@TimeChaser:

Heh, I usually have some book with me wherever I go. It's usually some nerd-related stuff like Informal Logic.

Yeah, some things have to be thought of in a historical context. Otherwise, some texts or documents have strange or unintended consequences when interpreted literally according to the standards of 2010. It just reminds me to always take those precautions when interpreting texts.

@Pleiades Rising:

I'm always carrying some book around with me that's pretty long, so I wouldn't doubt that. ^^

The whole semantics of the issue is ridiculous anyway. These are people who think the Constitution is static and does not evolve with society. They still live hundreds of years ago in their minds. >>;

Cases like these always reminds me of why I take language perhaps too seriously. When it comes to semantics and its ilk, only law rivals politics in the rigorous study of who-said-exactly-what. Nothing's more fun than reading about vagueness, ambiguity, and amphiboly! (Okay, it's fun if you're a nerd.)

If we ever meet, I expect both of us to be lugging around some 400+ page books.

@:

Yep. Just as there is this myth of "traditional marriage", when marriage as it is today has only existed within the last century really. Marrying of one's own choice, and for love and not as some means of gaining power/land/position/etc.

People living in delusions...

@Neko Nana Mode:

I agree, it is a sad state. -3- These people honestly frighten me. I hope I don't have to live under the thumb of a theocracy before I die. Course I still plan to move to Sweden of that happens.

Snuggie sex........ WTF!

In Colorado, there is apparently a law trying to go through for making abortion illegal. I don't debate the topic and I will never give a word to either side, but, that is a soley relegious idea.
It is my opinion that the best way politicians know of getting votes is to vye for the relegious people's votes.
Sad state of the world if you ask me.

NNM

@AnimeArchAngel:

Your teacher sounds really smart. I'm glad you're learning important stuff like that. :3

And I'd be glad to talk to you more about it anytime. ^^

@TimeChaser:

My teacher has been explaining that too, how the Constitution is alive. The Framers left it vague because they knew that society would change.

Oh no, thanks for taking the time to explain. I never thought I would be interested in any of this, but once I finally got into the class I really enjoyed it. I'd love to talk about it more later. ^^

@AnimeArchAngel:

The basic language of the Amendment states that the government can not be legally partial to one religion, or make laws favoring one over others. It also says the government cannot interfere with the citizens' right to practice their religion.

What O'Donnell and many conservatives are doing is worming their way into what they see as a gray area when it comes to something like teaching "intelligent design" in schools. Intelligent design is merely Biblical creationism repackaged in a clever public relations campaign to dupe people into thinking it's science, when it is the furthest thing from science. It has no place being taught in science class. People just keep repeating rhetoric and propaganda like parrots.

Another thing people like O'Donnell do not understand is that the Constitution is not a static document, it is alive and ever changing as society changes and we continue to climb out of the ignorance of the past.

I could go on about a lot of these issues but I don't want to rant too much. ^^ If you'd like, I could tell you more about it later though. :3

@SomeGuy:

We just talked about the violent video game law in Civics today. Yeah, there's no way that's going to be passed, seeing as to how it's been stopped in at least five states already.And even if they do, you could just ask your parents to buy it for you, and they might. I'm interested in hearing about the Supreme Court case in two weeks. Ah, I love Civics.

But about the actual post. We just finished learning about the amendments as well, the first specifically. I know it's only on the most basic level, but still, I feel like I can at least somewhat understand it enough to form an opinion. When the article said, '"That's in the First Amendment?" she said, smiling. ', I felt like she was being a jerk. =/ So, like, they need to take it to court, right? For someone to interpret the amendment?

@Allamorph:

I have to say I agree with pretty much everything you said. What irks me about how this came up in the debate is the tired old argument about intelligent design creationism and whether it has a place being taught in schools. Which it doesn't. A theology class? Fine. But what people want is to drag crank pseudoscience (if it can even be called that much) into a science class where it doesn't belong.

Sadly, there are people who seem to have no problem taking us backwards to theocracy again. I also think when they start talking about how America was "founded as a Christian nation", they're just parroting rhetoric. They've never read a single thing the Founding Fathers ever wrote.

Woof. This requires some delving into.

First off, her decision to take this approach was asinine. It amounts to "I am smarter than you, so I will use a mild smattering of theatrics to illustrate just how much smarter than you I am by making every one of you call me a moron". Wonderful. This woman should never be elected ever.

NEXT PART.

Separation of church and state exists. It has to. If it didn't we'd be a theocracy. That would suck.

I mean, really. We tried that a few times, too. Catholicism and Anglicanism have both had their shots. They botched it to hell, pun intended.

However, I would posit that the concept is neither a mere statement not to establish a single national religion nor an across-board wall to keep the two separate.

The first point is pretty simple. This nation was not founded on the basis of religious freedom. It was founded on the basis of freedom from an overbearing government that paid no heed to its citizens. Our nation was only colonised on the basis of religious freedom, and even that isn't the entire reason—it was also commerce for Great Britain, and a place a person could go to work off debts they owed.

Side note: I am starting to become very discontent with people of my faith who claim we are "losing our country" and need to "take it back for Christ". Christ didn't advocate conquest. He said "Go therefore and teach all nations, baptising them...", he said nothing about owning it.

So no, wasn't founded on Christianity. If anything it was founded because of religious persecution of Christians by other Christians, which is just idiotic. True, it was founded by Christian men; and true, their ideals and beliefs played roles in shaping our documents, but our pledge says "one nation under God", not "one nation for God".

And that slides into the opposite angle. You can't actually bar religion from affecting anything State-related at all. The people in office are (we hope) real people with (we hope) real beliefs, and their morals are going to in part guide their judgments.

But this wouldn't ever be an issue normally. It only becomes an issue when we get into trying to teach children history pre-records.

@Miss Anonymous:

I never thought I'd see Rule 34 applied to Snuggies.

@SomeGuy:

The Snuggie thing kind of makes sense, in an odd way. But I just had to shake my head at some of the position titles and the fact that people actually put some thought into such an idea.

I do try to live in hope that there's now way the crazy people will take over now that voices of sanity and reason have far more power then they did even 50 years ago. It was pretty discouraging though to see people expressing support for her in the comments. *shakes head*

@:

It's funny in a "Oh no, they didn't..." kind of way. ^^

Politics are aggravating.

Wow, Snuggie sex... that's a concept I never thought I'd ever see ever.

I am strangely intrigued by the concept of snuggie snookie . . .

. . . more important matters, though, I love it when people try to pass stupid legislation or things like this. Myself, I'm embroiled in California's "violent video game" legislation that in theory should be shot down immediately as it already has been many times.

It's funny like that. And that's really all you can do. Acknowledge how ridiculous things in life are, and hope that more collected heads will see it in like.