Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Colorado candidate Ken Buck spoke against separation of church and state

Last week, Delaware Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell raised eyebrows by questioning the separation of church and state. Now liberal blog Think Progress has dug up video of Colorado's Ken Buck, who is challenging Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), arguing against the division last year.

"I disagree strongly with the concept of separation of church and state," Buck said at Republican Senate candidates' forum. "It was not written into the Constitution. While we have a Constitution that is very strong in the sense that we are not going to have a religion that's sanctioned by the government, it doesn't mean that we need to have a separation between government and religion. And so that, that concerns me a great deal." As an example of what concerned him, he said that President Obama had decided to call the Christmas tree in the White House a "holiday tree." (In fact, that was an email rumor -- the Obamas had a "Christmas tree" in 2009.)


The First Amendment does not explicitly call for the "separation of church and state"; the phrase comes from Thomas Jefferson, who wrote that the Constitution required "building a wall of separation between Church & State."

By Rachel Weiner  | October 26, 2010; 2:35 PM ET
Categories:  2010 Election, 44 The Obama Presidency  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Axelrod: 'Don't ask' appeal was 'custom'
Next: Closed runways can't stop pilot-Sen. James Inhofe

Comments

Tea Party Candidate.. Dumb and dumber! Thank goodness we do have separation of church and state.. that's Freedom!

Posted by: HopeForAmerica | October 30, 2010 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Okay Ex-Virginian; Now you're not even trying. Apparently you've forgotten about the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. It's nice that you mention the beginning date of "In God We Trust" on our money. It illustrates that the framer's principles still existed in the late 1800's. Thanks for that. Oh, been to the Jefferson Memorial. I must've taken the inscription differently than you. It, like so many other inscriptions on government buildings throughout the city (& country) only strengthen my point. There, like you, I've stated vageries with no specific supportive evidence (except for the documents part up top). I can do this all day. Can you back up your position with evidence, or shall I simply continue to tear it down with mine?

Posted by: LieToMe | October 29, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

See what happens when history and science books for schools all over the country are controlled for content by a small group of Texas religious zealots?

Recently Jefferson has been taken out of the history of the founding, as Thomas Paine before was before.

With the right wing intentionally glorifying ignorance, people like Buck, Beck, Palin etc. have a field day recreating a new revised history, in accordance with the wishes of their masters, the ultra rich US and foreign corporatists who control media, now, campaigns, public policy and "grassroots" political movements that are unaware of being duped. 'Baggers think they have the only truth because Beck and Palin told them, yet never stop to think that the policies advocated only benefit a small elite group, whose members are no friends of the middle or working class or even the US at all. Many of them are foreign, some are backed by foreign governments who love to see what is happening to the US now.
This new revised version of history has no evidence, no documents, no academic supporting scholarship and only exists in the the minds of a few millions followers of ultra right wing anti-American forces.
These people believe anything except what is backed by evidence, whether history, political philosophy or science.

How, in the year 2010, do you reason with someone who believes that the earth is less than 6,000 or that angels walk on earth, or that the president is a Muslim and not born in the the US. ALL of their principles are based on myths and lies but they continue to believe despite mountains of evidence.

Some times the adults much take charge of the situation and prevent the childishness of the far right to ruin the country. We are already the laughingstock of the world.

Posted by: km6xz | October 29, 2010 7:33 AM | Report abuse

Mr.Garman, while I agree with your assessment of the misuse of terms, I would contend that seperating all "religion" from government is impossible, unless you remove all people who believe in any religion from government.
As I stated in a previous comment, one cannot seperate such an important character-forming factor from the person without undue harm and devastating backlash.
The freedom to practice one's faith extends even to those who work in the public sectors of governmental office, and we cannot expect these practices to never flow from them into the public sector. To deprive someone from saying "Merry Christmas", displaying a Christmas tree, using the word "God" in the pledge of allegiance, having a menorah on display, or referencing the ten commandments when they are a foundation of their faith is to indeed violate the first amendment as an individual. Being a public servant does not invalidate that right, nor does the constitution support the violation of that individual right, even if it extends into a public space.

Posted by: moonlitesonata2 | October 28, 2010 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Now can you see what stubbornness has evolved into by continuing to insist upon using the words "church and state," which words are not in the Constitution?

I am happy it has happened, because maybe someday all of you organizations and newspapers will change your way of thinking, i.e., get converted. The words "church and state" are not in the Constitution and Thomas Jefferson is not a Founding Father (see Webster's); he was not involved in drafting the Constitution or the First Amendment--he was in France from 1784 to 1789! The Founding Fathers, with capitol Fs are the men who met in 1787, in Philadelphia, in secret, debated, and drafted the words of the Constitution. Jefferson was in France, not in the USA at that time.

I have attempted over and over to get the news media and everyone else to use the actual word in the Constitution: "religion." It is a "religious" test which shall not be required, not a church test (Art. 6., Sec. 3.) and it is "religion" which shall not be established, not just a church. The witch from Delaware is correct, as is Glenn Beck on page 287 of his nonsense called "Common Sense."

I have been lecturing on this issue ever since working on the AU staff for Glenn Archer in the 1970's, and it is way past time for all separationists and newspapers to get the wording of the Constitution correct. The constitutional word "religion" includes church and everything related to religion. Describing the constitutional issue simply with the word "church" is a distortion of what the Constitution says. It is "separation between Religion and Government," W&MQ 3:555, James Madison ("Father of the Constitution"), which wording all of you should be promoting. It is the entire subject of "religion" which is not to be established by law or government at any level, not just a church.

Separationists have simply not won the public debate, mainly because they insist upon using words which are not in the Constitution: "Don't Think of an Elephant" when debating an issue. Further, the grammar of the "free exercise" clause is perfectly consistent with the wording of the no establishment clause.

I wrote a whole book on this specific issue. It is the whole subject of "religion" (First Amendment) which shall not be established by law, Congress, or government at any level. So, please, get your separation argument corrected to conform to the Constitution: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb7SbUWw9dM .

The Religious Right is wrong, but so are the organizations and newspapers who continue to use words which are not in the Constitution and distort what the Constitution actually commands. No wonder Americans are confused. So are a whole bunch of "separationists," and until the actual wording of the Constitution gets recognized by "separationists," the confusion will continue as it has. It is as simple as that, and it is unfortunate "separationists" also continue to misstate the issue.


Gene Garman, M.Div.
Pittsburg, KS
620-404-9667

Posted by: GeneGarman | October 28, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

"Canon Laws" in the Church has made lot of difference so it is no harm if a balanced approach is adopted. It is equally true that moral behavior is at its lowest level due to totally free hand given to those thinkers who live life only for personal enjoyments with totally selfish approach to other issues of living beings (all included). Just imagine, people moving around with kids without getting married in a proper way, then comes the issue of gay priests, same sex marriages/relationships and on the top of list is Gay Bishops. Where is this country which is only the sole Most Powerful Country in the world heading, simply in the name of free will ??? We need to look into Moral Theology when it comes to know about relationships between Men, Women, kids, neighbors, friends and foes and what ever moves around us. Yes, character building is most important for all who want to move around with respect and dignity.

Posted by: aftab68 | October 28, 2010 12:32 AM | Report abuse

Separation of church and state is not in the constitution nor was it ever intended to be. People who want to get rid of religion in the public sphere like to claim such exists (It is not freedom from religion either.) but the Founding Fathers depended upon a virtuous and religious (not any specific religion) people to maintain the discipline needed if this constitutional republic is to endure.

Posted by: awunsch | October 27, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse

James Madison, father of the Constitution: "The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry..., and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State."

"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together."

And Jefferson: "Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Chr...ist, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."
-in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom, on which the Establishment Clause was based.

And one more from Madison ("Memorial and Remonstrance"): "Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?"

Posted by: idealist61 | October 27, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, Lie, I guess I didn't realise the U.S. Constitution wasn't an "establishing document." 8/ But how about the Treaty of Tripoli?

As for U.S. currency, no deity's name appeared on it before about 1860, when it carried only the words "Liberty" and "United States of America."

And as for government buildings, I suggest you visit the Jefferson Memorial on the Tidal Basin and read the enlightning inscription on the inside of its rotunda. I have, many a time.

Posted by: ex-Virginian4 | October 27, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

But dostrov (post @ October 27, 2010 2:15 PM) - that is far too simple, definitive and logical!

Are you saying that, since Jefferson wrote the pertinent phrases in the Constitution, we ought to listen to Jefferson's explanation about what they mean?

How the heck would HE know?

Posted by: Iconoblaster | October 27, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

To ex-Virginian4: Please re-read (or just plain read if you didn't) my original post. Never said "Constitution". Care to try again? If you are indeed an ex-Virginian you know indeed of what buildings, documents, and coinage I speak. Let's take this beyond mere word twisting and make it meaningful please.

Posted by: LieToMe | October 27, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand how the tea party can claim to want to go back to the constitution and the founding fathers while staking out positions like this.

The first amendment, the bedrock of liberty in this country, states:

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

This is expanded to states by the 14th amendment. Is the phrase "separation of church and state" in the constitution explicitly? No, but it doesn't need to be. The concept is clearly in the 1st amendment.

"Separation of church and state" is a phrase by Thomas Jefferson. I'll take Jefferson's view of what the founding fathers wanted over tea party characterizations.

