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.
