O'Donnell questions separation of church, state

[TheViper]

WILMINGTON, Del. – 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?"

Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.

"You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp," Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone said after the debate, adding that it raised questions about O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution.

Erin Daly, a Widener professor who specializes in constitutional law, said that while there are questions about what counts as government promotion of religion, there is little debate over whether the First Amendment prohibits the federal government from making laws establishing religion.

"She seemed genuinely surprised that the principle of separation of church and state derives from the First Amendment, and I think to many of us in the law school that was a surprise," Daly said. "It's one thing to not know the 17th Amendment or some of the others, but most Americans do know the basics of the First Amendment."

O'Donnell didn't respond to reporters who asked her to clarify her views after the debate. Her campaign manager, Matt Moran, later issued a statement saying that O'Donnell wasn't questioning the concept of separation of church and state.

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

During the exchange, she said Coons' views on creationism showed that he believes in big-government mandates.

"Talk about imposing your beliefs on the local schools," she said. "You've just proved how little you know not just about constitutional law but about the theory of evolution."

Coons said her comments show a "fundamental misunderstanding" of the Constitution.

The debate, their third in the past week, was more testy than earlier ones.

O'Donnell began by defending herself for not being able to name a recent Supreme Court decision with which she disagrees at a debate last week. She said she was stumped because she largely agrees with the court's recent decisions under conservative chief justices John Roberts and William Rehnquist.

"I would say this court is on the right track," she said.

The two candidates repeatedly talked over each other, with O'Donnell accusing Coons of caving at one point when he asked the moderator to move on to a new question after a lengthy argument.

"I guess he can't handle it," she said.

O'Donnell, a tea party favorite who stunned the state by winning the GOP primary last month in her third Senate bid in five years, called Coons a liberal "addicted to a culture of waste, fraud and abuse."

Coons, who has held a double-digit lead in recent polls, urged voters to support him as the candidate of substance, with a track record over six years as executive of the state's most populous county. He said O'Donnell's only experience is in "sharpening the partisan divide but not at bridging it."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101019/ap_on_el_se/us_delaware_senate

[MassuhDGoodName]

My understanding is that Christine O'Donnell is technically correct.

No law is permissible recognizing just one religion as that of the State.

But that doesn't in and of itself bar members of government from practicing their religion privately and publicly within the restraints of the law.

Or ... does the Constitution institute strict Atheism as the official legal faith of our government in each and every of its powers and jurisdiction?

Finally:  Do we even have a Constitution anymore; other than an antiquated parchment in some museum?

[TheCoon]

How sad is it that she knows the constitution and people gasp when she doesn't repeat liberal lies.

[MassuhDGoodName]

Re:  "people gasp when she doesn't repeat liberal lies. "

Yes.

In today's world, political power is achieved through control of the communications media.

Whoever delivers "the message" directly into the iPads and cellphones and living rooms of each citizen determines the collective mindset and thinking of the nation and possibly the world.

Lenin knew it.

Hitler knew it.

Obama and the Democrats knew it.

Do you know it?

Unless and until the organs of state propaganda in Israel begin transmitting Nationalist and Kahanist opinions and perspectives, nothing can change inside Israel.

And unless and until all the organs of propaganda serving Jewish communities across the globe begin transmitting Nationalist and Kahanist opinions and perspectives, then "Jewish opinion" will continue to be created by "Charity Scam Artists like the ADL" or gigantic and well funded organizations of  liberals such as the UJA.

Is there a "Kahanist" version of AIPAC in Washington?

Answer:

Of course not!

And yet you seriously believe that by lending moral support to The Hilltop Youth you are somehow going to reverse the propaganda created each second by one of the world's most financed, organized, and effective propaganda machines with a powerful military at its command?

Commendable, but laughable.

[Malchut]

1.   Mr. Coons is pointing to what is called the Incorporation doctrine that was developed by an anti-Catholic bigot named Hugo Black. This doctrine depends on the 14th amendment that supposedly makes the 1st Amendment applicable to the States.
2.   Nine of the thirteen original states had established state churches after the American War of Independence. If the people, who wrote the constitution established state churches wouldn’t this disprove the Seperation of Church and State doctrine? Many in fact had established state churches up to the War for Southern Independence when the undermining of States really began. The first amendment was in fact designed for this. This would allow for individual states to have their individual denominations, but the Constitution effectively sill recognizing the United States as a Christian country.
3.   If Mr. Coons understood his history, he would realize that compulsory public school attendance began in the late nineteenth century. It was established to undermine the Catholic parochial schools because if a Catholic had to pay twice (once for public, once for his own child) he would be less likely to send his child to private school. In fact the Ku Klux Klan was successful in doing this in Oregon State, and if I am remembering correct they barred private schooling altogether. I say end the bigotry!   

[Secularbeliever]

How sad is it that she knows the constitution and people gasp when she doesn't repeat liberal lies.

I always like to ask people like Coons to show me where in the Constitution it says what he claims.  She should have had a pocket constitution with her and given it to him.