Just do a Search, and find out that Google is not much help on factual news.
Christine O’Donnell debated Chris Coons in Delaware today, and her question about separation of church and state has been mocked by everyone who hasn’t read the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment.
There is nothing about Separation of church and state in the constitution. The premise of her question is absolutely correct. Go look for yourself.
There is a prohibition against establishing a state church, or a theocracy. And there is protection of freedom of religion. But there is no separation. One does not separate the religion of a person from his activities, since the religion governs the activities.
The lefties are hell-bent to strip us of our free expression of religion, and the little students have been dutifully indoctrinated by their instructors. Widener University Law Students exposed their utter ignorance of the Constitution and the First Amendment, by their laughing response to O’Donnell’s question.
Read the First Amendment for yourself:
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.
No separation in there.
That idea came from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote, Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 and which the lefties have interpreted for the purpose of expunging the free expression of religion. Interestingly, the letter was an assurance that the churches would continue to be protected from encroachment by the government.
Regarding the presentation of Creationism in the public schools: nothing is wrong with presenting that as a theory concerning how we came to be. Evolution is a theory. Intelligent design is also a theory. Pharmer posits them as equivalent theories, because no one has observed either event occurring, and both are studied and pondered as possibilities by both scientists and theologians. Creationism is a subset idea under the Intelligent design concept, which comes from a rather literal interpretation of the Judeo-Christian religious texts. It does not violate the Constitution to present the various theories of how humans came to be. It is, however a violation of the Constitution to give only one theory as educational dogma, as is done by presenting only Evolution (a theory first brought forth by Charles Darwin, who also acknowledged the Creator in his book).
Those of us read Darwin’s book and who are functional in the field of science, understand that a Theory is not Dogma, and is not to be taught as such, or it will not be questioned, refined and improved.
O’Donnell’s religion is Catholicism. It does not propound a literal interpretation of the Biblical Creation Story as dogma. It does, however teach that there is the Creator who made the universe(s) and designed humans in His own image.
Pharmer, a functional scientist who does not fear freedom of religion, recommends this for a holistic public education curriculum:
The Evolution theory should be presented along with the Creation theories of many different cultures. Let’s have some diversity.
It’s very sad that the students at Widener University, and almost all of the mainstream media in the United States are so completely uneducated about our Constitution.
Pharmer of Indiana is donating to the Delaware campaign of O’Donnell, to honor the spirit of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as soon as they give a mechanism without requiring employer info. Found one! Sent $ for both O’Donnell and Angle.
There is a Dire need for the TEA Party and it must continue.