--------------------------
Coons, the Marxist liberal being given a pass by the Piss-Stream Media.
Chris Coons of Delaware - 'I studied under a bright and eloquent Marxist
professor at the University of Nairobi'
Posted on 10/20/2010 10:33:37 PM PDT by Moseley
Press Release
$1,000 REWARD OFFERED BY CHRISTINE O'DONNELL'S 2008 CAMPAIGN MANAGER FOR ANYONE WHO CAN FIND THE PHRASE "SEPARATION OF CHURCH & STATE" In the US Constitution
Contact : Jonathon Moseley (703) 656-1230
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA (October 21, 2010) -- $1,000 is being offered -- including as a donation to CHRIS COONS' U.S. Senate Campaign in Delaware -- for any one who can find the exact phrase "Separation of Church and State" anywhere in the United States Constitution, by Virginia attorney Jonathon Moseley. Moseley was the 2008 primary campaign manager for national Cinderella candidate CHRISTINE O'DONNELL.
http://www.SupportChristine.com/reward.html
In a US Senate debate on October 19, 2010, in Wilmington, Delaware, non-lawyer Christine O'Donnell bravely entered Widener Law School to debate lawyer Chris Coons on the Constitution before a crowd of law students and law professors.
O'Donnell called Coons on the carpet, correctly exposing Coons' mis-statements about the First Amendment. Coons claimed that the phrase "separation of church and state" is found in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is not. O'Donnell took Coons to school inside the law school.
When challenged by O'Donnell, Coons then changed his "story" several times, offering several different versions of the First Amendment.
In the end, Coons offered yet another mangled mis-statement of the First Amendment, to which O'Donnell challenged laughingly "That's in the First Amendment?" NONE of Coons' changing versions were an accurate statement of the First Amendment. The final statement Coons offered is not in the First Amendment, to which O'Donnell asked "That's in the First Amendment?"
Despite the Left's attempt to amend the US Constitution by simply repeating "The Big Lie" over and over again, the phrase "separation of church and state" cannot be found in the United States Constitution. In fact, the words "church" and "separation" also are not found individually anywhere in the U.S. Constitution.
Coons and the leftist media quickly back-tracked and tried to cover for Coon's gaffe, by changing the subject. The exchange was mis-reported by portraying the First Amendment as, in substance, including the functional equivalent of "separation of church and state."
However, this also is false. The First Amendment guarantees "THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF (of religion)." A wall of separation would violate the 2nd part of the clause, violating THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION.
Any rule that makes religion or religious people unwelcome in any place or any aspect of American life is a violation of the "FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION" guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.
Similarly, Article VI of the U.S. Constitution prohibits any religious test for any person to serve in government or have any position of public trust under the U.S. Constitution.
However, this swings both ways. The Constitution does not permit a test of NON-religion as a condition of serving in government or acting in government. A test that one cannot be religious to act or serve in government violates Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.
In 2008, O'Donnell was the offiical Republican nominee for the US Senate running against Joe Biden. Jonathon Moseley, a long-time friend, ran O'Donnell's party convention primary campaign.
In 2010, O'Donnell defeated long-time Congressman Mike Castle for the Republican nomination running again for Joe Biden's old Senate seat.
Jonathon Moseley is currently an attorney practicing in Northern Virginia.
###
http://www.supportchristine.com/reward.html
If the Founders wanted the establishment clause to forbid endorsements as well as establishments then wouldn’t they have wrote it that way?
I remember when we started the move to send a tea bag to Queen Nancy. Perhaps he needs to receive a copy of that portion of the Constitution. Think I’ll get it started in our Pubbie group tomorrow night.
--------------------------
Coons, the Marxist liberal being given a pass by the Piss-Stream Media.
Chris Coons of Delaware - 'I studied under a bright and eloquent Marxist
professor at the University of Nairobi'
1. Welcome to FR
2. Looks like you won’t be collecting the $1000
I’ll wash Coon’s car while wearing a thong if anyone can find that phrase in the Constitution (and trust me, that wouldn’t be a pretty sight).
On motion to amend article third, and to strike out these words: 'religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' and insert 'one religious sect or society in preference to others:'
On motion to amend the third article, to read thus: 'Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed:'Both were passed in the negative (rejected). It continues...
On motion to amend article the third, to read as follows: "Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and petition to the government for the redress of grievances:This was passed in the affirmative (later to be amended).
