I need unique's boxing icon....

[byronhaverford]

At physical therapy today, I decided to randomly ask people whether they could recite the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.  I wasn't expecting anyone to be able to (I couldn't do it word-for-word myself), so we moved on to multiple choice.  For each of the following selections, I asked people whether it was part of the

Comments

[unique_name_123]

There is some quibbling that that ammendment does not contain "separation of church and state" - it contains "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The separation phrase is from a T Jefferson memo in . . . 1802.

[unique_name_123]

Not that I am claiming this explains the behavior of certain candidates for Senate.

[delabarre]

Our current understanding about separation of church and state is long-settled judicial interpretation of the First (as in, since the 19th century).

[unique_name_123]

Yes, but if one said "the first amendment does not say there is a separation of church and state", one would be technically correct.

[byronhaverford]

I have to agree with Eric on this one. If a senatorial candidate said, "the first amendment does not specifically say, quote, 'freedom of the press'", that would be technically true, but misleading.

[unique_name_123]

As I said, I was not specifically refering to that candidate. That would mean that I have to watch the clip of her speaking and I can't bring myself to do that.

[ext_293502]

The current understanding of separation of church and state is a fine example of "building a fence around the Torah". O'Donnell isn't an original thinker, but we don't necessarily demand that in our candidates. Whoever she read/heard to originally get that idea from was probably making a valid point.

The more interesting question in all this is: why do we *care*? She's running in Delaware. Do we live in Delaware? No. Do we think the voters of Delaware are in desperate need of outside guidance to decide their own election, more so than any other state facing an election? Not really. The fact that she became an issue is kind of an annoyingly transparent tactic to indirectly attack other groups and individuals by association.

Re:

[byronhaverford]

I would have to say that I'm using it to bemoan the general state of politics in America. Surely you can get on board with that sentiment. And there is a certain train-wreck-can't-look-away character to her candidacy.

[grouchyoldcoot]

The thing that horrifies me about O'Donnell is that there are actually groups with money to throw around trying to get her elected. It's not my state, but she shouldn't even be in the game.

[ext_293502]

Shouldn't you'd be happy about that, in that she's *using up* those groups' money so they'll have less to "throw around" in the future?

[ext_293502]

If you're bemoaning the general state of politics in America, presumably you're comparing it to some golden age when it was much better than today. So I'm curious: when was that, exactly?

[byronhaverford]

Yesterday.