The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

O’Donnell Right About ‘Separation of Church and State’

By on 10.19.10 @ 1:02PM

The political and pundit class is in a tizzy because Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell had the effrontery to question Supreme Court jurisprudence that has established a “wall of separation between Church and State.”

But while O’Donnell may not have been as articulate as she should have been, she’s nonetheless right: The phrase “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the Constitution. It was penned, instead, by President Thomas Jefferson in a letter that Jefferson sent to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut.

And, as the Heritage Foundation has observed, far from being a “principled statement on the prudential and constitutional relationship between church and state,” Jefferson’s missive, in fact, was “a political statement written to reassure pious Baptist constituents that Jefferson was, indeed, a friend of religion.”

James H. Hutson of the Library of Congress has concluded that the President “regarded his reply to the Danbury Baptists as a political letter, not as a dispassionate theoretical pronouncement on the relations between government and religion.”

Jefferson, Heritage notes, also was eager to “strike back at the Federalist-Congregationalist establishment in Connecticut for shamelessly vilifying him as an infidel and atheist in the recent [presidential] campaign.”

Indeed, as president, Jefferson was a friend of religion. “For example, he endorsed the use of federal funds to build churches and to support Christian missionaries working among the Indians.”

By today’s secular media standards, of course, this would make Jefferson a rabid and dangerous “Christian fundamentalist.” That’s because, in recent decades the ACLU and other far-left groups have waged a secular judicial jihad to pervert the plain meaning of the First Amendment.

The First Amendment was designed to protect religion from governmental interference and obstruction. Today, by contrast, the courts seem intent on protecting the people from religion.

Thus the ACLU and other far-left groups use the courts to banish religion from the public square. Christian conservatives like O’Donnell naturally find this disconcerting. The First Amendment, after all, protects the free exercise of religion. Yet the courts increasingly have been infringing upon this basic Constitutional liberty.

So while the elites cluck in disapproval at what they believe is O’Donnell’s faux pas, the reality is she knows and understands the Constitution better than they do.

View all comments (54) |

Derek Leaberry| 10.19.10 @ 1:15PM

Very fine post. Perhaps you could post another to those anti-Christian, illiterate polecats over at the Frum Forum.

Watch the video | 10.19.10 @ 2:38PM

What she's saying now is that she was questioning whether the "separation" phrase appears. However, if you actually watch the video (see my name's link) and you're intellectually honest you'll see that she was questioning whether "establishment" appears in the 1st, as indeed it does. Skip ahead to 7:00 on the vid.

Derek Leaberry| 10.19.10 @ 2:51PM

The "establishment" clause only constrains Congress, if I understand the English that is written.

Gene Callahan| 10.19.10 @ 6:04PM

Yes, but the point is, O'Donnell doesn't even know what the first amendment says.

Richard Munro| 10.20.10 @ 1:10AM

The bottom line is there are several interpretations of the Constitution and none is definitive. I beleive, personally, the liberal secular left have overstretched themselves. I remember when the Bible was practically forbidden in public schools. SInce Reagan and the Equal Access Act many schools have Bible clubs. Mine has two! And by the way the kids that go to the Bible clubs are the nicest kids in the school. Must be than D^&% Bible and those silly teachings of silly whatshisname.

Sam| 10.19.10 @ 1:20PM

I don't like how both liberals and conservatives try to mislead us. Obviously, separation of church and state does not appear in the Constitution, but this article does not say what DOES appear in the Constitution which is:
Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.

You can't deny that this is an ambiguous phrase. Does it mean complete separation of church and state? I dont think so. But is there a key constraint on the government's role in promoting religion? Absolutely.

By omitting this detail, the article misleads. But then I guess the role of this article and the site is to energize my fellow conservatives even at the expense of full disclosure

Roscoe| 10.19.10 @ 1:31PM

Exactly what is ambiguous about the phrase "Congress shall ..... religion."?

Margie| 10.19.10 @ 1:51PM

It means exactly what it says.
The government shall not be allowed to establish a Religion. They didn't want a State sponsored Religion, like they had in England, with the church of England (which is why they fled from there to come here and is why they put this in the Constitution), or other countries where the Religion is the State. Like Italy or Ireland with Catholicism, or like Muslim countries with Islam.
That is why we are free to practice what ever Religion we want to, or no Religion at all. There are no laws permitted to make any one Religion the law of this land.
It's all about freedom OF Religion, not as the Left tries and twist it into freedom FROM Religion.

