Christine O’Donnell Is (Shockingly) Kind of Correct

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

Christine O’Donnell Is (Shockingly) Kind of Correct

Written By : E. M. Zanotti

This morning, it came to light that Christine O’Donnell may have said something truly outragingly outrageously outrageous at a debate in front of law students in Delware. Naturally, because the media recognizes that she lacks the mental capacity necessary to adopt a liberal outlook or send donation checks to NPR, her observations on the contents of the Constitution sent shockwaves roiling through the lefty blogosphere. How dare she suggest that the Constitution doesn’t actually say there’s a Separation of Church and State!

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.

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 asked him.

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?”

Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.

Does anyone actually read the Constitution anymore? Do we just assume we sort of know what it’s talking about because we’ve seen three episodes of Schoolhouse Rock and a very special episode of Real World: DC where they visited the National Archives and then passed out drunk on the Capitol steps? In this case, both answers are off base, but at least Christine’s seems to indicate a general understanding of applied civics. Chris Coons, as we’ll find out in a second, first heard the word “Constitution” three days ago from his debate prep team.

Look, I was once a law student. I can’t promise that law school attracts the brightest crayons in the drawer, but unless they also missed some sixth grade level social studies, they should know that no where in the Constitution does it explicitly call for a separation of church and state. In subsequent case law, the Supreme Court has found time and again that no such distinct separation exists, and the intermingling of religion and government is, while subject to strict oversight and tight standards, possible, if not increasingly complex. The founders were big fans of secularism, no doubt, the phrase “Separation of Church and State” appears in Thomas Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists, and we’ve come to have a fairly modern understanding of the role each plays in each and each plays alone. In other words, the “separation” is actually more of a legal concept than it has ever been an explicit maxim.

More succinctly put, a cursory Google search of the founding document for the words “separation of church and state” reveals nothing more than Chris Coons’ preening sense of cultural elitism.

Obviously the problem comes in when Christine seems to totally forget the text of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause (which, oddly enough, makes mention that the provision exists to protect the Free Exercise of religion), but hey, if we’re going to get into who actually remembers more of the Constitution verbatim, Chris Coons couldn’t name any part of the First Amendment not solidly contained in the Democratic talking points memorandum.

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.

Oopsies! I wonder how comforting it is to liberals to know their man has absolutely no freaking clue what the First Amendment actually says that isn’t politically expedient – a fact that was pointed out by someone who is “widely understood” to be a complete and utter idiot. If Christine is “appalling,” “unacceptable,” “shocking,” and “disturbing,” what does that make Chris Coons? I mean, other than a disgrace to his party and the whole public education system?

Maybe he should take up witchcraft. I hear it’s an excellent campaign strategy.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

They don’t teach the constitution in law school, let alone any other level of public school. They teach rulings about the constitution, but not the document its self.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

They don’t teach the constitution in law school, let alone any other level of public school. They teach rulings about the constitution, but not the document its self.
Anonymous

If Coons had been a Republican, this would have been front page news around the world. I can understand brain farts, but on the First Amendment? Forgetting Freedom of Speech?

Any illusion of competence on his part has been shattered, along with providing campaign fodder nationwide. Democrat Senatorial candidate ignorant of First Amendment. Show that video alongside Dick Blumenthal utterly failing at describing how to create a job and the Democrats look dangerously ignorant.

Anonymous

Similarily we can show a Republican Senatorial candidate that doesnt understand the First Amendment, it will work out great.

StanW

So you are accusing him of being a Liberal Democrat? That’s a vile accusation crthns!
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Who would that be? Which Rep doesn’t understand the First?
Kingfisher

Let us know when you find him, crthns.

glynn

Really… this is all you have?

Guest

That is it Glynn. I heard the Coon’s remark and he quoted from the first amendment quite comfortably the sections referred to by Jefferson(but what does Jefferson know about the constitution?) in his letter identifying the clauses that, as he phrased it, identify the seperation of church and state. It is fun to watch politics, and how each side spins the semantics of a politician’s statements. Especially when a politician is laughed at by a large number of spectators for their statements.

