Everyone is having a good laugh at Christine O'Donnell's expense. Supposedly, her professed disbelief that the Constitution contains a guarantee of the separation of church and state reveals a profound ignorance of the principles that our Constitution secures. The fact of the matter, though, is that O'Donnell is merely repeating what has become a standard mantra in many conservative circles, including religious and social conservatives now seeking to make common cause with the Tea Party.
In point of fact, the idea that a wall of separation must be maintained between religion and politics is not explicitly articulated in the First Amendment or anywhere else in the Constitution. What the First Amendment does contain, alongside the guarantee of the right to the free exercise of religion, is a prohibition on laws "respecting the establishment of religion." And while there is broad agreement that the prohibition on state "establishment" of religion implies some sort of separation between religion and politics, it has always been open to interpretation just what form of separation is required.
Liberals have long favored an expansive interpretation of the principle of separation, a position endorsed by the Supreme Court in 1947 in the case of Everson v. Board of Education, which held that, properly construed, the Establishment Clause of the Constitution erects a "wall of separation" between religion and state that "must be kept high and impregnable." Prior to that case, the idea of the wall of separation between church and state was not a part of Supreme Court doctrine. But once handed down, it quickly became gospel. Supporters of the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause doctrine disagreed about some of the details of that gospel, debating, for example, whether school districts could "loan" textbooks to parochial schools, or whether Christmas trees and menorahs could be displayed in public squares without offending the principle of separation between church and state. But no one who subscribed to the doctrine denied that a strong wall of separation needed to be maintained, both for the sake of protecting religion from state interference and in order to prevent religion from inappropriately penetrating our secular political institutions.
Not everyone subscribed to that liberal secular gospel, however -- especially the latter part. While most people of faith favored separation when it came to protecting the autonomy of religious institutions and their own private religious beliefs, many religious conservatives chafed at the relegation of religion to the private realm and the denial of religion's traditionally more public role. They particularly objected to a string of Supreme Court decisions banning school prayer and Bible reading in the nation's public schools and overturning time-release programs for religious instruction. These decisions galvanized religious conservatives of various denominations and played an instrumental role in bringing the religious right into being as a political movement. Over the last half century, this political movement, comprising a broad cross-denominational coalition of Evangelical Christians, conservative Catholics, and, increasingly, Orthodox Jews, has waged a campaign to overturn the liberal doctrine of strict separation between church and state and restore religion to the public schools and public square. According to this camp, there is no principle of separation between church and state in the Constitution, and the idea that there is is yet another liberal fallacy, an invention of liberal activist judges and the reviled Warren Court.
I don't know what was in Christine O'Donnell's head when she denied the existence of a constitutional guarantee of the principle of church-state separation, or when she seemed to register surprise that the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" during her colloquy with her opponent, Chris Coons. ("That's in the First Amendment?") But it is reasonable to surmise that rather than being a case of ignorance, she was simply reflecting the long-held view of the religious right concerning the proper interpretation of the Establishment Clause.
If that interpretation rests on ignorance, it is less a matter of ignorance of the Constitution than of the fact that the separation between church and state is an ancient theological principle central to the religious traditions to which the religious right lays claim. On the other side of the fence, those who are seeking to defend the constitutional doctrine of church-state separation betray their own ignorance of the fact that the constitutional text is open to different interpretations and of the extent to which conservatives have successfully promoted their interpretive view. We may think that a bad interpretation. But rather than treat it with scorn, we had better become better acquainted with it, recognizing its historical, textual and philosophical roots. Only then will we be in a position to offer persuasive reasons for rejecting it.
We don't know what position the Court's newest Justices will take on these matters, since the subject of religion has been treated as a taboo in recent confirmation hearings. But there is good reason to think that they are sympathetic. As for conservatives on the Court of longer tenure, Justices Scalia and Thomas have already indicated their sympathy with the conservative campaign to dismantle the wall of separation. (Thomas has gone so far as to suggest that the Establishment Clause doesn't even apply to the states -- only to Congress.) So instead of reacting with shock and ridicule when a political candidate currying favor with the religious right expounds this position, and dismissing it as mere stupidity, we should be prepared to recognize it as an interpretive tradition of long standing and to oppose it with interpretive arguments rooted in both our secular constitutional tradition and the biblical faith traditions in which the idea of church-state separation first emerged.