Tim*| 10.19.10 @ 2:59PM

There is no State Catholic Religion in Ireland or Italy .

Aaaaand , In 1536 during the Reformation, Henry VIII arranged to be declared head of the "Church in Ireland" through an Act of the Irish Parliament. The Anglican Church of Ireland was disestablished in 1871

Italy was fragmented into city-states and kingdoms until the country of Italy was formed in 1861. The state religion was disestablished in 1984 .

Tim*| 10.19.10 @ 3:14PM

We Tea Party Rebels Support Christine O'Donnell against The Serial Taxer Chris Coons of New Castle County .

Tea Party Alert :
WHYY-TV will broadcast a special election debate pitting U.S. Senate candidates Democrat Chris Coons against Republican Christine O’Donnell in its Wilmington, Del., studio Wednesday, Oct. 20.

The debate, which will be held from 8 to 9 a.m., will be recorded for broadcast on WHYY-TV at 7 p.m. that night. The debate will be rebroadcast at 5 and 10 p.m. Friday, Oct. 22, and 5 p.m. Monday, Oct. 25, on WHYY-TV and at 11 a.m. Saturday, Oct. 23, and 6 p.m. Sunday, Oct. 24, on WHYY-TV’s Y Info channel.

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Rise Up In Rebellion !

Drew Williams| 10.19.10 @ 7:08PM

Hey Tim ... you're spitting all over. Chill, buddy.

Tim*| 10.19.10 @ 9:38PM

Why don't ya try to make me Smart Ass .

Aaaand , ya ain't my buddy .
The tea party Rebellion Escalates.

Rise Up In Rebellion !

Drew Williams| 10.20.10 @ 2:15PM

Whoa, the Timster challenges me to a dual. Another Internet tough guy. What a doosh.

Viking| 10.20.10 @ 11:28PM

little timmy needs to grow up!!

Richard Munro| 10.20.10 @ 1:07AM

Most former Catholic countries (such as Spain and Italy) no longer have an established (or offical religion). The Anglican Church of Ireland was disestablished in 1871 (it was the religion of less than 2% of Irish people and probably less than 1% today). But since Independence the Catholic Church in the Irish Republic has had a special status. And in England the Church of England, the Episcopal church of Scotland and the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) are all state supported established churches. As far as Henry VIII being declared head of the Church in Ireland that was at gunpoint with an all-Protestant and mostly English Anglo-Irish Parliament. Few Irishmen every delared allegience to the 39 articles of the Anglican Communion or to English Monarchs (not without tongue in cheek anyway).

molosky| 10.19.10 @ 3:41PM

There's no twist. If a publicly funded agency (e.g. school, courthouse, city hall) directly promotes religious beliefs, it has become, de facto, a state religion. When it does this, all remaining private religions are subjugated. At this point, a law has effectively been made respecting an establishment of religion, contrary to the establishment clause.

As the poster above said, if you are intellectually honest, you know that SOCAS is a reference to the case law emanating from the first amendment (which is what Coons clearly said) and that the establishment clause is clearly a "separation" -- even if it is one that implies aspects that you don't like according to that case law.

Finally, the only reason it is questioned is for political talking points. No serious, informed elites on the social right actually want to see a reinterpretation. If SOCAS rulings were ever overturned in favor of your preferred interpretation (one that allowed state promotion of religion), Christians will be immediately or eventually appalled at the version of Christianity that ended up being promoted by their government, now that we no longer have religiously homogeneous communities. As a result, Christian America is more powerful with the SOCAS interpretation in place.

Tim*| 10.19.10 @ 4:00PM

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.

" 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

We Tea Party Rebels Support Christine O'Donnell.

Rise Up In Rebellion !

Dennis D| 10.19.10 @ 2:41PM

The Establishment clause was created to prevent a " Church of England" situation and not to ban Christmas Trees from the Public Square.

Randy| 10.19.10 @ 1:43PM

I have always taken the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." to mean that the government should stay out of religion NOT the other way round.