The Godless left just redefined establishment to mean endorsement in order to make their "living constitution" evolve into whatever they want it to mean at any given time. Today few even knows what an establishment of religion originally meant.
“The language you cite was debated and rejected, but even it does not make clear that any preferential treatment is establishment. It only forbids establishment of a denomination in preference to another, it doesn’t mention endorsement. “
Not true. Here’s the definition of endorsement:
1. the act or an instance of endorsing
2. something that endorses, such as a signature or qualifying comment
3. approval or support
I think you’re confusing political endorsement with legal endorsement. When Congress endorses a religion, it’s approving of its use for Congress as well as the United Staets as it represents the legislative body of the U.S., which is a clear violation of Amendment I.
One may argue that just because the government doesn’t pass any laws with regards to religion, it’s not a violation of the Constitution. But this has been clarified by SCOTUS as “defacto legislature” many times in the past. The simple common practice and continuance thereof is considered to be de facto legislature by Congress. One example of this is de facto War. Even if Congress doesn’t declare war, it declares “de facto” war whenever it continues to fund armed conflicts.
And I’ll go a step further and say that prayer in Congress is also forbidden. The continual act of prayer in Congress constitutes a policy, which is in fact a de-facto law. Congress and the government function on policies. Policies are legal and binding. If they are not, they are challenged in the court system.
The framing fathers always intended to have a clear line in the sand between government and religion. Even though various changes to the phrasing of the Amendment were ultimately rejected in 1789, they provide valuable insight as to the overall intent of the law itself. One can easily see the attempts by various senators to clarify and enhance the phrasing as they felt the context was too ambiguous.
Saying “they don’t mean anything” would be self-defeating as in order to understand the original laws, one must understand why the laws were introduced to begin with. And in many cases, the only way to find out is to witness the construction of the law as it is being introduced in Congress.
re: “And I’ll go a step further and say that prayer in Congress is also forbidden.”
If what you are saying is correct, then why did the very same Congress that debated and passed the First Amendment, proscribed for opening each session of Congress with prayer? Why was it not an issue with them?
Why did they proscribe for chaplains? Obviously they saw no conflict with the 1st Amendment.
The reason is because it was not a violation of the First Amendment! It is clear that the amendment prohibited the Federal government from “establishing” (not endorsing) a particular denomination (as was practiced in Europe). They did not want a national Christian denomination that everyone had to support with taxes (as was also the case in Europe).
They had no problem with having prayer or invoking Scripture or God’s name in speeches, on national monuments, and in Presidential proclamations throughout our history. None of these things “established” a particular denomination. Expressions of general Judeo-Christian belief in God by governmental leaders was not considered violating the 1st Amendment for over 200 years - not until the last 30 years. Now, somehow, it’s a problem.
“If what you are saying is correct, then why did the very same Congress that debated and passed the First Amendment, proscribed for opening each session of Congress with prayer? Why was it not an issue with them?”
Your timing is off and you’re confusing the 1787 Constitutional Congress with the first Congress. The Bill of Rights weren’t enacted until AFTER the Constitution was ratified. That’s why it was acceptable for the framers to pray during the creation of the Constitution. This caused quite a stink during the formation. After that, many members of Congress and the states themselves were concerned about religion and the infiltration of it into the government. Ultimately they ratified Amendment I in 1791 to prevent it from happening, as it already was immediately after the Constitution was enacted.
Either way, let’s put what you say to the test anyway.
Allah Ahkbar is elected to Congress and becomes majority leader. He wants to start praying to Allah. The rest of the representatives accept the prayer to Allah along with prayer to Jesus. Why not? It’s freedom of religion, right? Now it’s acceptable. After a while, it’s AOK, and other members endorse it because they are too afraid to lose Muslim support, or like the fact of “equality”.
Ultimately it becomes de facto law, i.e. Shariah Law, and America ultimately starts bowing to the East. No shots are fired, and no law has been written. Is this what the framers intended? I would beg to differ. That’s why they added this distinct separation to Amendment I.
You can’t have it both ways. Don’t leave the front door shut while leaving the back door open for yourself. Otherwise enemies will worm their way into the back door like they’re doing now. You can thank the dingaling Christians in this nation who want religion in the government just like the “framers wanted it to be” (wrong), just not ones which are on the “preferred prayer” list.
This means Congress (and any other state with this in their Constitution) cannot create a “Church of the United States” or a “Church of Virginia, Carolina, etc.”.