2keyboards

But the specific phrase “separation of church and state” does NOT appear in the Constitution. That’s what O’Donnell was stating. Jefferson may have meant that, and he did state that in a letter, but that is not what was in the final draft that was ratified by the states.
StanW

Coons misquoted the First Amendment.
The words “Separation of Church and State” do not appear in the Constitution.

What part of these two facts do you have an issue with, GUEST?

Anonymous

nor did Coons state that Stanley, what he did state was that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, which is exactly what it says. Do try and follow along.

StanW

What happened was this, crthns.

“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.

Coons things the sepaprtion of church and state is in the Constitution. He lied and got called on it. Much like I am doing to you now!
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Well to be fair he might not have lied (unless you mean in the leftist “in good faith but turns out to not be exactly accurate” meaning of lie). He might just be ignorant and think it is in there.
Anonymous

The video speaks for itself Stan, you can actually listen to what was said we dont have to take your word for it, go ahead play the video and listen, then get back to me.
StanW

Yeah, Coons lied and showed his ignorance. VERY clear.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

We did, you’re as wrong as Coons, and twice as stupid for thinking we don’t know the difference.
liberal_troll

The Constitution says nothing specific about your right (or mine) to spew retarded crap non-facts – but we all enjoy/suffer the right anyway. The CONCEPT is there.

My favorite debunker fact on this subject is the word ‘privacy’ does not appear in the Constitution. There is no right to privacy in America? C’mon – get a brain.

Try working this one through – do you have the right to go to the bathroom? Of course you do. The phrase ‘you have the right to go to the bathroom’ does not appear in the Constitution. The word ‘privacy’ does not appear. In the 18th century the word privacy meant bathroom usage.

please – STOP BEING SO DUMB
StanW

You are obviously incapable of answering a direct question, especially one that completely destroys your point if you were to answer it honestly. The words “separation of church and state” are NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION. Get that through your petty and infantile brain.
liberal_troll

the CONCEPT is – argue all you want – Coons is correct – you are a tard
StanW

That is NOT what she asked him, TROLL. The words are not there. Neither is the concept, but that is a different debate.

You may go now!
StanW

That is NOT what she asked him, TROLL. The words are not there. Neither is the concept, but that is a different debate.

You may go now!
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

And that’s not what she asked.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

And that’s not what she asked.
Anonymous

And they have done no such thing. There is no law that says Federal teachers must teach Christianity, or any religion, as the officially recognized and endorsed religion of the USA. Isn’t happening. What your team was trying to say is that any teaching of what Christians believe is akin to a state sponsor and endorsement of that religion. Its school you twit…you’re supposed to learn stuff, and about religions and their beliefs is an important thing to learn about the world around you. The 1st is very cut and dry. The state will not make a LAW respecting an establishment of religion. You go ahead and tell us what federal law was passed that forces people to respect a particular religion.
Guest

So if I don’t identify a religion, but teach the resurrection, then by your argument it is OK? If I teach that working on the sabbath results in the congregation stoning a person to death, that is OK? How about eating fish without scales is an abomination? How about killing all the children of a region because someone spoke blasphemously? Are these OK to teach in public schools as science, or would this be more appropriately placed in a religious studies course? I do not send my kids to school to learn someone elses religious beliefs. It is a slippery slope that would be better to not step on.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Oh please talk about fear mongering!!

If any text, the Bible, the Torah, or the Koran is taught it would be taught in either a religious studies or literature class. Not as part of some indoctrination, unlike so many ‘science’ classes and Glowbull Warmening.

Not everyone is as ignorant and intolerant of religion as you obviously are.
Guest

Science class is exactly where they want to teach creationism, not religious studies. Please point out my religious intolerance. Don’t just make slanderous statements and not back it up with fact because you are losing a debate. An orange is not an apple because you say it is.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Who’s demanding Creationism be taught in science class? And please prove that Creationism is the same as Intelligent Design.

Intolerance is not accepting alternate views being taught to explore all possibilities, something you gladly espouse in opposition to religion being taught in public schools.

And get off the defensive ‘slanderous’ meme, this an informal discussion board and you’re acting like it’s a public forum where everyone knows your name.