I'm a patriot who believes in the constitution and our founding fathers.

That's why I don't support the tea party candidates who wrap themselves in the flag while trying to set fire to the basic liberties the flag is to stand for.


Posted by: dostrov | October 27, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

The consititution guarantees freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM it- even within government itself -by virtue of our very form form of government being "of the people". You cannot remove religion from government, unless you remove all the people who practice ANY religion from government.

This is obviously where anit-religion folk get confused, and where I think these comments are stemming from.

Seperation of Church and State can only be constitutuionally applied if government as a body started meddling directly with religion itself. It never has, and never will, not even by the right wingers the left fear so mightily. The government is made up of way too many individuals with individual belief systems for that to ever happen, and our founders crafted a governmental system of checks and balances to ensure it.

That said, I believe more damage is done to both the individual and to the nation in the constant demand that they not "Offend" by referencing their religion in public. People who work in government (as well as the private sector, who follow government guidelines of Politically Correct behavior) are being forced to deny their beliefs in public simply because others do not agree with their beliefs, and this is most assuredly the top of the slippery slope, leading downward to violation of the first amendment.

A person's faith (or lack thereof) is always a base of their character, and you cannot remove their belief system from their person, even if you try to mask it with phoney gimmicks like "holiday trees" or required holiday greetings designed not to "offend" someone. Masking an important part of your life and character eventually will result in devastating backlash.

Why deny the basic fact that there are people in government with religious beliefs, and allow them the same freedom we are all guaranteed through the contsitution to practice our faith, no matter what it is? Is it your own fear that leads you to want to squelch every hint of religion in public life?
I'm not even Christian (zen pagan, if you had to put a label on it), and yet I do not want their liberies as individuals dampened to make you feel safe from their religion. Dampen their liberty, and you open the door to dampen mine, and I will not abide that.

Posted by: moonlitesonata2 | October 27, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

LieToMe, please point out the reference to a deity or religion in the U.S. Constitution. I won't lie to you: there are none, unless you count its prohibition against religious tests for public office. Like those who claim to defend the Christian Bible, those who claim to defend the Constitution really ought to sit down and read a little of it now and then.

Posted by: ex-Virginian4 | October 27, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Let's see - Tea Party candidates have (so far):
1. Questioned the separation of church and state;
2. Advocated for armed rebellion against the government;
3. Stated opposition to the Civil Rights Act;
4. Posed in a Nazi SS uniform; and
5. Praised East Germany.

Their security people and supporters:
1. Handcuffed and detained a reporter; and 2. Roughed up and stomped the head of a woman at a rally.

Posted by: MidwaySailor76 | October 27, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Re nalaegral's comment: Then, you just don't get what America was created for and about. Unfortunately for you, there's still quite a few families here who can trace their roots to the beginning of the USA and whose ancestors saw fit to pass down firsthand what all the references to God on just about EVERY establishing document, government building, and ALL our currency really meant (and continues to mean despite the likes of the goofball in Elk Grove, CA). While government was designed to stay out of religion, the religious fortitude with which all of the above were framed demonstrated an overwhelming influence of Christian values. In other words, 'all are equally welcome here within that framework'. That's not a modern crackpot-ism, that's what the USA meant when it was formed. It's a simple truth many new comers continue to find hard to comprehend fully. I won't attempt to enlighten anyone in this forum regarding how to reach comprehension, but a huge figurative light bulb will go on for you when you reach it and your days of mind-numbing 'gray areas' will end.

Posted by: LieToMe | October 27, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Thomas Jefferson was hired by the first State Board of Education to set up 'public' schools in Maine. His original report is in the State Archives; and I was able to read the original.

What he did was to put control over school funding under governmental authority and set up a system of taxation. ...see Thomas Jefferson: Elementary School Act, 1817. ME 17:440.

He tiptoed around the issue of Compulsory Schooling using this argument: ""Is it a right or a duty in society to take care of their infant members in opposition to the will of the parent? How far does this right and duty extend? --to guard the life of the infant, his property, his instruction, his morals? The Roman father was supreme in all these: we draw a line, but where? --public sentiment does not seem to have traced it precisely... It is better to tolerate the rare instance of a parent refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings and ideas by the forcible asportation and education of the infant against the will of the father... What is proposed... is to remove the objection of expense, by offering education gratis, and to strengthen parental excitement by the disfranchisement of his child while uneducated. Society has certainly a right to disavow him whom they offer, and are permitted to qualify for the duties of a citizen. If we do not force instruction, let us at least strengthen the motives to receive it when offered." --Thomas Jefferson: Note to Elementary School Act, 1817. ME 17:423"

Parsing Jefferson is dangerous; because it leaves out his views on educating women and his advice to encourage all religious sects to present their tracts at the university level: ""After stating the constitutional reasons against a public establishment of any religious instruction, we suggest the expediency of encouraging the different religious sects to establish, each for itself, a professorship of their own tenets on the confines of the university, so near as that their students may attend the lectures there and have the free use of our library and every other accommodation we can give them; preserving, however, their independence of us and of each other. This fills the chasm objected to ours, as a defect in an institution professing to give instruction in all useful sciences... And by bringing the sects together, and mixing them with the mass of other students, we shall soften their asperities, liberalize and neutralize their prejudices, and make the general religion a religion of peace, reason, and morality." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1822. ME 15:405"...

Jefferson recanted much of his opposition to organized religion in his wanning years; however people prefer to quote the young Jefferson railing against priests, writing his own bible; and not the elderly one, full of regrets and seeking God.

Posted by: Common_Cents1 | October 27, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Thomas Jefferson was hired by the first State Board of Education to set up 'public' schools in Maine. His original report is in the State Archives; and I was able to read the original.

What he did was to put control over school funding under governmental authority and set up a system of taxation. ...see Thomas Jefferson: Elementary School Act, 1817. ME 17:440.

He tiptoed around the issue of Compulsory Schooling using this argument: ""Is it a right or a duty in society to take care of their infant members in opposition to the will of the parent? How far does this right and duty extend? --to guard the life of the infant, his property, his instruction, his morals? The Roman father was supreme in all these: we draw a line, but where? --public sentiment does not seem to have traced it precisely... It is better to tolerate the rare instance of a parent refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings and ideas by the forcible asportation and education of the infant against the will of the father... What is proposed... is to remove the objection of expense, by offering education gratis, and to strengthen parental excitement by the disfranchisement of his child while uneducated. Society has certainly a right to disavow him whom they offer, and are permitted to qualify for the duties of a citizen. If we do not force instruction, let us at least strengthen the motives to receive it when offered." --Thomas Jefferson: Note to Elementary School Act, 1817. ME 17:423"

Parsing Jefferson is dangerous; because it leaves out his views on educating women and his advice to encourage all religious sects to present their tracts at the university level: ""After stating the constitutional reasons against a public establishment of any religious instruction, we suggest the expediency of encouraging the different religious sects to establish, each for itself, a professorship of their own tenets on the confines of the university, so near as that their students may attend the lectures there and have the free use of our library and every other accommodation we can give them; preserving, however, their independence of us and of each other. This fills the chasm objected to ours, as a defect in an institution professing to give instruction in all useful sciences... And by bringing the sects together, and mixing them with the mass of other students, we shall soften their asperities, liberalize and neutralize their prejudices, and make the general religion a religion of peace, reason, and morality." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1822. ME 15:405"...

Jefferson recanted much of his opposition to organized religion in his wanning years; however people prefer to quote the young Jefferson railing against priests, writing his own bible; and not the elderly one, full of regrets and seeking God.

Posted by: Common_Cents1 | October 27, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse


There is NO place for any ones God in the United States of America's Government at any place or time, EVER.

Posted by: nalaegral | October 27, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse


There is NO place for any ones God in the United States of America's Government at any place or time, EVER.

Posted by: nalaegral | October 27, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Maine was founded as a Christian State...GOD is mentioned 25 times in the original preamble and when it came to education; the Constitution specifically prohibited State interference in the operation of town schools run by ministers, and specifically authorized the funding of "SEMINARIES".

So for nearly 150 years, Maine towns provided school vouchers to parents to send their children to approved private schools run by religious orders...150 years; until a Jewish senator, Bennett Katz, acting under the influence of the ACLU, lobbied the Attorney General's office to impose the then prevailing interpretation of the SEP. clause; effectively denying religious schools most(not all, food, health care, etc were allowed to stand) voucher subsidies.

Time goes on and the S.C. restores most of the original interpretation; but Maine refuses to reinstate the original interpretation that stood for 150 years.

DID THE PROVISION OF SUBSIDIES TO APPROVED RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS HURT OR IMPROVE THE EDUCATION AND CHARACTER OF CHILDREN?

Obvious answer is "NO"...one can only look to SAT scores and the educational background of public and business leaders to see the positive influence of religious schools on the character of children.

Parents, overwhelmingly, want not only a good education, but one which positively moulds the character of their children.

About the only thing that has emerged from recent studies of the public schools is that 'self-esteem' has grossly distorted the actual accomplishments of public school students.

Posted by: Common_Cents1 | October 27, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Willing to throw over 200 years of precedent away. Too extreme. Thomas Jefferson must be rolling over in his grave.

