supreme court justice, it is no where to be found in the constitution. Our founders even used the same buildings for church and government early on, alternating sundays for different denominations within the same community. The first ammendment say congress shall not establish religion, like england did with the church of england, which is the reason most early immigrants came here so they could worship freely. Teaching creationism in schools is not establishing a religion, and therefore not against the constitution. Maybe all those who laughed at o'donnell might read the constitution, or pay better attention in civics class, if they even teach civics anymore.

 

[jdnoslo]

First of all, they are lead by an ex drug addict, who converted to mormonism. They support radical religious extremists nutjobs like Sarah Palin, and Christine O'donnel. Christine O'donnel is so mentally ill it is scary. She has a long history of lying about being a college graduate. She converted from catholic, to satanist, to evangelic.

Why would any sane person support these people? I think it boils down to mostly religious extremism, and racism. The motives of their cult leaders are probably another story. The previous is a message in response to a comment I made comparing the tea part group to the founders of our great country. I would have posted it correctly but could not find the thread. Any who, I am not going to go any further into it but to say that I myself am neither a racist nor a religious nut job. I am in fact an atheist, I found this forum while searching for answers that religion has failed to answer in my experience. I just think we need to do something else. The tea party is an option, as is the green party, libertarian, and apparently the socialist democrats of america. What we have been doing is not working for the country as a whole. I found out today as a matter of fact that health insurance is now a requirement of enrollment at my school. It is getting bad, quick and if we don't do something soon it will be to late. It might be to late already!

 

[WhoWee]

First of all, they are lead by an ex drug addict, who converted to mormonism. They support radical religious extremists nutjobs like Sarah Palin, and Christine O'donnel. Christine O'donnel is so mentally ill it is scary. She has a long history of lying about being a college graduate. She converted from catholic, to satanist, to evangelic.

Why would any sane person support these people? I think it boils down to mostly religious extremism, and racism. The motives of their cult leaders are probably another story.


The previous is a message in response to a comment I made comparing the tea part group to the founders of our great country. I would have posted it correctly but could not find the thread. Any who, I am not going to go any further into it but to say that I myself am neither a racist nor a religious nut job. I am in fact an atheist, I found this forum while searching for answers that religion has failed to answer in my experience. I just think we need to do something else. The tea party is an option, as is the green party, libertarian, and apparently the socialist democrats of america. What we have been doing is not working for the country as a whole. I found out today as a matter of fact that health insurance is now a requirement of enrollment at my school. It is getting bad, quick and if we don't do something soon it will be to late. It might be to late already!

Welcome to PF. Please read the rules.

 

[CRGreathouse]

What an intelligent and knowledgeable candidate! She must have missed Civics class that day.

I truly do not understand the firestorm over this, considering that separation of church and state isn't in the constitution but in the letters of Jefferson.

 

[turbo]

I truly do not understand the firestorm over this, considering that separation of church and state isn't in the constitution but in the letters of Jefferson.

The first amendment forbids the passage of laws respecting the establishment of a religion. It's pretty clear, and most people know about it if they have paid any attention to US history. If you want to read the words "separation of church and state" before acknowledging the principle, you have moved the goal-post out of the park.

There is no "firestorm" that I know of - just disgust over the ignorance of a candidate for high office who doesn't know that the Bill of Rights prevents our government from endorsing, promoting, or forbidding the practice of religions. The establishment clause has more recently (20th century) been found applicable to states' practices as well as the federal government.

 

[BobG]

Seperation of church and state, was in a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote, and was brought into the discussion by a supreme court justice, it is no where to be found in the constitution. Our founders even used the same buildings for church and government early on, alternating sundays for different denominations within the same community. The first ammendment say congress shall not establish religion, like england did with the church of england, which is the reason most early immigrants came here so they could worship freely. Teaching creationism in schools is not establishing a religion, and therefore not against the constitution. Maybe all those who laughed at o'donnell might read the constitution, or pay better attention in civics class, if they even teach civics anymore.

It's hard to understand your point. Separation of church and state isn't in the Constitution. Instead the elements of separation of church and state are in the Constitution (i.e. - no state religion and people can follow any religion they desire). Or should I state the elements exactly the way they're stated in the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Or is your point that some people carry separation of church and state to an unacceptable level? The government still uses the same buildings for church and government. There's a chapel in the Pentagon. Even Muslims have services there - right at the site of the worst terrorist attack in US history! I'm shocked people aren't in arms about that, considering today's political environment.

