Posted on 10/19/2010 8:25:06 AM PDT by truthfreedom
Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware on Tuesday questioned whether the U.S. Constitution calls for a separation of church and state, appearing to disagree or not know that the First Amendment bars the government from establishing religion.
The exchange came in a debate before an audience of legal scholars and law students at Widener University Law School, as O'Donnell criticized Democratic nominee Chris Coons' position that teaching creationism in public school would violate the First Amendment by promoting religious doctrine.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
should not be accused of ignorance for not equating the two.
On the contrary, they should be viewed as fully understanding the first amendment by NOT equating the two.
Note to self: When you have a septuagenerian memory, it is worth your time to check the original before opening the HTML editor... :-}
Shouldn’t the story be “Yale Law grad Coons fails miserably to get even close to a proper quotation of the 1st part of the 1st Amendment”
I thought the case in favor of Coons is that he’s just so smart.
Christine is likeable. Christine is one of us. But Coons is “smart” Went to Yale Law.
And he botched the quote in 2 serious, serious ways, revealing a very poor understanding of the English Language.
1) Congress and Government are not the same things at all.
2) It’s impossible to make a law respecting something that isn’t allowed to exist in the first place.
I am. Ehrlich has a real shot at Governor. The only way to win in Maryland is to have a weakish opponent and a demoralized Dem base..
Which is what O'Donnell has, incidently. Coons is a lightweight nobody and the Republicans and Indpendents are fired up in Deleware. But when you spend 98 % of the time talking about yourself and your half thought out statements, you're going nowhere. Like O'Donnell.
Yeah, but, the 2 words mean pretty much the same thing, and your argument is pretty much valid either way.
No, not Governor, US Senate. There’s a US Senate race in Maryland.
I agree, but I would be satisfied with half a loaf where the AP is concerned.
She is 100% right on the 1A, and Coons and you are 100% wrong.
The proper answer is that it should be left up to the school boards to decide.
Christine is fully aware that starting in 1947 with the Everson decision, the Supreme Court invented separation of church and state.
Mikulski has been there forever and is personally popular; sticking to constituent service and focusing like a laser on high tech state industries like Space exploration and bio-tech... Thanks for the red herring comparison. Apples and Oranges.
In other words, those who can’t agree should at least be fair.
I’m talking about an incumbent who has been there 26 or so years. She should be beatable.
But she isn’t going to lose because the Republican isn’t strong enough. They aren’t even talking about the race.
Delaware is just as liberal as Maryland, and the Delaware race is a hot one, and Maryland is “safe Dem”.
This is an anti Democrat, anti Incumbent year, and that could include Barbara M.
Yes, it was Jefferson's view that the 1st Amendment erected such a “wall”, moreover the sentiment was not unique to Jefferson, as he no doubt took much inspiration from the actual author of the Amendment, Madison, who said many things along the same line. He spoke not of a wall but “perfect separation”. A wall can be dug under or gone around, a “perfect separation” is even more insurmountable.
So does anyone here think that teaching a religious doctrine in public schools should be A-OK Constitutionally? Can they teach ‘Mormon history’ of Semitic immigrants to the Americas in Utah without violation of the 1st Amendment? Could they teach Muslim religious doctrine in place of science in Deerborne Michigan without violation of the 1st Amendment?
Main Entry:
(Dictionary):
~~~~~~~~
(Thesaurus):
"He refused to divulge any information regarding the man's whereabouts."
Nothing there about "supporting or "prohibiting" or "being deferential to" an establishment of religion.
It's irrelevant which version she believes, she's simply not for banning a school district from doing so under penalty of law. She is correct; the founders of this country would never have supported such a ban, and never would have supported the current legal position of the elites on the Establishment Clause. Heck, they used the Capitol Building for church services on Sundays!
I don't think you understand the First Amendment and original intent. “Congress shall make no law” means exactly that. Please explain to me how a local school board deciding to teach Creationism alongside Evolution is a law made by Congress establishing a national religion.
