o wait, none of that is true and you’re the same old racist fucking bigot
my bad

If she would have said, “I don’t think that’s the case because…” and then explained why she didn’t agree with what has pretty much been a given for a helluva long time, then I wouldn’t think she’s an airhead and maybe she does know quite a bit about the constitution and sounds like she has thought about it a lot.

But that’s not what happened. At all.

She sounded completely surprised that anyone would ever think that separation of church/state has been interpreted for years.

I’ll solidly agree with you on this though : “I guess great intellect isn’t a prerequisite [to getting elected].”

What I find interesting is that she was correct with her assertion that the concept commonly referred to as separation of church and state does not find its home in the Constitution, but somehow a room full of aspiring young lawyers didn’t. One would imagine that the reason these young lawyers don’t understand the Constitution is because the old lawyers that are teaching them don’t either. This is part of the problem, the lawyers who were advising the school districts believe it is unconstitutional for these districts to even discuss religion, or at least that they won’t be able to defend that fact in court.

But then again, she was unable to name supreme court ruling she disagreed with and also unable to name a democratic senator.

So while you may give her credit for being a constitutional wizard, I’m afraid I’m just going to go ahead and think she’s nothing but a Palin type airhead who just spouts out phrases and talking points to appeal to a certain demographic, without really knowing wtf she’s talking about. And the people who support her don’t care that she’s clueless, they just want to hear words like “constitution”, “cut taxes”, “socialism”…

The problem here is many of us in the US understand the Constitution, we understand that what the Freedom Forum article says is true, but many don’t, the writers of the Huffington Post for example. They are claiming O’Donnell doesn’t know what she is talking about in regards to separation of church and state when she does. And there was an audible gasp from the law students! Then people like Smith misquote her, people like the ACLU take school districts to court and on and on, at some point it all gets so muddied that even though there is nothing wrong with discussing religion in schools legally or morally it doesn’t get discussed.

What is meant by “teaching about
religion” in the public schools?
The following statements distinguish between
teaching about religion in public schools and
religious indoctrination:
1. The school’s approach to religion is academic,
not devotional.
2. The school may strive for student awareness of
religions, but should not press for student
acceptance of any one religion.
3. The school may sponsor study about religion,
but may not sponsor the practice
of religion.
4. The school may expose students to a diversity
of religious views, but may not impose any
particular view.
5. The school may educate about all religions, but
may not promote or denigrate any religion.
6. The school may inform the student about various beliefs, but should not seek to
conform him or her to any particular belief.

That’s from this document, all of which seems reasonable to me; http://www.freedomforum.org/publications/first/findingcommonground/B07.inPublicSchool.pdf

Also, the posts above seem to seriously underestimate the intelligence, or potential intelligence, of students. Interesting article:
http://communities.canada.com/VANCOUVERSUN/blogs/thesearch/archive/2010/04/17/quebec-ethics-curriculum-offers-crucial-lesson-for-b-c.aspx

Excerpt:
Two years ago, Quebec’s Liberal government introduced sweeping changes in the way it taught religion in public and private schools.
In the past, Quebec educators had to choose between offering three curriculum options: one based on Catholicism, one on Protestantism or one on secular ethics.
Quebec’s new ethics and religious culture curriculum — which, in sharp contrast to B.C., is mandatory for all students between Grades 1 and 11 — teaches about 10 major world religions and also focuses on values, which are available to the religious and non-religious alike.
In the early days especially, some traditional Quebecers protested; raising serious charges the new curriculum was teaching “moral relativism” and “creeping secularism” and taking away parents’ right to govern their children’s religious beliefs.
The bold new Quebec curriculum, titled Ethique et Culture Religieuse, is considered a model for the globe, where immigration and telecommunications are making cultures increasingly pluralistic and diverse.
Among other things, Quebec’s curriculum aims to combat widespread antagonism toward new Canadian immigrants. Researchers found suspicion was largely based on confusion about minority religious practices, including why some Muslim women wear head scarves, baptized Sikhs carry kirpans (ceremonial knives) and Orthodox Jewish men wear their hair in tassels.
The verdict on Quebec’s contentious new curriculum came in this month: Once-wary Quebecers are shifting; most now give the once-radical program a thumbs-up.
Young Quebec adults, those aged 18 to 24, are among the most enthusiastic. Seventy-five per cent of young adults told Leger Marketing pollsters they approve of the new curriculum, compared to a provincewide average of 66 per cent.
In other words, young Quebecers who have grown up sitting in classes beside students from around the planet still want to know what Christianity and other world religions — which are a source of meaning to billions — have to offer.
It’s as if Quebec’s youth have realized, when it comes to religion and values, the truth of Anglo-American philosopher Alfred North Whitehead’s aphorism: “Not ignorance, but ignorance of ignorance is the death of knowledge.”