Posted by: Lefty_ | October 26, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Doubt that you are correct just as I doubt all those who presume to know what Ken Buck meant when he said what he did about separation of church and state. I also doubt all those who use the term "teabagger" as that is a leftist term disparaging applied to those who support the TEA Party folks.

Posted by: gfafblifr | October 27, 2010 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Here we have a staunch Christian arguing against the separation of church and state while condemning President Obama for calling a Christmas tree a Holiday tree. Most politicians talk out of both sides of their face, but...he is defending the Christmas tree...a pagan phallic symbol.

I think he and Christine O'Donnell are the ying and yang of idiocracy.

Posted by: friar1944 | October 27, 2010 6:42 AM | Report abuse

Anybody who says that church and state should not be separated is showing a total lack of respect for the majority of the people who are not of the same religion as his or who is an atheist. He also seems to forget history and actuality which show that religion has and still is destroying lives of too many people in the world. Church is only the voice of a man saying what is right or wrong over another man. No God whoever you believe in or not has ever said that anyone is better than another man nor that he should decide what is or should be right or better for everybody. Just respect other peoples differences as we all have differences but if we look at the similarities in our differences we can find that we have a lot in common without trying to force our believes on others.

Posted by: jmvg52 | October 27, 2010 5:49 AM | Report abuse

This is very enlightening but is just so much more noise, fuss and bother on the campaign trail.

The real point is that the Dems have screwed up another election by not watching the other camp. The teabaggers and the right wingers are all screaming and crying (Glen Beck) about the stimulus spending not working while they are laughing all the way to the ballot box and the bank. In Sarah Palin's home state of Alaska more that $1,900,000,000 has been spent on stimulus projects. If she and the rest of the Party of NO and the Party of Duhnno are so against all this spending, then let them send the money back to DC where it can be used to pay down the deficit. Common, Republicans, put your money back where your corporate butt-kissing mouths are!

Posted by: craiggger | October 27, 2010 3:07 AM | Report abuse

Hmmm... The Christian right sure wants their say in politics. For the rest of us there is "no taxation without representation." Why not take this maxim a step further, "No representation without taxation." Let the churches, mosques, temples and the rest of the religion industry pay for what they preach? Strip all of this industry of their tax-exempt status.

The enhanced revenue would help reduce the deficit.

The religious organizations started dumping their charitable work on the government decades ago. They stopped taking care of the poor. (There is no profit or prophet in taking care of people who can't hand over cash.) The stopped trying to "civilize" the third world. (They let that slip to government aid, oil company abuses, and corrupt local politicians.) Many sold their hospitals to government agencies or for profit corporations. (With improved medical technologies fewer people died in hospitals and gave their savings to the religious orders behind them.)

Religious organizations with buildings should at least pay local taxes to fire districts and police protection. It costs just as much to fight a fire in a mosque as it does in the local supermarket. It cost just as much to respond to a shooter at a church as it does to take the shooter down at a Wall St bank.

Ken Buck is the kind of lunatic that makes the other 3% of the reicht wing look really stupid, regressive, uneducated, misinformed, and hateful.

Posted by: craiggger | October 27, 2010 2:50 AM | Report abuse

Hmmm... The Christian right sure wants their say in politics. For the rest of us there is "no taxation without representation." Why not take this maxim a step further, "No representation without taxation." Let the churches, mosques, temples and the rest of the religion industry pay for what they preach? Strip all of this industry of their tax-exempt status.

The enhanced revenue would help reduce the deficit.

The religious organizations started dumping their charitable work on the government decades ago. They stopped taking care of the poor. (There is no profit or prophet in taking care of people who can't hand over cash.) The stopped trying to "civilize" the third world. (They let that slip to government aid, oil company abuses, and corrupt local politicians.) Many sold their hospitals to government agencies or for profit corporations. (With improved medical technologies fewer people died in hospitals and gave their savings to the religious orders behind them.)

Religious organizations with buildings should at least pay local taxes to fire districts and police protection. It costs just as much to fight a fire in a mosque as it does in the local supermarket. It cost just as much to respond to a shooter at a church as it does to take the shooter down at a Wall St bank.

Ken Buck is the kind of lunatic that makes the other 3% of the reight wing looks really stupid, regressive, uneducated, misinformed, and hateful.

Posted by: craiggger | October 27, 2010 2:50 AM | Report abuse

Joesmithdefend, who of course is omniscient, writes "Obama doesn't believe in the separation of church and state - he openly supports Islam and the federal government has spent billions building mosques all over the planet."

1. President Obama has stated publicly that he is a Christian. This is a fact.
2. Of course, like every good citizen, he supports everyone's right to practice the religion of his choice; Judaism,Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. This an assumption; there is certainly no evidence or reason to believe otherwise.
3. There is absolutely no evidence to support your statement that he does not believe in the separation of church and state. I might say of you that you do not believe in God, but I have neither the knowledge of what you believe or the right to make a claim about you that may be a falsehood. From you post, I conclude that you are both irresponsible and mean-spirited.
4. The Federal Government has not built a single mosque, church, synagogue or other place of worship in this country, much less "all over the planet." This statement is manifestly false because it is ludicrous.

Your allegation that our "government has spent billions building mosques all over the planet" is just plain silly.
5. Your comments are representative of the type of misinformation bandied about as if there were a shred of truth.

Posting lies like this is highly irresponsible. If you have any religious training, you should know that it is also slanderous. You should be ashamed of yourself. Then again, maybe you don't know any better.

Posted by: joesmithdefend

Posted by: castleb | October 26, 2010 11:24 PM | Report abuse

Say what??


Buck's against "Separation of Church and State"?

If he's against Separation of Church and state, then he's also against the U.S., Constitution & he's also a "Traitor" to the United States of America.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | October 26, 2010 10:21 PM | Report abuse

Its so troubling to see the sheeple state that separation of church and state is settled law. Hardly those words aren't in the constitution and a unbiased SC could over turn it over night.
Just like barak when it came to drilling we are free to just ignore the laws we don't like

Posted by: mandinka2 | October 26, 2010 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Its so troubling to see the sheeple state that separation of church and state is settled law. Hardly those words aren't in the constitution and a unbiased SC could over turn it over night.
Just like barak when it came to drilling we are free to just ignore the laws we don't like

Posted by: mandinka2 | October 26, 2010 10:17 PM | Report abuse

CommonMan2 pointed out that "The Pilgrims came here to escape religious persecution..."
-----------------------------
Like many of the Europeans who settled in the future United States, they came from countries where the law required everyone to belong to a state church. Other examples include the Quakers in Pennsylvania and the Catholics in Maryland.

When those colonies were founded, people from England and other European countries could be officially persecuted--by fellow Christians--for belonging to a church other than the official one.

Does the importance of freedom of religion in the First Amendment become a little more clear? When a government names an "official" religion, it is only too likely to name an official form of that religion (such as an official Christian denomination.)

Posted by: CherieOK | October 26, 2010 9:52 PM | Report abuse

The Constitution mandates that government ITSELF be secular (because it can "establish" no church), and it mandates that Congress pass no laws restricting the free exercise of religion.

Think about it. Hard. When we understand it, the Constitution turns out to be splendid! It says we can have no established church and thus cannot be subjected to the tyranny of ANY creed, whether a majority one (in our case, Christian) or not. For a Baptist like me, that's great news now (we Baptists are a fractious lot--where there are five Baptists, there are nine opinions--and I'm sticking with mine!). It was also good news back at the time of the Constitution's ratification, when Baptists in Virginia were imprisoned and otherwise persecuted for not being Anglican.

And the Constitution says that the government cannot pass laws restricting the free expression of religion. So I can be as "Baptist" as I want, you can be as atheist as you want, and my neighbor can be as Muslim as he wants, and we all can preach about the virtues of our beliefs until we are blue in the face without fearing that the government's going to come get us. We might scream at each other, but such is the price of freedom, religious and otherwise . . .

The Constitution does NOT mandate that society must be free of religion--the fervent wishes of atheists/secularists notwithstanding (remember, it says the government can pass no law restricting the free expression of religion). And of course, religious persons can be part of government. But what those quite possibly religious and, on the other hand, quite possibly irreligious government officials can't do is make government itself any part of the expression of religion. Kinda like this: the government cannot prevent us from praying (and it had better not try!), and it cannot compel us to pray, and it absolutely cannot tell us what to say when we pray if we choose to do so. Where there is religion involved, government itself must not be there.

And it seems that Ken Buck wants to disagree with that. Why?

Posted by: post_reader_in_wv | October 26, 2010 9:39 PM | Report abuse

Despite a large body of settled case law the the far right idealogues who want to appease their religious right supporters want to see if they can advance their agenda in trying to pass legislation which will allow teachers to teach creationism in public schools. This was attempted in Florida under the rubric of academic freedom and went nowhere. Unfortunately for the relgious right Kitzmiller v Dover Area Board of Education demolished creationism and the right will have a hard time litigating again. Of course the right is trying to pursue the personhood amendment n Colorado and of course if you deny that there is no separation of church and state it becomes easier to defend this insanity. It is interesting to see the regious right whine about the liberals who support the proposition of separation of church and state. No, this is strict constructionism. The right is guilty of historical revisionism.