That may be the case. But the article makes it sound otherwise.
But there is NO incumbent in Delaware and this is a Republican wave year. If ever a Republican could win the Senate seat in Delaware it would be this year. But O'Donnell is a lightweight and that state is GONE.
Very , very unlikely an incumbent Democrap Senator in Delaware would lose. Not this year, not any year.
It’s an AP story that Fox carried. Her answer if quoted accurately is troubling. However, establishment of a state religion and separation of church and state are two different things. The term separation of church and state comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson after the Constitution was written 1787 and ratified by the final state in 1790. The letter to the Danbury Baptists was written in 1802
Whether it violates the 1st Amendment is irrelevant to me. It is just plain dumb.
It’s an AP story that Fox carried. Her answer if quoted accurately is troubling. However, establishment of a state religion and separation of church and state are two different things. The term separation of church and state comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson after the Constitution was written 1787 and ratified by the final state in 1790. The private letter by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists was written in 1802 and is traced to concepts of John Locke. “The phrase “separation of church and state” became a definitive part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in Reynolds v. U.S. 98 U.S. 145 (1878), where the court examined Jefferson’s involvement with the amendment and concluded that his interpretation was “almost an authoritative declaration” of its meaning.”
Chris Coons can’t name the five freedoms in the First Amendment
By Michelle Malkin • October 19, 2010 12:57 PM
That’s right. Delaware Democratic Senate candidate Chris Coons can’t name the five freedoms in the First Amendment.
But all you’ll hear from the MSM today is that Christine O’Donnell — correctly — questioned Coons’ claim that the phrase “the separation of church and state” appears in the First Amendment.
Coons’ ignorance doesn’t fit the O’Donnell bashers’ narrative. So they’ll pretend this didn’t happen:
Read:
Delaware GOP Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell questioned on Tuesday whether the Constitution provides for the separation of church and state.
The comment came during a debate on WDEL radio with Democratic opponent Chris Coons, who argued that local schools should teach science rather than religion, at which point O’Donnell jumped in. “Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” she asked.
The audience at Widener Law School was taken aback, with shouts of “whoa” and laughter coming from the crowd.
Coons then pointed to the First Amendment, which states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
“You’re telling me the First Amendment does?” O’Donnell interrupted to ask.
Following the next question, Coons revisited the remark — likely thinking he had caught O’Donnell in a flub — saying, “I think you’ve just heard from my opponent in her asking ‘where is the separation of church and state’ show that she has a fundamental misunderstanding.”
“That’s in the First Amendment?” O’Donnell again asked.
“Yes,” Coons responded.
O’Donnell was later able to score some points of her own off the remark, revisiting the issue to ask Coons if he could identify the “five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment.”
Coons named the separation of church and state, but could not identify the others — the freedoms of speech, press, to assemble and petition — and asked that O’Donnell allow the moderators ask the questions.
“I guess he can’t,” O’Donnell said.
Yep, when he got caught with his own intellectual pants down, Coons runs to the moderators for cover.
Listen to the whole radio debate at WDEL here.
It’s obvious from O’Donnell’s very specific challenge to Coons during the debate that she knows perfectly well about the establishment and free exercise of religion clauses in the First Amendment.
It’s obvious that Coons is not only unfamiliar with the rest of the First Amendment, but also that he is wholly unfamiliar with where the phrase “separation of church and state” originated.
And it’s obvious from the warped, gleeful spin on this exchange just how in the tank for Democrats the “objective” press — protected by our precious, poorly understood, and frquently squandered First Amendment — really is.
***
Ramesh Ponnuru at NRO also agrees: “Some bloggers and tv commentators have seized on remarks by Christine O’Donnell to suggest that she is unaware that the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of religion. I don’t think that’s right. What she denies is that the First Amendment requires ‘the separation of church and state.’”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.