Paul Brandeis Raushenbush: Religious Identity and the Public Square
First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the ...
Christine O'Donnell First Amendment Question Floors Audience [VIDEO]
Vote 2010: Christine O'Donnell Unclear on First Amendment ...
Coons, O'Donnell Debate Constitution - Washington Wire - WSJ
Exclusive: O'Donnell Clarifies First Amendment Remarks - By ...
Christine O'Donnell Stuns Audience With 1st Amendment Gaffe : It's ...
Christine O'Donnell: "Where in the Constitution is the Separation ...
The Maddow Blog - Ms. O'Donnell, meet the First Amendment
YouTube - Christine O'Donnell Shows Stunning Ignorance Of First ...
O'Donnell: “That's in the First Amendment?” | The Intersection ...
Why should anyone assume that the Supreme Court does not consider the entirety of those two documents when ruling on a conflict?
The establishment clause is supplemented the Article 6 of the Constitution that says; The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Together these two declarations point us in the direction of separation by setting religion and government apart, which then should, and I repeat should guarantee fair and equal treatment to all citizens.
Just the fact that no religious test is required by our Constitution does not free us from the tyranny of powerful religion, yet who can imagine that an out and proud atheist could ever get elected to office in the good ol' US of A.
political process, I've had to enter a church.
How separate is that?
The "one true faith" The political path that would benifit the majority of people voting. Of course the problem is that most peoples "views" about Religion and Politics have been formed from an early age. It's what you were taught or exposed to when you were growing up. That means that one isn't likely to change those views. Not impossible, but unlikely. Thus, arguing Religion or Politics with family and friends is the quickest way to alienate both. Q. If you were born in another country, say, India. What do you think the likelyhood of you being Christian would be. Just saying
Churches speaking the OLD Testament instead the Teaching of Christ. The Son of GOD, not the son of man
The old testament is the word of god.
Jesus is the son of god.
You do not believe in the word of the father of Jesus
I mean exactly what I say GOD the father, the son and Holy Ghost walked the earth in the Body of Jesus as Christ. He taught right action (righteousness) and said GOD was in the body as SPIRIT. With his death we became the SON of GOD himself, GOD
So Christians live by the WORD of the new testament. I do not speak for Church not discussed by GOD.
WORD expressed by Romans
8
So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9
¶ But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10
And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11
But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
12
¶ Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
13
For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
14
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
But the separation of Church and the Teachings of Christ. The Son of GOD not the son of man.
Speaking the New Testament instead the WORD of GOD the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost
No wonder there is so much anti-religion today. But then Self Realization is not GROUP realization as taught in the new testament and the great sages of the World including Buddha, Krishna and Mohammad. The War is with each spiritual warrior battle with himself while the Group Wars with the individual and other groups in material madness of Maya the Cosmic Delusion
Creating a fight for the sake of a fight just created a stubborn refusal of both sides to listen or acknowledge each other's point of view. Yes, no child should be required to pray when it is meaningless to them, and in some areas of the country that would make them a target, but so does a whole range of things (try being too poor to buy the right clothes to fit in at school in a wealthy suburb). You deal with bullies as a separate issue, and I would argue that it was these frivolous (my opinion) lawsuits that encouraged the animosity.
Insisting on "my way is the only way" really made us no different than those who seek to impose religion on us by law. Let them have their ten commandments outside the court house. It's just a statue. It has no effect on my life whatsoever, or anyone else 's who has no belief in these doctrines. Live and let live - I suspect the religious right would be better at that if we had left them alone.
"Insisting on "my way is the only way" really made us no different than those who seek to impose religion on us by law. Let them have their ten commandments outside the court house. It's just a statue."
Yes, it is just a statue. But what that statue represents is important. A governmental building has an article of Christian religion right outside its doors. This is an implicit promotion of Christianty, to the exclusion of many other religions. The Constitution has consistently been interpreted by the Supreme Court to disallow events and tangible items that promote - even indirectly - one religion over the other. This is correct. We are a pluralistic society and one religion should not be allowed certain access other religions are not allowed.
"It has no effect on my life whatsoever, or anyone else 's who has no belief in these doctrines. Live and let live - I suspect the religious right would be better at that if we had left them alone."
