WILMINGTON, Del. – updated link Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware on Tuesday questioned whether the U.S. Constitution calls for a separation of church and state, appearing to disagree or not know that the First Amendment bars the government from establishing religion.
The exchange came in a debate before an audience of legal scholars and law students at Widener University Law School, as O'Donnell criticized Democratic nominee Chris Coons' position that teaching creationism in public school would violate the First Amendment by promoting religious doctrine.
Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that "religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools."
"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.
When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"
Dear Christine,
I realize you're a busy person, and perhaps in your studies, you haven't gotten around to the Bill of Rights. There are five rights guaranteed to us by the First Amendment: freedom of press, freedom of assembly, the free exercise clause, the anti-establishment clause, and freedom of speech.
In last night's debate, it became glaringly apparent that you know nothing of the past 50 years of rulings on schools and the establishment and free exercise clause.
Here's a little primer.
There's certainly more to be written about the topic, but this should get you started. Don't worry if you don't understand all of it at first, but please be aware that the "freedom of religion" thing that the two clauses usually gets abbreviated to does not mean that you get to promote your batsh*t crazy theories about how we all got here.
Okay?
Okay.
Let's begin
When the founders of this country set out to enunciate the rights guaranteed to the populace, they deliberately mumbled. Judges have been decoding what they said ever since. Case in point: the beginning of the First Amendment reads, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
There are two clauses in these 16 words, and they often butt heads with one another. The first is the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government from endorsing or establishing one religion over another. The second, the Free Exercise Clause, prohibits the government from interfering in the free exercise of religion.
Too rigorous an enforcement of the first clause frequently leads to a violation of the other. For example, in an effort to avoid alienating some team members, a coach at a public high school might prevent members of his basketball team from gathering in prayer before they take the court. Based on legal precedent, this would be seen as a violation of the Free Exercise clause, because the coach (as a government employee) would be seen to be interfering in the free exercise by his players of their rights to pray. On the other hand, if in an attempt to inspire team unity, a public high school coach were to require that all members of his team participate in a prayer, this would be a violation of the Establishment Clause, as the employee of the government would be establishing a religion for the team.
In Doe v. Duncanville Independent School District, the Fifth Circuit ruled in 1993 that a basketball coach had crossed the line when he led his girls' basketball team in the Lord's Prayer in the locker room and again at center court before games. The suit was brought on behalf of a player who objected to participating in such prayers. Her refusal had personal repercussions -- she was harassed by fellow students who questioned her nonbelief, she was heckled by spectators at the games, and she was confronted in her history class by a teacher who called her a little atheist.
The court ruled that it was a clear violation of the Establishment clause for school employees to lead student prayers at athletic practices and events. The justices did, however, protect the rights of students to voluntarily pray together as long as there was no interference or participation by school employees.
This brings up the question of what voluntary means. If an entire team decides to gather in prayer without being led by the coach, how free are individual team members to just say no to participating in the prayer? Are participants coerced?
In the early 1990s, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the question of coercion and peer pressure in the Rhode Island case, Lee v. Weisman.
Lee v. Weisman was brought by a student who did not want a member of the clergy, in this case, a rabbi, to offer a prayer at her graduation ceremony. In 1992, the Court held that by including the clergy the school was in violation of the Establishment Clause, but it cited a new justification for its decision. The court not only affirmed that the participation of a member of the clergy in a public school graduation constituted an endorsement of religion by the government, it also ruled that students in this instance had been coerced to participate in a religious exercise.
Justice Kennedy wrote: The undeniable fact is that the school district's supervision and control of a high school graduation ceremony places public pressure, as well as peer pressure, on attending students to stand as a group or, at least, maintain respectful silence during the Invocation and Benediction.
Kennedy then went on to talk about the power of peer pressure in such a situation: Research in psychology supports the common assumption that adolescents are often susceptible to pressure from their peers towards conformity, and that the influence is strongest in matters of social convention; he wrote. In addition, Kennedy said that the arguments in favor of having such an important event as graduation solemnized by a prayer were the very arguments that convinced him otherwise: The Constitution forbids the State to exact religious conformity from a student as the price of attending her own high school graduation.
I realize this has been a lot of reading, but perhaps now you'll have a better sense on what it means when people say that schools can't establish a religion.
