A woman who described herself as a teacher of the Constitution was caught on video clashing with members of a controversial Christian organization. Bradlee Dean, a figure TheBlaze has covered in the past, founded “You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International,” a ministry that delivers assemblies and speeches in public schools. Members of this organization recently engaged a woman in a contentious conversation — one that led her to physically attack the Christian activists.
The incident, which was captured on video and later released by the group, shows the volatile exchange that unfolded at a 7-11 gas station in Florida. The debate erupted as Dean’s ministry was apparently trying to nab support for the Bible and Christian values in public schools.
A press release that the organization distributed following the incident explains what happened in detail (strictly from its own perspective, of course):
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
7 comments:
Wow, she teaches the constitution.....try reading it first lady.
She is ignorant and crazy.
lets go past the obvious topic and look a little further. I realize it is hard for most of you to do, but lets give it a try. She was being harrassed/bullied and did not want to be filmed. I don't want some unknown person filming me, or my car, or my plate and then posting it on the internet either. Preach what you want, I don't care, just leave me alone. If those were really christian people they would have turned the other cheek, left her alone and moved on. They would have stopped filming her like she asked. She was clearly frustrated by being bullied by these 2 jerks and being made fun of. Real christians don't act like that or intentionlly inflict harm, mental or physical, on others.
Lets examine something else --- she TEACHES the Constitution (did she take classes from that OTHER Constitutional mastermind and professor -- obama -- who actually said the Supreme Court should not be allowed to overturn the laws of Congress?!) and says the Constitution provides for the "separation of Church and State"? What?? I have a copy right here and I don't see that said anywhere. The exact wording is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF..." (emphasis mine). As a Supreme Court justice once said, "No law means no law". Congress has a hard time with phrases like " shall not be infringed", "no law", and "the right of the people". Further, if 10:09 is so concerned about "some unknown person filming me, my car, or my plate", then he better write his congressman TODAY, because the government is doing that to him EVERY DAY. And their purposes are likely a LOT more nefarious than the Christians he judges so piously and harshly. You either don't like filming, surveillance, and monitoring while in public (no matter who is doing it), or you stand up and admit you hate Christians but love Nazism. Clears up the motive part...
She acts like my ex wife.
2:20. Went out on a limb with that one eh? I see no reference by anyone other than you to "hate Christians but love Nazism"
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The modern concept of a wholly secular government is sometimes credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" in this context is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper.
Therefore, the supposed school teacher, just like the majority of the populas who use the above phrase are legitemately referencing history. They may not have the paticulars exactly correct, but they have the intent and meaning correct.
Bullies come in all forms, this one just happened to be a so called christian. They aggravated the situation, they should have left her alone.
Thomas Jefferson WROTE the Constitution. And I'm pretty sure he thought long and hard about the wording. And being the brilliant man he was, he knew the meaning of "no law" and "shall not be infringed". Apparently some people still don't.... In the context of Article VI, he was specifically speaking of a "religious test", as in "are you a Christian?" as a qualification (or DIS- qualification, more accurately), for holding or gaining political office. He said nothing about the government banning any religious displays, speech, or actions. Thats the "prohibiting the free exercise of" part. I referenced his obvious disdain for Christians and the obvious irony of him not liking to be filmed by "unknown people", when his government does it every day and he didn't seem to be bothered by THAT at all. So is it just Christians filming him that upsets him so much? See? No limb here...But, I DID like your "supposed school teacher" remark. I don't know any (and I know more than a few) schoolteachers that act like THAT...Finally "a totally secular" government was not likely their intention, since our money, our buildings, our founding documents and many others after it, and our monuments ALL repeatedly reference God. I can't wait for the liberal rationalization of THAT. A misunderstanding? A Misspelling? Engraver error? Typo's? Come on.. Lincoln himself talked about God quite frequently in his speeches and writings...secular state, huh?. Because its not fashionable among modern educated, supremely wise and pompous men and women to think there is anything more superior, greater, or wiser than THEMSELVES, doesn't mean that our country and its founders didn't believe the exact opposite, despite attempts to politically cleanse history.
Post a Comment