If your point is that people pursue trivialities beyond all sense of reason, then I agree. The problem is that I see being overly picayune about using the phrase "separation of church and state" instead of quoting the First Amendment to be the same type of trivial pursuit. Especially by a candidate that constantly refers to "Obamacare" instead of calling it by its real name of "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act".

 

[turbo]

It's hard to understand your point. Separation of church and state isn't in the Constitution. Instead the elements of separation of church and state are in the Constitution (i.e. - no state religion and people can follow any religion they desire). Or should I state the elements exactly the way they're stated in the Constitution:

Many people are willfully ignorant on the separation of church and state. I live about a mile from a historical meeting house. In old New England, you didn't throw up buildings willy-nilly. The meeting house or common house might serve as a school during the week, a place to hold church services on the weekend, and a place to read public proclamations and vote as needed. During the Depression, my father's mother's family supplied wood to heat their "meeting house/school" and rebuilt roads in lieu of taxes.

In my old home town (actually, one town removed, since my town was too small) one "meetinghouse" served as a site for worship for more than one denomination until around the 40's or so, when the Congregationalists built a new church of their own, and the Nazarenes did the same. That left the dwindling Methodist congregation with a lovely (and large) building all their own, with all the attendant costs of maintenance, heating, etc.

 

[Al68]

Especially by a candidate that constantly refers to "Obamacare" instead of calling it by its real name of "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act".

Gee, what a nice sounding name for a law. It's pretty convenient that corrupt politicians who pass corrupt laws also get to name them. They can pick a name that doesn't describe the important parts of the law at all (the parts important to those who oppose the law, at least), and that makes supporters out to be just like the good witch from The Wizard of Oz, and opponents look like the wicked witch..

Then opponents of the law are expected to use such a fraudulently concocted name, too? Come on now, that's asking just a little too much, don't you think?

Especially since "Obamacare" isn't derogatory at all, even flattering considering what opponents think of the law.

 

[edward]

Those grassroots appear to go very very deep into existing conservative structure. Virgina Thomas is the Wife of Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas.

A longtime conservative activist in Washington, Virginia Thomas has recently raised her profile as a frequent speaker at "tea party" rallies and conservative conferences as she promotes her new online venture.

Her engagement in partisan politics through Liberty Central is unprecedented for a spouse of a Supreme Court justice, legal scholars say. Her group is funded by donors whose identities are not publicly disclosed, fueling concerns that corporate donors could secretly fund Liberty Central in order to gain favor with her husband.

Virginia Thomas did not respond to a request for comment Wednesday. In the past, she has described her work as separate from her husband's and passionately defended her right to express her opinions, a point legal ethics expert do not dispute.

"As a matter of formal legal ethics, a spouse's opinion on a constitutional issue, even if widely disseminated, does not require a judge's disqualification," said Northwestern University law professor Steven Lubet. "Her wisdom or judgment is not something I can comment on."

However, Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics professor at New York University, said Virginia Thomas' advocacy did threaten to tarnish the court's appearance of nonpartisanship.

"I would have hoped for greater self-restraint out of respect for the court. She is hurting the institution," he said. "But that's just my concern. The rules don't stop her. Mrs. Thomas has a 1st Amendment right to take a prominent public position on any legal or political issue she chooses. The conflict and recusal rules govern Justice Thomas, not his wife."

Gillers said he was also concerned by a report that Justices Thomas and Antonin Scalia were featured speakers at private meetings held by billionaires Charles and David Koch, wealthy tea party supporters. An invitation to a recent private meeting noted that Scalia and Thomas had appeared before the group in the past.

Emphasis mine.

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-virginia-thomas-20101021,0,2002825.story

 

[Al68]

Gillers said he was also concerned by a report that Justices Thomas and Antonin Scalia were featured speakers at private meetings held by billionaires Charles and David Koch, wealthy tea party supporters.

If that is true, and undue influence is suspected, one would hardly expect that Scalia and Thomas would be the one influenced. They would be doing all the influencing, as is obvious to anyone who has ever heard them speak.

I would think that even most Democrats would have to agree with that.

 

[Jasongreat]

It's hard to understand your point. Separation of church and state isn't in the Constitution. Instead the elements of separation of church and state are in the Constitution (i.e. - no state religion and people can follow any religion they desire). Or should I state the elements exactly the way they're stated in the Constitution:



Or is your point that some people carry separation of church and state to an unacceptable level? The government still uses the same buildings for church and government. There's a chapel in the Pentagon. Even Muslims have services there - right at the site of the worst terrorist attack in US history! I'm shocked people aren't in arms about that, considering today's political environment.

