On reviewing the video, it is obvious that the common assertion that Candidate O'Donnell doesn't know what is in the First Amendment concerning religion is false; she may not interpret the Amendment in the same way that Ms. O'Donnell's critics and Mr. Coons do, but she knows the wording of the Amendment.
She is caught up in a "gotcha" moment, thinking she has cutely and cleverly trapped Mr. Coons. She knows the precise phrase "Separation of Church and State" is not in the Amendment and is terribly amused that Mr. Coons doesn't get her point. She thinks the audience is in on the joke, which is why she turns and encourages the laughter.
I don't think she knows what the audience reaction represents. In a re-viewing I can't figure it out myself.
Remember this debate took place at Widner Law School, actually a very good school but not one known well outside of the corporate law world. I would expect that those in the audience having a familiarity with Constitutional law and the basis for that law would be well aware of what the exchange was all about. Others, like many who have posted in this thread and in the partisan news media, would fall back on the pedestrian lack of knowledge they rely on. Who laughs and why? Who knows?
I am curious what you think of her apparent ignorance of the Fourteenth and Sixteenth Amendments; it is a curious lapse for a Constitutionalist with such a passion for the Taxed Enough Already Party.
I think it is disingenuous for the moderators to ask for a list of any kind. THAT is where you can lay the blame for attempts at "gotchas." Especially when they don't do the same for both candidates.
What is important in a question like that? A trivia master would do extremely well, but would they have the insight to make the right choice on the import?
Have you ever been in a debate or an interview where you have to bring out what is important to get out? You know what is important but you are asked for a rote recitation. Some do better at recitation than others, of course. But I have learned that it is not the rote reciter who can best do a job, but the one who knows the import. That is why I do not find fault in either Coons or O'Donnell but I can easily criticize the partisan "moderators" in both debates that have occurred thus far.
I am equally curious of your thoughts concerning the Treaty of Tripoli I cited earlier in the thread.
I wonder if an affirmative statement like that would be incorporated in any treaty these days. Knowing what we do about Islamism these days.
Unfortunately, no record of the negotiations leading to the treaty exist. It's not known how Article 11 found its way into the document. Other treaties negotiated at the same time with Algeria and Tunis do not contain similar clauses. This has led to speculation that the provision may have been inserted at the insistence of officials in Tripoli, who wanted some assurance that the United States would not use religion as a pretext for future hostilities.
The Muslim regions of North Africa would have good reason to be concerned about this issue, given the centuries-long conflict between Islam and Christianity. Muslim leaders resented their treatment at the hands of the officially Christian countries of Europe. Tripoli's leaders may have viewed the United States as a mere extension of "Christian" Great Britain and expected similar tensions over religion.
To be sure, Islam was considered an exotic religion to most Americans at this time. Although Jefferson celebrated the fact that his Virginia Bill for Religious Freedom extended its protections to "the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, the infidel of every denomination," the fact is that Muslims were rare in 18th century America — if there were any at all — and most Americans continued to view Islam as a strange, even sinister, faith.
The reality is that no one is certain how Article 11 got into the Treaty with Tripoli. According to Robert J. Allison, a Suffolk University history professor who authored the 1995 book
The Crescent Obscured: The United States and the Muslim World, 1776-1815 - "It's an interesting question — why this was put into the treaty". Allison's research did not turn up any definitive clues, but, he adds, "I don't think you can ascribe a treaty to any one author. There are too many interests at play. Whether it came from Barlow (the likely author) or Tripoli will remain unknown."
The man in question is Joel Barlow of Connecticut. A reluctant diplomat who had aspirations of being an epic poet, Barlow served as the United States' diplomatic agent to the Barbary States, charged with concluding treaties with three countries — Algiers, Tripoli and Tunis. Barlow spent two years in North Africa, hammering out agreements and working to the keep the United States from going to war with the Barbary States. Among his duties was overseeing the negotiations of the Treaty of Tripoli.
Although he served as a military chaplain representing the Congregational Church during the Revolutionary War, Barlow later in life drifted into the Deist camp championed by his friend Jefferson. Barlow was a strong advocate of church-state separation. Barlow was frequently accused of being an atheist by his political enemies.
Then we have the question about the actual language of the signed treaty copies...
There is considerable dispute about whether the Arabic version of the treaty read and signed by the representatives of Tripoli even had the famous words included (they are not present, as was discovered in about 1930, in the surviving Arabic version). No one knows why. The treaty remained in effect for only four years, replaced, after more war with Tripoli, with another treaty that does not have the famous words included. One or two later treaties even allude to the Trinity. *If* the major claim of separationists regarding the treaty were a legal one, these facts might be fatal. But no one claims that the treaty was the basis for our government being non-Christian--it is the godless Constitution, which calls on no higher power than "We the People," that is the necessary and sufficient legal basis.
While you scramble for further justification of your position, perhaps you should read and consider the words of the American Declaration of Independence for their clarity and their import. They are much easier to research. LOL!
Facebook
Twitter