Teaching creationism, which is a religious doctrine, as part of a science class, would coerce those who don't believe the Judeo-Christian story to consider it as equal with Darwin's theory, which, yes, is still just a theory, but which seems to have some pretty good legs under it.
Christine--please contact me, or any member of the Bar, for further instruction in Court precedent and what some of those icky amendments mean.
Yours truly,
Lorraine
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
emma peel 2
Donald Manns
The Flylooper
Vivian Henoch
Lydieth A
Sean Murphy
Salon.com
Comments
Politicians put on their gravitas along with their stage makeup. For all his fine talk, we elected a man who taught constitutional law, only to watch him break his promises. Who's more the villain, some stupid, willfully ignorant pinhead like Christine O'Donnell who can't think of a single SCOTUS case she doesn't like, or our President, who won't close Gitmo and sends Eric Holder off to defend warrantless wiretaps and the PATRIOT Act?
Walker Percy wrote a black character into his novel Thanatos Syndrome, who observed he would rather deal with an honest racist than someone who claimed he had no prejudice.
At some point, we have to hold people to their promises. This is no longer a question of least-worst or half-a-loaf.
I hope you forwarded a copy to her. She needs to understand what she is doing, since she does not understand our laws and the reasons they were written.
Who is pushing the whackos to force their deviant ideas about religion on the rest of us? This has been on the rise for some time now.
Well, there's one thing.
The nihilistic minority masquerading as concerned conservatives might very well say that what Christine meant was that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that there should be a separation between church and state and she would be 100% correct if she said that, because it doesn't.
The effect of the actual wording is to enforce such a separation, but to the literal minded that's not the same thing.
Here's something else for Christine to dwell on:
The words "Christian", "Jesus", "Christ" or, for that matter, "God" do not appear a n y w h e r e in the Constitution.
And then there’s this:
During House debate, James Madison, referring to the First Amendment, told his fellow Members that ``he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any Manner contrary to their conscience.''
Madison was the actual champion of the Bill of Rights (an honor often incorrectly attributed to Jefferson, who merely suggested the concept although Jefferson authored the Viriginia Bill of Rights) and the principal author of both the Constitution and the Federalist Papers which preserved the debates around the key issues decided by the Constitutional Convention.
I think we therefore have it on good authority that Christine is full of shit.
\4\1 Annals of Congress 913 (September 24, 1789). The Senate
concurred the same day. See I. Brant, James Madison--Father of the Constitution 1787-1800, 271-72 (1950).
There's a great piece on the Washington Post today about McDonnell. It's called "There you go again," and Nancy Goldstein makes the point that, dumb as McDonnell is, she still has more "personality" than Coons. It's a shame that we even have to think of politics this way. Personally, I don't think I could stand to be in the same room with the woman, but then again, I like to think about things.
Amen to the Bill of Rights.
Are you familiar with that old saw about trying to teach a pig to sing?
r.
And what Amy said!
Look. I'm not American, so I don't owe allegiance to anything in your constitution (we have our own, after all). But even I understand the basics of what it says. Especially the religion clause, which I don't find very difficult at all ... in its historical context.
People need to take a step back, look at a decent history textbook and discover when and why that clause was written as it was.
Rated for clarity.
I will absolutely defend her right to believe and say what she may. . .I just wish that she would READ SOMETHING. I can't imagine voting for someone with so little understanding of their own culture and laws.
And I am glad that Snowball brought up the "theory" part.
But to BlaiseP: I have to disagree. The best way I can do that is with this:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/220013
I just posted my first post since last July, also about Christine O'Donnell. It's called "I Must Be Hallucinating".
This is a great post and would it would serve Ms. O'Donnell well to have a look. But the problem is that I'm not even sure she can read.
Sigh.
I love how you slipped batsh*t in there.
As such, there are issues going forward where establishment and exercise will come into play. You saw Bush attempt it with the faith based initiative.
In BUSINESS terms, that was an effort to push money through existing infrastructure to reduce expenses. Churches have soup kitchens and homeless shelters, for example. Is it not cheaper to flow money through that network to reach the intended beneficiary than it is to build redundant infrastructure? The redundant infrastructure adds cost to the distribution model thereby reducing the ultimate net spending benefit to the target market/
You know? Efficiency?
That's one point.
The second point goes to education reform. It goes to the right push on such things as vouchers and the like. It also goes to the Special Education laws as they relate to private schools. Lots of private schools have some religious affiliation. If there is to be a broad education reform law with vouchers, then establishment an exercise come into play.
