PDA

View Full Version : Should Christine O’Donnell questioning "separation of church and state" be shocking?




FrankRep
10-19-2010, 02:47 PM
Should O’Donnell questioning separation of church and state be shocking? (http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2010/10/19/should-odonnel-questioning-separation-of-church-and-state-be-shocking/)


The Blaze (http://www.theblaze.com/)
October 19, 2010


Tuesday morning saw Delaware Senatorial candidates Christine O’Donnell (R) and Chris Coons (D) square off in a local radio debate. The exchange was nothing short of contentious and uncomfortable. That was most apparent during a discussion about “separation of church and state” when O’Donnell asked where that phrase is found in the Constitution. And while the crowd gasped, and the media laughed, there may be more room for debate than one thinks.

In response to O‘Donnell’s comments that decisions regarding curriculum should be left to local school districts, Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that “religious doctrine doesn’t belong in our public schools.”

“Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” O’Donnell then asked him, cracking a smile after the audience busted out in laughter.

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?”

“You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp,” Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone said after the debate, adding that it raised questions about O‘Donnell’s grasp of the Constitution.

The exchange starts at 2:50 below:

YouTube - Christine O'Donnell ignorant of the Constitution (go to 7:03, 2:37, 3:35) fameappeal.com (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miwSljJAzqg&feature=player_embedded)

Like the crowd, the Associated Press seemed equally surprised. It interviewed Erin Daly, a Widener professor who specializes in constitutional law, who said that while there are questions about what counts as government promotion of religion, there is little debate over whether the First Amendment prohibits the federal government from making laws establishing religion.

The AP is correct: debate generally does not center around whether the federal government can “establish” laws instituting a national faith or favoring one religion over another. However, there is wide debate about whether the Constitution prohibits government from dabbling in religion at all. And not everyone agrees that O’Donnell was questioning the establishment of religion, as much as the complete abandonment of it.

Over at National Review, Romesh Ponnuru thinks (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/250298/christine-odonnell-and-first-amendment-ramesh-ponnuru) O‘Donnell’s statement isn’t being given fair treatment. “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,” he writes. “I don’t think that’s right. What she denies is that the First Amendment requires ‘the separation of church and state.’”

Instead, he says, the confusion is due to murky terms. “Separation of church and state” generally means one things to liberals and another to conservatives:



Conceptual clarity has not been a feature of the discussion of whether religion is having (or threatens to have) a dangerous influence on American government. People mean different things when they talk about “theocrats,” “the separation of church and state,” and “secularism.” The word “secular” can describe both irreligion and neutrality about religion. Yet commentators often throw around these words and phrases as though they had single, uncontested meanings—or, worse, exploit the instability of the phrase for polemical purposes. …

Vague terminology keeps people talking past one another.


That’s despite the fact that the phrase was coined by Thomas Jefferson (http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html) in 1802, and adopted as a short-hand explanation of the Establishment Clause in 1878 in the case Reynolds vs. United States.

As Mediaite points out (http://www.mediaite.com/online/christine-odonnell-questions-separation-of-church-and-state/), the term “separation of church and state” never appears in the Constitution, which is exactly what O’Donnell was asking. The correct response to her question might have been “nowhere, but Supreme Court Justices over the years have boiled down the First Amendment‘s language to the simple phrase ’separation of church and state.’”

But that‘s not the response O’Donnell received from Coons, nor the one she is receiving from the media:



Watch the Video:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/39741575#39741575


Still, it does appear that O’Donnell concedes the point at the end of the exchange. But maybe she shouldn’t have. Maybe she didn’t realize that she was on to something. And maybe instead of being faulted for asking the question, she should be scrutinized for not understanding the nuance.

You can add your thoughts over on the story side of the site (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/odonnel-questions-separation-of-church-and-state/).


SOURCE:
http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2010/10/19/should-odonnel-questioning-separation-of-church-and-state-be-shocking/

awake
10-19-2010, 03:13 PM
Separation of religion and state?... the state is the predominant religion.

nobody's_hero
10-19-2010, 03:21 PM
Separation of religion and state?... the state is the predominant religion.

