Quote:

---

O'Donnell questions separation of church, state
AP

By BEN EVANS, Associated Press Writer Ben Evans, Associated Press Writer – Wed Oct 20, 4:11 am ET

WILMINGTON, Del. – Republican Christine O'Donnell left her law school audience buzzing when she challenged her Democratic opponent to show where the Constitution requires separation of church and state, and a day later, the two Senate candidates are set for more face-to-face forums.

"Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked Chris Coons Tuesday, drawing swift criticism from him, laughter from the crowd and a quick defense from prominent conservatives.

Coons, an attorney, responded that O'Donnell's question "reveals her fundamental misunderstanding of what our Constitution is. ... The First Amendment establishes a separation."

She interrupted to say, "The First Amendment does? ... So you're telling me that the separation of church and state, the phrase 'separation of church and state,' is in the First Amendment?"

Her campaign issued a statement later saying O'Donnell "was not questioning the concept of separation of church and state as subsequently established by the courts. She simply made the point that the phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution."

Conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh made the same point in his radio program soon after the debate, saying, "There's nothing in the Constitution about separation of church and state."

The controversy was the latest to befall O'Donnell in a race where she trails badly in the polls against Coons. They meet again twice on Wednesday.

Coons is executive of New Castle County, the state's most populous county. O'Donnell, with strong tea party support, burst into the national spotlight by winning the Republican primary over a longtime GOP congressman.

The subject of religion and the law came up during their debate at Widener University Law School as O'Donnell criticized Coons for saying that teaching creationism in public school would violate the Constitution.

Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism — O'Donnell used the term "intelligent design" — but that under the "indispensable principle" of separation of church and state "religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools."

He said the separation of church and state was one of a number of "settled pieces of constitutional law" worked out through years of legal development including Supreme Court decisions. He said a woman's right to abortion was another.

He noted again the First Amendment's ban on establishment of religion.

"That's in the First Amendment?" she said, smiling.

Both candidates suggested that the exchange showed the other didn't understand the Constitution.

The First Amendment states: "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."

The phrase "separation of church and state" is usually traced to President Thomas Jefferson. In a letter in 1802, he referred to the First Amendment and said that it built "a wall of separation between Church & State."

The relationship of government and religion continues to be debated in American law. Many argue that the First Amendment's reference to religion involves the establishment of any particular religion, an important concern to the American colonists, not a ban on all involvement between religion and government.

O'Donnell's comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, stirred the audience.

"You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp," Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone said after the debate.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

pothead_bob said:Whether it actually says, verbatim, in the constitution the phrase "separation of religion and state" or not, is irrelevant.  It's an accurate interpretation of the first amendment to say that public schools should not be teaching the beliefs of specific religions (i.e. catholicism, judaism, islam)as fact.  I think her and Limbaugh's responses to the event are simply a poor attempt at damage control.  By the way, Coons, while having a logical understanding of one of the facets of the first amendment, was not able to name the other four freedoms granted by the first amendment.

---

Quote:

---

It has taken over 200 years of finagling and interpretation to get to the currently accepted notion of separation of church and state today.  If they had meant separation of church and state they would have said so

---

Quote:

---

Meanwhile, when asked, her opponent Coons couldn't name the five freedoms in the First Amendment and whined to the moderator that he should be the one asking the questions

---

Quote:

---

Bullshit. It is quite relevant.

I wish it did say that. Verbatim. I have no use for religion in government or the laws they force upon us.

Alas, it does not. The fact that a bunch of twits who can't read a plainly spoken phrase have deemed it so, is what is irrelevant. Or rather, what should be deemed irrelevant were this country not running headlong into the shitter thanks to dumb fucks that want to redefine things to suit their own twisted agenda.

O'Donnell kicked his ass and the stupid fuck Coons (and the audience) was just too stupid to realize it.

---

Quote:

---

She wasn't making an interpretation.

---

Quote:

---

As to your question about dumb fucks with a twisted agenda we might look to the Supreme Court under Warren and whichever one expanded the Commerce Clause so far that it allowed FDR to co-opt vast amounts of the economy and which has led to the current state where the administration is not being laughed out of court for arguing that inaction is action regarding the health insurance mandate.

---

Quote:

---

pothead_bob said:

Quote:

---

Bullshit. It is quite relevant.

I wish it did say that. Verbatim. I have no use for religion in government or the laws they force upon us.

Alas, it does not. The fact that a bunch of twits who can't read a plainly spoken phrase have deemed it so, is what is irrelevant. Or rather, what should be deemed irrelevant were this country not running headlong into the shitter thanks to dumb fucks that want to redefine things to suit their own twisted agenda.

O'Donnell kicked his ass and the stupid fuck Coons (and the audience) was just too stupid to realize it.

---

So you believe it would be constitutional to teach church doctrine as fact in public schools then?  Interesting interpretation.

---

Quote:

---

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

---

Quote:

---

Establishment = starting

---

Quote:

---

es·tab·lish·ment
   /ɪˈstæblɪʃmənt/ Show Spelled[ih-stab-lish-muhnt] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the act or an instance of establishing.
2.
the state or fact of being established.
3.
something established; a constituted order or system.
4.
( often initial capital letter ) the existing power structure in society; the dominant groups in society and their customs or institutions; institutional authority (usually prec. by the ): The Establishment believes exploring outer space is worth any tax money spent.
5.
( often initial capital letter ) the dominant group in a field of endeavor, organization, etc. (usually prec. by the ): the literary Establishment.
6.
a household; place of residence including its furnishings, grounds, etc.
7.
a place of business together with its employees, merchandise, equipment, etc.
8.
a permanent civil, military, or other force or organization.
9.
an institution, as a school, hospital, etc.
10.
the recognition by a state of a church as the state church.
11.
the church so recognized, esp. the Church of England.
12.
Archaic . a fixed or settled income.