And the day I lose debate to you, is the after I die.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

That’s not what was asked, and that’s not what he said, LIAR.
Anonymous

and you stated David Duke voted for Bush in 2004. Try to prove it, crthns.
http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

“what he did state was that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion”

But preventing Congress from establishing a national religion is not the same thing as a separation of church and state, which implies that the government is forbidden from any mention or support of any religion, and churches are forbidden from mentioning politics.
Guest

“churches are forbidden from mentioning politics.” Only if they want to keep their tax exempt status. Can you explain why that is Cav? hmmm….
http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

“”churches are forbidden from mentioning politics.” Only if they want to keep their tax exempt status. Can you explain why that is Cav?”

Fool, churches mention politics all the time. Yet only Democrats are allowed to CAMPAIGN in churches. Can you explain why that is, hmm?
Guest

That statement was in quotes because you made it. Are you arguing with yourself?
http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

Oh, I didn’t realise this was your first day on the internet.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

You’ve never been to a church, have you?

Guest

“Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” O’Donnell asked him.
She didn’t ask, “where are the words.” The people laughed. Coons explained. And you Stanley; twist, and turn.

StanW

Coons said that “teh Separation of Church and State” was in the Constitution, guest. HE LIED, and you are defening his lies. No surprise there!
Guest

The concept is very much there, as described by Jefferson, and re-iterated by Coons. But are we to believe you know more about the constitution than the man that helped write it? You are in your own fairy tale world Stanley.
StanW

Where are the words “separation of church and state” found in the Constitution, guest?
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Where does Jefferson mention the separation and in what context? Does any other Founding Father support the concept? Can you prove your assertion or are you just willing to believe any partisan moron?
liberal_troll

in a 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association

StanW

Coons misquoted the First Amendment.
The words “Separation of Church and State” do not appear in the Constitution.

What part of these two facts do you have an issue with, GUEST?
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Except he didn’t quote form the First, and he even takes Jefferson’s quote of context, as do you!
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Except he didn’t quote form the First, and he even takes Jefferson’s quote of context, as do you!

Guest

“he even takes Jefferson’s quote of context, as do you!”
Yes he took Jefferson’s quote of context. A quote explaining the 2 clauses in the first amendment that Jefferson described as “seperation of Church and State.” Thanks for affirming that you can read.

Kingfisher

Another epic fail.

The issue of “separation of church and state” was initially brought up in 1947 by Hugo Black, a Supreme Court associate judge.

Court case: Emerson v. Board of Education

If you want to rely on judicial precedence to shape the Constitution then learn about “Dred Scott” before replying.
Guest

“The issue of “separation of church and state” was initially brought up in 1947″
No, that was not when it was initially brought up.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Yes it was! Unless you can prove what you are assuming about Jefferson’s meaning.

Anonymous

Simple question: If the Founding Fathers had meant for the First Amendment to erect a strict separation between church and state, why didn’t they put the phrase “separation of church and state” in the First Amendment?

You throw Thomas Jefferson’s name around but it’s clear you’ve never read a single word written by him. Go look up his letter to the Danbury Baptists. He was writing to assure them that the government would not interfere with the church, not the other way around.

Indeed, the very idea that the church (and by extension people of faith) should not have any influence over the government flies completely in the face of the First Amendment anyway.

Guest

By your logic, if they didn’t want a seperation of church and state, why didn’t they establish a Theocracy?

Anonymous

Wow, you didn’t even try to address my argument.

BTW, that thing you just did there? It’s called a “false dichotomy”. Even you can’t really believe that the only possible options are either a total separation between church and state and a full-blown theocracy, with nothing in between.

So, to answer your question: Because the Founding Fathers weren’t as stupid as you.
Guest

Ok Samantha, I will answer your question:
“If the Founding Fathers had meant for the First Amendment to erect a strict separation between church and state, why didn’t they put the phrase “separation of church and state” in the First Amendment?”

