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

[CallMeJoe]

Consider also the statement of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1892 when asked to examine the question of whether the United States was a Christian nation. This is what the court found:

Consider, rather, Article Eleven of the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified unanimously by the United States Senate and signed by President John Adams in 1797:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Are we to believe the Twenty-First Century Theocrats know the intent of the Founding Fathers better than President John Adams?

Note also the President's statement:

Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed, and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof.

I can only assume the last clause includes Article Eleven of said treaty...

 

[CallMeJoe]

Using semantics, that means state governments CAN make laws establishing religion and prohibit free speech.
:awe:

This was the case until the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, of which Candidate O'Donnell declared herself so woefully ignorant. Methinks someone aspiring to apply consideration of Constitutionality to all her votes should be quite cognizant of the Incorporation Doctrine...

 

[Daverino]

The right to own a gun isn't in the Constitution either. Only the right to bear arms.

 

[ElFenix]

The right to own a gun isn't in the Constitution either. Only the right to bear arms.

...has bear arms....

 

[dmcowen674]

Nice, I almost thought she was being considered for election for her down to earth smarts.

No, I knew people just liked her because she's cutesy like Rachel Ray.

On a side note, I bet Rachel Ray knew that gov' should stay out of religion and religion stay out of gov't.

Doing the alternative brings us back to the days of Kings and God ruling the land, and we all know how that turned out don't we?

Imagine Palin and O'donell as our President and Vice President overlords with Rachel Ray as our Secretary of State

Wow what a trifecta

 

[sportage]

Thomas Jefferson's Koran?
pS.. Jefferson did attend church and he did read the bible. But he did not believe in Christ.

But ANyway...
This country has always followed separation of church and state.
Only a crackpot like O"Donnell would confuse this into an issue.
But who knows what she really thinks or believes, anyway, since she is funded by
millions of dollars from unknown sources.
One of the best voter concerns about her I've heard is voters wondering just who she is a "front" for? Who would support her with millions in unknown sourced donations?
What is it they want her to do for them? For all we know, Bin Laden himself could be her major campaign funder. We'll never know...

 

[punjabiplaya]

so the Tea Partiers are crazy waving their constitutional rights and founding father nonsense when they don't even know what is in the constitution? talk about ignorant

 

[dca221]

Seriously, do you think that she couldn't look up information on the Constitution? I am surprised at how much she does know, and what she has shown she knows is more than I have seen demonstrated on this board, where the political issues of the day are discussed 24-7.

I believe she could look up information on the Constitution. Frankly, that seems to be the only way she would actually know what is in Constitution, so I do hope she does look it up

I and a handful of others here just posted a number of posts that corrected the misconceptions that this thread started out with and learned a bit in the process. Perhaps you could try this as well.

Let's play a game. I invite everyone posting in this thread to participate.

No need to play any games. You said this in the post above (just look back to what you said to confirm, like O'Donnell would look up articles in the Constitution:

Listening to the responses in the debates she has had with Coons, O'Donnell has much more than a passing familiarity with the U.S. Constitution and comes across as a strict constructionist. [...]

I attribute her being much more correct in her Constitutional viewpoints than Coons has been to the fact that conservatives are generally much more aware of Constitutional issues and consider them regularly as a means of validating political stands, while liberals tend to ignore Constitutionality as they push social agendas.

You said this, and I pointed out O'Donnell can't identify what 14th and 16th amendment are, directly contradicting what you say above. So, no need for any games, you can't spin this away

No lying - how many did you get right?

It doesn't matter how many I get right. Remember, the issue is the ignorance and pretentiousness of O'Donnell. She parrots the talking points, claims she loves the Constitution, mocks non-tea-partiers because others don't love the Constitution as much as she does ... yet she doesn't know what's in the 1st amendment, 14th, or 16th. Heck, she should play your game and tell us how many amendments she got right! Are you scared to know her number?

What is even tougher is knowing and understanding the case law attached to the Constitution.

Yes, this is really tough. Ask O'Donnell: she could not name one supreme court decision she disagreed with! She said, in her Rachel Ray way, "I'll have to get back to you on that. Let me post it on my website"

What I have come to find is that those who mock the loudest know the least.

And those who dare to mock the most are themselves invariably more worthy of being mocked than any object of their derision.

I could not agree more with you! But, perhaps, we disagree on who is doing the mocking, who knows the least, and who is more worthy of being the object of derision ... hint hint: it's O'Donell

 

[mcmilljb]

This is the first thing that came to my mind when I saw the videos of her today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiWLCO_nMk0

Hehe.

 

[punjabiplaya]

I'm glad the crowd gasps when she says it. Good to know there are still some people with brains.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/19/christine-odonnell-church-and-state_n_767910.html

 

[werepossum]

Thomas Jefferson's Koran?
pS.. Jefferson did attend church and he did read the bible. But he did not believe in Christ.

