The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : O'Donnell Bests Coons on First Amendment

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

O'Donnell Bests Coons on First Amendment

By John R. Guardiano on 10.19.10 @ 6:35PM

As Jeffrey Lord and I have observed, Delaware GOP Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell is absolutely right: The phrase "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the Constitution.

Moreover, even as a statement of constitutional principle, the "separation of church and state" is of dubious value, given our nation's history and heritage, which have always been explicitly and avowedly Judeo-Christian. Yet the political and pundit class, aided and abetted by the media, have been having a field day smugly patronizing O'Donnell.

In fairness, though, it must be acknowledged that O'Donnell did fumble one question. That occurred when, during last night's debate, she asked her Democrat opponent, Chris Coons, where in the Constitution does it decree a "separation of church and state?"

Coons responded by citing the establishment clause of the Constitution, which prohibits Congress from establishing a state religion. O'Donnell then responded, "That's in the First Amendment?"

Yes it is, as is the clause guaranteeing the "free exercise" of religion.

OK, so O'Donnell got one wrong. But in fairness to her, she clearly was focused on the "separation of church and state"; and Coons completely missed that question.

It's one thing, after all, to say that Congress shall not "establish" a state religion, or prefer one religious sect over another. But it's an entirely different thing to say that there must be a "wall of separation between church and state."

The American founding fathers wanted to prevent the "establishment" of a state religion. However, they did not wish to erect a solid and impenetrable wall between church and state or church and the public square.

Why, even Thomas Jefferson, who penned the phrase, "wall of separation..." "endorsed the use of federal funds to build churches and to support Christian missionaries working among the Indians," the Heritage Foundation reports.

So O'Donnell made a slight error because she was focused on an issue Coons had dodged and gotten wrong. Nonetheless, she got the underlying principle of religious freedom right; and that's what really matters.

What, after all, is the benefit of having the Constitution memorized if you don't understand its underlying principles?

Wouldn't we rather have a candidate like O'Donnell, who understands the Constitution's underlying principles, even if she confuses its actual text? Or is it better to have a candidate like Coons who has memorized the Constitution, but completely misconstrues its actual meaning?

Ironically, it so happens that not only does Coons not understand the Constitution; he also isn't even that familiar with its basic text!

Lord notes, for instance, that "Coons was unable to name the five freedoms mentioned in the First Amendment: religion, speech, press, the right of peaceful assembly, and to petition the government."

So once again, and not surprisingly, the legacy media has gotten the story completely wrong and backwards: It's not O'Donnell who should be embarrassed about her lack of constitutional understanding, but rather Chris Coons; the smug, secular law students at Widener Law School; and the legacy media.

View all comments (101) | Leave a comment

Eric Cartman| 10.19.10 @ 6:50PM

Um, I think your Sarcasometer is off, John. I took her answer in a more sarcastic way. Then again, my Sarcasometer in always tweaked a little on the high side.

Trish| 10.19.10 @ 8:51PM

Eric,
Can I purchase a Sarcasometer on Ebay?

Eric Cartman| 10.19.10 @ 9:51PM

Trish,
Yes! Definitely! Just make sure it's made in the USA. And don't get it mixed up with the Orgasometer - bad things can happen :-)

frank| 10.19.10 @ 7:01PM

shall make no law ≠ separation of church and state.

just think of all of the moronic law school students who laughed..... those idiots will be in debt till 2050 and yet they are unaware that "shall make no law" is different than "separation of church and state". great investment.

Walt Gilbert| 10.19.10 @ 7:13PM

Y'all do understand that this debate took place in a liberal Democrat stronghold, right? What she meant, and the nuances thereof are of about as much relevance as the ability to Sanskrit as a second language.

Peter| 10.19.10 @ 7:13PM

A slight error? Hahahahahahaha...

Tim*| 10.19.10 @ 7:41PM

"It was in fact Chris Coons who demonstrated his ignorance of our country's founding documents when he could not name the five freedoms contained in the First Amendment."

Amendment I

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.

Anthony| 10.19.10 @ 8:16PM

Well, at least he could remember /one/ of them, more than can be said of the graceful O' Donnell.

albert constantine jr.| 10.20.10 @ 2:40PM

It is important to remember that the location of the Debate was Widener Law School, north of Wilmington. One of the distinguished professors of Constitutional Law teaching there was none other than the VPOTUS, the humble Mr. Biden. If you recall his performance in the 2008 Vice Presidential Debate and his confusion regarding Article 1, you understand the lack of fundamental understanding of our founding documents.

albert constantine jr.| 10.20.10 @ 2:42PM

(omitted after "documents") on the part of the law students there.

Skipdog| 10.19.10 @ 7:15PM

"our nation's history and heritage, which have always been explicitly and avowedly Judeo-Christian. " Think again.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/.....rance.html

John Guardiano| 10.19.10 @ 7:21PM

Skipdog,
Thanks for the article, but I don't see how this piece disputes or contradicts anything that I've written.

Kenneth C. Davis notes that there has been sectarian religious tension and hostility in America. So what? That's news?! You might as well say that Americans are human and imperfect!

Regards,
John

Walt Gilbert| 10.19.10 @ 7:16PM

"...the ability to *speak* Sanskrit as a second language."

j| 10.19.10 @ 7:17PM

frank, you are truly a moron. now go back to your shift at the factory.