---

Quote:

---

Last I knew a letter is not the document the laws of this nation were founded on, nor was he the only one with input to the Constitution.

---

Quote:

---

The mainstream media and blogosphere have erupted  because in a radio debate Christine O'Donnell appeared to dispute whether "separation of church and state" was required by the First Amendment.  (O'Donnell's campaign walked back the position after the debate, saying O'Donnell merely meant that the words were not in the First Amendment.)

The concept of separation of church and state is not, indeed, in the wording of the First Amendment.  Rather, as explained in the 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lynch v. Donelly:

    This Court has explained that the purpose of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment is

        to prevent, as far as possible, the intrusion of either [the church or the state] into the precincts of the other.

    Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 614 (1971).

    At the same time, however, the Court has recognized that

        total separation is not possible in an absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable.

    Ibid. In every Establishment Clause case, we must reconcile the inescapable tension between the objective of preventing unnecessary intrusion of either the church or the state upon the other, and the reality that, as the Court has so often noted, total separation of the two is not possible. [p673]

    The Court has sometimes described the Religion Clauses as erecting a "wall" between church and state, see, e.g., Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 18 (1947). The concept of a "wall" of separation is a useful figure of speech probably deriving from views of Thomas Jefferson. [n1] The metaphor has served as a reminder that the Establishment Clause forbids an established church or anything approaching it. But the metaphor itself is not a wholly accurate description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists between church and state.

The reference to Jefferson relates to this passage from a letter Jefferson wrote in 1802, as recited in the 1878 case Reynolds v. United States (emphasis mine):

    "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions -- I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

So, O'Donnell unquestionably did not agree with the popular liberal conception that the First Amendment by its written terms requires a "separation of church and state," but she was not wrong.

And what an embarrassment to Widener Law School that as soon as O'Donnell questioned whether "separation of church and state" was in the First Amendment, the crowd erupted with gasps of disbelief and mocking laughter.

And if O'Donnell's imperfect -- or perhaps nuanced? -- understanding of the First Amendment were so outrageous, how about the inability of Chris Coons, a Yale Law School graduate, to identify the other freedoms protected by the First Amendment, and his misquoting the text of the First Amendment in his challenge to O'Donnell:

    "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.")

Ann Althouse has more on how Coons simply was wrong in his quotation of the First Amendment  which led to O'Donnell's supposed major gaffe about the Establishment Clause, and how the press has taken O'Donnell's comments out of context:

    O'Donnell reacts: "That's in the First Amendment?" And, in fact, it's not. The First Amendment doesn't say "government." It says "Congress." And since the discussion is about what local school boards can do, the difference is highly significant.

    Also, it isn't "shall make no establishment of religion." It's "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." There's a lot one could say about the difference between those 2 phrases, and I won't belabor it here. Suffice it to say that it was not stupid for O'Donnell to say "That's in the First Amendment?" — because it's not. Coons was presenting a version of what's in the cases interpreting the text, not the text itself.

A literal reading of O'Donnell's comments reflects that she was correct, but of course, the press and the blogosphere don't want a literal reading, they want a living, breathing reading which comports with their preconceived notions.

---

Quote:

---

pothead_bob said:

Quote:

---

Establishment = starting

---

That's weak. From dictionary.com

Quote:

---

es·tab·lish·ment
   /ɪˈstæblɪʃmənt/ Show Spelled[ih-stab-lish-muhnt] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the act or an instance of establishing.
2.
the state or fact of being established.
3.
something established; a constituted order or system.
4.
( often initial capital letter ) the existing power structure in society; the dominant groups in society and their customs or institutions; institutional authority (usually prec. by the ): The Establishment believes exploring outer space is worth any tax money spent.
5.
( often initial capital letter ) the dominant group in a field of endeavor, organization, etc. (usually prec. by the ): the literary Establishment.
6.
a household; place of residence including its furnishings, grounds, etc.
7.
a place of business together with its employees, merchandise, equipment, etc.
8.
a permanent civil, military, or other force or organization.
9.
an institution, as a school, hospital, etc.
10.
the recognition by a state of a church as the state church.
11.
the church so recognized, esp. the Church of England.
12.
Archaic . a fixed or settled income.

---

Looks like establishment has more than just one meaning (e.g. starting).  It could also mean, a state of being established.  In other words, the catholic church can be called an establishment.  The ACLU can be called an establishment.  The unversity O'donnel spoke at, can be called an establishment.

By saying "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", can just as equally mean they can't make laws respecting a religious organization (and their loony beliefs).  Please see my above post concerning Thomas Jefferson and his interpretation.  I think he, of most people, should know the meaning of the first amendment. 

---

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:When did we expand "the Congress" to mean the states or municipalities?

---

Quote:

---

The supposed idiot is a lot more savvy than her opponent or the room full of law student nitwits.

---

Quote:

---

As an addendum, when did Jefferson become the only founding father and when was that letter ratified into law?

---

Quote:

---

Not weak at all. Surely your not suggesting that all of those apply. What seems weak to me is you thinking that "respecting the establishment" could mean anything else.

Thanks for posting that list though.

Especially 10. the recognition by a state of a church as the state church.

Did you not read the entire list? There are more there that apply, such as 1, 2, 3 and 11.

---