But ANyway...
This country has always followed separation of church and state.
Only a crackpot like O"Donnell would confuse this into an issue.
But who knows what she really thinks or believes, anyway, since she is funded by
millions of dollars from unknown sources.
One of the best voter concerns about her I've heard is voters wondering just who she is a "front" for? Who would support her with millions in unknown sourced donations?
What is it they want her to do for them? For all we know, Bin Laden himself could be her major campaign funder. We'll never know...

I think you are trying to say Jefferson was a Deist rather than a Theist. A Deist says "A tree has fallen on my house, dang." A Theist says "A tree has fallen on my house as part of G-d's grand plan." Either may believe in and follow Jesus. In Jefferson's case he was a devout follower of Jesus, though not a believer in Jesus' divinity (much the same as Jews are followers of Moses but do not consider Moses to be G-d) and even authored a monograph on Jesus' true message. His is generally considered today to be most closely aligned with the Unitarian Church, with the understanding that the contemporary Unitarian Church was much more Christian than today's Unitarian Church and that Jefferson's actual church attendance was in Protestant churches due simply to location.

This country's complete division of state and religion is rather recent. Some of our earliest government programs were literacy programs which furnished - wait for it! - Bibles for kids to learn to read. Every government function was begun with a prayer to G-d, and most all federal buildings to this day retain engravings and/or art in the Judeo-Christian traditions. It is only comparatively recently that enlightened progressives discovered that freedom OF religion actually means freed FROM religion.

BTW, nice work sneaking in the innocent until proven guilty angle. Pretty much all you guys have this election is making silly and unsubstantiated accusations of generic evil, so it's nice to see you remember it.

 

[waggy]

she is a idiot. But she has a possibility of winning because idiots will just hit elect all R or D. The 2 party system has really fucked the US over

but she should just get on her broom and fly off and leave people alone. or fly to my house and let me do naughty things to her..

 

[her209]

she is a idiot. But she has a possibility of winning because idiots will just hit elect all R or D. The 2 party system has really fucked the US over

but she should just get on her broom and fly off and leave people alone. or fly to my house and let me do naughty things to her..

My guess is that, if by some miracle she does win, she'll quickly realize that she could be making more money on Fox News and quit.

 

[Budmantom]

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.

Is she the Obama of the republican party?

 

[DominionSeraph]

That is your opinion though. They are still crosses and they are still on public ground. Mind you I agree with your analysis however there are those who might disagree with us based on an absolutist POV. It's all about where one draws the line in the sand.

There is no line. The dead are separate from the government, and the government is not prohibited from acknowledging that the dead had religious beliefs prior to attaining their current state.

A symbol implying that John Doe was, factually, a member of a particular cult is not an endorsement of that cult.

While denying the existence of religions would be a strong rebuking of religion, it would be a false dilemma to conclude that such would be logically necessary to avoid endorsement. You can endorse all facts and not endorse religion. In fact, when you endorse facts it makes it really easy not to endorse religion!

 

[HomerJS]

Is she the Obama of the republican party?

She's actually Sarah Palin lite. Less intelligence great crazy. COD isn't worried about losing this election because she's counting on a job @ Fox News later. Mark my words.

 

[her209]

She's actually Sarah Palin lite. Less intelligence great crazy. COD isn't worried about losing this election because she's counting on a job @ Fox News later. Mark my words.

She did say she has Hannity in her back pocket, but iIn which pocket does Hannity keep Christine O'Donnell?

 

[SAWYER]

LOL@the train wreck

 

[waggy]

My guess is that, if by some miracle she does win, she'll quickly realize that she could be making more money on Fox News and quit.

we can only hope..

 

[woolfe9999]

Correct. What the Constitution prohibits is the government from establishing a state religion, which was common when it was written. No one really wanted an Anglican Church created by the state.

That has been interpreted more broadly however, and the standard isn't the words in the Constitution, but from a letter by Jefferson written in response to one sent by the Danbury Baptists, the text of which follows.

To which Jefferson replied:

Therefore it isn't "in the Constitution" but rather what Jefferson makes of it.

It's amazing how many "experts" seem to overlook this fact. Certainly someone running for office should have known.

So she answered correctly, but I haven't much confidence if she knew why. She should have been able to pull this out of her butt.

The two of us played this out in a different thread some months back. I will reiterate that while the Constitution in its literal wording only prevents establishment of a state religion, barring a state religion is the first principle of separation of church and state. It doesn't achieve total separation but it achieves 90% of the objective in and of itself. Not wanting the Anglican church to be a state religion was precisely why the doctrine of separation of church and state was favored by many of the founding fathers. Accordingly, to say that "separation of church and state" isn't in the Constitution is false. You can't say the principle isn't there just because the literal wording doesn't go all the way in fulfilling the principle. The *idea* of church/state separation is right there in the First Amendment, as is the largest part of its implementation.

