iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Christine O'Donnell Questions Separation Of Church & State (VIDEO)

AP/Huffington Post   First Posted: 10/19/10 10:55 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:05 PM ET

Christine Odonnell Separation Church And State

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.

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."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
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...
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...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 16,715
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (370 total)
02:36 PM on 10/26/2010
Bad Idea: Assuming your dumb college comments wouldn't end up on tv. Worse Idea: Assuming a law school auditorium audience would not catch your omission of the first amendment.

http://www.seppuwafallsgazette.com/frontpage/week-of-october-25-2010/
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Andrewmc
01:48 PM on 10/26/2010
It's only the profoundly ignorant who can look that smug while being so completely wrong.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Angie Daniels
Nerd, Democrat, PFLAG, taxpayer, animal lover.
08:04 PM on 10/25/2010
Wow. And which God would we teach about? G-d, God or Allah? (if we only did the big three, who all come from the same origin--- conveniently Christians forget that but at the end of the day "Abrahamic" religions all refer to the G-d of the Hebrews). What about Buddha? What about Ur? Would she respect the Catholic version? I think a religious studies class might be of value but it would take a long time to talk about all religions. Are people like her afraid that her pod kids will decide on a different God? (or a different interpretation).
Scary scary scary. And she's the Tea Party favorite.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lawrencemuh
11:18 AM on 10/24/2010
she must have graduated from PalinU
photo
Surazeus Simon Seamount
Epic Poet and Cartographer
09:44 AM on 10/24/2010
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, ... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus build...ing a wall of separation between Church & State."

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Andman0121
11:04 AM on 10/23/2010
LOL not that any of this matters since she is pathetically and vastly behind in the polls
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LamAng
You can't change anything with a fist.
09:16 AM on 10/23/2010
The amazing part of the debate is that she thought that she nailed him to the wall. She actually thought that she made sense! She actually thought that she won! Where are this people coming from?
11:33 AM on 10/24/2010
The upside in all this is, hopefully, we can get the word out on what many of us already know regarding the Founding Fathers and the creation of our form of self-government, even if we don't know the exact wording or the exact references all the time. Thank goodness we can connect via the internet with people and knowledge to fight the good fight. Where's that blasted "liberal media" I've heard so much about when we need them? Oh that's right, the "liberal Media" is just another apparition courtesy of the extreme Right Wingnuts. Are we totally sure this Palin, er, uh O'Donnell isn't a witch? I mean she brought it up didn't she?
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
JShankel
I want my country forward
05:04 PM on 10/22/2010
Christine is Right. Jesus and Buddha never put the phrase "separation of church and state" into the 10 amendments of the Bible. I looked it up.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
JShankel
I want my country forward
02:48 PM on 10/22/2010
To those saying that she was right, here's what Thomas Jefferson had to say on the subject:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

Thomas Jefferson equated the first amendment directly to the "wall of separation between church and state."

You're all so interested in going back to the "original intent of the founders." Well, there it is: the first amendment is absolutely to be interpreted as creating a wall of separation between church and state.

That's not some interpretation from some judge 100 years later, that's not some theory from some law professor, that's not some debatable point of grammar or diction.

The very author of the constitution has given us his interpretation. If you want to say that Jefferson was wrong about what Jefferson meant, well, that's an interesting argument to say the least.
05:09 PM on 10/22/2010
You're correct that Jefferson originally coined the phrase "wall of separation" but are absolutely incorrect in your statement that: "The very author of the constitution has given us his interpretation. If you want to say that Jefferson was wrong about what Jefferson meant, well, that's an interesting argument to say the least."

Thomas Jefferson is not the author of the Constitution. In fact he didn't appear at the Constitutional Convention, he was busy in France. James Madison is often called the father of the Constitution; however, many other founding fathers helped create it.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
JShankel
I want my country forward
05:47 PM on 10/22/2010
Fair point. Here's James Madison on the subject:

"...the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State."