Posted by: rant | October 26, 2010 9:19 PM | Report abuse

That idiot probably doesn't even know who Thomas Jefferson is! Sound crazy? Just listen to some of the other tea-baggers like Christine O'Donnell. They are NOT towering intellects!

Posted by: NMguy1 | October 26, 2010 9:04 PM | Report abuse

@commonman2

You state that "All of the founding documents reference God."

Please show me where "god" is referenced in the US constitution.

Apart from requiring that the government "make no laws respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the exercise thereof" (first amendment, O'Donnell fans), I do not recall any mention of "god".

The Declaration of Independence mentions the "creator", though it assigns no religion to him/her so not as to alienate any one religion, but is not a founding document, instead being an announcement to Britain of the colonies wishes to be free from british rule. It has no bearing on the laws of the land or formation of government.

Allusion to a higher power is made twice in the articles of confederation, the predecessor to the constitution, first in article 4, stating that the states would bind together to protect each other against "all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever" which is the basis for the wording in the constitution, and finally at the end where it states "And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures...", wording similar to that in the Declaration, intentionally vague and inclusive so as not to alienate any one religion.

What I find strange about this particular debate is that many on the religious right, who view themselves as constitutional conservatives and supposedly base their views as to how we should be governed only by what was written in the constitution itself now want suddenly to allude to documents other than the constitution in attempt to say that because many of the founding fathers were in fact christians of one type or another, they did not intend for church and state to be fully separated, but instead actually envisioned a de facto christian nation, if not in law, then in spirit.

Not being a strict constitutionalist, I have no problem with analyzing other documents to try and garner the intent of the founding fathers, nor do I have problems with legal precedence to be set by supreme court decisions allowing for the constitution written hundreds of years ago to remain relevant in quickly changing times. In fact I think both are essential. However I fail to see how one on the right can state in the same breath that personal letters written by Jefferson should somehow allow re-interpretation of our founding documents, yet legally binding opinions by the supreme court, which was created by the constitution solely for the purpose of interpreting the constitution, should be thrown out, and instead only the exact wording of the constitution be held relevant in other matters.

Posted by: johnqpublic1 | October 26, 2010 9:01 PM | Report abuse

Obama doesn't believe in the separation of church and state - he openly supports Islam and the federal government has spent billions building mosques all over the planet.

Posted by: joesmithdefend | October 26, 2010 8:30 PM | Report abuse

God
God is a concept,
By which we can measure,
Our pain,
I'll say it again,
God is a concept,
By which we can measure,
Our pain,
I don't believe in magic,
I don't believe in I-ching,
I don't believe in bible,
I don't believe in tarot,
I don't believe in Hitler,
I don't believe in Jesus,
I don't believe in Kennedy,
I don't believe in Buddha,
I don't believe in mantra,
I don't believe in Gita,
I don't believe in yoga,
I don't believe in kings,
I don't believe in Elvis,
I don't believe in Zimmerman,
I don't believe in Beatles,
I just believe in me,
Yoko and me,
And that's reality.
The dream is over,
What can I say?
The dream is over,
Yesterday,
I was dreamweaver,
But now I'm reborn,
I was the walrus,
But now I'm John,
And so dear friends,
You just have to carry on,
The dream is over.

Posted by: phillipmarlowe | October 26, 2010 8:29 PM | Report abuse

That's a fine skeleton outed, just in time for the election.

Posted by: snowyphile | October 26, 2010 8:08 PM | Report abuse

The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." That requirement is much stronger than the phrase "separation of church and state"

I find it arrogant to assume that even if prayer in school were allowed, that the prayer would be a Christian prayer. Suppose it was an Islamic prayer.

Would you still want prayer in school?

Christians might need the protection of the First Amendment sometime in the future. So I wouldn't be too quick to mess around with it.

Posted by: Frazil | October 26, 2010 8:03 PM | Report abuse

The constitution strongly implies the separation between Church and State. This has been upheld in hundreds of Supreme court cases. But for you who want to have this country 100 percent Christian should be careful that they may get what they wish for. As a Catholic we represent 80 percent of all US Christians. So we can make Bishops Senators and Cardinals Presidents. We can therefore make Catholicism the state religion and force all to go to our schools or not receive and education or a job...hmmm. The separation is a good idea don't you think? England 1776 again?

Posted by: Americacares | October 26, 2010 7:34 PM | Report abuse

What an idiot. Really, the man is an uneducated idiot spouting lies just because he wants them to be true. It's sad the Colorado GOP is scrapping this far into the bottom of the barrel.

Posted by: Nymous | October 26, 2010 7:31 PM | Report abuse

The word "God" does not appear within the text of the Constitution of the United States. After spending three-and-a-half months debating and negotiating about what should go into the document that would govern the land, the framers drafted a constitution that is secular. The U.S. Constitution is often confused with the Declaration of Independence, and it's important to understand the difference.
The Declaration of Independence refers to "the Creator." The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document; it is not the U.S. Constitution. Foes of the principle of separation of church and state often refer to the word "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence as proof that the framers of the U.S. Constitution intended for the United States to be ruled by a sovereign being. Nothing could be further from the truth. The United States Constitution was written and ratified by elected officials representing a coalition of Enlightenment rationalists and evangelical Christians who were deeply concerned about entanglements between religion and government. Source: http://www.theocracywatch.org/separation_church_state2.htm

Posted by: Sharon_6441 | October 26, 2010 7:05 PM | Report abuse

From the Treaty with Tripoli 1797 signed by John Adams:

Article. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Posted by: akyngcls | October 26, 2010 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Vote for keeping your feet on the ground. Heaven is somewhere else, and no amount of chest or tub-thumping will get you there.

Buck the trend.

Posted by: mickpenning | October 26, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Fine,let him move to Iran. Church and State are one.He'll be right at home.

Posted by: tjbrew |

***
Yep! And people scream about taking religion out of PUBLIC schools...well, that's what RELIGIOUS schools are for! And I'm an agnostic...when I taught in public school, it would have been ridiculous for me to lead students in prayer. And as for the right to free speech, students have the right NOT to recite the Pledge of Allegiance ("under God" was added later)...reciting something that was memorized after a few recitations has little or no meaning for 6-year-olds.

Posted by: DecafDrinker | October 26, 2010 6:46 PM | Report abuse

We in Colorado are in so much trouble if we vote in Buck and Tancredo. I don't believe Coloradans are that dumb. Hopefully when this is over these two radicals will fade away, but of course, they'll end up with a show on Fox(False)News where the Australian and Saudi owners of False News will continue to try to destroy America & use the feeble minded among us to do so.

Posted by: Sharon_6441 | October 26, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Going back to the original Mayflower compact (not the editied version in textbooks) The Pilgrims came here to escape religious persecution and to spread Christianity.

Most of the founding fathers were devout Christians, some were deists. All of the founding documents reference God. This is the God of the bible, not allah, not buddha, not Gaia. Church services were originally held in the Capital building. Under Thomas Jefferson, the government bought bibles for schools and required that they be used as a primary text book. In their writings, the founding fathers extolled the virtues of living a moral life according to the scriptures - especially anyone in government leadership!

People have taken a sentence written by Tomas Jefferson out of context to justify the supposed separation between church and state.

The facts are that we have always been a Christian nation. As a Christian nation, the people are free to be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Atheist, etc. The government can not discriminate against you for your religion or lack thereof. If you live in a Muslim nation, that is not the case.

Sadly, the information regarding the first ammendment provided in most public schools and promoted by the left wing media is just propaganda. Even this news outlet is misleading in their title. Mr. Buck is not stating that we need to have a state sponsored religion, he is simply stating that he disagrees with the popular mis-interpretation of the constitution. For stating the facts, he is called crazy. Interesting, but sad. Sadder still is the fact that the founding fathers recognized the tendancy of people to become corrupted by power and established the constitution and separation of powers to try to protect the people of the United States. Over the years, however, conmen and career politicians (sorry for the redundancy!) have managed to slowly corrupt this country and replace the normal interpretation of the Constitution with their own in order to serve their own desires. Compounding this is the fact that the population has been steadily "dumbed down" to the point that many do not realize how they are being lied to and cheated out of a future for themselves and their progeny.

Posted by: CommonMan2 | October 26, 2010 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Going back to the original Mayflower compact (not the editied version in textbooks) The Pilgrims came here to escape religious persecution and to spread Christianity.

Most of the founding fathers were devout Christians, some were deists. All of the founding documents reference God. This is the God of the bible, not allah, not buddha, not Gaia. Church services were originally held in the Capital building. Under Thomas Jefferson, the government bought bibles for schools and required that they be used as a primary text book. In their writings, the founding fathers extolled the virtues of living a moral life according to the scriptures - especially anyone in government leadership!

People have taken a sentence written by Tomas Jefferson out of context to justify the supposed separation between church and state.

The facts are that we have always been a Christian nation. As a Christian nation, the people are free to be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Atheist, etc. The government can not discriminate against you for your religion or lack thereof. If you live in a Muslim nation, that is not the case.