Peter| 10.19.10 @ 7:21PM

A law school is a "liberal stronghold"? What law school should they have held it at? I guess this means that you feel that the law is not important to our society.

Jersey McJones| 10.19.10 @ 7:24PM

The LEGISLATURE can MAKE NO LAW. Can it be any clearer than that? Jefferson himself said the meaning was to erect a "wall of separation." What more do you guys need? And what would you do if you could reinterpret it? Just what denominational versions of prayers would we have in the schools? How would you feel if you were the only Jew in a predominantly Protestant school? How would you feel if you were the only Protestant in a predominantly Catholic school? How can congress pass any law, like for funding a new highway, or building a new military base, if that highway or base is used to promelgate religion? Do you even have a clue what the consequence of your misbegotten argument with the "separation of church and state" is successful?

It just seems like pointlessly, thoughtlessly divisive nonsense to me.

JMJ

Spicy Joker| 10.19.10 @ 8:03PM

"The LEGISLATURE can MAKE NO LAW"

Clean your glasses. The First Amendment applies to "CONGRESS." It's only the liberal Warren Court that said the First Amendment applied to the states.

"Jefferson himself said the meaning was to erect a "wall of separation."

Jefferson didn't write the First Amendment.

Garth Patterson| 10.19.10 @ 9:16PM

Of course it applies to Congress, as Congress is the entity who makes the laws.

That you regard the Warren Court as 'liberal' is irrelevant (and a dishonest political dodge :-\), as the 14th Amendment (another item that more conservatives seemingly want to dismiss) establishes that federal laws, passed by Congress, also applies to the states.

Actually Jefferson was the primary source of the 1st Amendment, and thus largely did author it. Along with James Madison (who WAS the primary author of the Constitution), ... and who totally shared Jefferson's view re: Separation of church and state.

There _is_ truth outside of the Conservative Bastille, ... really there is.

Spicy Joker| 10.19.10 @ 11:17PM

"That you regard the Warren Court as 'liberal' is irrelevant (and a dishonest political dodge :-\), as the 14th Amendment (another item that more conservatives seemingly want to dismiss) establishes that federal laws, passed by Congress, also applies to the states."

No. You're confusing the Incorporation Doctrine with the Supremacy Clause. The Supreme Court has held that the 14th Amendment makes MOST of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. The Supremacy Clause just means the states can't enact laws that conflict with federal law. But the point is that it was the liberal justices of the Supreme Court, not the Framers of the Constitution, that said the First Amendment applies to the states.

"Actually Jefferson was the primary source of the 1st Amendment, and thus largely did author it. Along with James Madison (who WAS the primary author of the Constitution), ... and who totally shared Jefferson's view re: Separation of church and state."

I'm not sure where you're getting any of this.

HyperVocal| 10.19.10 @ 7:26PM

Smug patronizers, here: http://hypervocal.com/news/201.....rch-state/
First Amendment vs. First Commandment?

Walt Gilbert| 10.19.10 @ 7:31PM

@ Pete -- I guess I should have been a bit more specific. You see, the whole damned state of Delaware is a liberal stronghold. I didn't realize it was a big secret.

Jersey McJones| 10.19.10 @ 7:36PM

Walt, the GOP has won in DE before - just not with lunatic fringe candidates like O'Donnell!

JMJ

Walt Gilbert| 10.19.10 @ 7:56PM

That's exactly my point. John and Jeffrey seem to want to pretend that O'Donnell was engaging in this debate at Liberty University, or someplace else where there might be a receptive audience for that line of thinking. If only that were so.

Andrew| 10.19.10 @ 7:32PM

As a fervent atheist, I 'm glad to see this issue get such attention in a debate. I would have no problem with my children being exposed to the idea that a supernatural being created the universe. I always loved Greek mythology and maybe after a lesson on creation, the teacher could present a lesson on how lightning strikes are the result of an angry Zeus trying to smite a mortal who upset him.

Troll Hunter| 10.19.10 @ 8:34PM

Boy, you're offensive.

This country was founded on Biblical precepts.

You want paganism, move to some underdeveloped country where they still worship pieces of rock.

If you hate conservatives so much, why are you on this site, sneering at us? Oh, that's right, sorry, I forgot: "Live and let live" only applies to tolerance of fringe lunatics like you.

Zeus, indeed.

Andrew| 10.19.10 @ 8:50PM

Please re-read my comment. There's actually no hate whatsoever in what I wrote. My point is just that it is difficult to draw the line on which religious beliefs to incorporate into the classroom. If religion is going to be taught in public schools, there should be a class that covers most major religious and non-religious belief systems -- Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Confucianism, atheism, agnosticism, humanism, and more. This material just shouldn't be covered under the context of science.

Daniel Ferry| 10.19.10 @ 7:34PM

"our nation's history and heritage. . . have always been explicitly and avowedly Judeo-Christian."

In 1796, the US Senate ratified, and John Adams signed, the Treaty of Tripoli. It contains the following passage in Article 11:
"the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"

Really, how much clearer could the Founding Fathers have possibly been? We were founded as a free and secular nation, EXPLICITLY NOT as a Christian nation. If we had any religious underpinnings, it was the deism that most of our Founding Fathers expressed.

