Christine O'Donnell, first amendment.. wha?

[Azazal]

Christine O'Donnell Stuns Audience With 1st Amendment Gaffe

Just when you thought Christine O'Donnell, the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Delaware, could do nothing further to top herself, she does.

At a Tuesday morning debate with her Democratic rival Chris Coons, she appeared to be aggressively ignorant of the fact that the First Amendment requires the separation of church and state.

Making matters worse, the audience was actually filled with people with presumably more than a passing familiarity with the Constitution: law professors and students.


The Washington Post reports:

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.

Not only is this extraordinary because O'Donnell is running for the U.S. Senate, but she represents a political movement, the Tea Party, that has made a fierce adherence to the Constitution one of its fiercest principles.

Wow.

Seriously, people think she is qualified to run for office?

[FSTargetDrone]

Seriously, people think she is qualified to run for office?

Sure they do, just like they think Palin is. O'Stupid is just a variation on a theme (younger, unmarried, no kids) but she's very appealing to a lot of people.

[xerex]

Seriously, people think she is qualified to run for office?

there are people on Palin's website who think O Donnell just proved that separation of church and state is not in the constitution

[Phantasee]

Seriously, people think she is qualified to run for office?

there are people on Palin's website who think O Donnell just proved that separation of church and state is not in the constitution

Please give me a link to this.

[ray245]

I'm not really suprised by this. The Tea Party movement had demonstrated that they are mostly ignorant of the constitution, and is more than happy to trample over it if it allows religion to play a greater role in politics.

[SCRawl]

Seriously, people think she is qualified to run for office?

there are people on Palin's website who think O Donnell just proved that separation of church and state is not in the constitution

Well, just to play moron's advocate for the moment, it doesn't actually use the words "separation of church and state" anywhere in the document. The establishment clause is pretty explicit, but in language that may go over the heads (or beneath the notice) of the average Tea Party shit-for-brains. If they're not inclined to go looking for a reason to believe in the concept, it's not so hard to overlook the establishment clause.

[General Zod]

Seriously, people think she is qualified to run for office?

there are people on Palin's website who think O Donnell just proved that separation of church and state is not in the constitution

Well, just to play moron's advocate for the moment, it doesn't actually use the words "separation of church and state" anywhere in the document. The establishment clause is pretty explicit, but in language that may go over the heads (or beneath the notice) of the average Tea Party shit-for-brains. If they're not inclined to go looking for a reason to believe in the concept, it's not so hard to overlook the establishment clause.

That doesn't make her appear any better, really. Even if she was being strictly literal you have to be completely ignorant of every interpretation of the 1st amendment for that line of thinking to fool anyone who wasn't an abject moron.

[SCRawl]

Well, just to play moron's advocate for the moment, it doesn't actually use the words "separation of church and state" anywhere in the document. The establishment clause is pretty explicit, but in language that may go over the heads (or beneath the notice) of the average Tea Party shit-for-brains. If they're not inclined to go looking for a reason to believe in the concept, it's not so hard to overlook the establishment clause.

That doesn't make her appear any better, really. Even if she was being strictly literal you have to be completely ignorant of every interpretation of the 1st amendment for that line of thinking to fool anyone who wasn't an abject moron.

Oh, I'm not making excuses for O'Donnell -- if she's running for such high office as Senator, she really ought to know better -- but rather for the chuckleheads who are posting on Palin's site, as suggested above. I'm willing to accept a lower level of U.S. Constitutional scholarship from them.

[une]

I'm not surprised by this. The idea that separation between church and state is a lie created by activist, liberal judges is very popular among hardcore conservatives.

[SCRawl]

You know, it's taken me longer than it should have, but this is all starting to make sense. O'Donnell doesn't give a squirt of piss whether or not she wins this race -- she's already won. (Winning the Senate race would be the cherry on top, but really it would just get in the way. Perhaps she's intentionally sabotaging her own campaign, though I'm not at all certain of that.) She'll be tapping into the same gravy train Palin has been riding since she resigned as governor, and for her, that's the end game. She's establishing her credentials as a True Believer, and that'll be good enough for her to be a celebrity for years, raking in five or six figures per appearance to speak to the Right-thinking doofuses who got her nominated in the first place. It's a pretty good gig, and who cares if anyone will ever take her seriously outside of this core group.