Margie| 10.19.10 @ 1:56PM

Exactly. And it may be interesting to note to those who don't know this, but a little reading of the Founders' own words and you will see the kinds of people they thought ought to be in government~people of faith. Not faithless people. It's a fact.
The perverted Leftists, in the name of their "God", that of Socialism and Communism and Marxism, try and twist all of this to say that we ought to have a Godless society and a Godless government where everything and anything goes.
All in the name of "separation of church & state." A simple reading of Jefferson's own words clears it all up.

molosky| 10.19.10 @ 3:46PM

Nice as this slogan sounds, there is a reason it has not been the prevailing legal interpretation: it is stupid. If religion is "in" government, that religion becomes the state religion. That is, it has established a religion. It's that simple. If you want to undo that, then be aware that you will someday find your religion on the minority side, even if you think you and your community are all just "Christians."

Tim*| 10.19.10 @ 6:02PM

Reductio ad absurdum.
Again, 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.

aislinn| 10.20.10 @ 10:54AM

What Jefferson did or did not have a problem with is irrelevant to the point that molosky has so clearly stated. If the government creates a law based in religious beliefs, then it is making those religious beliefs our law, and hence establishing a state religion. This is what is prohibited in the First Amendment, solidified by case law interpretation since then.

Frank| 10.19.10 @ 1:52PM

As long as Congress doesn't pass laws (NOT budget items) ESTABLISHING a religion - i.e. The Church of England - there is no religious prohibition.

Margie| 10.19.10 @ 2:03PM

"Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand." ~John Adams.

Margie| 10.19.10 @ 2:04PM

"The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure, than they have it now, they may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty." ~John Adams

Margie| 10.19.10 @ 2:09PM

Concerning the Declaration of Independence he said this:

"The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations, from one end ofthis continent to the other, from this time forward forever." ~John Adams

Brad Fregger | 10.19.10 @ 2:29PM

You, of course, are right, there is no separation of church and state in the constitution. One of the freedoms guaranteed by the first amendment is that the government will not sponsor any religion, which of course, it is doing by the government supporting the concept of no religion. Not sponsoring an official religion for the U.S. is dramatically different from stating that there will be a separation of church and state. This should have been obvious to that group of law students; and ... to you as well.

Also, her opponent could not name the freedoms protected by the First Amendment. The mass medias bias is obvious.

kingsmill| 10.19.10 @ 2:47PM

Neo-con, Bushie Peter Wehner argued Coon's position on the Commentary blog today. Absurd.

Tim*| 10.19.10 @ 3:21PM

Christine O'Donnell :
“I would argue that more people would support my Catholic beliefs than his Marxist beliefs.

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Rise Up In Rebellion Against The Serial Taxer Coons .

Eric| 10.19.10 @ 5:46PM

I have to disagree with the slant of this article.

While debate on the interpretation of the separation clause is valid and healthy, the attempt to paint O'Donnell as having an understanding of this issue beyond talking points is simply ignoring reality. Beyond not knowing the actual text of the First Amendment, she has no idea what the 14th, 16th or 17th say.

Saying that, "O'Donnell may not have been as articulate as she should have been," might lead the reader to believe that she has a command of her facts but just misspoke. I would be legitimately surprised if anyone truly believes this.

Drew Williams| 10.19.10 @ 5:52PM

If Christine O'Donnell's goal, as many here claim, was to point out a minor technical truth about what's NOT in the First Amendment, then she was making the same hackneyed, simplistic point that's been made over and over and over again for decades, despite the interpretation of separation the Amendment has consistently enjoyed from conservatives and liberals for greater than 200 years.

So that begs the larger question; is she a hack mired in tired minutia defied by 200 years of applied history, or was her campaign lying and she really does question the very premise of a wall between church and state?

Ms. O'Donnell doesn't have quite 200 years of history to support my opinion of which is which, but what I've seen makes the answer pretty plain to me.

Tim*| 10.19.10 @ 6:16PM

DUUUUHHHH Coons Apologist Boys .