If your point is that people pursue trivialities beyond all sense of reason, then I agree. The problem is that I see being overly picayune about using the phrase "separation of church and state" instead of quoting the First Amendment to be the same type of trivial pursuit. Especially by a candidate that constantly refers to "Obamacare" instead of calling it by its real name of "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act".

My point was that the phrase we all hear now days " wall of separation between church and state" is not in the constitution, nor has it ever been believed to be until recently(within the last hundred years or so) and I do think that people carry the word play to an unacceptable level. If former administrations had believed, what we are told the constitution means, would the phrase in god we trust be on our money, would the oath in a court of law make us swear on a bible to tell the truth, or would the creator be mentioned in our founding document, the declaration of independence(atleast before obama started reciting it)? Religion, and the freedom to practice any religion has always been very integral to our country, and to say someone is crazy, or to laugh aloud because a certain candidate said 'where is separation of church and state in the constitution' is being trivial or even condensending, imo.

It seems to me that maybe the appeal the tea party candidates have on some americans is that they are not smart enough to come up with the alternate meanings of words and phrases like all the 'intellectual' politicians of the last hundred or so years, and therefore will, or atleast hopefully follow the constitution for what it says, not what they think or have been taught it says, even when the very words contradict them.

By the way, thanks for my new word of the day, picayune. :)

 

[BobG]

If former administrations had believed, what we are told the constitution means, would the phrase in god we trust be on our money, would the oath in a court of law make us swear on a bible to tell the truth, or would the creator be mentioned in our founding document, the declaration of independence(atleast before obama started reciting it)?

As a general rule, courts of law don't make a person swear on the Bible. A state's court system is handled by each state, so I'm sure there's exceptions. But how witnesses are sworn in is usually left up to the individual judge. As long as the person guarantees that he will tell the truth while testifying, everyone's happy. Swearing people in on a Bible once was a very common practice, though. Even then, a judge had to have a back-up plan for Quaker witnesses (can't swear oaths at all), Jewish witnesses, Muslim witnesses, one armed men (he can't put one hand on the Bible and raise his other hand above his head).

A person doesn't have to be sworn into government office on a Bible, either. T. Roosevelt, John Q. Adams, and L. Johnson did not use a Bible at their swearing in (George W. Bush should have used something besides a Bible to keep an odd, but interesting custom alive).

In other words, swearing in on a Bible is a custom, not a law. Same thing with money. Nations decorate their money, their flags, their seals with things important to their culture. Has nothing to do with religion being part of government any more than an eagle or buffalo has to do with government.

I tend to feel the same way towards things like nativity scenes, 10 Commandments in a courthouse, or other issues like that. By time you start sending issues like this to the USSC, you've reached the point where you're demanding that government decide what customs and cultural quirks people are allowed to express, which definitely is a bad thing.

These aren't legitimate separation of church and state issues, however.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

My point was that the phrase we all hear now days " wall of separation between church and state" is not in the constitution, nor has it ever been believed to be until recently(within the last hundred years or so) and I do think that people carry the word play to an unacceptable level. If former administrations had believed, what we are told the constitution means, would the phrase in god we trust be on our money, would the oath in a court of law make us swear on a bible to tell the truth, or would the creator be mentioned in our founding document, the declaration of independence(atleast before obama started reciting it)?

Or, we have lived as hypocrites for 200 years because most Americans shared a common religious belief, which is how I see it. This opinion is supported by a number of SC decisions in recent decades.

Religion, and the freedom to practice any religion has always been very integral to our country, and to say someone is crazy, or to laugh aloud because a certain candidate said 'where is separation of church and state in the constitution' is being trivial or even condensending, imo.

Just to be clear, in the case of O'Donnell, she obviously had no idea what the first amendment even says. Clearly she had never read it!

 

[Gokul43201]

I truly do not understand the firestorm over this, considering that separation of church and state isn't in the constitution but in the letters of Jefferson.

The establishment clause is very much in the Constitution, and O'Donnell specifically and clearly doubts this (or doubted it at the time of the debate - I'm sure she's been asked to read it since). That's a bit of an issue for someone claiming expertise in the Constitution.

 

[BobG]

Just to be clear, in the case of O'Donnell, she obviously had no idea what the first amendment even says. Clearly she had never read it!

She clearly illustrates the drawbacks of the argument that "separation of church and state" isn't in the first amendment.

