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 ...
Damn. You people have serious reading comprehension problems.
I am not talking about the LEGALITY of the matter, I am talking about the WISDOM of allowing the FAILED public school system to teach our kids basic religion.
If that idea is really dumb, as I believe it is, then whether it is legal or not is not worth talking about.
If you want to talk about the legal questions, find somebody else.
Tell me, what are you gonna do when this insanity is implemented in you kid’s school, & he/she needs a prayer rug for Creation Class?
For those who predicted the media would report that O'Donnell lost this morning's debate, even though she trounced Coons, well.....you were right.
The phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. Mr. Leckrone (A Widener University political scientist who was quoted in the article), which Constitution are you referring to?
My reference to O'Donnell was in regard to her failing to recognize the wording of the 1st A. That WAS dumb. And she is naive if she believes the public schools will teach the Judeo-Christian version of Creation that she would obviously prefer.
Christine got it 100% right. Let’s revisit.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20020015-503544.html
“The First Amendment does?” O’Donnell asked. “Let me just clarify: You’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?”
“Government shall make no establishment of religion,” Coons responded, reciting from memory the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (Coons was off slightly: The first amendment actually reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”)
“That’s in the First Amendment...?” O’Donnell responded.
This doesn’t clarify. I just now heard the actual audio on Rush. The statement by Coons to which she was responding include both a reference to separation and to non-establishment, equating the two. So her “You’re telling me that’s in the First Amendment” was her stringing him along, to get him to confirm that “separation” was in the 1st Amendment. The journalist omitted the “separation” and mentioned only the “non-establishment.”
So yes, she was absolutely right but the way it is being quoted is misleading.
But, just from a tactical standpoint, she would have helped herself by “teaching” him at that moment, saying to him, “Yes, non-establishment is in there, but separation is not.” From Rush, just now, apparently she twice strung him along, asking ‘that’s in the 1st Amendment” a second time. Obviously from the laughter of the audience, they were ignorant of her point—the distinction between separation and non-establishment. They laughed when she first asked him “where is separation in the Constitution.”
Three times she tried to trap him into an error that all of us know about. She should instead have, once he entered the trap the first time, sprung it shut and told him and the audience about the distinction and why it matters.
If her audience had been a bunch of Freepers, he’d have egg on his face. But her audience and the media audience didn’t “get” the distinction and by failing to nail it down, she created their sound bite for them.
It’s a missed opportunity. She was trying to be too clever by half.
I hope she wins, I have defended her again and again. But this was a tactical mistake.
Christine gets it right
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20020015-503544.html
“The First Amendment does?” O’Donnell asked. “Let me just clarify: You’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?”
“Government shall make no establishment of religion,” Coons responded, reciting from memory the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (Coons was off slightly: The first amendment actually reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”)
“That’s in the First Amendment...?” O’Donnell responded.
Just now, Rush made the same point I made in 84: she was assuming her audience knew the distinction between non-establishment and separation. Rush said, “That’s the mistake too many of us conservatives make.” Instead of explaining her point and thereby showing that Coons doesn’t even know that separation is not the same as non-establishment and that he had simply assumed that, since non-establishment is there, so too separation is there, instead of nailing that down, she responded with a skeptical “That’s in the First Amendment.”
If she had just replaced the “that’s” with “Separation” it would have helped, though to her audience and to Coons, “separation” is in there because non-establishment is in there. That’s the fallacy she needs to disabuse them of and she had an opportunity to do it and did not try.
Rush is making exactly my point.
Rush just covered this. Yes, she made the mistake of assuming that the audience would be as informed as the 50th percentile of conservatives is.
Right, the media is full out lying.
Strangely enough, the country managed to survive back when it WAS being taught. And your hyperbolizing is easily dismissed; nobody is talking about having Creation class or even stopping the teaching of Evolution. It is simply about acknowledging an alternative theory that happens to be the majority view in the USA.