Sadly, the information regarding the first ammendment provided in most public schools and promoted by the left wing media is just propaganda. Even this news outlet is misleading in their title. Mr. Buck is not stating that we need to have a state sponsored religion, he is simply stating that he disagrees with the popular mis-interpretation of the constitution. For stating the facts, he is called crazy. Interesting, but sad. Sadder still is the fact that the founding fathers recognized the tendancy of people to become corrupted by power and established the constitution and separation of powers to try to protect the people of the United States. Over the years, however, conmen and career politicians (sorry for the redundancy!) have managed to slowly corrupt this country and replace the normal interpretaioin of the Constitution with their own in order to serve their own desires. Compounding this is the fact that the populatioin has been steadily "dumbed down" to the point that many do not realize how they are being lied to and cheated out of a future for themselves and their progeny.

Posted by: CommonMan2 | October 26, 2010 6:39 PM | Report abuse

With all the talk about the Founding Fathers, it's worth remembering that they were -- perish the thought -- elitists. Thomas Jefferson not only went to an elitist university, he even founded one! Hard to imagine why the cave-dwelling Republicans of 2010 would deign to give them the time of day, much less talk of them as some sort of divinely inspired (and slaveholding!) Joe Six Pack.

Posted by: eomcmars | October 26, 2010 6:38 PM | Report abuse

"It is called the Bill of RIGHTS for a reason... the government's power was intentionally scaled back in order to promote indavidual liberties. Liberties that today are being diminished by progressivism.
Posted by: aserwin | October 26, 2010 4:39 PM"

It wasn't us liberals/progressives who "diminished" the following liberties, it was the Bush Jr/Cheney Administration's "national security" policies of:

Warrantless spying on US citizens-violation of the 4th Amendment

Torture as official US policy-violations of the 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments

Indefinite detention-violations of the 6th and 8th Amendments

Suspension of habeas corpus-violation of the 6th Amendment

I didn't support these Constitution-guttings when it was Bush Jr/Cheney doing them, I don't support Obama's shameful continuing use of these unchecked powers either, which makes me more logically consistent-and legitimate-than anyone who cheered on the Bush Jr/Cheney regime's power grabs listed above with an enthusiastic "way to stick it to those terrorists and dirty hippies, President Bush"

The teabaggers blither that Obama is out to destroy our country and take away their guns, but, somehow, they NEVER worry that he'll use the powers passed on to him by the Bush Jr/Cheney Administration.

That's a logical inconsistency the teabaggers just can't spin in any kind of positive way.

Which means the teabaggers aren't really worried about Obama, and they definitely don't love our Constitution, instead, they love an unfettered Executive Branch more than anything else in the world, fascism is the only thing that makes the teabaggers happy, which is why they're so insistent on getting rid of our pesky Constitution.

Then again, expecting logical/ethical consistency from the teabaggers is like expecting water to be dry, or the sun to be cold, it just doesn't exist.

Posted by: kingcranky | October 26, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

It is fascinating to me that the very crowd who is usually crowing about how government can't do anything right is the same one who's bleating about how it should be no problem at all for it to refrain from separating church and state without favoring one religion over another-- which can only be done, if at all, by stripping the public prayer/school lesson/etc. of so much of what makes religion a matter of faith that it would be meaningless.

Tea Partyers don't want schoolteachers teaching their kids about evolution or any other subject with which they disagree, but they're willing to give a schoolteacher carte blanc to lead their kids in moments of worship? Do you even know what religion(s)--if any--your kids' teachers practice?

Posted by: pcpatterson | October 26, 2010 6:17 PM | Report abuse

I believe that the Constitution meant that there would be no official religion established by the United States, ie The Church of England. This allows us to chose and worship as we see fit, or not at all if that is our choice. The immigrants to the new land came to avoid religious persecution and that is what the Constitution says. I do not think that a prayer before a game and before school is promoting one religion over another but asking your creator from whichever religion, to guide you through the days activities or to protect the players from injury and that your God protect the travelers and players as they engage in an athletic event.

Posted by: GAMECOCKRXMAN
___________________
it doesn't say Congress can't establish one religion over another but it can establish religion in general. it says no law respecting an establishment of religion, period. the prayers that public schools recited before the courts banned them were clearly recognizable as protestant. Try writing a prayer before a football game that broadly appeals to Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Bhuddists without favoring one over another. Can't be done. and then there are the atheists. forcing them to stand and dissent by silence from the recitation of a prayer sure looks like an attempt to establish something religious to me.

Posted by: JoeT1 | October 26, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Buck,ODonnell, Rand, and all the rest of the Tea Party backed candidates are Wackos! These ignorant people are ridiculous and ill-equipped to govern. Further,there's a very good reason why there should be separation of church and state, and religion should not be an influence or a mandate. This America and Religion has no business in governing!

Posted by: HopeForAmerica | October 26, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Tear down that wall, Mr. Buck!

P.S. -- I am all for a national religion as long as it is Methodist. We could be a Methodist Republic, sort of like Israel but with better hymns.

Posted by: Sluggo51 | October 26, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

So... this idiot wants us to have sharia law? Or does he want us to be Buddhist or animists? What an idiot - but he does have the "duh" factor going for him!

Posted by: garoth | October 26, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse

The purpose of this was to make sure the U.S. didn't do what England had done, and what many Muslim countries do, today--establish a national religion which all must embrace, to the exclusion of all other religious worship.

"Separation" is not in the Constitution.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

People who honestly don't understand the first part of the 1st Amendment probably think that the last part means that you shouldn't be allowed to assemble--family reunions, birthday parties, etc. are forbidden, etc. NO!! It means that the government can't force you to go to a family reunion or birthday party, and it can't deny your right to attend them, peaceably.

It really isn't that difficult to understand. MOST of those who cry, "Separation of Church and State!", know exactly what the 1st Amendment says and means, but, they are using the fools who don't understand it to further an insidious agenda. So, it is subversives and fools who are perverting the 1st Amendment, and it must be stopped.

It should follow that the fools and subversives would be saying that the U.S. cannot make it unlawful to murder or steal because those concepts were in the Bible before the U.S. became a country so, in order to make sure the two remain separate, murder and theft should be legal.

Again, it's not that difficult to understand--read it and use your brains.

Posted by: coffic | October 26, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Contrary to many statements made above, the framers of the constitution and 1st amendment left a plethora of writings that make very clear the intent of the 1st amendment. Regarding religion, they only intended to prevent the Federal Government from establishing any single denomination as the official state religion and to ensure that Congress did not interfere with religious freedom! The 1st amendment does not contain the words "separation of church and state", and Thomas Jefferson, who used that term in the Danbury Baptist letter in 1802, was in France during the period when the 1st amendment was developed and ratified by the states. It must be remembered that it is the Congress that passed and the states that ratified the 1st amendment as it is written and it matters not at all what Jefferson or any other president may have thought of it (however Jefferson's many other writing on the subject make it clear he did not want any governmental restrictions on religion whatsoever). Unfortunately, the Supreme Court, in a series of decisions beginning in 1947 has transformed the government of the United States into an atheistic institution that has become an enemy to the Christian religion, a condition not intended by the First Congress or the ratifying states in adopting the 1st amendment. As then Justice Wm. Rehnquist wrote in a dissenting opinion in 1984, the term “Separation of church and state…is a misleading metaphor.”
Many Christians are rightfully angry that activist judges have stolen many of America’s religious freedoms and now force our children to be indoctrinated into the atheistic religion taught in our public schools. Note also that the free speech portion of the 1st amendment is now under assault as hate crime laws and political correct indoctrination continues to work into policies, laws, and court decisions spanning all levels of government. If we the people continue to act like powerless fools, we will continue to lose our freedoms. Based on current rates of corruption of the meaning of the 1st amendment, it will only be good for toilet paper within the next 20-years. As for the upcoming election, one should remember the old adage: "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me."

Posted by: dtanks | October 26, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse


Career politicians, do we need them?
It's time for a cleansing in Washin=gton.

It is time to VOTE-OUT-OF-OFFICE, the incumbents in Washington, state, and city pols of both parties. They are the reason that this country is in the mess that it is.
As long as less-than-aware voters keep in office people like Graham, Kerry, Simpson, Lieberman, McCain, Rangel, Reid, Pelosi, et al, the progress of the U.S. will be stalemated. Their primary interest as arrogant, self-entitled, inept and corrupt, is to keep their office, help their friends and family get wealthy, and gain as much power and money they can while in office.

It's time for a cleansing in Washington
Many of the problems this country can be attributed to the pols of the last 30/40 years. It is not what is good for the country but what is good for them and that is not the way it is supposed to be.

Vote OUT-OF-OFFICE all incumbents of both parties, federal, state, City, and vote for term limits when possible.
Kick the bums out.

Posted by: ronrod17509 | October 26, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse


Career politicians, do we need them?
It's time for a cleansing in Washin=gton.

It is time to VOTE-OUT-OF-OFFICE, the incumbents in Washington, state, and city pols of both parties. They are the reason that this country is in the mess that it is.
As long as less-than-aware voters keep in office people like Graham, Kerry, Simpson, Lieberman, McCain, Rangel, Reid, Pelosi, et al, the progress of the U.S. will be stalemated. Their primary interest as arrogant, self-entitled, inept and corrupt, is to keep their office, help their friends and family get wealthy, and gain as much power and money they can while in office.

It's time for a cleansing in Washington
Many of the problems this country can be attributed to the pols of the last 30/40 years. It is not what is good for the country but what is good for them and that is not the way it is supposed to be.

