The Freak Show Continues: O'Donnell Questions Separation Of Church & State

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
O'Donnell may be the biggest gift horse the Democrats could ask for this election cycle. She's a guaranteed loser, much like Palin in 2008, but also a huge distraction for her own party. Instead of discussing her politics, her comments leave voters wondering whether or not she flunked 5th grade civics class.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/19/AR2010101902501_pf.html

O'Donnell questions separation of church, state
By BEN EVANS
The Associated Press
Tuesday, October 19, 2010; 12:54 PM

WILMINGTON, Del. -- 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.

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.

"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.

Erin Daly, a Widener professor who specializes in constitutional law, 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.

"She seemed genuinely surprised that the principle of separation of church and state derives from the First Amendment, and I think to many of us in the law school that was a surprise," Daly said. "It's one thing to not know the 17th Amendment or some of the others, but most Americans do know the basics of the First Amendment."

O'Donnell didn't respond to reporters who asked her to clarify her views after the debate. Her campaign manager, Matt Moran, later issued a statement saying that O'Donnell wasn't questioning the concept of separation of church and state.

"She simply made the point that the phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution," Moran said.

During the exchange, she said Coons' views on creationism showed that he believes in big-government mandates.

"Talk about imposing your beliefs on the local schools," she said. "You've just proved how little you know not just about constitutional law but about the theory of evolution."

Coons said her comments show a "fundamental misunderstanding" of the Constitution.

The debate, their third in the past week, was more testy than earlier ones.

O'Donnell began by defending herself for not being able to name a recent Supreme Court decision with which she disagrees at a debate last week. She said she was stumped because she largely agrees with the court's recent decisions under conservative chief justices John Roberts and William Rehnquist.

"I would say this court is on the right track," she said.

The two candidates repeatedly talked over each other, with O'Donnell accusing Coons of caving at one point when he asked the moderator to move on to a new question after a lengthy argument.

"I guess he can't handle it," she said.

O'Donnell, a tea party favorite who stunned the state by winning the GOP primary last month in her third Senate bid in five years, called Coons a liberal "addicted to a culture of waste, fraud and abuse."

Coons, who has held a double-digit lead in recent polls, urged voters to support him as the candidate of substance, with a track record over six years as executive of the state's most populous county. He said O'Donnell's only experience is in "sharpening the partisan divide but not at bridging it."
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
36,144
10,444
136
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?"

:eek:

Goodbye in November, O'Donnell. That exchange was simply ridiculous.
 

alphatarget1

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2001
5,710
0
76
Haha. I just posted the same article on my facebook and my conservative friend made a comment on how the constitution doesn't explicitly say "separation of church and state".

Coons didn't answer her question and I guess her answer's validity hinges on what she meant by "that". "that" as in separation of church and state? or "that" as in the first amendment barring congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion? The first thing that came to my mind after I read that was, she didn't know what the first amendment said? I guess she could have meant that she was questioning where in the Constitution it states "separation of church and state", which isn't entirely a unreasonable question to ask.

With that said, separation of church and state is kind of an established interpretation of the Constitution from multiple SCOTUS rulings in the past. I suppose one could argue that what the court said isn't how the founding fathers intended...

FYI: I'd never vote for someone like her if she ran in my state.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
"I'm not a Constitutional scholar. I'm nothing you've heard. I'm you."
 

daishi5

Golden Member
Feb 17, 2005
1,196
0
76
...
"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?"

....
Erin Daly, a Widener professor who specializes in constitutional law, 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.

"She seemed genuinely surprised that the principle of separation of church and state derives from the First Amendment, and I think to many of us in the law school that was a surprise," Daly said. "It's one thing to not know the 17th Amendment or some of the others, but most Americans do know the basics of the First Amendment."...

I have to ask one question before joining in. Did Coons say that the first amendment "the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion" because the details matter in this little game of gotcha. If O'donnell said that the first amendment does not say the church and state should be separate, she is right. The law professor says it is derived from the first amendment, but it is not actually in it. The problem I have with this report is that O'Donnell's response of: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?" is either amazingly ignorant, or actually a good point, based entirely on what Coons said was in there. But, for some reason, the article does not actually provide his statement that she responded to. I have been caught by this myself when I made posts, where I trusted the reporters interpretations of a statement, when it actually changed the meaning of the original statement.