John Guardiano| 10.19.10 @ 7:44PM

Daniel,
You're confusing, I think, the legal basis of our political system, which is, indeed, secular, and our civil society, history and heritage, which are, indeed, Judeo-Christian.

Our Judeo-Christian civil society, history and heritage undergird our secular legal system.

There is no contradiction here. Of course the United States was not founded on the Christian religion. I never suggested otherwise.

However, it is equally true that our secular government depends upon a religiously informed citizenry that is capable of self-governance.

Regards,
John

tom| 10.19.10 @ 9:39PM

Great point, John. Activist liberal judges, the ACLU, et al. don't seem to have any problem trampling on "prohibiting the free exercise(of religion)thereof..." clause in the 1st Amendment. Many educators, in fact, have bent over backward, it seems, misapplying the 'separation' philosophy to public schools, saying that Christian teachers can't read their own Bibles on their breaks, can't make any class assignments based on the Bible, and that Christian students can't have a voluntary prayer anywhere on school grounds. Why isn't that a violation of Christians free speech rights, based on the 1st Amendment?

Tony| 10.19.10 @ 10:38PM

Nice rhetoric. There are NO cases saying that teachers can't read their own bibles on breaks and can never make assignment that relate to the bible, nor are there any prohibiting student-led voluntary prayer. Quite the opposite on each of those in fact.

What is prohibited is government proselytism, which is what some (the minority, I believe) christians insist they have the right to do while in the government's employ.

Tim*| 10.19.10 @ 7:57PM

Religious Affiliation
of U.S. Founding Fathers

Episcopalian/Anglican 88 ,
Presbyterian 30 ,
Congregationalist 27 ,
Quaker 7 ,
Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 ,
Lutheran 5 ,
Catholic 3 ,
Huguenot 3 ,
Unitarian 3 ,
Methodist 2 ,
Calvinist 1,
TOTAL 204

Only Jefferson , Franklin and Harnett ,who were cafeteria Episcopalians are listed as Deists, as well

Trish| 10.19.10 @ 9:00PM

The founders were primarily Christians, not deists. Of course, they were against a federally established religion as was the case in England.

Doctor McSniklestein| 10.19.10 @ 7:35PM

I'm afraid that despite her apologists, the vast majority of people will see this for what it is, a Sarah Palin to Katie Couric gaff of epic proportions. It is not at all clear that she had any idea that the first amendment says anything other than something about free speech.

And on the point, both church and state do better when they are separate.

bobby lee| 10.19.10 @ 7:36PM

not a slight error

Tim*| 10.19.10 @ 8:01PM

Again,
"It was in fact Chris Coons who demonstrated his ignorance of our country's founding documents when he could not name the five freedoms contained in the First Amendment."

Amendment I

We Tea Party Rebels support Christine O'Donnell and oppose The Serial Taxer & Liar from New Castle County , Coons .

Chris Lynch | 10.19.10 @ 7:36PM

“Christine 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..." said her campaign manager Matt Moran.

He puts it down to a debate about semantics as opposed to substance; and yet if you watch the full video, its pretty clear she does not think the 1st amendment "establishment of religion" clause is the basis for why religious instruction may not be taught in public school.

It's true the words are not there, it is equally true that the separation is there.

ChuckL| 10.19.10 @ 7:38PM

If the whole clause is taken as a single unit and not split at the comma, it becomes much easier to understand. The statement is that if the subject matter is religion, then th government may not make a decision.

Sylvia A| 10.19.10 @ 8:35PM

But the subject matter wasn't religion. It was science. Coons objected, properly, to a religious doctrine (dressed up as a "theory of creationism") being packaged up and taught as science -- even as a local option.

Kareem | 10.19.10 @ 7:39PM

Bottom line she did not know what she was talking about. Making excuses for her only hinders her learning process.

pete w| 10.19.10 @ 7:40PM

So O'Donnell made a slight error...
So the titanic had a slight scratch
So Janet Jackson had a slight wardrobe malfunction
So Bernie Madoff made a minor booking error

I commend your valiant attempt at downnplaying a gaffe of that magnitude but artful blogging cannot protect the candidate you staunchly defend from exposing a nature of aggressiveness with gross undereducation.

Consider changing your vote. I have.

John Guardiano| 10.19.10 @ 7:49PM

Pete W,
Even if you're right -- and you're not! : ) -- repeal of the First Amendment isn't going to be on the congressional agenda come January; taxes and spending are.

I would base my vote, then, on those issues -- taxes and spending -- which really will preoccupy Congress.

O'Donnell will vote for less spending and less taxes; Coons will vote for more spending and more taxes.

For me, that's an easy choice. I hope you feel the same way.

Regards,
John

Andrew| 10.19.10 @ 7:53PM

I don't think you can have any idea how O'Donnell will vote. She says that the Constitution will drive how she votes in the Senate; it's not clear that she understands the Constitution and/or the Bill of Rights. I would rather send my 8th grader to the Hill. At least she has a basic grasp of our government.

Steven| 10.19.10 @ 8:05PM

The United States is faces a problem with unemployment, not Stagflation. Ergo, Supply-side Economics a la Reaganomics will not get us out of this rut. Demand-side, or Keynesian Economics, have been proven to work when the crisis regards unemployment. It has been effectively applied to many unemployment-based issues, most notably getting us out of the Great Depression, during which the unemployment rate in the U.S. reached a mind-blowing 25%! Demand-side is the only way. We must increase spending. Vote Coons. :)

Tim*| 10.19.10 @ 8:32PM

Apparently, ObamaBoy Steven Didn't Get The Memo .