Vote OUT-OF-OFFICE all incumbents of both parties, federal, state, City, and vote for term limits when possible.
Kick the bums out.

Posted by: ronrod17509 | October 26, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse

I believe that the Constitution meant that there would be no official religion established by the United States, ie The Church of England. This allows us to chose and worship as we see fit, or not at all if that is our choice. The immigrants to the new land came to avoid religious persecution and that is what the Constitution says. I do not think that a prayer before a game and before school is promoting one religion over another but asking your creator from whichever religion, to guide you through the days activities or to protect the players from injury and that your God protect the travelers and players as they engage in an athletic event.

Posted by: GAMECOCKRXMAN | October 26, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Fine,let him move to Iran. Church and State are one.He'll be right at home.

Posted by: tjbrew | October 26, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Lord help this nation if people like buck, paul, angle and miller actually get elected. Perhaps they should actually read the constitution instead of just carrying it around with them. Or be ready for arrests and beatings if you don't agree with them.

For those of you that think education is overrated, just look at that crew.

Pathetic, absolutely pathetic.

Posted by: JilliB | October 26, 2010 5:07 PM | Report abuse

It is obvious that Mr. Buck is a committed individual.

Now, if someone will supply pencil and paper, I will gladly commit him to the loony-bin of my choice.

Posted by: chamateddy | October 26, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Obama and the Liberal Left are all about division! Whether race, class, age, gender, even faith - Liberals are all about division.

Not voting for the Conservative is to perpetuate the ruinous ECONOMIC policies of the Obama Administration, double-digit UNEMPLOYMENT, TAXES for all American taxpayers in January, and continued inane SPENDING such as OBAMACARE.

A vote for the Conservative is a vote against the current corruption and lies of this Administration.

The division stops November 2nd!

Posted by: 2012frank | October 26, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Thw Warren Court did not prohibit students from praying in school. It prohibited schools from having an official prayer time where students were forced to pray or listen to prayers of a different religion. I remember prayer in schools and how uncomfortable it made me feel even at age 8.

Posted by: blweiner8
_______________________
thanks for reminding everyone of this important distinction. those tea party types act like you'll be expelled if you say grace before you eat in a public school, or pray at your desk while everyone else is texting their friends before class.

Posted by: JoeT1 | October 26, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

The right wing likes to claim that the founding fathers were this big group of religious fanatics. They were not usually strong Christians, but more readily Deists, if anything.
If there had been a church established in the 18th Century by our founding fathers, it is more than likely to have been the Episcopal Church as the Church of England came to be known in this country after the 1776 Revolution.
I agree with the comment that if there is to be no separation between state and church, than the church needs to pay taxes on its income and donations need to be normal nondeductible expenses. We believe so much in the separation that we do not tax the church on its real property value, its church related income, nor its congregants to the extent that the latter donate to the church income.
If there is no separation, then there should be no separation period!

Posted by: stevkerens | October 26, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

The right wing likes to claim that the founding fathers were this big group of religious fanatics. They were not usually strong Christians, but more readily Deists, if anything.
If there had been a church established in the 18th Century by our founding fathers, it is more than likely to have been the Episcopal Church as the Church of England came to be known in this country after the 1776 Revolution.
I agree with the comment that if there is to be no separation between state and church, than the church needs to pay taxes on its income and donations need to be normal nondeductible expenses. We believe so much in the separation that we do not tax the church on its real property value, its church related income, nor its congregants to the extent that the latter donate to the church income.
If there is no separation, then there should be no separation period!

Posted by: stevkerens | October 26, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Thw Warren Court did not prohibit students from praying in school. It prohibited schools from having an official prayer time where students were forced to pray or listen to prayers of a different religion. I remember prayer in schools and how uncomfortable it made me feel even at age 8.

Posted by: blweiner8 | October 26, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it amazing how members of the radical right worship and how inviolate the words of the Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson, except when they don't support the views of the radical right?

Situational philosophy or just plain pure hypocrisy on the part of the radical right like Mr. Buck?

Or could it just be ignorance on the part of the radical right who just don't understand what the concept "rule of law" means, especially when the law is not what they mistakenly believe it to be.

Posted by: dl49 | October 26, 2010 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Constitutional Constructionism, the belief that the Constitution should be interpreted to reflect the writers of the Constitution's intent, pervades the political right, including the Tea Party.

Thomas Jefferson has told us what the first ammendment means as regards to religion - a wall of separation between church and government.

So it's settled. The Republicans and the Tea Party believe in the Separation of Church and State.

Posted by: jeadpt
___________________
good point. doesn't get much more "original intent" than Jefferson, and Madison, who wrote it, used the same phrase. Scalia would probably agree.

Posted by: JoeT1 | October 26, 2010 4:58 PM | Report abuse

The right wing likes to claim that the founding fathers were this big group of religious fanatics. They were not usually strong Christians, but more readily Deists, if anything.
If there had been a church established in the 18th Century by our founding fathers, it is more than likely to have been the Episcopal Church as the Church of England came to be known in this country after the 1776 Revolution.
I agree with the comment that if there is to be no separation between state and church, than the church needs to pay taxes on its income and donations need to be normal nondeductible expenses. We believe so much in the separation that we do not tax the church on its real property value, its church related income, nor its congregants to the extent that the latter donate to the church income.
If there is no separation, then there should be no separation period!

Posted by: stevkerens | October 26, 2010 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Despite the Halloween/ bug-a-boo nature of the headline, the candidate merely follows the Federalist papers. I am free from a state sponsored religion .... but I am totally free to pratice my religion. I understand the leftist problem with organized religion, in general. My beliefs shine a light on my opinion of your behavior - totally unallowed under 'political correctness.'

Posted by: IQ168
______________________
Ken Buck isn't content with the freedom to practice his religion. He wants government to practice it along with him.

Posted by: JoeT1 | October 26, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Lots of silly things written about this issue. If there is to be complete separation of church and state, they'll have to padlock chapels at West Point and Annapolis. And chaplaincies in the armed forces? Doesn't that add up to melding church and state - - paying salaries financed by taxes to ministers, priests, rabbis and imams. School crossing guards at parochial schools? Should we rethink desegregation/integration because Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. drew inspiration from biblical texts? Many clergymen discuss current issues from pulpits every weekend. Does "separation of church and state" demand they be muzzled?

In the real world, fundamental-isms dissolve into eternally begged questions. Abstractions pave the way for foaming debates that never end.

Posted by: Lawret | October 26, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

"The Pilgrims and Puritans left England because there was no separation between Church and State."

Actually that's not why they left England at all. I'm sure they would have loved to have stayed in England, if the Church had practiced the even *stricter* version of Christianity they did.

Posted by: gamz247 | October 26, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

So which theocratic governments does Buck admire and which elements of their theocracies would he like to import to the USA?

Posted by: squier13 | October 26, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

RE what is in or not in the Constitution...remember that the biggest land grab, aka, the Louisiana Purchase, was also opposed by many in Jefferson's day because it was not in the Constitution either...So for all you "strict constructionists"....you know what to do!

Posted by: johnklenert | October 26, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Then move to Iran Ken you idiot.

Do u really want god involved in this dysfunctional heap of trash of a government? Its better for all that humans get the blame for this and not him

Posted by: Chops2 | October 26, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

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

any questions?

Posted by: josepheeen | October 26, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Constitutional Constructionism, the belief that the Constitution should be interpreted to reflect the writers of the Constitution's intent, pervades the political right, including the Tea Party.

Thomas Jefferson has told us what the first ammendment means as regards to religion - a wall of separation between church and government.

So it's settled. The Republicans and the Tea Party believe in the Separation of Church and State.

Posted by: jeadpt | October 26, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

I'm not a Tea Party member, but it isn't just a "party line". It's a fact. "Separation of church and state" was a line initially used by Jefferson to assure members of the Danbury Baptist group that government would pass laws to govern their church. This is fully in line with the Constitutional notion that the government shall pass no laws respecting an establishment of religion, and says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the modern notion of "separation of church and state."

When in doubt, READ THE CONSTITUTION. You might be surprised at what you don't find. For instance, there's no right to abortion in it, much to the chagrin of liberals.

Posted by: hp_loveshaft
______________________
no, it was a line used by Jefferson to describe the effect of the establishment and free exercise clauses of the first amendment, and it is exactly what the "modern" notion of the phrase refers to - the interpretation of the free exercise and establishment clauses themselves.

as for what's "in" the consitution, you are misguided. the document is written in generalities. free exercise and establishment are pretty broad. can a public school require everyone to fold their hands, bow their heads, and recite the Lord's Prayer? the constitution doesn't say either way, you have to interpret the free exercise and establishment clauses. is there a right to an abortion? not in the document, but there's no explicit right to privacy either. the court's simply read the limitations on government power to create that right implicitly. and just by the way, Roe doesn't say there's a right to an abortion at all. It says that the states have no power to interfere in an individual's choice over personal medical procedures. whatever you think about that, it's a big difference. there's no "right to an attorney" if you are arrested in the constitution either, but there is a "due process" clause that can't mean anything at all as general as it is until the courts decide what's included in "due process" and on, and on.