“Because the public school system has failed” is not adequate enough an excuse to adopt a position that they should not be allowed to teach a subject. Otherwise, they would teach nothing.
And for the record, before you start your next line of attack, I do not believe that the Earth was created in six 24-hour periods, no do I believe it is 5000 years old. But I do believe in Federalism and original intent, and I am not interested in the banning of ideas in the public arena, much less ideas which enjoy the support of a large percentage of the public.
O'Donnell is right about the legality of it, right about the First Amendment, and right about the rights of local school board to decide for themselves. She gave the right answers, and there is nothing stupid about giving the right answers.
Right, we’re on the same side here. respecting and regarding mean pretty much the same thing.
What is being missed is the distinction between
Coons who quoted the Constitution wrong “Government”
and the real
1st Amendment which says “Congress”
There’s a difference between Government and Congress - that’s what Christine could have objected to.
Government and Congress do not mean the same thing at all.
Rush should mention that.
The context of the day was that they were resisting a State church, which Britain had.
It was never intended to mean that the State was to be totally hostile to the Christian faith.
First, read the first part.
Shall make “no law” respecting the “establishment” of religion. Is simply praying in public places or even teaching different religions in school making a law respecting the “establishment” of religion?
Second, read the second part.
“Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Ask yourself. By not allowing prayer, crosses, and teaching religion is schools are they “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”? How about free speech”?
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.
I would contend that by prohibiting the “free exercise thereof” the government is breaking the law as it is written in the constitution.
ping
I did not see the debate. I relied on the wording of the Fox Article:
“When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O’Donnell asked: “You’re telling me that’s in the First Amendment?””
My education, in a small southern public school, included memorizing the Declaration of Independence, The Preamble to the Constitution, & the first 10 Amendments of the Bill of Rights. I naturally assumed she had a similar education.
For someone running for US Senate, I would expect them to recognize the wording of the Bill of Rights, however jumbled. Correcting Coons’ interpretation would have been the thing to do, if possible. I am not impressed.
I have had several replies to my original post. It is interesting & telling than none of them mentioned my contention that public school instruction on Creation is foolish. Everybody wants to talk about the legality of the matter, but no one wants to talk about the wisdom if the idea.
Interesting theory, I’m not sure how it’s relevant here.
Christine might need to respond to this, with “Christine teaches Chris Coons, Yale Law Grad, about the Constitution”
The distinction is between Congress (in the Constitution) and Government (what Coons wants the Constitution to say, and what Coons said).
That’s what Limited Constitutional Government is all about. The difference between Congress and Government is what the Tea Party is all about.
Please, just read below to understand what was actually said.
Christine was 100% right.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20020015-503544.html
“The First Amendment does?” O’Donnell asked. “Let me just clarify: You’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?”
“Government shall make no establishment of religion,” Coons responded, reciting from memory the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (Coons was off slightly: The first amendment actually reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”)
“That’s in the First Amendment...?” O’Donnell responded.
Christine, though no constitutional scholar herself, is absolutely correct here. The words “separation of church and state” were coined in a letter from Jefferson to a Baptist Minister in Ct. How that became the “law” of the land is another story entirely.
Perhaps she intentionally said it the way she did so that she could say “well, just look at the tape”
Coons: “Government ... establishment”
Christine: That’s in the constitution?
Surprise TV commercial viewers. Christine is 100% right and Coons is 100% wrong. The media has been lying to you. Surprised TV commercial viewers.
I don’t recommend that Christine get off message. Presumably things are going well.
I like the “Shame on you Chris Coons, Yale Law Grad, for screwing up the Constitution so badly. You should know Chris Coons that the Constitution was written to protect the states from the Federal Government. That’s why it said Congress. And Chris, you do know that the states actually had official religions in the late 1700s and the early 1800s. You know that the Supreme Court invented the separation of church and state in
Everson v Board of Education
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/everson.html
The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between church and State.”
Many believe the Everson line of cases as almost as bad as Roe v Wade.
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.