Keynesian Big Government Spending has been a Failure .
The U-3 & U-6 Unemployment figures for September were 9.6% & 17.1%
The GDP grew a Dismal 1.7% in The Second Quarter .

Do your homework .

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Rise Up In Rebellion !

pete w| 10.19.10 @ 10:32PM

Funny to imagine swaying your opinion, anyone who invests the time to construct a site and blog such as this has as much of a chance of seeing both sides of the coin as having tea with jimmy hoffa.

If you think the concern stems from a fear of repealing the first amendment, then you're even farther off the rocker than I pegged you for!

If I really have to spell it out for you (and apparently I do), the concern is that the current zeitgeist of "less government", "less taxes" is a great idea, but when someone is running for office and riding a populist wave without the fundamental education required for the position, then we are electing another george w bush.

And I think I speak for many when the notion of another dubya makes us twitch in instinctive trained terror, after all, our federal deficit put us in the red by over one trillion.

Of course Trish is an overeducated woman and has called me out as a leftist liberal, because after all, youre either for the tea party or a liberal wingnut right? :)

Hey she's OK! Doesnt know the constitution, but going to be great at tax cuts! Give me a break :P

pete w| 10.19.10 @ 10:55PM

You know I actually watched the debate in full read a little further down in the comments (walt gilbert) and he presented an argument much stronger then mine.

The tea party crew is a mixed bag of brilliant leaders and unfortunately crackpots trying to slide their special-interest/war-mongering/religion onto the bandwagon.

Christine O'Donnell is NOT one of the latter, it is just all too convenient for media to project this image with a quick news blip and a few convenient video clips thrown on youtube. If you really listen to her question, she staunchly supports separation of church and state, even if she misses the EXACT wording. She is getting a raw deal right now, from the knee-jerk media and people who dont take the time to make a closer look. My apologies for buying in to the hype

pete w| 10.19.10 @ 11:10PM

While I agree with you that O'Donnell got a bad rap by the media, "O'Donnell Bests Coons on First Amendment" is still a reach, though...

Trish| 10.19.10 @ 9:07PM

Not sure who you supposedly switched your vote to, but I will never again vote democrat after their sledgehammer action taken against this nation .
I am an 'overeducated' professional woman. I would vote for O'Donnell anyday over the lefty Coons,or any 'bluedog' for that matter.

Tim*| 10.19.10 @ 7:44PM

Again,
"It was in fact Chris Coons who demonstrated his ignorance of our country's founding documents when he could not name the five freedoms contained in the First Amendment."

Amendment I

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Rise Up In Rebellion !

Eric Riddering| 10.19.10 @ 7:46PM

Actually if you knew the origin of the statement
separation of church and state", you would know that it too was original referring to the clause of free exercise found in the First Amendment. So technically they are both correct.

LarryB| 10.19.10 @ 7:50PM

The saddest part of this story is that people are actually backing either one of these candidates. What a couple of losers. But, as long as Republicans keep voting for Republicans and Democrats keep voting for Democrats, the results will be the same- we, the citizens, will be the losers!

waterdoc| 10.19.10 @ 7:51PM

Lets all eat a moonpie, hold hands, sing kumbaya, and spew little to no sense in interpreting the constitution. These are the idiots wanting to make decisions for us, and if they get elected, you WILL get what you voted for.

Ian| 10.19.10 @ 7:54PM

To directly quote the constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Yes, it explicitly states the freedom to practice your religion, regardless of what it is (like O' Donnell's "dabbling" in Wicca). However, it also states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." "Respecting" means both regarding and FAVORING. If the United States incorporated Christianity, or any religion for that matter, into government, that would be FAVORING one specific religion. Therefore, although the constitution does not word-for-word spell out "separation of church and state," church and state must remain separated to uphold the amendment's word.

David| 10.19.10 @ 7:59PM

Let me point out to Mr. Guardiano that Thomas Jefferson was a man whose actions often betrayed his high beliefs. He opposed slavery, yet owned slaves. He was a defender of the constitution, yet the Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional. He preached fiscal responsibility, yet died deeply in debt. Let's add, he believed in the separation of church and state, but built churches with federal dollars.

Thomas Jefferson was a Diest. He believed in a creator, was a fan of Christ's teachings, but rejected what he saw as the mysticism of Christ (see "miracles"). To understand what Thomas Jefferson wanted, one should look to his writings and not to his actions. He embodies what truly is American; high ideals, but falling short all too often.

As to Mr. Gilbert's attack on the snickering law students, and the state of Delaware, as being liberal. How often do we need to see this devaluing of educated Americans because their knowledge doesn't jive with conservative talking points. I guess labeling one is just a lot easier than plunking down the cash for law school and studying extensively to truly understand the laws of the land. Good for you, Mr. Gilbert and Mr. Guardiano. You are advancing ignorance at breakneck speed.

John Guardiano| 10.19.10 @ 8:09PM

David,
How am I "advancing ignorance"? By writing a blog post that is historically and factually informed?

By criticizing law students for being blissfully ignorant of American political and Constitutional history?

By calling these students out for being smug and condescending?