So this gets back to the central question ... does a government spending program necessarily violate the first amendment? It does not establish one religion over another, nor does it necessarily impeded your right to exercise your religion.
But here is the downside to that...
When you have special interests at the trough with their hand out for government funds, we will undoubtedly wind up with specious, cynical attempts to declare something a "religion" that really is not. Cede, say, the Scientology would pass the legitimate religion test in a model where government funds flowed through religious networks.
But now take the notion of Scientology and put it in the hands of some pretty bright college kids or something, to try to push it.
So O'Donnell is fun to mock and deserves it. But there is a legitimate issue there. Exercise and establishment and the extent to which it is or is not impeded SHOULD government funds be eligible for ALL religions thereby NOT impacting your right to benefit from the government spend through the religion of your choice.
It would clearly be wrong if it was the government spend bill to support Catholic parochial schools, for example, but not necessarily wrong if all private schools as a credit for your paying the tuition.
Or does, say a Jew in some very christian area, have cause to complain, given there are not enough Jews in the area to support a Jewish based private school while there are multiple offerings, say in New York City where a Mormon family might not have a Mormon private school available to them?
When the founders dealt with all this nonsense, the social network came from very simple and localized distribution points, and oftentimes that role fell on the organized religions in the community to be provided. As we have created a social welfare safety net through government that some can arguably say was cemented in this nation under FDR, more has been done by government through taxation and redistribution. It was not foreseen by the founders and it is a legitimate question that is going to emerge as we turn more and more to government for these types of solutions.
Indeed, catholic hospitals have this concern around the emerging healthcare reform act, frankly.
So, mock O'Donnell all you want. She is not a credible candidate in my view.
It does not, however, take away from this gray area in what seems clear when looking at precedent. There is precious little precedent for what I have discussed here.
17th and Constitution Avenue is a pretty good place to start. Literally, within a few minutes’ walk, you bump into so many references to God that the ACLU very well might have a fit.
Moses with the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the Library of Congress.
The prophet Daniel, literally. He is actually tucked behind some bushes on the property of the Organization of American States building, which is partly funded by Congress.
Just down the block, there is an inscription at The Daughters of the American Revolution building. It says, "Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair the event. The event is in the hands of God." There is also Proverbs 22:28 quoted for everyone to see. Maybe it is a message for the ACLU: "Remove not the ancient landmark which thy fathers have set."
The Department of the Interior, behind one of the corner walls, is a time capsule and inside is, among other things, a Bible. It was put there by archaeologists years ago.
The statue of General Jose Artigas in the middle of a busy intersection on Constitution Avenue, right on federal government property. There is a cross on his boot.
The Korean Veterans Memorial. Talk about Judeo-Christian Heritage. A cross and the Star of David, right there on the Korean Wall!
"Liberty of Worship" statute resting on the Ten Commandments outside the Ronald Reagan Building.
The U.S Capitol. Just walk into the Rotunda. In the Rotunda, four paintings hang on the wall. You have two prayer meetings, a Bible study and a baptism. That's just walking into the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol.
Painting in U.S. Capitol of Pocahontas' baptism.
A stained glass window of George Washington praying, in the chapel, in the U.S. Capitol.
Besides the Capitol, you will find references to God at the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, the National Archives, Senate and House office buildings, the U.S. Supreme Court, the Jefferson Memorial, and the Library of Congress.
The main reading room of the Library of Congress, there is a bronze statue of Moses holding The Ten Commandments. On the ceiling, a painting called "Judea" shows a young Israeli woman raising her hands in prayer to God. And there are also quotes on the wall like this: "The heavens declare the glory of God." And down the hallway in the main lobby, two Bibles are on display.
In the National Archives, a bronze medallion on the floor and right at the top, this: The Ten Commandments, front and center.
At the Jefferson Memorial, God's name is mentioned numerous times, including the famous quote, 'God who gave us life, gave us liberty."
Inscription on a wall of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C. "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of people that these liberties are a gift from God?"
At the Lincoln Memorial, words like "Nation under God," "Bible" and "prayer" are everywhere.
Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural speech carved into the interior of the Lincoln Memorial, honoring God.
In the Senate and House office buildings, there is a plaque that says "In God we trust."