********************
That’s only at the Federal level, since it is a Federal ammendment to the federal constitution.
There were state churches if I remember ... I’m not that old!
“That’s only at the Federal level, since it is a Federal ammendment to the federal constitution.
There were state churches if I remember ... I’m not that old!”
You are correct, up until Amendment XIV. In 1833, SCOTUS ruled in Barron vs. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights did not apply at the state level. It wasn’t until the Incorporation Doctrine that the BOR finally applied at the state level.
Cases continued throughout the late 1800’s in favor of the BOR at the state level. That doctrine was officially cemented in the famous case, Adamson v. California, in 1947 and continued throughout the 60’s. The precedence is clear, and understandable, that these unaliable rights should also apply at the state levels via Amendment XIV.
Take an ad out in the student newspaper at Widener University Law School and make this offer to the students and faculty there.
I believe you would get some outrageously uninformed responses.
First, the same Congress that created the Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments) also used US Treasury funds to buy 20,000 Bibles, I believe importing them from Europe.
Second, no you can’t have it both ways. Obviously the same rules apply to all religions.
However, Shariah law is not a religion. Islam is a broad-based POLITICAL and governmental system, which includes a religion in it. Therefore, allowing free exercise of religion is not the same as adopting the political and legal system known as Shariah law.
Third, if political correctness causes politicians to accept Islam and Shariah law, then the First Amendment will not make any difference. Already, there is a double standard. Islam is openly taught in our public schools, while people scream about any mention of Christianity.
Fourth, properly understood Shariah Law is itself unconstitutional as a legal or governmental system because it discriminates against women and for other reasons like that.
First, the same Congress that created the Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments) also used US Treasury funds to buy 20,000 Bibles, I believe importing them from Europe.This is yet another common misconception. It was originally moved by the Continental-Confederation Congress (not the First Congress) to purchase the bibles in 1777 for the Revolutionary War, nearly 14 years before Amendment I was ratified. The bibles were ultimately never purchased. This was no doubt a good thing during the start of the nation. Christian morals are indeed the foundation of our country. The issue wasn't really religion as an enemy, but the religious endoctrination in politics and government.
However, Shariah law is not a religion. Islam is a broad-based POLITICAL and governmental system, which includes a religion in it. Therefore, allowing free exercise of religion is not the same as adopting the political and legal system known as Shariah law.You are absolutely correct. Consider the Muslim "faith" to be similar to the "Church of England" as a religion, governing authority, and social caste system all rolled into one. And we know just how "loved" this system was by a group of religious anti-British outcasts.
Third, if political correctness causes politicians to accept Islam and Shariah law, then the First Amendment will not make any difference. Already, there is a double standard. Islam is openly taught in our public schools, while people scream about any mention of Christianity.Double standards are indeed an issue to deal with. However double standards rolling the other way due to Christian zealots is just as dangerous. If we allow religious organizations the same favoritism, the threat of endoctrination is equally dangerous not because of the religion, but because of the control. The balance is to follow the Constitution, something that's clearly not happening in this and plenty of other scenarios. If we just follow it we're golden.
Fourth, properly understood Shariah Law is itself unconstitutional as a legal or governmental system because it discriminates against women and for other reasons like that.Good point. The U.S. government fought the Latter Day Saints back at the turn of the 20th century for decades over issues such as these. Alas, they are still here and still alive and well. It will be interesting to see just how this shakes out over the next 20 years, if the corrupt government doesn't bury us before then. What the government should have been doing all along is blocking the Muslim faith here as a recognized religion as it undermines many of the Rights in the BOR. There have been Supreme Court cases revolving around this issue and they are unanimous with regards to their opinions (religions that are against the Constitutional BOR are not religions in the context of the First Amendment).
Muslims hate America because we are a Christian Nation founded upon Christian principles. You can either pick aside in the fight, or get out of the way.
Endorsement is defined as approval or support, but the first amendment does not forbid approval or support, it forbids establishment! Furthermore it forbids Congress from making any law concerning existing state establishments of religion!
With the risk of getting students in trouble with their professor, this should be forwarded to the students at Widener law school also.
If the establishment clause protects rights then it protects the right of the people of the various states to decide the issue of establishment for themselves because it actually protected state establishments from federal interference. Liberals interpreted the incorporated establishment clause to forbid the very thing it was meant to protect!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.