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.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
I have to ask one question before joining in. Did Coons say that the first amendment "the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion" because the details matter in this little game of gotcha. If O'donnell said that the first amendment does not say the church and state should be separate, she is right. The law professor says it is derived from the first amendment, but it is not actually in it. The problem I have with this report is that O'Donnell's response of: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?" is either amazingly ignorant, or actually a good point, based entirely on what Coons said was in there. But, for some reason, the article does not actually provide his statement that she responded to. I have been caught by this myself when I made posts, where I trusted the reporters interpretations of a statement, when it actually changed the meaning of the original statement.
Also not in the Constitution:
- the words "right to privacy"
- the word "Air Force"
 

alphatarget1

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2001
5,710
0
76
I have to ask one question before joining in. Did Coons say that the first amendment "the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion" because the details matter in this little game of gotcha. If O'donnell said that the first amendment does not say the church and state should be separate, she is right. The law professor says it is derived from the first amendment, but it is not actually in it. The problem I have with this report is that O'Donnell's response of: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?" is either amazingly ignorant, or actually a good point, based entirely on what Coons said was in there. But, for some reason, the article does not actually provide his statement that she responded to. I have been caught by this myself when I made posts, where I trusted the reporters interpretations of a statement, when it actually changed the meaning of the original statement.

That's what happened when I first read it too. Reading comprehension fail. I have no doubt in my mind that O'Donnell is a nutjob, but I don't need some shady liberal journalists to twist the facts and tell me she is.
 
Last edited:

alphatarget1

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2001
5,710
0
76
Also not in the Constitution:
- the words "right to privacy"
- the word "Air Force"

I hate to say it, but sometimes I think the Constitution/any law in general is whatever justices/lawyers say they are. With regards to "right to privacy", I suggest you read up on the dissenting opinions on Roe v. Wade as well as prominent liberal judges like Ginsburg who disagreed with the majority opinion.

Much of the tension between liberals and conservatives today, at least for abortion, is the top-down "legislating" on abortion by the SCOTUS, IMO. If the democratic process were to be allowed to take place back then, we'd probably have laws that make much more sense, like what France has.
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
I have to ask one question before joining in. Did Coons say that the first amendment "the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion" because the details matter in this little game of gotcha. If O'donnell said that the first amendment does not say the church and state should be separate, she is right. The law professor says it is derived from the first amendment, but it is not actually in it. The problem I have with this report is that O'Donnell's response of: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?" is either amazingly ignorant, or actually a good point, based entirely on what Coons said was in there. But, for some reason, the article does not actually provide his statement that she responded to. I have been caught by this myself when I made posts, where I trusted the reporters interpretations of a statement, when it actually changed the meaning of the original statement.

That's what I thought first, too. There's always been the debate over what "separation of church and state" should be. That's a phrase that was used to convey the general meaning of the establishment clause, but IMO has been taken by many to say that it is unconstitutional for anything having to do with government having anything to do with religion. IE, a Christmas display, 10 commandments display, prayer in a public office, etc.

None of these examples codifies a state religion, which is what the literal phrasing of the 1st amendment states, but people yell "separation of church and state!" and somehow think that it's in the constitution.

Keep the rage train going though... :D
 

CrackRabbit

Lifer
Mar 30, 2001
16,642
62
91
That's what I thought first, too. There's always been the debate over what "separation of church and state" should be. That's a phrase that was used to convey the general meaning of the establishment clause, but IMO has been taken by many to say that it is unconstitutional for anything having to do with government having anything to do with religion. IE, a Christmas display, 10 commandments display, prayer in a public office, etc.

None of these examples codifies a state religion, which is what the literal phrasing of the 1st amendment states, but people yell "separation of church and state!" and somehow think that it's in the constitution.

Keep the rage train going though... :D

While you are correct that the examples given codify a state religion, they do however show an endorsement of one (Christmas display) or some (the 10 commandments) over others.
When you start trying to accommodate ALL religions (as would be a necessity) things get messy and expensive quickly though.
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
16,015
8,605
136
When looking at the track record of O'Donnell wrt how often she's managed to stuff her feet in her mouth, this instance has the same tinge of idiocy that by now has become a hallmark of her mindset.

IMO, there's no practical use for trying to wring out some semblance of rational thought on her part no matter how generous one can be in interpreting her nonsense. She has time and again proven to be intellectually barren by being chronically gaffe-prone to the highest order.

Even Joe Biden can proclaim her as the High Queen of Gaffe's without feeling any guilt on his part. She makes him look like Walter Cronkite.

Palin, O'Donnell and Angle = Moe, Larry and Curly Joe. And that's being quite insulting to the Stooges at that.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,912
10,750
147
Christine O'Donnell just keeps on delivering! An exchange in a debate with Coons today went like this:

Coons: “Government shall make no establishment of religion . . .”

O’Donnell: “That’s in the First Amendment?”