In the WDEL debate, 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. 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.

aislinn| 10.20.10 @ 11:11AM

If that was truly her only goal, to point out that those exact words do not appear, then presumably she would have made that clear, and then actually followed through with an actual point related to that assertion - "Those words are not actually stated in the Constitution, and therefore..." She didn't do that, so she was left saying...what exactly? You can now go on to say what she "really" meant, but she in fact made no logical or even actual point during the debate. The fact that she emphasized "in the FIRST amendment?" sure made it look like she had no idea that religion was discussed in any way shape or form in that specific amendment, just like she didn't know what two of the other three were that she was questioned about.

Drew Williams| 10.19.10 @ 6:19PM

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

Well that's old news, Tim, why bring it up? I mean, what's the point?

Drew Williams| 10.19.10 @ 6:31PM

Tim here agrees with Christine's campaign manager, that she was NOT questioning the concept of separation of church and state, and those who try and make it appear as though she was are 'Coons Apologist Boys".

Good enough. But look at all the comments left by those who support her right here on this thread. They DO seem to claim no such separation exists, and use the words of Jefferson and Adams to prove it.

So they defend Christine by pointing out she's right, there is no separation, yet you and her campaign feel compelled to point out she doesn't believe that at all. How do you square that?

John Guardiano| 10.19.10 @ 6:36PM

Drew,
Not so fast. 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

Drew Williams| 10.19.10 @ 7:02PM

Two points of contention, John. There are plenty right here in this thread who seem to question that very premise. Read a few and you'll get the gist. I assume there are others out there who feel the same.

As for the subversions of the ACLU and the far-lefters, you'd have a better case if there wasn't a consistent two-century judicial reading of the Constitution that SUPPORTS the separation, despite what phrase does or doesn't appear in the 1st Amendment. And the ACLU just hasn't been around that long.

Margie| 10.19.10 @ 7:26PM

Thanks Mr. G. Well said. Whew.

Tim*| 10.19.10 @ 6:35PM

The point is that it's Coons, who needs to learn the First Amendment, not Christine O'Donnell .

Got it Sport ?
Get It .

Then ya can explain why Coons is a Serial Taxer ,who promised that He wouldn't raise taxes in New Castle County .

You're Up Sport .

Drew Williams| 10.19.10 @ 6:57PM

My name isn't "Sport" and condescending attitudes from plebes are the last bastion of the failed. You may want to make a note of that in the future, or you could be labeled "Champ" at some point.

No, the point is everyone here apparently seems to feel the need to defend O'Donnell on this issue. Lookie, lookie all the complex defending explanations on why there IS no Constitutional separation and in fact, her statement about the phrase not be in the Constitution is technically correct.

But it appears they are defending the wrong person -- like me, Christine would never question the separation between church and state, as her campaign clearly states. So she DOES believe in this fundamental concept, huh? Good to know!

But can they still support her, knowing all that? Hmmmmm ... seems doubtful.

Tim*| 10.19.10 @ 10:02PM

I'll make a note of that, Sport .

Now, you make a note that I wrote "In the WDEL debate, 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. 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."
Aaaand , "The point is that it's Coons, who needs to learn the First Amendment, not Christine O'Donnell ."
Aaaand , "Then ya can explain why Coons is a Serial Taxer ,who promised that He wouldn't raise taxes in New Castle County ."

You're Up Sport .

Drew Williams| 10.20.10 @ 1:45PM

Sure, Lil' Tim -- as quoting Ms. O'Donnell's press release verbatim seems to be the limit of your defense on this matter, and I've more than made my point as to her general lack of knowledge re: the 1st Amendment, we'll move on.

Now, really, I would think a committed Constitutionalist, as Ms. O'Donnell has claimed repeatedly that she is on Fox News, would know both the literal content and the greater context of all the Amendments to the Constitution -- not word for word, perhaps, but at least the general idea.

And yet, she had no idea of what the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments were even ABOUT, claiming "she wasn't required to memorize them!" We're not talking about memorizing them, we're talking about a senatorial candidate who claims she stands for the Constitution, yet doesn't even know what's in it!

As for the "five freedoms" she merely posed the question; she herself never answered it. So how do we know SHE knows what those are?

That's what slays me about the Tea Party... any unqualified nut will do.


