Comments

1
I love how she thinks she's got him -- does she really think they're laughing WITH her, not AT her?
2
Ignorance is in vogue.
3
I hate to get this started, but she's right that it's not literally in the Constitution as "separation of Church and State," and what's more: it's probably not figuratively in there either, but we've added it in over the centuries as a matter of good policy.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abs…

4
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

To be a little more precise: before the Bill of Rights was something that was enforced against the states, it was meant to only be a check on the Federal Government. The original text probably meant: States are free to establish their own state religions, i.e. Pennsylvania can be Quaker, Virginia can declare Episcopalianism official, etc. Because the various states were nervous that the Federal Government would in effect "pick a winner" and "establish" a nationally official church (that might not be theirs), this clause was added to the First Amendment to soothe that fear: each individual is free to do what they want, each state is free to pick the State Religion (if they want to), and Congress can't declare one religion that all 13 states must follow as "established."

Any other reading of the clause makes the first part of the clause in direct conflict with the second, ignores what was happening historically in the US at that point, and it just really doesn't make a lot of sense to write that way.

Again, I'm happy the wall between Church and State has developed the way it has, but I don't think O'Donnell's wrong to say it's not in the Constitution. She's wrong about nearly everything else though, of course.
5
It's implicit, not explicit... and she's still a moron.
6
BTW-from Towelroad:

"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?'"

Watch the whole thing. She clearly doesn't understand the constitution. Unbelievable.

Yes, an election should be a test of how well a candidate knows the Constitution. Absolutely.
7
Somehow I doubt that the monkeys laughing at her question are as well briefed as Colin and our SPK. They probably think "separation of church and state" is somewhere in the Constitution.
8
@commenty colin: A crafty theologian could also make the argument that magnets really ARE powered by miracles.

But Christine didn't make an argument. She didn't even make a statement. She pulled the ol' "or IS there?" trick beloved by wise fools. But since she's not wise, just a fool, she then sat blinking while getting laughed at by a room full of law students. That is a fucking comedic miracle.
9
@Carl -- keep in mind this is a debate at a law school, full of law students and law professors. So, yeah, I'm guessing they do know about the exact language of the First Amendment.
10
Oh, Carl. No offense to Colin, who seems like an intelligent guy, but I don't feel comfortable laughing off those monkeys (legal students and scholars) just because one lawyer, (I am assuming that you are a lawyer, Colin, based on what others are saying) who has the time to comment on Blogtown all day long, makes the obvious point that the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the constitution. Everyone with a high school education knows this (or should). Again, for all I know, Colin is a great legal mind. But I would be reluctant to assume that a room full of legal scholars are monkeys compared to our Comment of the Week mainstay. I love the Mercury, but this is not a scholarly journal.
11
nominated for QOTW: night moves

for:
"A crafty theologian could also make the argument that magnets really ARE powered by miracles."

HTFDTW
12
@commentary colin

It wasn't added in over centuries. It's from the Treaty of Tripoli that the Senate ratified.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
13
@CC I'd agree with you to the extent that the Constitutional Congress basically set aside the issue for the states to fuck up, in a way similar to slavery.

THAT SAID: As a prospective member of the congressional branch, the founding fathers clearly indented a separation between HER branch of state and HER religion. And it is well that they did.

Also, as long as we're busting out the reading lists:

http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/s…
14
What's the constitution?
15
@The Darkness - You sure have more faith in people than I do! I'd bet $50 that if you polled that audience, almost all of then would have said that the Constitution clearly calls out a separation of church and state. And that more than half would think that phrase actually appeared.
16
O'Donnell was clearly questioning Coons statement that the constitution stated a separation of church and state. He then backed away from that position and stated a part of the first amendment, which threw her off a bit. But, essentially, she was right!

There is no separation of church and state in the constitution. One of the freedoms guaranteed by the first amendment is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"; which of course, it is doing by supporting the concept of no religion.

Not establishing an official religion for the U.S. nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof is dramatically different from stating that there will be a separation of church and state. This should have been obvious to that group of law students; and ... to your readers as well.

Also, her opponent could not name the freedoms protected by the First Amendment. The mass media's bias is obvious.

Bottom line: The phrase, "separation of church and state" does not appear in the U.S.
17
@ BlackedOut, nice try, but that's practically just a preamble to an agreement to end a war that had nothing to do with religion - it was just included to soothe the fears of our bargaining partners, and it's obviously not any sort of binding authority in and of itself on that issue. It's what's called "boilerplate." It's obviously evidence of the point people like to raise, but it's pretty pale evidence.

The fact of the matter is that the understanding I outlined above was pretty clear to the people of the time for about one hundred years, until 1878 (Reynolds), when the Supreme Court adopted the "wall of separation" letter from Thomas Jefferson, and then just about nothing else until Everson sealed the deal in 1947.
18
When Thomas Jefferson famously said that there was a "wall of separation" between church and state, he was talking about the First Amendment specifically. That was in 1802, hardly centuries later.
19
Reymont, you're absolutely right. I made the assumption that those law students and law professors know the first amendment. Clearly, I have too much faith in human beings.
20
As usual, I will go home tonight and masturbate in my support of O'Donnell.
21
@ joe, TJ is not the final word on the meaning of the Constitution's meaning any more than Alexander Hamilton or James Madison or anyone else is.

If you want a great example of the ridiculous things I find fascinating, see the history in this article, about where religion was in the US at the time of the Founders, and what the Constitution's impact on that debate was (short answer: negligible, since everyone understood the Con limited the FEDERAL government only):

http://www.law2.byu.edu/lawreview/archives…
22
It is well known by legal scholars that the explicit separation of church and state was written into the Constitution during the convention following the war with Russia and its evil allies from Planet X-4284 in 3018.

At this time, President Jurawladiazna presided over a four-day constitutional convention called by the passing of resolutions by 78 of the 114 state legislatures.

The outcome of that convention, along with amendments regarding interspecies marriage, teleportation restrictions and legalization of Neptunian rockweed for recreational use by adults, included a specific addition to the First Amendment that created Jefferson's long-awaited wall of separation.

Know your history. Duh.
23
@The Darkness You are reading quite a bit into a room full of college students laughing at an idiot. In my experience, that will happen independent of any compelling legal brief.
24
@Colin I know that TJ isn't the final word. But, from the start the federal government has been secular. Even before the Bill of Rights was ratified, George Washington said as much in a letter to a synagogue. The historical separation of church and state isn't something that's really up for debate.

Now, does that matter for states? Yes. The First Amendment has been incorporated (you know this) and applies to states as well. The Fourteenth Amendment, which allowed for the incorporation, is just as much a part of the Constitution as anything else is. So, even if you were to make the argument that the Constitution originally allowed for state/religion shenanigans at the beginning, that's a hair-splitty argument to make. We don't have that Constitution anymore.

"The Constitution" means the original document, and all of the amendments. So, the Establishment clause applies to everyone.

But I actually think that everyone hanging around the comments section of an alternative newspaper agrees on that, so whatever.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.