So very true.

She also missed a chance to point out that the same Constitution that forbids the government from 'making laws respecting the establishment of religion' is the same Constitution that doesn't allow for public funding of schools.

BamaAla
10-19-2010, 03:28 PM
Did she really ask what the 14th and 16th Amendments were?

libertarian4321
10-19-2010, 04:11 PM
At this point, nothing O'Donnell says would be shocking.

It's amusing to listen to her, you never know what she'll say next.

wormyguy
10-19-2010, 04:23 PM
I wasn't so bothered by her comments on that matter than the fact that she evidently knows almost nothing about the Constitution given her other responses ("Well, luckily senators don't have to memorize the Constitution!" after she couldn't remember what the 16th amendment was).

Depressed Liberator
10-19-2010, 04:27 PM
She doesn't know what she's talking about. You may try to make her seem like she knows, but she is clueless.

libertarian4321
10-19-2010, 04:30 PM
She doesn't know what she's talking about. You may try to make her seem like she knows, but she is clueless.

Yeah, on one hand she's clueless, erratic, and woefully unprepared for office.

But on the other hand, she's cute and sometimes says the right thing.

The other guy is a liberal Dem.

I pity the voters in DE who have to choose between them. Is there an alternative candidate, maybe a Libertarian?

parocks
10-19-2010, 05:11 PM
She doesn't know what she's talking about. You may try to make her seem like she knows, but she is clueless.

Christine is 100% right.

I'm a lawyer.

parocks
10-19-2010, 05:14 PM
Coons quoted the Constitution way wrong.

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.

Congress - not government.

And leaving out "law respecting an" changes the meaning of the sentence.

Historically. States and Localities CAN establish religion. the Fed can't.

I bet if I went to the Ron Paul board, his supporters would know this basic fact.
Oh wait, I'm there. Ooops, I guess most of his 2008 supporters are with the tea party now, leaving only antiwar Dems behind.





Yeah, on one hand she's clueless, erratic, and woefully unprepared for office.

But on the other hand, she's cute and sometimes says the right thing.

The other guy is a liberal Dem.

I pity the voters in DE who have to choose between them. Is there an alternative candidate, maybe a Libertarian?

libertarian4321
10-19-2010, 06:27 PM
I bet if I went to the Ron Paul board, his supporters would know this basic fact.
Oh wait, I'm there. Ooops, I guess most of his 2008 supporters are with the tea party now, leaving only antiwar Dems behind.

Who's an "antiwar Dem" here? There might be one or two, but not many. I'm a 30-year Army veteran who spent most of his life as a Republican (until I was saved by the Libertarian Party).

My feelings about O'Donnell being erratic and woefully unqualified was NOT because of what she said at the debate, and I stated so in the other thread.

I should also add that O'Donnell is seriously lacking in ethical character- paying her rent with campaign funds? You've got to be kidding. That is illegal.

Depressed Liberator
10-19-2010, 07:00 PM
Christine is 100% right.

I'm a lawyer.

Oh boy, that mean everything doesn't it?

awake
10-19-2010, 07:09 PM
As difficult as this subject is, I think a timely and inspirational quote can help clear all of this up...

"As a karate expert up here, I will not talk about anyone up here, because our children can not afford to live any where... No where there is no where to go..." - Jimmy McMillian - Rent is too damn high party.

ProBlue33
10-19-2010, 07:14 PM
You know she says some crazy things. But what she said about teaching both intelligent design and evolution in the schools as both being theories and then letting the student decide makes sense. We must remember what is factual to one person is only a theory and an act of faith in science or God to another. I actually agree with her on this part.

Teaching children only evolution is not teaching absolutely truthful science.

When I was in grade five I had to write a test on evolution, I prefaced it with this note "I will give you the answers that you are looking for, to pass this test, but it's not what I personally believe". I think it's sad that I had to write that on a public school test.

oyarde
10-19-2010, 07:16 PM
As difficult as this subject is, I think a timely and inspirational quote can help clear all of this up...