Posted by: JoeT1 | October 26, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

This is not surprising from someone who also claims climate change is a hoax.

Theocracy is working REALLY well in Afghanistan, Iran and other repressive backwaters. THANK YOU, Ken Buck, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell et al for subtly trying to push their way of life onto the Land of the Free.

Posted by: B2O2 | October 26, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Buck and O'Donnell seem to have no under-
standing of how important his issue was to
our founding fathers. It may not use the
phrase "separation of church and state" in
the Constitution, but our founders were
deadly afraid of a government religion.
Ever hear of the Church of England? Why
do you think so many colonists came here?
So they could worship in their own way
without a government dictating this to you.
What O'Donnell and Buch are advocating is
the most un-American approach one could
ever offer. Want to see the danger of a
government-run religion? Just look at Iran.

Posted by: andyleheny | October 26, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Once again America and my fellow Americans - quote me on this: "The intent was to keep government out of religion, NOT religious fortutde out of the minds of those in government." -THE END

Posted by: LieToMe | October 26, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Well if we're not going to keep church and state separate then the churches in this country need to start paying their share of the taxes. If they feel they have the right to campaign from either their pulpits or through candidates then it's only fair they pay taxes NOW!

I do not want any church regardless of which god they pretend to worship to tell me what to do and how to live and if they're not separated entirely from the political process then there's always the liability that they'll be staging an "Inquisition" with idiots like Palin and Buck as the chief inquisitors!

Think about it. And besides I'm really tired of the conservatives in this country talking about taking back THEIR country.

This is not exclusively anyone's country. It belongs to all of us and I'm not bowing down to Buck's or Palin's or Rove's god anytime soon, they're all going to burn in hell anyway.

Posted by: davidbronx | October 26, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Here should be the challenge for any court when it comes to, for example, prayer in school.

1) Does allowing students to pray in school constitute an "establishment" of religion?

2) Does NOT allowing students to pray in school constitute "prohibiting" them from freely excercizing their religion?

The answer is simple. The first amendment does not require a "wall of separation". It does however prohibit the government form controling when and where you can pray!

The Warren court (and others) didn't care much for the Constitution as it was written... Warren himself called the Constitution a "document of negative liberties"...

It is called the Bill of RIGHTS for a reason... the government's power was intentionally scaled back in order to promote indavidual liberties. Liberties that today are being diminished by progressivism.

Posted by: aserwin | October 26, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Buck is totally devoid of brain power. He wants us to actually endorse a religion, and I would guess that he would want all of his executive decisions in Congress to be blessed by a member of the clergy.

One more example of why the T Party and its choices DO NOT belong in government.

Posted by: ronjeske | October 26, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Despite the Halloween/ bug-a-boo nature of the headline, the candidate merely follows the Federalist papers. I am free from a state sponsored religion .... but I am totally free to pratice my religion. I understand the leftist problem with organized religion, in general. My beliefs shine a light on my opinion of your behavior - totally unallowed under 'political correctness.'

Posted by: IQ168 | October 26, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Read the document. Read he history of it. Read the thoughts of the people who wrote it. Separation of chrch and state, although the phrase is usually attributed to TJ in the Letter to the Danbury Baptists (who were so please at the president being perfectly clear that religion and government do not go together under our Constitution that tey sent him a 1,000 pound wheel of cheese) is a phrase that was also frequently used by Madison, the guy who WROTE THE FIRST AMENDMENT. The concept for it predated the Bill of Rights, and if you want more of the hitory of it read the memorial and Remonstrance regarding the Virginia Bill of Religious Assessments. The VA statute of Religious Freedom (1786) was the result madison and Jeffersons efforts, and is an immediate precursor to the 1st amendment.

If you want simpler proof just read the original Constitution. Only one mention of religion - no calls to a higher power, creator, Jesus (baby or grown up Jesus) or any other supernatural beings there. Just one clause banning religious tests as a requirment for office. A separation of church and state. And then further clarified in the 1st Amendment banning government from partiipating in or prohibiting expressions of religion. A separation of church and state.

You teahadis are like my 6 year old. If I say "do you think you could put a trash bag in the can?" she doesn't because she is too little to understand that it is not really a question, just a rhetorical contruct. You think because the words "separation of church and state" do not appear that it could not possibly be what tey meant, when to a cognizant adult with even a little tiny bit of historical understanding of the document knows that it is exactly what they meant.

And don't even start with the 2nd amendment. You guys REALLY don't get that one, because you only read half of it, and that out of context as well.

Posted by: John1263 | October 26, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: hp_loveshaft

"When in doubt, READ THE CONSTITUTION. You might be surprised at what you don't find. For instance, there's no right to abortion in it, much to the chagrin of liberals."

There's nothing in the Constitution about stealing either. Now hand over the keys to your car.

Posted by: jeadpt | October 26, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

The Pilgrims and Puritans left England because there was no separation between Church and State. The Spanish Inquisition happened because there was notseparation between Church and State. Ken Buck needs a history lesson.

Posted by: mcdonalsherry | October 26, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

"It is no coincidence that the Texas Board of Education is trying to downplay Jefferson's role in the creation of our nation as they revise history."

Well, there is that whole thing about him not having any part of the construction of the Constitution. It was all James Madison.

Posted by: gamz247


HOOT!

Posted by: newagent99

================

Yeah, but there's also that part about his being the one who drafted the Declaration of Independence--speaking of the "creation of our nation", that is.

Posted by: jaded3 | October 26, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

cassandra said: "In order to avoid government sanctioning a particular faith or acting against a particular faith, the government must be religion neutral. Religion neutral is another way of saying separation of church and state."

That doesn't put it in the Constitution now, does it? And if our founding fathers wanted to be "religion neutral", how do you explain all the references to a higher power in so many of their speeches and official government documents?

Furthermore, the Constitution sets limitations on the FEDERAL government. That means if a public school wants to put up a "God Bless America" sign, it wouldn't even be remotely un-Constitutional even if the mythical "separation of church and state" clause was in the Constitution.

What part of "Congress shall pass no law" don't liberals understand? Is it the "Congress" part? Or the "pass no law" part? Or both?

Posted by: hp_loveshaft
_____________________
you've got most of this wrong. the 14th amendment's equal protection clause applied the first amendment to the states, so "Congress shall pass no law" now applies to the states. Anyone who knows anything about the Constitution knows that the shorthand reference to the establishment and free exercise clauses (which don't roll off the tongue) has been "separation of church and state" since 1802 when Jefferson described those two clauses as doing just that. what they mean is another matter, but it's absurd to say that separation of church and state isn't in the Constitution.

It's almost as dumb to think that even if Obama had called the tree a holiday tree that it was because he thought separation of church and state required it.

this isn't about a tree. it's about school prayer led by teachers at the beginning of class in public schools, and mandatory teaching of creationism as an alternate theory to evolution.

Posted by: JoeT1 | October 26, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

If the Constitution was all encompassing then why there are Amendments to it?

Posted by: kishorgala | October 26, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

hp_loveshaft, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are very tersely worded and, therefore, difficult, if not impossible, to interpret in isolation. What the words in these documents mean to you is not what rules this country, it's what the words meant to those who crafted these documents that we go by.

Read up on what the founding fathers thought about the issue of religion and government and you might be surprised. Do you really think they would choose the wording they did if they intended to say that mixing religion and government is OK so long as it doesn't go too far?

The Bill of Rights is supposed to protect citizens from government overreach, not to set minimal constraints on the government intrusion into our private lives and personal affairs.

Posted by: wireknob | October 26, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

So....the tehadis are all for the Constitution, except only the parts that they like. Of course.

If you needed another reason to vote Democrat this year, this should add to the list.

Posted by: John1263 | October 26, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

"When in doubt, READ THE CONSTITUTION. You might be surprised at what you don't find. For instance, there's no right to abortion in it, much to the chagrin of liberals." Maybe you should heed your own advice. Check out the Ninth Amendment in the Bill of Rights: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I think the framers meant this for you and others who constantly parrot the line that, if you "don't find" it in the Constitution then that right shouldn't exist. They knew simpletons like yourself and your brethren in the tea party would interpret it that way.

Posted by: mjk4 | October 26, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Even prostitutes have a limit as to what they'll do for a Buck! But Buck has no limit as to what he'll do for a vote!

The next question to him would be if he is strongly against the separation of Mosque and State? Synagouge and State? Temple and State? Pagoda and State?

Posted by: kishorgala | October 26, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

cassandra said: "In order to avoid government sanctioning a particular faith or acting against a particular faith, the government must be religion neutral. Religion neutral is another way of saying separation of church and state."

That doesn't put it in the Constitution now, does it? And if our founding fathers wanted to be "religion neutral", how do you explain all the references to a higher power in so many of their speeches and official government documents?

Furthermore, the Constitution sets limitations on the FEDERAL government. That means if a public school wants to put up a "God Bless America" sign, it wouldn't even be remotely un-Constitutional even if the mythical "separation of church and state" clause was in the Constitution.

What part of "Congress shall pass no law" don't liberals understand? Is it the "Congress" part? Or the "pass no law" part? Or both?

Posted by: hp_loveshaft | October 26, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

The far right has Ken Buck, the rest of us Thomas Jefferson.