No they would not be better. The religious right needed boundaries of legally acceptable actions, and thankfully they got them. These are people who would like nothing better than to make Christianity the official national religion. Laws are necessary to keep their insane ideas in check. Please wake up to reality.
I realize that you disagree with me, which is fine with me, and I welcome other opinions. Often I learn something from a reasoned debate. Difficult to do that when someone has annointed themselves the only person who who knows what "reality" is.
I don't want my daughter having to sit through Christian rituals nor do I want her to feel like she is left out of participating with her friends in a "endorsed" school event. Not cool. Not legal.
Religions are generally about having "faith" in things we do not understand. In scientific terms, they are the "Hypothesis" part of the scientific method, the part where you make your best guess at answering some question that you've defined ("What am I?"), before you begin experimenting and gathering evidence.
I do not understand my own brain. If there are those in our world who do understand the brain, they have chosen not to share their knowledge with the rest of us, probably in order to protect us from the abuses of power that may follow from the wrong people having this knowledge.
That leaves me no choice but to conjecture. I can make any wild guess as to what causes my thoughts and motivates the behavior of humans. If I have convictions that a certain hypothesis is correct, then isn't that sufficient grounds for me to establish that my hypothesis constitutes a religion, and therefore that I should be granted religious freedom to explore those ideas, even if that involves using mind-altering drugs?
Atheism-specifically the position that there are no deities.
Agnosticism-the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.
You cannot believe something truely does not exist and at the same believe there is a possibility, however remote.
I had to bookmark this page; http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/, because it so clearly explains the way these ideologies work in tandem.
I am an agnostic atheist with gnostic atheist tendency. 1. I don't believe in any gods. 2. Since there is no evidence for anything I would consider a god yet, I cannot know if there are any. 3. Some of the gods already presented to me have been rejected, as per evidence.
For about a two decades, I have been obsessed with nanotechnology, the science of manipulating matter with atomic precision. That technology, if and when we achieve it, or if some have already achieved it, will allow us to create neural interfaces to our brains that enable us to experience computer-generated virtual reality that is absolutely, unquestionably indistinguishable from what we call "real" reality.
We will be able to create new brains of our own design.
This brings up some interesting questions. What if we are in a virtual world right now, that was created by a being or beings who have such technology? What if *they made all of us* as some form of scientific study or theatrical entertainment for their amusement or education? Would you classify them as deities? Could you say that your universe was created by a "God" or "Gods" that are outside of your own dimensions of space and time?
If I decided to believe, of my own free will, that I indeed do have such an interface in my brain, or that *we all do* already, then it is my Constitution right to explore that faith under the Establishment Clause. Furthermore, I may choose to believe that "Death" in this world is merely a graduation into a higher world or a future point in time.
Therefore, I should be Constitutionally allowed to explore these possibilities.
Also, I not clear what Stolzenberg had in mind w/this claim: "If that interpretation rests on ignorance, it is less a matter of ignorance of the Constitution than of the fact that the separation between church and state is an ancient theological principle central to the religious traditions to which the religious right lays claim." Whether or not there is an ancient theological principle of this sort, the most immediate model of state unity was, of course, Britian and the Church of England. There was a great deal of debate about the feasibility of unifying a state which no institutionalized religion. Given this background, it is pretty clear (to me) that the kinds of issues which currently get discussed in this context weren't really even on Jefforson's and Adams' radar screens. Make no mistake, I don't doubt where Jefferson would come down on this if he were alive today (Adams, not so clear...). But I doubt that the intentions of these men were, in fact, sufficiently robust to actually determine a single plausible interpretation. This is a fact which I, personally, find very disconcerting.
Her argument was garbled and innacurate in so many areas...this is just one.
I'm not sure why the religious right are so upset. Some laws exist today that should not...like allowing religions to be tax free entities. This is one area that I wish would be removed because laws that prevent taxation do establish formalized religions. Allowing public money to go to religious schools is also a problem. Allowing public money as loans to pay for students (who are not schooled well in the sciences) attend religious colleges doesn't follow the intent either. The religious right should bring forth arguments to defend this admixture. I don't get it and will certainly vote for politicians who won't support such religious causes.