"As a karate expert up here, I will not talk about anyone up here, because our children can not afford to live any where... No where there is no where to go..." - Jimmy McMillian - Rent is too damn high party.

What was up with the karate thing ?

awake
10-19-2010, 07:19 PM
You know she says some crazy things. But what she said about teaching both intelligent design and evolution in the schools as both being theories and then letting the student decide makes sense. We must remember what is factual to one person is only a theory and an act of faith in science or God to another. I actually agree with her on this part.

Teaching children only evolution is not teaching absolutely truthful science.

When I was in grade five I had to write a test on evolution, I prefaced it with this note "I will give you the answers that you are looking for, to pass this test, but it's not what I personally believe". I think it's sad that I had to write that on a public school test.

Darwinism is essential to Social Darwinism, which is essential to government plans of all kinds. Many of which the elite are granted the inherent right to prey on the weak and shape the masses in their image of a strong species.

By torturing, looting and killing us they are making us stronger.

awake
10-19-2010, 07:22 PM
What was up with the karate thing ?

We would derail this thread trying to figure it out...lol G.W. Bush and this guy in a debate would be pay per view...lol.

Dr.3D
10-19-2010, 07:24 PM
snip~

Teaching children only evolution is not teaching absolutely truthful science.

~snip.

In fact, that is teaching what is believed by the religion of secular humanism.
This is how government gets away with teaching religion in school. It just presents one school of thought and presents it as not being a religion.

oyarde
10-19-2010, 07:25 PM
We would derail this thread trying to figure it out...lol G.W. Bush and this guy in a debate would be pay per view...lol.

I have been trying to figure out what was up with that since I heard it , but I should probably give up .

Yieu
10-20-2010, 06:02 AM
It seems like some of the people who are alarmist about Sharia law coming to America might also the same people that don't want there to be any separation between religion and the State. This seems like hypocrisy.

If you don't want separation between religion and the State (at any level; Federal, State, local, etc.), then you have to be willing to accept religious laws/virtues/sins/instructions being entered as public law that are not of your own religion, and you also have to be willing to accept religions you may disagree with becoming Federal/State/city/district official religions (paying homage to the "off with his head" Church of England), potentially with penalties for not following the "official" religion or its laws. This includes having to be willing to accept Sharia law, Jewish law, Hindu law, etc., because if there is no separation between religion and State, that does not mean that only Christianity can take advantage of State enhanced powers, it means that any religion can, including those you do not agree with.

There are many ways you could take the meaning of the phrase "separation of church and State", and I do not think that it is meant to be taken to mean that public officials cannot be religious or practice any religion they like openly. That is fine for them to do, there is nothing against that, and it would be nice to see more religious diversity in Congress and State Congresses to help strengthen religious freedom and guard against government favoritism of religion.

There are other facets to the subject I am not touching on here. But it can be dangerous if we allow the State to legislate favors or punishments for some religions over others (including non-religion), because it gives some groups more privileges and special favor than others, creating an "accepted" and privileged caste (those that follow the State religion), and an unprivileged caste (those that follow any other religion, or those without religion). This would be unjust, and potentially oppressive. This would be theocratic tyranny.

A better option would be to allow freedom of religion to the maximum extent (rather than the alternative: government monopoly on and regulation of religion, otherwise known as no separation of religion and State), and we all know that freedom is inversely proportional to government involvement. Are some here actually arguing that we need more government involvement in people's personal religious lives, by legislating unjust laws that favor a locally predominant religion while repressing all other locally less popular religions, in an effort to make all non-State enhanced religions appear to be less legitimate to further promote the State sanctioned religion? It is unfair, unjust, and misleading to have the State promote one religion over another, because even if it is only words coming from a public official, if those words are used in an attempt to discredit the legitimacy of locally less popular religions in order to further promote a State sanctioned religion, then those words are actively oppressive.

angelatc
10-20-2010, 06:09 AM
The media didn't even mention that O'Donnell challenged Coons to name the 5 freedoms listed in the First Amendment, and he couldn't.

Yieu
10-21-2010, 09:44 AM
//