But your gal had no idea. Set aside her lack of basic know

robert| 10.19.10 @ 7:30PM

i'm a christian. i am not an american but i am aware of the constitutional debate.

i also watched the video and read the press regarding ms. o'donnell's comments. if that had been a democrat making that remark, it wouldn't have made the media, period.

all that said, from all i hear and read, the 1st amendment is about prescribing, not proscribing.

the amendment reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of ...

that means that congress shall make no law to establish a religion as a state religion, nor should it be making a law preventing exercise of religion.

every time a court finds the placement of a religious symbol to be contrary to that amendment they are, in fact, proscribing against that religion...which is in itself, against the amendment.

if people don't want religious symbols in the public sphere, then grounds other than religious grounds for pre- or proscription aught to be found.

George S| 10.19.10 @ 8:25PM

If there is a wall of separation between church and state, then who built that wall? Now, does one build a wall to imprison himself or does one build a wall to keep the outside at bay? Clearly, that wall can only be built by the people (government doesn't exist without people so the government was not the general contractor on that project). So what are the people building a wall against? Simple -- to keep the government out of their religion and not to keep their religion out of government.

Government is responsible for earthly matters; it has no business in the spiritual realm. Laws are written for our protection from one another and not to obey a deity to abide by a certain religious code (i.e., Sharia). Further, our government is one that is OF THE PEOPLE, meaning we give a part of ourselves (i.e., surrender a portion of our God-given freedoms) to delegate powers to that government. If the government is comprised of the People, then the government is also comprised of the people's morality, sense of justice, and, yes, their spirituality. Any government that does not absorb the souls of the people is one of a tyranny, for it is apart and separate from the People. Therefore, a good part of the 200 years of so-called Establishment Clause jurisdiction is just flat out wrong; written by statists who do not recognize the Constitution as a guardian of freedom but rather an enabler of government power. Can't wear the crucifix if you are a public employee; can't put Christmas lights on the public square tree; can't pray in schools; can't frame the Ten Commandments in the courthouse lobby; etc. These do not establish a religion bu instead seek to quash the basis of the people's morality . This is the wall imprisoning us rather than an establishment of religion.

When our morals are tossed out of the law books because of the success of "200 years of wall of separation" jurisprudence, then all that is left is the earthly. And that's where the wordsmiths come in and weave their magic. Thou shall not kill unless that fetus interferes with you party night or if the wife's on life support and her husband says she really really wants to die if she ever goes into a coma and he meets a hot redhead.

The purpose of the wall between church and state was not to dismantle religion -- never was -- but instead it is used as a tool to dismantle religion.

O'Donnell is right: the wall is not in the Constitution. And the wall did not appear by Virgin Construction.

Intelligent Design| 10.19.10 @ 8:32PM

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... " As mentioned by others above, it's clear that there is no room in the United States Constitution for an Islamic theocracy. It is also important that "religion" be defined.

The Ayatollah Khomeini once said, "Islam is politics or it is nothing." * He was right, and the Obama Justice Department is wrong again. Islam is about theocracy, the merger of the state and so-called "religion" in such a manner that no dissent is tolerated. Nothing could be more hostile to secular law, religious freedom, basic human rights, and our Constitution. Islam is a totalitarian political ideology which teaches hatred, discrimination and barbaric violence against Jews, Gentiles, Infidels, Buddhists, Americans ---- even against other Muslims. There are similarities between Islam and Nazism. Allowing mosques or sharia courts in the United States is similar to tolerating outposts of Hitler's National Socialism during World War II.

Islam belongs in the 7th century. Muslims should wake up, reject Islam, and join the 21st century.

Congress should identify Islam as a subversive, political ideology, not a true religion promoting peace on earth, good will toward all.

* Source: The Crisis of Islam, by Bernard Lewis (widely recognized expert, professor emeritus at Princeton)

John Allen| 10.20.10 @ 1:26AM

Actually, prior to the Revolution, many states had sanctioned religious sects and those not belonging to the official state religion were not only persecuted but sometime hanged in the public square. Quakers, Catholics, Jews were all persecuted at various times... Just maybe the founding fathers wanted to staunch the bloodshed.

Grigori| 10.20.10 @ 11:09AM

"So while the elites cluck in disapproval at what they believe is O'Donnell's faux pas, the reality is she knows and understands the Constitution better than they do."

I'm dizzy from the spin. Conservatives should occupy their time with weeding out individuals such as O'Donnell who are hurting their cause, rather than justifying her every faux pas.