Here is your answer: they didn’t put the “phrase” in the first amendment because they assumed that the citizen’s could infer it’s meaning. Had they known that the people reading it would be “as stupid as you” they would have included it. Jefferson later found that it was necessary to explain its meaning, and still you can’t grasp the concept.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

No they didn’t assume that, Jefferson and Madison were very clear, the meaning of every phrase was concise. That was not meant to be open to interpretation. And there is much evidence supporting that. None to support your BULL SHIT!
Guest

Then please explain the necessity Jefferson felt in pointing out the two clauses in the first amendment working in conjunction with one another, was to seperate the church from the state. Keep grasping for straws, or get a clue.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html

Read and weep, oh clueless moonbat.

The phrase was a specific response to concerns that because Connecticut had established an official STATE religion, that the US might also do, and Jefferson was very specific about HOW that could not happen based on the First.
Anonymous

Then why did they put the Bill of Rights in the Constitution at all? Why didn’t they just “assume” that everyone would just infer that they were supposed to respect everyone’s inalienable rights?
Kingfisher

You must have been asleep for the past eight years. Bush established a theocracy just as the left bitched that he would during Bush’s two terms!

Don’t worry, the SRP (Secret Religion Police) will stop by your place soon to pay a nice little visit.

:-P

Ask a stupid question…..
Guest

Fish, I will say that Ted Haggards homosexual meth habits, hampered Bush’s fundamentalist persuits. He did get a few through.
Anonymous

Kind of like arguing that if the 2nd amendment really was meant to allow private citizens to own guns why is it an option to not own guns?

Free choice is not something you guys really get.

So I guess you’ll just have to trust us.
Guest

“Free choice is not something you guys really get.” I can’t disagree with you there. It is something that we want, just don’t always get.

I will also play your semantic game. Where does it say “private citizens” in the second amendment? Or are you inferring the meaning as did Jefferson in his explanation. And though I am a gun owner, and believe that we should be able to own, and possess weapons. I believe we do infringe, as we should, against certain individuals, and certain types of arms.

And no, I do not trust you, nor the authors of some of these articles.
StanW

Still awaiting the answer to my question, GUEST!
Guest

Scroll down Stanley, your question has been answered. Again, your reading comprehension is becoming an issue.
StanW

I understand, you are too much of a coward to answer and stand behind your words.

No surprise!
Anonymous

Ahem: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

“THE PEOPLE”

Your turn. Where in the constitution does it state “separation of church and state”?
Guest

So you are admitting it doesn’t say “private citizens.” It does seem quite trite, and juvenile to try this semantic argument. I hope you are getting my point. Grow up.
Anonymous

The difference of course is that you’re trying to insert an entire phrase where one does not exist, rather than merely swapping around synonyms.

So like saying it doesn’t explicitly state ‘guns’, instead it merely has ‘arms’ as opposed to trying to argue that it contains a phrase that explicit prohibits assault weapons.

You have a rather silly point that I think even you realize is flimsy.

But to clarify: adding a phrase that does not exist =! choosing one synonym over another.
Guest

Glad to see you are beginning to understand. Yes, it is a phrase. I am not trying to insert it anywhere. I am stating that it is an understood phrase that represents the concept described in the first amendment as per Jefferson’s words.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Except that no where in COTUS is phrase implied. Every phrase was very specific and was meant to be interpreted as written. Not as YOU or anyone else implies.
Anonymous

Ah so it’s implied then. Question: can anything be categorical said to not be implied by the constitution if your basis for saying so is “I feel this to be the case”?
Anonymous

I will also play your semantic game. Where does it say “private citizens” in the second amendment?

Exactly what part of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” eludes you?
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

http://patriotpost.us/document/letter-to-the-danbury-baptists/

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2005/05/06/the-wall-of-separation-myth/

If you read the first draft of his letter, and what historians say about it, you realize he did not mean what you say he meant.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html

Kingfisher

It’s incredible how ‘Guest’ was ready to reply at the very same time of ‘glynn’s post.

What an amazing coincidence. (/sarc)
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Given that he was unable to point out where the “separation of church and state” exists in the US Constitution, the people who were laughing and gasping are the idiots here. They’re just too ignorant to know it – like you.
http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

So, exactly where in the Constitution does that phrase appear, then?

Anonymous

Not a big fan of O’Donnell. She seems kind of kooky at a time when republicans need to work harder than ever to win over voters (things are looking good now but it will take a supermajority to get rid of all the nonsense Obama has shoved through).