It might be accurate to say "nowhere does the Constitution bar prayer in public schools" but that isn't what O'Donnell said.

- wolf

 

[Siddhartha]

Is she the Obama of the republican party?

Did she go to Harvard Law School and taught law at the University of Chicago Law school for 12 years?

 

[Pens1566]

Those suggesting that the witch is arguing the nuances of the constitution wrt church/state are making a huge assumption about her intelligence. I'm guessing they haven't seen any footage of her at all in this case. If that's not the case, then her "I'm not a witch" commercial is correct ... she is you.

 

[PJABBER]

Those suggesting that the witch is arguing the nuances of the constitution wrt church/state are making a huge assumption about her intelligence. I'm guessing they haven't seen any footage of her at all in this case. If that's not the case, then her "I'm not a witch" commercial is correct ... she is you.

It is funny how nuance, even ignorance, is allowed so long as it is from the party you support. When it comes from an opponent it is discounted and the worst face is put on it. The name calling and vilification is an extra that we all have come to expect from the Democrats and the "liberal" left.

CNN's Hatchet Job on the O'Donnell Debate

Elisabeth Meinecke
October 19, 2010

Constitution 101: the actual phrase "separation of Church and State" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. Sorry to disillusion you, liberals.

Christine O'Donnell was trying to make this simple point in a debate Tuesday with Democrat opponent Chris Coons, but CNN misconstrued it and angled its write-up of the debate on CNN.com to read that O'Donnell was clueless on the First Amendment.

If you compare the write-up to the CNN video, you can see how flagrant the article's misinterpretation of the debate is. The author chooses to quote from one of two identical phrases that are included in the video.

O'Donnell asks once in the video, "You're telling me that the separation of church and state, the phrase "separation of church and state," is found in the First Amendment?" (Emphasis added.)

The article, however, includes her second quote as part of an exchange with Coons: "Let me just clarify: You're telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?"

O'Donnell's point, if you listen to CNN's actual video, is pretty clear from her inflection -- she's challenging Coons on a common Constitutional misconception that he perpetuated: "separation of church and state" is explicitly named in the Constitution (it's not). As a journalist, you have two responsibilities: quote accurately, and make sure that, if there's something you've decided not to quote, you're still allowing whatever you do write to be framed by the context provided from the unquoted material. So a good journalist, writing this story, would have listened again to the transcript, heard her ask the same question which specifically asked about phrasing, and made sure O'Donnell's point was brought across in context.

Meanwhile, Coons could not name the five freedoms listed in the First Amendment. But CNN didn't lead with that -- in fact, the only place in the story that CNN decides to mention the fact is from a direct quote from O'Donnell's campaign manager. CNN also reports O'Donnell had to be reminded what the Fourteenth and Sixteenth Amendments were when a panelist's question asked her about them, but they fail to mention that the question also asked about the Seventeenth Amendment, which O'Donnell knew off the top of her head.

There's nothing like misrepresenting your opponent's position to expose your own ignorance, CNN. O'Donnell's biggest mistake was assuming the media would have the sense to realize she was asking a rhetorical question.

Watch CNN's video here

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The two of us played this out in a different thread some months back. I will reiterate that while the Constitution in its literal wording only prevents establishment of a state religion, barring a state religion is the first principle of separation of church and state. It doesn't achieve total separation but it achieves 90% of the objective in and of itself. Not wanting the Anglican church to be a state religion was precisely why the doctrine of separation of church and state was favored by many of the founding fathers. Accordingly, to say that "separation of church and state" isn't in the Constitution is false. You can't say the principle isn't there just because the literal wording doesn't go all the way in fulfilling the principle. The *idea* of church/state separation is right there in the First Amendment, as is the largest part of its implementation.

It might be accurate to say "nowhere does the Constitution bar prayer in public schools" but that isn't what O'Donnell said.

- wolf

The problem is that the Courts themselves don't know seem to know what "separation of church and state" means.

Note this:

http://www.llrx.com/features/christmas.htm

They refer to the establishment clause which has been said finds it's roots in the letter by Jefferson.

We've gone from not establishing an Anglican church to not allowing Christmas displays based on the First. When asked why the latter the answer is usually "the separation of church and state" which is Constitution, but is that factual? What really matters is not if there is a creche on government property, but if there are a sufficient number of plastic reindeer near by.

It comes down to the context of the question. If she was directly asked if the Constitution prohibits the establishment of a state church, then the answer is yes, but it's become much more than that, and even that depends on the day you ask the SCOTUS or so it seems.

When the answer provided by the SCOTUS is ambiguous how does one respond to the question? It depends on the frame of reference of the people involved.