Posted by: jimsteinberg1 | October 26, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse


i guess this means that mr. buck no longer wishes to become a united states senator, since, as part of his swearing-in ceremony, he would be obliged to state, under oath, that he would uphold the constitution of the united states of america.

LOLOL

Posted by: potomacfever00 | October 26, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Ken is looking at Iran and saying" Hmm maybe its not that bad of idea to combine church and state(gov't)together. To Ken, having a religious leader like Iran has is a good way forward. I wonder who the "Leader or Spiritual leader will be" if he has his way? I like the separation of Church and State as I do like the separation of powers in our government. Since all repubs think Obama is a Muslim, maybe Obama will pick his Imam to be our spiritual leader until 2012..Careful what we do in this time of insanity and who we put in power...And President Obama is not a Muslim but just imagine if these Tea Baggers get their way, what religion will be sponsored as the power switches hands. Today one, next time another..And who gets left out, "Witch" one,....get it...LMAO...Insanity has taken over common sense

Posted by: Realistic5 | October 26, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

In order to avoid government sanctioning a particular faith or acting against a particular faith, the government must be religion neutral. Religion neutral is another way of saying separation of church and state.

What I wonder is why the Republicans are embracing these fringe, reactionary, crackpot candidates like Buck. And I wonder what the consequences will be for the Republican party.

Posted by: cassandra9 | October 26, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

gposner said: "The party line appears to be that separation of church and state is not explicitly written into the constitution and is therefore invalid. Could any Tea Party members enlighten us on this question?"

I'm not a Tea Party member, but it isn't just a "party line". It's a fact. "Separation of church and state" was a line initially used by Jefferson to assure members of the Danbury Baptist group that government would pass laws to govern their church. This is fully in line with the Constitutional notion that the government shall pass no laws respecting an establishment of religion, and says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the modern notion of "separation of church and state."

When in doubt, READ THE CONSTITUTION. You might be surprised at what you don't find. For instance, there's no right to abortion in it, much to the chagrin of liberals.

Posted by: hp_loveshaft | October 26, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

If there's one thing that people cannot agree on, it's faith. But if there's one thing people should agree on, it's the right to worship as you choose.

The original settlers to this country came here for the freedom to worship as they choose. People today still want those same rights. The candidates might do well to remember that, because those of us who enjoy our freedom of religion, will be taking the desire to keep the separation of church and state to the voting booth.

Posted by: Javabean | October 26, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

"It is no coincidence that the Texas Board of Education is trying to downplay Jefferson's role in the creation of our nation as they revise history."

Well, there is that whole thing about him not having any part of the construction of the Constitution. It was all James Madison.

Posted by: gamz247


HOOT!

Posted by: newagent99 | October 26, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

somehow these tea party types can go into great contortions in misinterpreting the 1st Amendment, yet go ballistic if anyone invokes the "well regulated militia" phrase of the 2nd Amendment to support gun control. ya gotta wonder.

Posted by: eomcmars | October 26, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

76% of Americans identify as Christians, with the remaining 24% split between other religions and atheists. Whose religion do you pick?

The majority? Right now it's Christianity, but several of the denominations can't agree with each other on whose version of Christianity is right. I find it telling though, that the only people proposing abolishing the separation of church and state ARE Christians. Freedom of religion is fine, as long as you're Christian? Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

If there's one thing that people cannot agree on, it's faith. But if there's one thing people should agree on, it's the right to worship as you choose.

The original settlers to this country came here for the freedom to worship as they choose. People today still want those same rights. The candidates might do well to remember that, because those of us who enjoy our freedom of religion, will be taking the desire to keep the separation of church and state to the voting booth.

Posted by: Javabean | October 26, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

sonny2 said: "...and everyone agrees that the Constitution calls for seperation [SIC] of Church and State."

People who have actually...you know...read the Constitution...will disagree with your statement.

Congress shall pass no laws respecting the establishment of religion...pretty clear to anyone with 8th grade reading comprehension that this means the government cannot mandate a state religion. Only a liar or an idiot would claim that unambiguous wording somehow means city governments cannot put up nativity scenes.

Posted by: hp_loveshaft | October 26, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Thank you Mr. Buck but the world doesn't need another theocracy.
If you don't like the separation of church and state you are welcomed to move to Iran. In fact, your descrption of rape as "buyer's remorse" and your general views on womens rights are already aligned with those of the ayatollahs.

Posted by: SEROCABA | October 26, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Those who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution came out of a time of great conflict caused by religion. They had ample reason to guard against any one religion becoming established by government in this new world.

They were predominantly christian and Deists - their idea of God would not look at all like that of the fundamentalist Christians of today, like any of the christian faiths that thump their Bible as the literal and only truth of God. They believed in Jesus but what they believed about what they were to do with that belief would not look anything like what is preached today!

Even though most of the Founding Fathers were Christians, they would not declare this country a Christian country. The Bible and Jesus are not even mentioned in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. They did that for a reason, it was not an oversight or because the Founding Fathers lacked the vision to see that this country would one day have citizens who were Muslim or Hindu or most any other religion they knew of at that time.

They were not stupid. They knew what they were doing. Think, people, before you applaud a politician who thinks he is smarter than Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington, Thomas Paine, John Adams, or Thomas Hamilton.

Is there anything said by Christine O'Donnell or Ken Buck that makes you think either one of these people come close to the brain power of those who could write the two documents that established this country?

Posted by: amelia45 | October 26, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

"It is no coincidence that the Texas Board of Education is trying to downplay Jefferson's role in the creation of our nation as they revise history."

Well, there is that whole thing about him not having any part of the construction of the Constitution. It was all James Madison.

Posted by: gamz247 | October 26, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Project it out... Salem witch trials for the O'Donnel's of the world.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld1 | October 26, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Ok, so everyone agrees that Buck is an idiot, and everyone agrees that the Constitution calls for seperation of Church and State.

Why then, should my tax dollars be spent so that the White House can erect a Christmas tree?

Posted by: sonny2 | October 26, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Yet more proof that the Republican/Tea Party is still the dominion of the religious right. They love everything about our Constitution except the principles it is founded upon and the political ideals of the founding fathers who wrote it.

Posted by: wireknob | October 26, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

I am so confused by some tea party members. They don't want big Government, but they don't want to keep the government out of religion (or religion out of the government). You can't have it both ways. Furthermore, many of our constitutional rights are not explicitly stated in the Constitution, but instead have been enshrined in Supreme Court case after case. We don't really want these people running this country.

Posted by: DCNative18 | October 26, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

It is no coincidence that the Texas Board of Education is trying to downplay Jefferson's role in the creation of our nation as they revise history.

Posted by: binaryboy | October 26, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

As if any more evidence is needed, Buck, like O'Donnell, is too lacking in intelligence and common sense to be a U.S. Senator. Heck, even a state senator. Or even an elected dog-catcher.

Posted by: luridone | October 26, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Wow!!! I mean WOOOOW!!

In my book Mr Buck gets the 2010 campaign award for the most insanely unamerican statement of the season.

Posted by: alpacaman1 | October 26, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

I do not understand this uncertainty over the meaning of the Constitutional phrasing. Concern seems specious.

I don't like a fairly clear tenet of the Constitution, a tenet that is described in particular wording a few decades or so later by someone much closer to the intent than we are now. But never mind, it doesn't suit my world view, so I will insist that the Constitution should say so in specific wording the way I want it to, perhaps while one stands on one foot and sings "la la la" between words...if I don't hear it exactly the way I want, then it doesn't mean what I want it to mean.

Jefferson, for one, described the intent. His precise phrasing does not have to appear in the document itself to validate that intention.

Posted by: McSee | October 26, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

welcome to our website:
==
“ ===( http://www.ebay21.com / )=====

Q u al i t y is our D i g n i t y; Service is our Lift.

Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33

Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35
Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16

free shipping
competitive price
any size available
accept the paypal
=
“ ===( http://www.ebay21.com / )===

Posted by: dfhjadfjsdf | October 26, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Ken Buck said: "While we have a Constitution that is very strong in the sense that we are not going to have a religion that's sanctioned by the government, it doesn't mean that we need to have a separation between government and religion."

========

Huh?

Exactly how does Ken Buck think "we are not going to have a religion that's sanctioned by the government" without separating government and religion?

I'm not sure how Ken would ensure that "we are not going to have a religion that's sanctioned by the government" without completely separating the two?

In Ken's world, the earth can be both round and flat at the same time!

Good grief.

Posted by: Freestinker | October 26, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Here we go again, the very knuckleheads who claim to so strongly support the U.S. Constitution are really against it.

Now, which religion shall be chosen, and by whom?

How about we offend a bunch of people and disrespect all of the Christians and all other faiths by declaring the USA a Jewish State. After all, Jews are God's chosen people.

And then how shall we faithfully apply that religion to everything political.


Posted by: lindalovejones | October 26, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Okay, so now we have two major Tea Party candidates questioning the separation of church and state. The party line appears to be that separation of church and state is not explicitly written into the constitution and is therefore invalid. Could any Tea Party members enlighten us on this question? Is this something that is discussed at Tea Party meetings? We need to know.

Posted by: gposner | October 26, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Willing to throw over 200 years of precedent away. Too extreme. Thomas Jefferson must be rolling over in his grave.

Posted by: Lefty_ | October 26, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company