Far from "denigrating educated Americans," I instead am calling on Americans -- especially law students! -- to, in fact, become educated!

You're fighting a straw man of your own creation I'm afraid.

Regards,
John

David| 10.19.10 @ 8:26PM

Mr. Guardiano,

Your whole argument is an advancement of ignorance. You take the coiner of the phrase "separation of church and state", Thomas Jefferson, and point to one flimsy example to support your argument. If you took the man as a whole, read his writings, and learned an ounce of the man, you'd be enlightened to his religious beliefs and his true stance on this one issue.

You then ignore (or are ignorant of) the numerous court decisions supporting the separation of church and state. But, hey, I get it. You have a blog and a viewpoint. It is not your job to enlighten your readers. It's your job to try to win them over to your vision of America, however ignorant.

As for the law students becoming educated. Is this the law as according to Mr. Guardiano or the law as taught by law professors? I suggest that you, in fact, become educated!

David| 10.19.10 @ 8:26PM

Mr. Guardiano,

As for the law students becoming educated. Is this the law as according to Mr. Guardiano or the law as taught by law professors? I suggest that you, in fact, become educated!

Walt Gilbert| 10.19.10 @ 8:14PM

Please point out where anything I said is untrue. Then, please point out the "attack" on these law students -- more specifically, where on earth do you see me attacking anyone over beliefs that don't jibe with conservative talking points.

Before you start attacking me for something I didn't do, I suggest you take some of your own hard-earned dollars and plunk them down on some remedial English and reading comprehension courses.

David| 10.19.10 @ 8:39PM

Mr. Gilbert,

Your comment: "Y'all do understand that this debate took place in a liberal Democrat stronghold, right? "

Did I misunderstand that you were stating that we are to ignore the law students who snickered because they were doing so because of their liberal bent instead of understanding the constitution?

If so, I do apologize and should take some reading comprehension courses as you suggest. However, I fear that I got this one just right when I stated that you are devaluing their comments (in this case their snickering) by labeling them as liberals. You have no way of knowing if those who snickered were conservatives or liberals or moderates. Since the snickering did not fit into what you believed, you immediately labeled those individuals as liberals.

In the absence of facts, you insert your own "truth."

Walt Gilbert| 10.19.10 @ 9:11PM

The point is, the purpose of the debate is to gain an advantage in the election. While John and Jeffrey are sitting around navel-gazing about whether or not O'Donnell had a point about whether or not "separation of church and state" literally appears in the Constitution, the people who will decide the election are wondering whether or not O'Donnell is some sort of far-right theocrat who wants to teach young world creationism in public high schools. Given the nature of the Delaware voting population, one has to conclude they're not predisposed to support that sort of thing. So, all the discussion as to whether or not O'Donnell was right or wrong -- whether accidentally or on purpose -- is pure window dressing.

The debate was not held for the edification of a class of law students, and it wasn't held to establish a jumping-off point for a national discussion on First Amendment establishment clause principles, original intent, emanations, penumbras, or textualism. It was about swaying undecided voters to support the more conservative candidate in a liberal state.

I'll leave it to John and Jeffrey to hash out whether or not that has any bearing on the election. And, I'll leave it to you to determine whether or not it was some sort of slap at hardworking law students, the voters of Delaware, and the concept of education as a whole. I'd simply caution you against reading meaning into the words of a commenter based on an emotional reaction to the original blog entry.

David| 10.19.10 @ 9:31PM

Mr. Gilbert,

That was some damn fine writing and an excellent bit of commentary. I quite enjoyed it.

Walt Gilbert| 10.19.10 @ 9:46PM

Thanks, David.

No hard feelings, I hope. Sometimes, in my quest for pith, clarity takes a beating. Then come the inevitable misunderstandings.

David| 10.19.10 @ 10:00PM

Mr. Gilbert,

No hard feelings, and my sincere apology. I pride myself on being civil — even on the internet — but failed miserably today. I do truly appreciate your effort to clarify your thoughts. I meant it when I said I enjoyed reading it. As to your writing skills, I'll channel Wayne and Garth and gladly state, "I'm not worthy."

Walt Gilbert| 10.19.10 @ 10:20PM

Thanks again, David. Though, I suspect your writing is plenty worthy based on what I've read so far. As for the civility issue, this particular race has had me crossing back and forth over that line like a drunk trying to steal two bicycles. So, at least you know you're not alone.

Carl| 10.19.10 @ 8:03PM

I can't believe I live in a world where Coons isn't treated with the ridicule that's heaped on Odonnell. Liberalism is a poison that must be rooted out!

Steven| 10.19.10 @ 8:06PM

Your argument has no basis, good sir.

Steven| 10.19.10 @ 8:13PM

To follow up on that, I believe Coons isn't treated quite the same way because he hasn't made statements just quite as insane as:

"American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains." - Christine O' Donnell

"You know what, evolution is a myth." / "Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?" - Christine O' Donnell

If you can cite some quotes of Coons' that are even half that crazy, maybe I'll consider looking down upon him too. :)

Tim*| 10.19.10 @ 9:10PM

Byron York of the Washington Examiner has urged Republicans to focus their criticism on the record of O’Donnell’s Democratic opponent:

"Coons, 47, is the top executive of New Castle County, home to a majority of Delaware’s population. From a Republican perspective, there’s one really important thing to know about his time in office: In 2004, when Coons first ran for the job, he promised not to raise taxes. Since then he has raised taxes not once, not twice, but three times.
Coons inherited a surplus. Celebrating victory on election night in 2004, he said his “top priority would be to continue balancing the budget without increasing property taxes,” according to an account in the local News Journal. Yet in 2006, he pushed through a 5 percent increase in property taxes. In 2007, he raised property taxes 17.5 percent. In 2009, he raised them another 25 percent.
Coons wanted to raise other taxes, too. He proposed a hotel tax, a tax on paramedic services, even a tax on people who call 911 from cell phones."