 

[PJABBER]

The two of us played this out in a different thread some months back. I will reiterate that while the Constitution in its literal wording only prevents establishment of a state religion, barring a state religion is the first principle of separation of church and state. It doesn't achieve total separation but it achieves 90% of the objective in and of itself. Not wanting the Anglican church to be a state religion was precisely why the doctrine of separation of church and state was favored by many of the founding fathers. Accordingly, to say that "separation of church and state" isn't in the Constitution is false. You can't say the principle isn't there just because the literal wording doesn't go all the way in fulfilling the principle. The *idea* of church/state separation is right there in the First Amendment, as is the largest part of its implementation.

It might be accurate to say "nowhere does the Constitution bar prayer in public schools" but that isn't what O'Donnell said.

- wolf

There is the language of the Constitution and then there is the intent of those wrote it and then clarified it in a variety of ways.

I like to dive deeper in some cases. To gain more clarity, to confirm or deny the claims made all around. Let me offer something which may clarify what Jefferson meant, what he intended.

It may have little bearing on what Coons and O'Donnell said or didn't say, but it at least provides a perspective from which to evaluate how far the current perception of separation of church and state has evolved, rightly or wrongly.

The introduction and a link to the full doc from the Library of Congress -

'A Wall of Separation'

FBI Helps Restore Jefferson's Obliterated Draft

By JAMES HUTSON

Mr. Hutson is chief of the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress.

Following is an article by the curator of a major exhibition at the Library that opens this month and runs through Aug. 22. A key document on view in "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic" (see LC Information Bulletin, May 1998), is the letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, which contains the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state." With the help of the FBI, the draft of the letter, including Jefferson's obliterated words, are now known.

Thomas Jefferson's reply on Jan. 1, 1802, to an address from the Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association, congratulating him upon his election as president, contains a phrase that is as familiar in today's political and judicial circles as the lyrics of a hit tune: "a wall of separation between church and state." This phrase has become well known because it is considered to explain (many would say, distort) the "religion clause" of the First Amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...," a clause whose meaning has been the subject of passionate dispute for the past 50 years.

During his lifetime, Jefferson could not have predicted that the language in his Danbury Baptist letter would have endured as long as some of his other arresting phrases. The letter was published in a Massachusetts newspaper a month after Jefferson wrote it and then was more or less forgotten for half a century. It was put back into circulation in an edition of Jefferson's writings, published in 1853, and reprinted in 1868 and 1871.

The Supreme Court turned the spotlight on the "wall of separation" phrase in 1878 by declaring in Reynolds v. United States "that it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [first] amendment."

The high court took the same position in widely publicized decisions in 1947 and 1948, asserting in the latter case, McCollum v. Board of Education, that, "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.'" Since McCollum forbade religious instruction in public schools, it appeared that the court had used Jefferson's "wall" metaphor as a sword to sever religion from public life, a result that was and still is intolerable to many Americans.

Some Supreme Court justices did not like what their colleagues had done. In 1962, Justice Potter Stewart complained that jurisprudence was not "aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the 'wall of separation,' a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution." Addressing the issue in 1985, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist lamented that "unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years."

Defenders of the metaphor responded immediately: "despite its detractors and despite its leaks, cracks and its archways, the wall ranks as one of the mightiest monuments of constitutional government in this nation."

Given the gravity of the issues involved in the debate over the wall metaphor, it is surprising that so little effort has been made to go behind the printed text of the Danbury Baptist letter to unlock its secrets. Jefferson's handwritten draft of the letter is held by the Library's Manuscript Division. Inspection reveals that nearly 30 percent of the draft -- seven of 25 lines -- was deleted by the president prior to publication. Jefferson indicated his deletions by circling several lines and noting in the left margin that they were to be excised. He inked out several words in the circled section and a few words elsewhere in the draft. He also inked out three entire lines following the circled section. Click here to see the text of the final letter...

Since the Library plans to display Jefferson's handwritten draft of the Danbury Baptist letter in its forthcoming exhibition "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic," the question was raised whether modern computer technology could be used to uncover Jefferson's inked-out words, so that the unedited copy of the letter might be shown to viewers alongside Jefferson's corrected draft. The Library requested the assistance of FBI Director Louis Freeh, who generously permitted the FBI Laboratory to apply its state-of-the-art technology to the task of restoring Jefferson's obliterated words. The FBI was successful, with the result that the entire draft of the Danbury Baptist letter is now legible (below). This fully legible copy will be seen in the exhibition in the company of its handwritten, edited companion draft. Click here to see Jefferson's unedited text. By examining both documents, viewers will be able to discern Jefferson's true intentions in writing the celebrated Danbury Baptist letter...

(The full text of this most interesting article and its conclusions continues here.)