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history"

"I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together"

"Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself"

This is settled law. For hundreds of years.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:05 PM on 10/28/2010
It sounds like you're interpreting "respecting an establishment" as showing deference or esteem to an institution. I think the Writers were using "respect" as in "regarding" and "establishment" as the recognition of a particular church or religion by a state as the state church. The amendment is pretty clearly stating that the government may make no law establishing a state religion, thus maintaining a separation of church and state... Damn semantics http://ygs.varolmak.com
05:15 PM on 10/22/2010
If you look at the history behind the famous quote, Thomas Jefferson wasn't in the United States at the time the First Amendment was being crafted. Jefferson had received a letter from a minister regarding his concerns for religious freedom, and that the country would not follow after the example of the Church of England. A Church model, to which all other denominations had to conform to, thereby removing any and all religious freedoms. Jefferson was reassuring him, that the government of this new Republic would not prohibit or infringe upon those who "openly and publicly" choose to worship through another denomination or faith: 'thus building a wall of separation between church and state'. Which is also the reason why the First Amendment adds: OR PROHIBIT the free exercise thereof. Free exercise meaning, the freedom to display a nativity scene without any government or ACLU restrictions, for example. A Freedom just as guaranteed to us as our freedom to assembly.

"My views...are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from the anti-christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions"
-Thomas Jefferson April 21,1803 in a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
JShankel
I want my country forward
05:42 PM on 10/22/2010
"Thomas Jefferson wasn't in the United States at the time the First Amendment was being crafted."

Neither was Christine O'Donnell.

Look, no one is prohibiting anything, but the establishment clause clearly erects this wall and that has been confirmed time and again by courts in the CENTURIES that we've been discussing this.

The government may not endorse or participate in religion. May not fund, may not establish, may not create, may not support religion.

That's it. Thomas Jefferson was not wrong about the meaning of the First Amendment. We wasn't confused about it. He didn't misinterpret anything.

You're free to display a nativity scene. You're just not free to display it on public property. Because that's GOVERNMENT picking one religion over another.

Who has been prevented from displaying a nativity scene on their property?
01:51 PM on 10/22/2010
Quote
'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."'

She doesn't even get it that it is people like her - pathological - whose ignorance of real life, whose "true-believerism" is a blight on society - who are the chief cause of waste, fraud and abuse in government. How can you effectively manage that which you don't understand?
10:31 AM on 10/22/2010
So our Government can make laws concerning religion? The Government will be establishing another committee and bureau of enforcement? I think maybe Ms O'Donnell's dream is to head that one.
10:30 AM on 10/22/2010
Fred Manster is what they call in the arena of constitutional academia, a literalist, he interprets the constitution as he reads it, but can we really take the face value of our constituion that has been written over the last 200 + years, no we can't! We interpret the meaning of something intended to last over the centuries and because of its vague impression, we have had a Judicial branch, with a high intellectual understanding on how to apply its meaning do so, Fred Manster, you are not a lawyer, you are not a Judge, nor are you a constituational expert! The constitution is written so vague so that its interpretation will be applicable to any infringement of one of our citizen's rights. You have the right to say the 1st amendment will make no law against religion and even if I took your method of interpretation, a literalist one, your statement is not in the constitution. Learn about what it is that your talking about before you expose how foolish you are!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rgateman
07:34 AM on 10/22/2010
O'Donnell, Angle, Miller Palin and all Teabagger candidates are proof that you can't fix stoopid. P. T. Barnum said 'There’s a sucker born every minute'. In 2009 The Koch brothers through Dick Armey and his Freedomworks front created the Astro-turf Teabaggers. I’ve concluded that all Teabaggers are Koch’s suckers in an Army of Dick’s.
12:02 PM on 10/24/2010
LOL!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Roselil
I believe in atheism
08:06 AM on 11/04/2010
Sitting at work and i cant stop laughin!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
zeeshan809
07:02 AM on 10/22/2010
In my opinion religion cannot be separated from state as religion makes us better human beings.

http://www.celebritydialogue.com/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MdmX
Democracy is voting, not buying elections
09:23 AM on 10/22/2010
Throughout history, wars have been fought, and more people have died in the name of religion. There must be a separation of Church and State. You are looking at it from your box which is probably the Christian box. If the Church and State where one, the government could enforce any religion...think about it....pass a law that we all be Scientologists, or belong to the Church of America, or be Buddist or Muslims. Please rethink your statement.
09:59 AM on 10/22/2010
that is not the point tissue is does one religion or interpretation of religion can be imposed upon the people even when they do not follow that version or form of worship
06:35 AM on 10/22/2010
And Coons and the LAW STUDENTS laughed at her thinking she was wrong. Idiots