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Rise Up In Rebellion !

Kiefer| 10.19.10 @ 8:10PM

Seriously? That's giving her too much credit.

And she was absolutely clueless about the 14th and 16th.

Pathetic.

Sylvia A| 10.19.10 @ 8:42PM

And this after sarcastically implying a superior knowledge of the constitution. Dangerous grounds for someone opposing a Yale Law graduate, and campaigning on just being ordinary! Face it, conservatives, you have a real embarrassment on your hands -- just admit it, and you'll get more respect.

Tim*| 10.19.10 @ 9:19PM

Oh Really Coon Broad , then why couldn't The Eli LawBoy name the five freedoms contained in the First Amendment.

He musta slept through Constitutional Law Class .

Tim*| 10.19.10 @ 8:11PM

The Coons Apologists attempt to rewrite history .

Jefferson had no problem with four different Christian sects using his native Albemarle County Court House for Religious Services on alternating Sundays.
Jefferson had no problem with different Christian sects establishing and supporting Divinity Chairs at His State University of Virginia with full access to all facilities.
Jefferson had no problem with the appointment of a Congressional Chaplain.

Apparently, Coons ApologyBoys don't wanna discuss Coons Serial Taxing of New Castle County Delawareans after promising not to raise taxes.
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Rise Up In Rebellion !

Michael| 10.19.10 @ 8:14PM

Yes, let's all be like Jefferson, total hypocrites.

cjr| 10.19.10 @ 8:14PM

Mr. Guardiano,
While your defense is eloquent, it seems to me that you're just trying to give her comments intellectual weight that they don't possess. She may actually understand the underlying principles of the Constitution better than most people, but you writing an explanation of what you think she meant doesn't prove it.

Frank Jones| 10.19.10 @ 8:27PM

I'm not sure which scares me more .... that an actual candidate for the US Senate lacks basic understanding of the US Constitution, or, that her apologists try to explain away her ignorance using technicalities. There are over 200 years of legal precedence supporting the concept of separation of church and state. The fact that those exact words are not written is immaterial; the intent has been well-understood and confirmed by legal scholars consistently.

She's not "right" about this, and you play the fool in suggesting that she is. Elevate the conversation, gentlemen. Debate topics that are actually defensible, lest you be permanently diminished in credibility.

Frank Jones| 10.19.10 @ 8:30PM

As an aside, Jefferson and Madison, who knew a thing or two about the intent of the Constitution, did indeed write explicitly about the topic of separation of church and state and making it clear that their intent with the language of the Constitution was to indeed ensure such. Again, fools all of you for your selective reading. Fortunately for you, the same first amendment, while not stating that "Any idiot with a computer can write drivel on a website" allowed for any idiot with a computer, such as yourselves, to write drivel on a website. Thank God for the first amendment.

John Guardiano| 10.19.10 @ 8:47PM

Frank,
You completely miss the point and seem blinded by your own secular, left-wing dogmatism.

As I mentioned in the comments section of my previous AmSpec post, no one disputes the basic concept of separation of church and state, properly understood.

What conservatives DO dispute is the concept as it has been interpreted and applied -- perverted really -- by the ALCU and other far-left groups in concert with the courts.

The concept was designed to protect religion from governmental interference and obstruction. However, as perverted by the courts and the far Left, the concept has been used to banish religion from the public square.

That is not, quite clearly, what the American founding fathers -- including Thomas Jefferson -- had in mind.

Regards,
John

Frank Jones| 10.19.10 @ 11:35PM

Completely non sequitur response. My support for separation of church and state, as clearly stated by the founding fathers, including Jefferson, in no way has any relationship to what "dogma" I might follow. I am a conservative --- a fiscal conservative. That I am not a religious fanatic separates me from the tea party / US taliban movement espoused by those such as yourself. You are grossly mistaken in suggesting that Jefferson did not want religion banished from the public square. He entirely wanted it banished from the public square. You're confusing his desire for people to adopt religion in their private lives with a desire for government to place such religion in their private lives. Its a basic concept, one he wrote of often, and an absolute mystery how anyone who has read what he has written could conclude otherwise. If you are still confused on the matter, perhaps you can explain the language of article 11 of the tripoli treaty. Explain how that supports your assertion as to what the founding fathers intended. (There is probably no document more damning to the American taliban's religion in government theories than that one.) Google it, you'll be able to find it and educate yourself. And, if you truly have an open mind, you'll admit the error of your ways. More likely, you'll simply prove my earlier statement, that while the first amendment is silent on the matter of whether any fool with a computer can write drivel on a website, it allows for it. (Doesnt make you any less the fool).

I, and many many patriots like myself, refuse to allow the American taliban to take over this country. No matter how hard you try.