[Kodiak]

For convenience of discussion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” of grievances.

I've been in many sermons and religious meetings where people get up and say "the words S.O.C.A.S" aren't in there, therefore we SHOULD be able to put religion into politics. Her response isn't that surprising, and I expect the spin to follow in this vein.

[General Zod]

For convenience of discussion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” of grievances.

I've been in many sermons and religious meetings where people get up and say "the words S.O.C.A.S" aren't in there, therefore we SHOULD be able to put religion into politics. Her response isn't that surprising, and I expect the spin to follow in this vein.

I'd wager that the vast majority of the people who take that line of literal reasoning with separation of church and state don't really bother applying it to other aspects of the constitution.

[Phantasee]

RE: SCRawl's point.

I've seen quite a bit of that lately. We had a candidate in our provincial riding run just to get her name and face out there, and subsequently began a successful career as a Realtor. She gave it another shot in 08 because she was fairly close in 04, but she didn't plan on actually winning, since our MLA is the incumbent since 93 and was Minister of Education at the time (IIRC), and Minister of Health now.

I've heard similar stories about one of the candidates for Mayor during our just-finished municipal election. He ran last election in a Liberal stronghold against a multi-term incumbent, and of course lost, but that was partly as a favour to the party to clear their name in that riding after some shady shit that occurred in 04. Story is that he ran for Mayor just to get his name out there, to help in his next bid for the Legislature (or perhaps to boost business; he is a Chartered Accountant).

[Anguirus]

What's interesting here is not that she's a moron and a theocrat, but that she's a moron even by moron standards.

"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.

This is a bog-standard line.

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?"

If this isn't a simple gaffe, it is pretty devastating. The typical dishonest right-wing moron will try to spin the text of the 1st amendment so that it doesn't imply a true separation of church and state. You know, along the lines of "Suspiciously-Abrahamic monotheism isn't a 'religion,'" "it didn't occur to The Founders that there are religions other than denominations of Christianity," handwavy shit like that.

However, it appears that O'Donnell has no idea what the text of the First Amendment is, which at least would seem to expose her as a hypocrite.

I realize even this is barely news, as it certainly won't dent her support, but I find it interesting.

[Thanas]

If she wanted to do this spiel, couldn't she have found a better audience than law students and their teachers?

[SCRawl]

If she wanted to do this spiel, couldn't she have found a better audience than law students and their teachers?

Pfft, they're just liberal elite good-for-nothing establishment (insert epithet here). Ms. O'Donnell is speaking to the real Americans when she spouts her nonsense. Her audience this day just can't recognize the Truth when they hear it. She'll be cackling all the way to the bank by this time next year, mark my words.

[Patrick Degan]

However, it appears that O'Donnell has no idea what the text of the First Amendment is, which at least would seem to expose her as a hypocrite.

Does it really matter to Witch Christie whether she actually knows the text of the First Amendment or not? She knows what the Constitution "really means", and so do her idiot teabagger amen chorus. Actually reading the document in question is never going to be a requirement for these people. It all goes back to the idea of processing knowledge by "gut instinct".

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Does it really matter to Witch Christie whether she actually knows the text of the First Amendment or not? She knows what the Constitution "really means", and so do her idiot teabagger amen chorus. Actually reading the document in question is never going to be a requirement for these people. It all goes back to the idea of processing knowledge by "gut instinct".

If you watch the video (at about 6:00) of the debate in question, Coons explicitly reads out loud the exact text of the first amendment and O'Donnell asks "that's in the first amendment?".

[Ritterin Sophia]

I think the idea is that if the Tea Party proposes enough batshit insane candidates by 2012, they'll have lowered the bar so thoroughly that Palin seems acceptable in comparison.

[OmegaChief]

I think the idea is that if the Tea Party proposes enough batshit insane candidates by 2012, they'll have lowered the bar so thoroughly that Palin seems acceptable in comparison.

Oh my, it was there plan all along.

"Guys how do we make this candidate look even remotly votable?"

"Simple, we make every other choice either a democrat or utterly insane in comparison then we can't loose!"