At the Washington Monument, almost 200 carved plaques donated by the states. Many of them show scripture verses from the Bible, and others have sayings like "holiness to the Lord." On the outside aluminum tip, there is a Latin phrase inscribed that says 'Laus Deo,' which means 'Praise be to God.'
The Washington Monument stands as a lofty and inspiring tribute to our first president, George Washington. It is the anchor on the west end of the National Mall. Few people know that engraved on the metal cap to the monument, 555 feet above the ground are the words, "Praise be to God." In addition, several tribute blocks line the staircase, and they are inscribed with Bible verses: "Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not; for such is the Kingdom of God (Luke 18:16)," "Search the Scriptures (John 5:39; Acts 17:11)," and "Holiness unto the Lord (Exodus 28:36); 39:30; Zechariah 14:20)."
At the U.S. Supreme Court, The Ten Commandments are located in a few different places, including above the judge's courtroom bench. Yet even with all these references to God in our federal buildings, there are some judges out there who say God and government just do not go together.
Painting called "Knowledge" in the North Hall of the Library of Congress.
A Sculpture in front of the U.S. district court building, showing a Cross and The Ten Commandments.
An excerpt from Virginia's Statute of Religious Freedom, authored by Thomas Jefferson, on the wall of the Jefferson Memorial.
You have judges that say we don't believe that and we don't like that religion in politics, so we're going to stop this. And that's what we have, and that's why nearly every decision we have from the court will break down between whether the constitution really means something, or whether they'll rewrite it according to their will.
You see scenes like The Ten Commandments rolled away in Alabama. And that is just the beginning. But the reality is, God's name is cemented in stone, and that is something that cannot be disregarded. Our Nation's Godly Heritage.
Visit the nation's capitol and read the inscriptions on the memorials. The Word of God is evident of our past American leaders whom we hold high in respect, those who laid the American foundation. Why does America now separate these words from the men who were driven by these words? It is evident that our American leaders today do not share the same source of inspiration. What do liberals proclaim today? What do liberals encourage? Which organizations support liberal Democrats? Do today's American leaders proclaim the Word of God or reject it?
Our Founding Fathers wanted future generations to acknowledge the hand of God in the founding of our nation. Therefore, even the Capitol Building is a witness of this. Its mighty Rotunda, the center of the Capitol, features a dramatic oil painting that impresses upon visitors the direct intervention of God from the earliest days of our history. The painting portrays the landing of Columbus in the Western World in 1492. Columbus' eyes are cast toward heaven in thanks and praise as others around him kneel in gratitude to God.
When the Capitol Building was built, its designers were well aware of the dependence of the members of Congress upon God and prayer. The 83rd Congress designated a small room in the Capitol, near the rotunda, that is always open for the private prayer and meditation of members of Congress. This room is open whenever Congress is in session, and stands as a witness to the need for prayer by our nation's leaders. The focal point of the room is an intricate stained glass window that depicts George Washington kneeling in prayer. Surrounding him are words from Psalm 16: "Preserve me, O God, for in Thee do I put my trust."
Most of us, handle money every day. Even the design of our currency acknowledges God's hand and His providence in the founding of our nation.
Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the established orthodox churches in the colonies. It was common for leaders of that time to be a member of a church. According to research conducted by U.S.Constitution.net, here is the breakdown of the religion of the framers of the U.S. Constitution:
Congregationalist-7
Deist-1
Dutch Reformed-2
Episcopalian-26
Lutheran-1
Methodist-2
Presbyterian-11
Quaker-3
Roman Catholic-2
The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said, "Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers." The exact quote is "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." Jay wrote it in a private letter to Jedidiah Morse in 1797.
It is ironic that the Supreme Court has often issued opinions which have stripped religious displays from the public square when these opinions have been read in a building with many religious displays. And it is ironic that public expressions of faith have been limited when all sessions of the court begin with the Courts Marshal announcing: God save the United States and this honorable court.
In a number of cases, the Supreme Court has declared the posting of the Ten Commandments unconstitutional (in public school classrooms and in a local courthouse in Kentucky). But this same Supreme Court has a number of places in its building where there are images of Moses with the Ten Commandments. These can be found at the center of the sculpture over the east portico of the Supreme Court building, inside the actual courtroom, and finally, engraved over the chair of the Chief Justice, and on the bronze doors of the Supreme Court itself.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has often ruled against the very kind of religious expression that can be found in the building that houses the court. We see a systematic effort to purge all religious expression from American public life. For the last fifty years the Supreme Court has become a permanent constitutional convention in which the whims of five appointed lawyers have rewritten the meaning of the Constitution. Under this new, all-powerful model of the Court, and by extension the trail-breaking Ninth Circuit Court, the Constitution and the law can be redefined by federal judges unchecked by the other two coequal branches of government.