Ryan| 10.20.10 @ 8:14AM

One, your "American taliban" description is VERY off the mark. Tea Partiers do NOT blow themselves up or subjugate women in ways that the real taliban promotes. It is an incorrect comparison, no matter what your feelings about religion are.

Two, the founders NEVER made an explicit prohibition of religion in the public square; I think that far too often the left in this country doesn't realize that. The establishment clause was essentially to prevent another Church of England - NOT to prevent the influence of Christianity in government.

If all you have to point to is the Treaty of Tripoli, then your argument falls mostly short.

Troll Hunter| 10.19.10 @ 8:39PM

WOW! There sure are a lot of Trolls here.

What a snarky, vicious, hateful bunch.

You don't like O'Donnell? Fine. Give us reasons--other than "she's a lunatic" or "she's an idiot."

You don't like Christianity? Fine. That's your right. But most of us accept it as the underpinning for our country. For 150 years, until the leftists on various courts started changing things, the Bible was a key part of American CIVIC life.

You don't like THAT? Tough--leave the USA. You won't be missed. Time and past time you atheists and religion-haters started putting your money where your (big, vile) mouth is.

Tony| 10.19.10 @ 10:31PM

If you don't think that "she is an idiot" is reason enough not to make someone a Senator, then there will be no convincing you that O'Donnell should not be elected.

It seems to be you that is complaining about how America is. We are working out just fine as a increasingly secular nation. Perhaps it is you who should depart and put you money where your mouth is by going to a Christian nation.

Ryan| 10.20.10 @ 8:15AM

What does "Christian nation" even MEAN?

Frank Jones| 10.19.10 @ 11:40PM

"But most of us accept it as the underpinning for our country."

Again, what the American Taliban seem to ignore is the extremely explicit language of article 11 of the tripoli treaty (written by the same dudes who wrote the Constitution). There is no mystery, nothing left to the imagination. 100% debunks *any* argument that suggests that Christianity is the underpinning of the US.

You can believe what you want. Heck, a recent poll showed that 73% of those who viewed Sarah Palin as "extremely favorable" also answered that the Sun revolves around the Earth. But just because you believe that, doesnt make it so. There is something called fact, and it quite often gets in the way of the American Taliban's positions.

Ryan| 10.20.10 @ 8:20AM

I dispute that it 100% debunks what you are asserting.

First, America was NOT founded by atheists or agnostics. A majority were Christians. If they were Christians, that means that everything they did at minimum came from that moral viewpoint.

Second, "not founded in any way on the Christian religion" simply can mean that we aren't a theocracy with the church calling the shots; I think that you could be taking too much of a 20th/21st century viewpoint on that phrase. Compare it to the rest of the world in the late 1700s - where kingdoms were more the norm and were directly related to the religion of the state.

Third, there was no prohibition that was enforced against Christianity in the public square - and at times it was actually encouraged.

Tim*| 10.19.10 @ 8:40PM

Yeah , We The Great Unwashed aren't lettin' The Pseudo-Elitist King Obama Lecturin' Tory Fops Rewrite American History .

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Rise Up In Rebellion !

The tea partry Rebellion Escalates .

Waffles| 10.19.10 @ 11:56PM

Now this is funny, zealot can't even get his slogan right.

Tim*| 10.20.10 @ 12:23AM

ObamBoy Waffles is reduced to critiquing typos.

That's all ya got Cupcake ?

Zealot : a member of an ancient Jewish sect in Judea in the first century who fought to the death against the Romans and who killed or persecuted Jews who collaborated with the Romans

RightKlik| 10.19.10 @ 8:45PM

Note that Coons timidly and inartfully misquotes the establishment clause of the First Amendment:

“Government shall make no establishment of religion..."

I have no idea what the heck that means, but the First Amendment is crystal clear. Contrast the Coons' stupid with the Constitution's sublime:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The distinction between the phrases "Separation of Church and State" and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is critically important (and so is the distinction between "government" and "Congress"), and it's clear from the video that Christine O'Donnell very deliberately highlighted this difference.

Coons: The First Amendment, the First Amendment establishes the separation, the fact the Federal Government shall not establish a religion, and decisonal law by the Supreme Court over many, many decades clarifies and enshrines...

O'Donnell: The First Amendment does? [smiling tauntingly and speaking with a didactic tone]

Coons: ...clarifies and enshrines that there is a separation of Church and State that our courts and our laws must respect.

O'Donnell: So you're telling me there's a separtion of Church and State, the phrase "separation of Church and State" is found in the first Amendment?

...and then Coons goes on and on about the Court's sacred right to legislate from the bench.

Larry Linn| 10.19.10 @ 8:46PM

My grandparents were Christians in Northern Ireland. She was Protestant, and he was Catholic. They had to flee after death threats. When I became of age, I volunteered and joined the Army, and I served as an 11B Infantryman. Most of my time in the field was in squad or platoon size operations. We would have discussions about what we were fighting for. It always came back to the “Bill of Rights”. To me the most important was “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
What did our Founding Fathers have to say about religion:
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson (letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787):
"All natural institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason;
"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.", John Madison;
“Lighthouses are more helpful than Churches”, Benjamin Franklin

Ryan| 10.20.10 @ 8:22AM

You, I believe, are taking a far too limited view by just looking at those quotes. Other than maybe Paine, you could pick other statements from the same founders - among others - that promoted Christianity. It was not prohibited from the public square. Look at how the 1st amendment was actually implemented.

