In a debate this week with Chris Coons, Delaware Senatorial candidate Chrstine O'Donnell got a lot of derision night from the Delaware Widener Law School audience when she questioned whether the phrase "separation of church and state" is found in the Constitution, specifically in the First Amerndment. The liberal blogs are treating it as another example of why O'Donnell is an idiot unqualified to be a senator. Here is the exchange:
And here is the First Amendment to the US Constitution:
"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 right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
As you see, there is no reference to "separation of church and state". As I understand it, issues of what constitutes separation of church and state have arisen out of subsequent court decisions going back to the middle of the last century. However, I am not a Constituional expert.
So I decided to consult an expert on the Constitution. That would be Mark Levin, conservative commentator, Fox News consultant and all those things you liberals hate. Yet, Levin knows the Constitution. Below is the audio of his take on the whole issue from yesterday's program. (Click the 10-19 audio rewind link on the right.)
http://marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930#
So who are the idiots here? Is it Christine O'Donnell, Chris Coons, or the law school students and professors at the Widener School of Law? Don't be so quick to deride Ms. O'Donnell.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
The idiot is Christine O'Donnell. Even when her opponent directly quotes the Constitution,she's still asking, in disbelief, as to whether that's what the Constitution states. (It's at about the 4:40 mark.)
The phrase "separation of church and state" was Thomas Jefferson's explanation of what the First Amendment created. But yeah, what the hell does Thomas Jefferson know about that sort of a thing?
Give me a break. This woman doesn't know what the hell she's talking about. Bad enough that she says that evolution is "just a theory". Guess what, Christine? So is gravity. And Intelligent Design is not a theory. It makes no predictions and isn't falsifiable, which means it's not science. (And yes, evolution does both.)
Well, for once Gary, I was able to stream the video. Christine O'Donnell clearly showed herself unfit for a legislative role in our government. Her opponent did not say that the words "separation of church and state" are in the First Amendment. He said the principle is embodied in the words that are in the amendments, which he recited accurately, and referenced Supreme Court decisions which affirm that the wording of the amendment does require a separation of church and state.
I have some sympathy with your critique of the law students laughing at O'Donnell. Some of them may be as ignorant and pompous as you suggest they are. The question was a serious one, and it has a serious answer.
On the original discussion, the spiritual abomination that goes by the name "Intelligent Design" is indeed a religious ideology, not science.
http://siarlysjenkins.blogspot.com/2005/11/intelligent-voters-in-dover.html
(I won't take up space on your page repeating what I've already posted.)
Public schools might well teach the existence of "Intelligent Design" in a sociology class (especially students who have applied to UC-Santa Cruz), because it exists, but it has no place in biology class. Biology class should teach accepted biology, period. To any church which does embrace ID, I have one observation: "Oh ye of little faith."
Siarlys,
We may all be splitting hairs here, but is there a difference between a country establishing a religion as the state religion and all this other stuff about what public schools can or cannot teach in the classroom?
And Lance,
I get the feeling you think O'Donnell is an idiot because she is a Christian. Is that what you are saying?
Siarlys,
We may all be splitting hairs here, but is there a difference between a country establishing a religion as the state religion and all this other stuff about what public schools can or cannot teach in the classroom?
And Lance,
I get the feeling you think O'Donnell is an idiot because she is a Christian. Is that what you are saying?
I get the feeling you think O'Donnell is an idiot because she is a Christian. Is that what you are saying?
Not at all. There are plenty of Christians who find Intelligent Design to be just as idiotic as I do. When ID was made part of the curriculum in Dover, Pennsylvania, one of the biology teachers who quit was a church-going Christian. One of the primary witnesses against ID, Ken Miller, is a church-going Christian. The judge who ruled that it was religious ideology and not science was a church-going Christian.
I think that she's an idiot because she says stupid things - not just about the Constitution but about accepted science.
We may all be splitting hairs here, but is there a difference between a country establishing a religion as the state religion and all this other stuff about what public schools can or cannot teach in the classroom?
Gary, read about the Dover trial. ID is a religious idea. To teach it to students is to indoctrinate them in religion, especially if they distort the basic fundamentals of science. In other words, it's all related.
Reading over my comments, I'd like to retract a bit. I shouldn't use words like "idiot" as it contributes nothing to the debate. "Ignorant" is a more apt word. She may very well be very bright about a lot of things. Science and the Constitution? Not so much.
is there a difference between a country establishing a religion as the state religion and all this other stuff about what public schools can or cannot teach in the classroom?
Teaching religion in public schools is one form of Establishment of Religion.
There are many legitimate scientific criticisms of Charles Darwin, and legitimate debates about the mechanism of evolutionary biology, but there is no scientifically sound denial that more complex life forms evolved from simpler life forms over a period of 3 1/2 billion years or so.
The denials are all contrived by people who find this set of facts a threat to their religious faith, and want to teach their faith alongside of the sound science they would prefer to deny. That agenda has no place in a public schools, period.
In that light, let me expand a little on the response "Oh ye of little faith." If I truly believe in a creative deity, then no set of scientific facts could threaten my faith in the slightest. God is transcendent. Faith does not rely on this or that material proof. Personally, I can trace the foundation of evolutionary biology to the first two chapters of Genesis, which I've argued with Lance over before.
Post a Comment