I actually do understand their argument. Their argument is just mistated - or so obscure that a person of limited intelligence is going to just confuse themselves when they try to use it.

There is some benefit to making the argument a little more clear by directly addressing whether customs should be covered by separation of church and state.

Of course, the drawback to the latter argument is that there are some legitimate issues about whether a public school system should teaching material that is scientifically wrong or whether the government has a right to legislate morality. It gives less than a clear victory to social conservatives. Which is why I believe the argument is intentionally misstated.

 

[WhoWee]

Just to be clear, in the case of O'Donnell, she obviously had no idea what the first amendment even says. Clearly she had never read it!

I listened to the whole exchange (not just the sound bite). She asked him about 2 to 3 times if it was "in the First Ammendment?". To be honest, I couldn't tell if she was asking him to explain a point she was challenging or if she wasn't sure of the topic?

Either way, I came away with the feeling that he clearly DID understand the actual wording (as discussed in this thread) and tried to distance himself from an explanation.

I think the bigger question should be - why do we care about a debate in Delaware? Does anyone believe that as O'Donnell goes the Tea Party goes?

The last time I looked, the Nevada race was more interesting.

 

[CAC1001]

I tend to feel the same way towards things like nativity scenes, 10 Commandments in a courthouse, or other issues like that. By time you start sending issues like this to the USSC, you've reached the point where you're demanding that government decide what customs and cultural quirks people are allowed to express, which definitely is a bad thing.

These aren't legitimate separation of church and state issues, however.

I do know there are many people who would consider any kind of religious symbolism in a public building to be infringing on the idea/concept of separation of church and state. Like putting up a Christmas tree in town hall, or the 10 Commandments in a courthouse, etc...

BTW, just so I am clear, is it that the literal phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution, but as an issue, separation of church and state are in it because the Constitution forbids the government from establishing any religion and people can practice any religion they want? And things like government incorporation religion in policy issues can be seen as government establishing a religion...?

 

[turbo]

The last time I looked, the Nevada race was more interesting.

Want an interesting race? Check the ads for Maine governor. The Tea Party candidate Paul LePage is a tax cheat who chiseled thousands of dollars out of Maine and Florida by having his wife claim permanent residency and and homestead tax exemptions in both states. Both of their kids attended Florida colleges, saving at least $80K in tuition by claiming to be FL residents. He claims to be an "executive" creating good Maine Jobs. He manages a business that retails discount/salvage merchandise, and the jobs are part-time, with no benefits, and pay so low that no family could scrape by on the checks. He has a new ad campaign slamming Libby Mitchel for "smearing" him using taxpayer money. In fact, her ads are the most modest and respectable, and the reason that she gets matching funds for her campaign is that she committed to not accepting outside money. Her campaign is financed by small Maine donations, and that qualified her for matching funds from our state's Clean Election Fund. LePage's ads accuse her of mud-slinging and job-killing votes at least 1/2 dozen times in about 30 seconds, though there is no evidence of either.

Mitchell would walk away with this governorship, but Elliot Cutler (millionaire lobbyist) is running as an Independent, and he is sucking away support from Mitchell, in part because he's not a nuts as LePage and people are ticked off about the status-quo. He is practically handing LePage the governor's office on a platter. We are going to end up with a Tea-Party governor, and it is sad. He wants creationism taught in our public schools and claims that Maine can't afford to embrace green technology or renewable energy. The guy is a dinosaur.

 

[Gokul43201]

BTW, just so I am clear, is it that the literal phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution, but as an issue, separation of church and state are in it because the Constitution forbids the government from establishing any religion and people can practice any religion they want? And things like government incorporation religion in policy issues can be seen as government establishing a religion...?

Correct. The first amendment (1791) states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." ("establishment" clause + "free exercise" clause). Jefferson interpreted the combination of these two clauses as erecting "a wall of separation between church and state" (1800-ish, in a letter to a Baptist group), and a number of subsequent court decisions have used the same interpretation (e.g., the discussion in Everson v. Board of Education).

In the case of O'Donnell, it is dishonest to claim she was merely arguing that the specific phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution. She was not. She went a whole lot further, and questioned the appearance of the establishment clause in the First Amendment.

 

[turbo]

In the case of the Tea Partiers, it would be well to delve a little further back to Roger Williams. The motivation for keeping the state out of religious concerns was established well before the Constitution was written, and was well-respected.