This is the state of affairs we find in the twenty-first century. If five justices believe that prayer at a public school graduation is unconstitutional, then it is unconstitutional. If five justices believe that posting the Ten Commandments is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court in 1892, Church of the Holy Trinity vs. United States, in a unanimous decision concluded that "this is a Christian Nation." And again in 1931, Justice George Sutherland reviewed that decision and declared Americans are a "Christian people." And yet again in 1952, Justice William O. Douglas wrote "we are a religious people and our institutions pre-suppose a Supreme Being." Yet ten years later, the Supreme Court began turning their face against God and now 50 years later, America is now ensnared in Satan's web of immorality, "tolerant" of unnatural acts, Gay Pride Days at Disney and other "family" oriented parks, coerced by groups like the ACLU, probably worse of all the deceptive reporting of the popular liberal media which has resulted in unspeakable apathy.
If the trend continues, one wonders if one day they may rule that religious expression on public monuments is unconstitutional. If that takes place, then you might want to invest in sandblasting companies in the Washington, DC, area. There are lots of buildings and monuments with words about God, faith, and religion. It would take a long time to erase all of these words from public view. The next time you are in our nation’s capital, make sure you take a walking tour of the buildings and monuments. They testify to a belief in God and a dynamic faith that today is often under attack from the courts and the culture.
America is not like a Muslim nation, outlawing Christianity and where you can be put to death for your religion. America says you have a right to practice your religion, but it now has gone so out of control as to see progressives trying to remove God from all facets of life. You progressives are playing a very dangerous game, in going against God. Since God has been attacked by you people, immorality and justification to do whatever you want is skyrocketing. Removing God from the schools is causing a decay of moral values and the kids are becoming completely irresponsible. With role models, like you people, I can see why. God will ultimately hand you over to your own sin and one day YOU WILL stand before Him, with no excuses.
You progressives have been deluded by Obama and people like George Soros. They have a much larger agenda than re-distribution of wealth. Their agenda is complete control of all people and you will no longer have any freedoms. George Soros has attained his wealth through the destruction of economies and countries. Do you think he is going to re-distribute his wealth? Al Gore is becoming obscenely wealthy and fat off of the Global Warming myth. You cannot go by a couple of hundred years of stats. You have to go by thousands of years, as glaciers have been retreating and advancing in cycles for eons. If Al Gore really cared, why would he have mansions with the carbon footprint of a small town, not to mention his jets. Obama could not care less about the environment. He gives millions to Brazil to drill in deeper water than what we drill in and is for Mexico drilling in the Gulf. If Obama really cared about the planet, he would not want them drilling either. We only have one planet, so whoever is doing the drilling is of no consequence. The progressive leadership will be the elite class and you people will be the poor deluded souls led over the cliff by the progressive Pied Piper.
Make no mistake about it. This is not Europe and your progressive leadership is leading you people into a war on American soil that will be of unknown proportions. A way of life is now at stake. Millions of Patriots are at the ready to fight the Soros and Obama machine of union and organizational thugs. Unions will not get away with what they are doing in Europe. We will gladly meet them head on and protect the American Way of Life. Live Free or Die!
It was an interesting sort of Socratic trick that O'Donnell made Coons fall for. It was unexpected because I think we all would have thought the more highly educated Coons (B.A., J.D., M.A.R.) would have been the one tripping up O'Donnell (B.A.). The other reason it was interesting was that nobody got it! Not just Coons, but so many of the audience members who laughed or gasped at O'Donnell, as well as the journalists who sent the story out on the wire (you can tell they didn't get it just by reading their reports), and the author of this open letter.
For those of you who are so desperately trying to spin it that O'Donnell is smart enough to know that it was Jefferson and Madison who referred to a "wall" or the separation between church and state and she was trying to trip Coons up: well, I suppose you believe in Santa Claus, too. Whatever gets you through the night.
When she attempted that silly point during her debate with Coons, I loved how she was unaware that the crowd was laughing at her and not with her. She was hoisted on her own RE-tard.