Faterikcantman seems to have won this discussion on its merits. Our system has flaws and one of them seems to be that judical review can be used for political purposes. “Seperation of Church and State” is a different concept then the exemption clause. It seems that the exemption clause was used to enforce seperation of Church and State. I do not want anyone telling me what religion to abide by. But I certainly do not want to live in the same society where I could drive down the street and see a woman getting stoned by rocks either. The difference is that our common understanding of what is right and wrong came from somewhere and in this country it came from a mixture of Judeo-Christian beliefs combined with ideas from the enlightenment…..all Western European/American. A society must have common beliefs in order to operate as a society. Otherwise it fractures and divides. For our country to fracture and divide would spell the end of our strength. Our commonality is our stength. I think one thing most of us agree upon is the right of the minority to be heard, but that does not mean that the minority rules.
So our mores must have some commonality. O’Donnell was right as Faterikcantmen proves. My real question is whether she knew she was right or not? Everyone who laughted at her showed either their bias or their ignorance. But guess what now we are talking about what the Constitution means or should mean. We are not talking about partisen b.s. That is the type of dialogue that has been missed for many years in this country. I hope it comes back.