End Excerpt

I would have a problem if it was presented as “2000 years ago this (whatever) happened, and life was created by…” you know, bs like that. Still, that’s probably best left to the churches. Tax dollars shouldn’t be used to promote any religion.

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

it’s just a theory, right? Pastafarianism might be the delicious answer you seek

“…Can they all be true…” that is a good point of separation, that is place to send it back to Sunday school.

Evidence gods exist, there is evidence things we don’t or didn’t understand exist and they have been attributed to gods, lightning for instance. A good subject line would be at one time we thought lightning was an act of God, now we understand it a little better, but not totally. So ghosts, ESP, even dreams or visions, are they acts of God as lightning was thought or is there and explanation?

Ever wonder where “separation of church and state” came from? Thomas Jefferson said it because he didn’t like a state law that allowed towns to levy taxes to support the church the majority went to. That is a proper use of separation of church and state. The government was giving priority to one of those many religions over others, as England did to the official church of England. Separation of church and state has never meant to drive religion out of government, just not give an advantage to one over another.

Ok Enky, keep up. The prairie dogs are the bad guys, gang members, they are undesirable. The rabbits and snakes are the good Mexicans, the farmers and store keepers, we don’t want to kill them but understand some will die. We want to neutralize (kill or capture) the bad guys (same as kill prairie dogs) we want to get them all, so yes I want to commit “genocide” on one group while sparing the other as much as possible. My point was when you let these problems fester you end up killing more of both than if you take care of the problem early, but since in both the prairie dog and border cases we didn’t take care of the problem early, more bad guys (prairie dogs) and more good Mexican farmers and storekeepers (rabbits and snakes) will die.

* actually, recent study of the brain has determined that thoughts of spirituality originate in the more “primitive” regions of the brain that humans have in common with other animals, suggesting the possibility that other beings (e.g. sheep) may have a sense of spirituality or wonder about greater things despite the apparent inability to process such sensations cognitively.

** for an interestting excercise on possible net censorship / possible law enforcement or government intervention in freedom of religion, try to (WARNING – Make sure you have good virus software running before attenmpting this…) locate a Rastafarian Group in your community to attend one of their “church” services via Google or other internet search. What you’ll find is that sites are blocked, unavailable, taken down, just can’t be accessed, or are so full of virus threats as to be non-functioning…

“it will be a dimension or force that we simply don’t understand now.” – I actually like that you said that. But then you lost me when you said kids should be introduced to religion in the classroom.

As enk said, which one? There are so many, can they all be true? Is there any real evidence that these “gods” existed?

Science in schools. Gods in churches, mosques etc.

seriously wwnj, explain how your homey anecdote about prairie dogs is to poison, as mexicans is to ________ analogy is not what you were intending. Show of hands, who thinks this was the usual genocidal wwnj ‘thinking’. By his postings, certainly Mr Smith. NL. knarly. You seem to be the only person in possession of your brilliant insights. So please share it with us dum libz. Because it is pretty clear to reasonable people you were talking about Killing all the Brown, errr Bad Guyz!!!1!!1!! Oh right, just kidding about genocidal jokes n stuff.

Enky, go back up and read what I said, I’m not that deep, you have to read both posts, I have faith you can piece it all together if you try.