Come On Guys| 10.20.10 @ 12:14PM

The point isn't whether having bible study groups in school is a good thing (it is), or whether having religion as an important part of life is a good thing (it is), or whether the founding fathers were good Christians (they were). The point is whether or not Christine O'Donnell understands the First Amendment, which she does not.

This doesn't make her evil or even incompetent, it just seems to show that she has a steep learning curve.

Transplanted Lawyer | 10.21.10 @ 1:47AM

Agreed that O'Donnell is not evil. Her intellectual competence, however, is questionable after this demonstration. She's spent too much time drinking the Kool-Aid and not enough time acquiring the sort of knowledge that, as a U.S. Senator, we all have a right to assume she should possess. It's a little late in the game for her to still be moving up this early part of the learning curve.

I am not 100% sure I agree with you that Bible study groups in school are desirable. To be sure, students who truly voluntarily want a group like that should be treated like any other kind of student club and given the same access to school facilities as any other club. But I see a lot of potential for evangelistic abuse by heavy-handed and over-eager (but concededly well-intentioned) adults.

As to the Founders' religion, some of them were good Christians. But not all. What made one a "good" Christian at the time, let us not forget, was whether one was a Unitarian or a Trinitarian, a theological dispute that seems obscure to us today. Moreover, many of the Founders, and especially the ones we think of as the major heroic figures of the era between 1775 and 1800, were intentionally cagey about their religious beliefs and few of them behaved in ways that we might consider intellectually consistent today. James Madison, for instance, issued a Remonstrance against a three-penny-per-year tax which would have supported the very church he attended, but at the same time seemed to have no trouble proposing a publicly-paid chaplain for the Congress within days of proposing what is today the First Amendment. They were fallible human beings -- worse, they were politicians -- not gods or avatars of perfection. We can and should admire them, but we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking they were something that they were not.

Transplanted Lawyer | 10.21.10 @ 1:34AM

Jefferson's use of the phrase dates back to Roger Williams, the founder of American Baptist Christianity, who wrote approvingly of "the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world" in 1644.

Most of the people who grind axes about "separation of church and state" use that phrase to refer to the Establishment Clause, the same way people used to use the phrase "States' Rights" to refer to the concept known as "federalism" (another word that is not found anywhere in the literal text of the Constitution).

"Separation of church and state" is, of course, a metaphor rather than an explicit phrase -- the question is not whether the words appear in the Constitution but whether the concept can be fairly understood as what limitations on governmental activity the confluence of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses produce.

O'Donnell can play semantic games all she likes. While it's fair to point out that Coons' ability to recite the totality of the First Amendment did not survive a pop quiz either, Coons comes out of the exchange with a much stronger grasp on what the First Amendment really means in the context of the exchange between the two candidates.

Asylum Avenue | 10.23.10 @ 2:20PM

Here is the condensed version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BfqhnHik8Q

Mark LaRochelle | 10.27.10 @ 12:21PM

O'Donnell was right; Coons was wrong:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39596#

PJ| 10.28.10 @ 12:40PM

NO SHE IS NOT!
http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

And if she was what denomination is to control?

More Blog Posts by John R. Guardiano

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/10/19/odonnell-right-about-separatio

ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real

Quin Hillyer | 4:15PM

Good New Book: ‘Precipice’

Quin Hillyer | 3:07PM

The Spectator’s Spectacular: Most Read Stories, May 12-May 19

Patrick Ryan | 12:41PM

Elijah Harper, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.18.13

If Only the Tsar Knew!

F.H. Buckley | 5.18.13

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn’t Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

UPDATED: IRS Acting Chief Apologizes, But Defends His Actions

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Voter Fraud Affected Election Results in Missouri

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Latest Headlines

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn|111 comments

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple|124 comments

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg|61 comments

Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report

Mark Tooley|111 comments

Treasure State Treasury

Bill Croke|3 comments

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy|68 comments

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman|17 comments

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford|19 comments

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy | 5.17.13

The Liberal Union Behind the IRS

Jeffrey Lord | 5.16.13

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn | 5.17.13

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg | 5.17.13

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman | 5.17.13

From Bimbos to Benghazi

Jeffrey Lord | 5.9.13

Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report

Mark Tooley | 5.17.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.