But she definitely won that exchange. Good for her.

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

She’s better than her opponent and the best we can hope for from a blue state like CT! I’ll take her over Coons any day.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

She’s better than her opponent and the best we can hope for from a blue state like CT! I’ll take her over Coons any day.

Anonymous

Well, she is correct. There is no mention of seperation of church and state in the constituion. And she is also correct about what schools can teach….they can teach anything related to relgion and especially if they are also teaching the goddless version along side it. Once the fed start endorsing a particular religion, as the state religion, than we have an issue with the 1st amendment. But that isnt happening. What the dems are trying to do here is claim that any mention of any religion(christianity) in a school is an endorsement for that religion. That couldnt be more incorrect. Its like history is being forceably removed out of some seperation that isnt there.
President Friedman

I love watching the media, both old and new, focus so much attention on O’Donnell, who nobody from either side takes very seriously and nobody expects to win… think of all the damage they could have been trying to do to the good Tea Party candidates all this time if they didn’t have O’Donnell to keep them distracted. It’s like that old racoon catching trick from “Where The Red Fern Grows”, you give the racoon something shiny and pretty to play with and it just can’t let go.
Kingfisher

Let’s not forget that the First Amendment prohibits the “free practice of” religion.

For the libs’ separation of church and state to be effective, the government would have to prohibit the free practice of religion.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Reading around the net I’m dismayed at how many fools on the right are repeating the “she didn’t even know the first amendment” idiocy. How people allegedly to the right side of politics could possibly be so ignorant as to think that I’m just not able to understand.

Kingfisher

O’Donnell has an excellent grasp of the First Amendment. If she didn’t, she wouldn’t have brought up the question in the first place.

Also, notice the concept of separation of church and state, not the people. The state and the people are two different entities yet the left tries to combine the two when it is to their advantage only.

Tennwriter

EM,
Not only doesn’t the Constitution explicitly call for a separation of church and state, but the Founders would have been shocked at our modern ‘notions’ (I hesitate to dignify them with the word ‘ideas’.) in that direction.

Congress is forbidden from making me attend the First Temple of Gaia, or making me support their worship with taxes (although if they do something good that is also non-religious, like planting trees in the park, that can be supported). Congress is also forbidden from interfering with the free exercise of the religion of Gaia so if a bunch of Gaian kids want to go to a club to hear the Prophet Al Gore preach, or if a football team labelled ‘the Earth Avengers’ wants to have a screeching moonbat deliver a blessing over them at a public school, its Constitutionally acceptable.

Now, if it happens that say, Global Warming were a scientific fact, then just because its a tenet of the faith of Gaia would not have any bar from the First Amendment to teaching it in public schools. And who, pray tell, would decide if it was science…the local school board.

Coons is ignorant when he spouts off about creationism, in more ways than one. The school can teach it, even if its wrong, and just because Christians agree with it (Hey, I also agree with Newton) means zip. And oh, its not wrong.
Idaslide

Really, they’re both embarrassingly idiotic disgraces. No one win this one.

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Sorry, but what’s so idiotic and embarrassing about O’Donell?

Idaslide

Ahem. No one WON this one. Stop autocorrecting me incorrectly, smartphone.

gfchicago

Sounds like your phone is smarter than you!

Sorry I couldn’t resist.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Nt-Waff/100001427330272 Nt Waff

============================

Listen to Mark Levin, a constitutional attorney, explain why Christine O’Donnell was correct

http://www.therightscoop.com/mark-levin-on-odonnell-and-separation-of-church-and-state

=========================
liberal_troll

wow

Ed Klein on ‘The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House’

Premium Right Ads

Blogads Right

Previous Features

40 Of The Most Bad-Ass, Masculine, Manly, Alpha Male Quotes Of All Time

Why Men Are Becoming Wimpy, Video Game Playing Slackers Who Don’t Want To Get Married

Horror You Will Never Get Out Of Your Brain Again: Bronies

The 10 Best Obama Ate A Dog Images From Around The Web

User Info

Features

Archives Best of RWN Humor John Hawkins Interviews Quotes Special to RWN