Yes, Christine, it it. :rolleyes:
 

Bird222

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2004
3,641
132
106
I watched another debate between them. He seems like a pretty decent guy to not just totally say 'are you fucking kidding me' when debating her. Don't get me wrong, from what I have seen Christine O'Donnell seems like a nice person, but she it not ready for the Senate.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
It's more important that we make the millions who *would vote for her* understand why they should be embarrassed of that and correct it.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
31,668
48,418
136
Just when you thought a political figure couldn't get anymore ignorant than Palin or W...


Wow, just, wow.

I'm not sure what's more saddening: that Christine here really is that stupid, or that this startling admission of ignorance still won't make much of a difference for the conservative puppet voters.


/facepalm
 

Bird222

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2004
3,641
132
106
Just when you thought a political figure couldn't get anymore ignorant than Palin or W...


Wow, just, wow.

I'm not sure what's more saddening: that Christine here really is that stupid, or that this startling admission of ignorance still won't make much of a difference for the conservative puppet voters.


/facepalm


I'm going to say the later.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
The only possible use for Christine is keeping Harry Reid out of power. Luckily that is itself a noble use.

Well, two possible uses. Imagine her and Patty Murray going nose-to-nose for the title of Most Stupid Senator. Reality television at its finest.
 

ZaneNBK

Golden Member
Sep 14, 2000
1,674
0
76
I have to ask one question before joining in. Did Coons say that the first amendment "the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion" because the details matter in this little game of gotcha. If O'donnell said that the first amendment does not say the church and state should be separate, she is right. The law professor says it is derived from the first amendment, but it is not actually in it. The problem I have with this report is that O'Donnell's response of: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?" is either amazingly ignorant, or actually a good point, based entirely on what Coons said was in there. But, for some reason, the article does not actually provide his statement that she responded to. I have been caught by this myself when I made posts, where I trusted the reporters interpretations of a statement, when it actually changed the meaning of the original statement.

If you watch/listen to the video posted in the other thread about this (http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2113911) you hear him clearly quoting the first amendment and then she asks "That's in the first amendment?". Several people in the crowd could be heard laughing after that.

Here's the video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miwSljJAzqg#t=07m06s
 

ZaneNBK

Golden Member
Sep 14, 2000
1,674
0
76
If you watch/listen to the video posted in the other thread about this (http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2113911) you hear him clearly quoting the first amendment and then she asks "That's in the first amendment?". Several people in the crowd could be heard laughing after that.

Here's the video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miwSljJAzqg#t=07m06s

Actually, I misheard the other person. He definitely misquoted the amendment. His quote (as far as I can tell, audio quality isn't great) is "The government shall make no establishment of religion" which is not correct. The actual amendment starts "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", which is quite a bit different (and broader) than what he stated.
 

ZaneNBK

Golden Member
Sep 14, 2000
1,674
0
76
Christine O'Donnell just keeps on delivering! An exchange in a debate with Coons today went like this:

Coons: “Government shall make no establishment of religion . . .”

O’Donnell: “That’s in the First Amendment?”

Yes, Christine, it it. :rolleyes:

The guy did misquote the amendment and his statement differs quite a bit from the actual amendment. The amendment does agree with his statement but it's actual text is much broader that what he says.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

At face value it prohibits the government from establishing a state religion and prevents them from creating any laws for or against any specific religion.

However, I believe she still asked that question because she was ignorant of the first amendment, which is ridiculous.

Pretty disappointing that Coons couldn't quote that better. Even before I looked it up to confirm the exact text I would've quoted it as "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion" and I'm not in politics and it's been over 20 years since I learned that in school.

You'd think that any politician or prospective politician would have at least the first, second and possibly fourth amendments memorized enough that they could at least accurately paraphrase the contents given the amount of controversy regarding them and the importance of each. *sigh*
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
While you are correct that the examples given codify a state religion, they do however show an endorsement of one (Christmas display) or some (the 10 commandments) over others.
When you start trying to accommodate ALL religions (as would be a necessity) things get messy and expensive quickly though.

I look at it in a stricter sense of the government making no law which respects an establishment of one religion over others. Putting up a Christmas display in front of a town hall doesn't do that. Would it offend some people? Sure... but that doesn't make it an issue of constitutionality. If it were in a largely Jewish neighborhood and it was a Hanukkah display, or a Ramadan display (whatever that might be) in a largely Islamic community, it would be the same thing. The second half of the phrase is, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

I know the court decisions over the years have refined and disambiguated the phrasing to get to where we are now, but I think in far too many instances, it's been in fact muddled to the point where *anything* which might be considered religions cannot have *anything* to do with government or similar public organizations.