The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Alex]

She's part of the end of the political spectrum that does not believe the First Amendment has been properly interpreted by the Supreme Court. No surprise there.

But if she was simply trying to win points on whether the phrase "separation of church and state" is word for word in the First Amendment then that's almost as stupid since it is very much the case that the separation of church and state created (in her opinion, as later stated in a supposed defense) by the Supreme Court is very much founded on its analysis of the First Amendment.

So, to me, it is like if I were to say "the 13th Amendment frees the slaves. And her brilliant response was "you're saying that frees the slaves is in the constitution? You're saying that's in the 13th Amendment? What a maroon you are, that phrase appears nowhere in the constitution." Technically right, totally moron.

But then of course there's the fact that, if the transcripts are correct she first questioned whether "separation of church and state" is in the Constitution and Coons quoted the relevant part to her and she didn't restate that the phrase was in the Constitution but instead questioned whether what he just quoted to her was in the Constitution.

[Alex]

And I'm always curious about those who use Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists as evidence that the first amendment was intended to be only a protection of religion from the state but then ignore Madison's (who was actually there and involved in writing the Constitution, unlike Jefferson) many writings that just as strongly convey that the intent was also to protect government from religion.

[Alex]

In other news, my mother has taken to posting Ayn Rand quotes on Facebook.

Rand adoration is cute in 20 year olds, a bit tiresome in 40 year olds, and scary when a new discovery by a 53 year old.

[scaeagles]

If you are referring to me, I was simply pointing out where the phrase came from. I am typically far more in line with Madisonian interpretations than Jeffersonian (or Hamiltonian, for that matter).

Also, while it is the currently accepted interpretation of the first amendment, it is not universally accepted and there are many intelligent people who do not like the current interpretation. Just many intelligent people disagree on the second amendment, it is possible for intelligent people to disagree on this, and to the extent to which the phrase, if accepted as the interpretation, goes.

[Alex]

No, if you're not arguing that point of view then I'm not referring to you. The post was just in response to the many "the First Amendment is a one way barrier" arguments I've seen lately.

But then I'm pretty strongly in the first amendment absolutist camp so they always seem silly to me.

[scaeagles]

About your comment on those who would point to Jefferson's letter and then ignore Madison's writings....that isn't that uncommon on any aspect of the constitution. Most people who care to try read up on various interpretations of portions of the constitution would pick and choose those that fall in line mostly with their own. For example, there was a discussion here once about the general welfare clause. My point of view is in line with Madison, who viewed a loose interpretation of the clause as a blank check for the government. I would suspect that many who would prefer his writings on the first amendment would not fall in line with his views on the general welfare clause.

[Alex]

Sure, confirmation bias is a hard road to get off. When it comes down to it, I just try to resist holding up the founders as particularly useful participants in current discussion. They were smart, they are interesting to look at, but ultimately they are individually irrelevant and one can find a quote to support any position especially when one simply finds the quotes through Bartlett's rather than actual familiarity with what they had to say.

Doesn't make it any less annoying to deal with.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I have heard the soundbite. I believe her contention was that the phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution...and indeed it isn't. I do not think after hearing it that she was surprised that the concept exists,

You didn't get far enough. Coons brings it up again, and quotes the first ammendment (no law establshing, etc. etc.) she says, "That's in the first amendment?" Start at 7:07 in the clip JW linked to.

I'm sure he would have if he were asked. However, they weren't the topic.

O'donnel did later ask him and he was unable to answer, after which he said something like, "hey, isn't the moderator supposed to be asking the question."

[Moonliner]

Another interesting take on this issue.

Originally Posted by Bad Astronomer

There are a lot of things to note in this video. The first is that multiple times she ducks Wolf Blitzer’s question about whether or not she thinks evolution is a myth, saying that her beliefs about evolution and creationism aren’t important; what’s important are local schools and what they can teach. That is utter baloney. As a Senator, she might be asked to vote on bills that are directly or indirectly involved with this issue, and her personal belief is very important indeed.

And why duck the question? Is she ashamed of being a creationist, or simply trying to avoid looking foolish on television?

Second, and more importantly, is her comment:

What I will support in Washington DC is the ability for the local school system to decide what is taught in their classroom… [I was talking about] a classroom that was not allowed to teach creationism as an equal theory as evolution. That is against their Constitutional rights and that is an overreaching [of the] arm of the government.

Wow. There is so much wrong in this one statement!

First is her thinking that creationism is on equal footing as a theory as evolution. That’s not only wrong, it’s spectacularly wrong, as wrong as saying astrology is on equal footing as astronomy. We might as well teach the Stork Theory of baby delivery in health class, and the Tooth Fairy Theory in economics.

[innerSpaceman]

Yeah, not only did she FAIL the question very specifically later - as GD just referred to, if you watch the clip, it's inescapable what a DUMBSH!T she is. It's really quite astounding - even for her!