The Tea-Party can clamor about Constitutionality and shout about the "unconstitutional" actions of the current administration, but they have demonstrated a very poor understanding of what is actually in the Constitution, and how it must be applied. No matter how many tea-bags you staple to your tri-corn hat, it would be a good idea to actually read the documents that documented the creation of this country.

 

[BobG]

BTW, just so I am clear, is it that the literal phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution, but as an issue, separation of church and state are in it because the Constitution forbids the government from establishing any religion and people can practice any religion they want? And things like government incorporation religion in policy issues can be seen as government establishing a religion...?

Kind of, except the last is a grey area that depends specifically what the government is doing. Christmas decorations wouldn't fall under that category (Lynne vs. Donne). Celebration of public holidays, which have cultural significance even if they also have religious aspects, is a legitimate secular purpose. (And I believe the "secret code" inferred by social conservatives with the phrase "separation of church and state isn't in the Constitution" refers to Justice Burger's opinion in Lynne v Donne.)

You would have to show that the government was trying to promote or encourage membership in a particular religion; or to alienate non-members of a particular religion.

Acknowledgement that something is a cultural tradition meets neither of those standards unless one really stretches the point to edge of credibility.

 

[jreelawg]

I'll admit I shouldn't have any strong opinions about the Tea Party since I have been avoiding politics for the most part lately.

But I appreciate Christine, for at least giving me the best laugh I've had in a good while when I saw her "I'm not a witch commercial", where she is wearing all black, and appears to be standing in front of a bubbling cauldron.

That one will go down in history as a timeless classic, and is great spoof material.

I thought the "I'm not a werewolf" spoof on youtube was pretty funny. And on the plus side, it's appropriate for halloween.

I can't help imagining her now when I see her, with a green face, and a black hat.

And of all people having to explain she isn't a witch. She is lucky she wasn't around back in the good old days.

 

[Al68]

In the case of O'Donnell, it is dishonest to claim she was merely arguing that the specific phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution. She was not. She went a whole lot further, and questioned the appearance of the establishment clause in the First Amendment.

Do you have a source for this? The "establishment clause" specifically refers to the text of the first amendment.

 

[WhoWee]

You would have to show that the government was trying to promote or encourage membership in a particular religion; or to alienate non-members of a particular religion..

Perhaps this is why people want President Obama to distance himself from Muslim issues?

 

[lisab]

Perhaps this is why people want President Obama to distance himself from Muslim issues?

What specific "Muslim issues" are you referring to?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Do you have a source for this? The "establishment clause" specifically refers to the text of the first amendment.

Are you just trolling here? I would think so if I hadn't just been accused of linking to a "liberal site" when I brought up the first amendment for a tea party fan who was here the other day. When he didn't recognize the text, he assumed it must be some liberal propaganda.

You have read the First Amendment, right?

Edit: Or did I misunderstand your objection? Are you saying that you can't believe O'Donnell didn't know this? In that case, watch the video of the debate in the Delaware thread for the truth about a tea party favorite with a Sarah Palin stamp on her forehead. The alleged savior of the Constitution has no idea what it says.

 

[WhoWee]

What specific "Muslim issues" are you referring to?

The Ground Zero area Mosque debate is one.

 

[Al68]

Are you just trolling here? I would think so if I hadn't just been accused of linking to a "liberal site" when I brought up the first amendment for a tea party fan who was here the other day. When he didn't recognize the text, he assumed it must be some liberal propaganda.

You have read the First Amendment, right?

Edit: Or did I misunderstand your objection? Are you saying that you can't believe O'Donnell didn't know this? In that case, watch the video of the debate in the Delaware thread for the truth about a tea party favorite with a Sarah Palin stamp on her forehead. The alleged savior of the Constitution has no idea what it says.

Yes, I know what the first amendment says. No, I'm not trolling. Asking for a source for a claim is trolling, now?

Yes, I have watched that video. It does not substantiate in any way a claim that O'Donnell "questioned the appearance of the establishment clause in the First Amendment".

Edit: I watched that video again, and now see how her question might be interpreted that way. I didn't notice it the first time because it seemed so obvious to me that she was referring to "separation of church and state", not the establishment clause. I can't be 100% sure of that, but that's how it appears to me.

 

[Gokul43201]

Do you have a source for this? The "establishment clause" specifically refers to the text of the first amendment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miwSljJAzqg#t=7m01s

PS: I thought this was already covered here, but it seems I'm remembering a discussion that happened in the other thread. See here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2942011#post2942011