Tim*| 10.19.10 @ 8:48PM

" In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it, but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of the church or state authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies."

Thomas Jefferson's Second Inaugural Address
March 4, 1805

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Rise Up In Rebellion !

molosky| 10.19.10 @ 10:34PM

Do you cut and paste this on every blog? Do you really not get it? Nothing in this cut and paste job in any way suggests a rebuttal to the "separation" case law.

Did you know that RIGHT NOW Christian organizations use public property all the time? Did you know that NO ONE disputes this right?

Tim*| 10.19.10 @ 10:45PM

No. No. Wrong. Yes. No.

Next !

Tony| 10.19.10 @ 10:27PM

The founders did not want religion playing a role in society. But it does not matter what they wanted. The constitution evolves and, even if it is not what was intended, it now requires a separation of state and church. The fight to make this a christian nation was fought, and lost, many times over more than a century ago. Get over it.

Ryan| 10.20.10 @ 8:24AM

Finally, you made a statement that speaks about more to what happened in reality than theory. Though the Constitution shouldn't "evolve" other than by amendment, you've hit it to where we are practically at.

Of course, defining "Christian nation" is a bit of a challenge as well...

Tim*| 10.19.10 @ 10:51PM

Horse shit !

They respected the 13 states that allowed a Federal Government and the Americans in those states and allowed them to decide in their own states about these issues.

Again,
" In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it, but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of the church or state authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies."

Thomas Jefferson's Second Inaugural Address
March 4, 1805

John gaunt| 10.20.10 @ 10:50AM

This is an awful lot of spin, and one that is quite simply not supported by the facts of the debate.

Fact: Christine O'Donnel did not know that the first amendment described a separation of Church and state, something Guardiano admits, but tries to label as a 'minor error'. This is not a 'minor' error, especially for O'Donnel who has repeatedly claimed to have a 'graduate fellowship' in constitutional politics, and who states that the constitution will be her only guide in voting.

Secondly, in the exchange in question, Coons clarified his point, and recited the text of the first amendment verbatim, to which O'Donnel AGAIN asked: that is in the first amendment? That pretty much annighilates the spin you have tried to put on it.

Thirdly, later in the same debate, O'Donnel openly admits that she doesnt know what the 12th and 15th amendments to the constitution are.

Of course, after the fact, her spin doctors and apologists tried to claim that all of this proved she knows the constituion better than Coons.

(Boggle)

Sorry. Nobody watching the entire video with anything but the most flagrantly closed minded eyes could accept this somewhat desperate after-the-fact rationalisation of another embarassing gaffe from O'Donnel.

John Gaunt| 10.20.10 @ 11:06AM

All of which is, of course, beside the point. The issue of the day was that in no modern, sane society do you teach mythology in science class. Science class is reserved for (gasp!) science, such as the incredibly well documented and evidenced principles of evolution, demonstrated again and again in the fossil record, in genetic sampling, in observational and, yes, even experimental evidence. (Look up the Methuselah fly).

Creationism on the other hand is a religious belief based only on religious belief, and without a single scrap, not ONE, or positive, reproducable evidence in its favour.

I have no qualms with religion or faith, I am a Godfearing man myself. But Creationism in science class? Seriously?

"OK kids, today I will teach creationism! Except that I cant of course, because there is no science behind it to teach, and no positive evidence to demonstrate to you. So lets all put empty slides on the table in front of us, and wait for God to create life on it!

Tomorrow, we will learn how if you jump off a building, you will fly if God wills it, and fall if you are a sinner. That has replaced our traditional teaching of the science of Gravity. Sorry."

Jack| 10.21.10 @ 9:08AM

I think many people here have missed the context of what the debate is about.

An example of the "separation of church and "state", is that in filing for a divorce and establishing liability, you are judged on the measurable terms of having broken a contract, between THE TWO MARRIED PARTIES. Without the "separation", the judge could easily penalise (impose the maximumum allowable penalty on) one party or both, because they broke an agreement with GOD, even though that is only his/her belief.

Creationism or intelligent design does not stand the test of scientific scrutiny- everything it says is uniquely complex can be found in simpler variations- All it does is trash scientific theories. It is an expression of faith from Genesis in the Bible. Why are they ashamed to admit it?

The implications of Christine O'Donnell's position is that if you can exercise a position of authority based solely on your beliefs, then you should be able to hire someone because they (publicly) share the same beliefs as you, or teach a scientifically refuted theory as current, because you BELIEVE.

E. Johnson| 10.21.10 @ 12:17PM

Yes, there is a separation of Church and State to protect us from becoming another oppressive Theocracy or to keep the government from establishing or favoring a particular religion. However on the other hand almost every politician Republican or Democrat is a good church-going citizen if it will aid their attempt at getting or keeping public office. Some actually believe in these values, others use them to their own ends - either way I smell the stink of hypocrisy.
Science touts its beliefs like they are bedrock but unfortunately many principles of it's theories are based on speculation and assumption - everything from the big-band-theory to us being related to monkeys from millions of years ago has been lied about, falsified, etc.....
Choose your religion and will see who's right in the end when the clouds open and the trump sounds - I wouldn't trade places with a liberal for all the money, fame, and prestige the world has to offer......