[Count Chocula]

Her point is correct, as Kodiak thoughtfully noted by actually including the text of the amendment in question. It is one of the Constitution's, as President Obama pointed out in an interview, "charter of negative liberties." I.e. what the government can't do. It can't establish a state religion, period. In fact, the first part of Amdt. 1 says the Congress (federal government) can't establish a religion, and can't prohibit the free exercise of religion. That presumably includes the free exercise of whatever religious beliefs the various Congressmen, Senators, Presidents and other critters in DC have. Hell, Congress has an Office of the Chaplain. Probably paid for by taxes which is a no-no, but the wording of the amendment is pretty damn clear; in modern vernacular, the first two clauses may as well read "worship whatever you want, or nothing at all, but don't make any damn federal religion because Europe did that and it sucks!

There is a Constitution that explicitly separates church and state:
"Citizens of XXXXXX are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited.

In XXXXXX, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church. "
That would be Article 52 of the Constitution of the USSR. It's Article 28 of the new, improved Russian Federation's Constitution.

Oh, and while most media and most of you are busy mocking O'Donnell for not "interpreting" the text of the first amendment, most of them and you are also ignoring Chris "Marxist" Coons' ignorance of the rest of Amendment 1:

Seemingly unfazed by the audience response, O'Donnell continued to press Coons to expound on the 1st Amendment throughout the debate.

"Can I ask you a question, Chris?" she said. "Can you name the five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment?"

Coons would only respond, "I think the very first provision of the First Amendment is that a government shall make no establishment of religion, and before we get into a further debate about exactly which of us knows the Constitution better, how about we get the panel asking our questions today?"

So he didn't know the other four parts and went whining for moderation. But that doesn't matter at all, no sir.

If I were a Delaware voter, I'd pull the lever for O'Donnell. She's better looking than Coons, she's not a lawyer, and it's a fair bet she'll continue Biden's tradition of making "controversial" public statements, thus keeping zit-sized Delaware on the political map.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Her point is correct, as Kodiak thoughtfully noted by actually including the text of the amendment in question. It is one of the Constitution's, as President Obama pointed out in an interview, "charter of negative liberties." I.e. what the government can't do. It can't establish a state religion, period. In fact, the first part of Amdt. 1 says the Congress (federal government) can't establish a religion, and can't prohibit the free exercise of religion. That presumably includes the free exercise of whatever religious beliefs the various Congressmen, Senators, Presidents and other critters in DC have. Hell, Congress has an Office of the Chaplain. Probably paid for by taxes which is a no-no, but the wording of the amendment is pretty damn clear; in modern vernacular, the first two clauses may as well read "worship whatever you want, or nothing at all, but don't make any damn federal religion because Europe did that and it sucks!

As a matter of fact, Madison, who wrote it, expounded on the subject at great length. The office of the Chaplain is indeed very very unconstitutional, as is using religion in arguments before congress.

He was not referring to establishing a state religion. He was referring to any law regarding religion whatsoever. This happens to largely be the basis of the Lemon Test used by courts since the 70s.

[Phantasee]

Are you fucking kidding? He's not ignorant, he doesn't give a shit since she's just derailing the debate.

I mean, I'd bone her, but I wouldn't vote for her.

[Count Chocula]

I actually found the whole issue rather amusing. Amendment 1 says "no state religion!" and four other pretty important things. O'Donnell sticks to strict interpretation. Fine. Coons says "separation of church and state! It's in the Constitution!" Factually wrong. Jefferson's and Madison's writings strongly argue that the state shall have no laws regarding religion. Fine again, and now we're just talking semantics and what the Constitution says versus what two of the founders said expanding on the text.

And it all turned into a big-ass, knee-jerk side show for the actual debate issues, which received NO attention; par for the course in election year politics. I feel like I'm back in middle school.

Hmm...maybe I'll ONLY vote for the candidates I'd bone! It would make voting an easy, 3-minute little bit of the old in-out.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I actually found the whole issue rather amusing. Amendment 1 says "no state religion!" and four other pretty important things. O'Donnell sticks to strict interpretation. Fine. Coons says "separation of church and state! It's in the Constitution!" Factually wrong. Jefferson's and Madison's writings strongly argue that the state shall have no laws regarding religion. Fine again, and now we're just talking semantics and what the Constitution says versus what two of the founders said expanding on the text.

Except one of them wrote the fucking text. If anyone is to know exactly what it means, it would be him. The principle of separation of church and state is there, not the words.