Christine O’Donnell really needs to do better than this. Part of going to Washington must include basic understanding of what’s makes our government work. She really isn’t prepared on the most basic of levels. Ms. ODonnell is correct. Senators don’t have to memorize the Constitution, but they should have some basic knowledge of key ideas.
Christine O’Donnell really needs study harder. According to the Wall Street Journal:
Ms. O’Donnell attacked her Democratic opponent, Chris Coons, for insisting that public schools teach evolution but not “intelligent design,” which posits that life forms are too complex to have evolved through natural processes and must have been created by a conscious being such as God. Mr. Coons, the New Castle County executive, said that public schools could not teach intelligent design or similar theories, like creationism and creation science, because they were “religious doctrine” rather than science.
“That is a blatant violation of our Constitution,” Ms. O’Donnell said. “The Supreme Court has always said it is up to the local communities to decide their standards.”
That’s generally true–except when it comes to teaching religion-based nonscientific theories of human origin. In 1968, the high court struck down an Arkansas law prohibiting instruction in evolution. In 1987, the court invalidated a Louisiana statute requiring that “creation science,” an antecedent to intelligent design, be taught alongside evolution.
Ms. O’Donnell likened Mr. Coons’s position on evolution to those of “our so-called leaders in Washington” who have rejected the “indispensible principles of our founding.”
She lacks facts on such a basic level, it makes her unqualified for office. I felt sorry for her watching the video. We are aware that the words in the Constitution do not say ‘separation of church and state.’ However the courts have continued to reaffirm this interpretation. Jefferson’s writings also support separation.
I will stop feeling sorry for her if she actually get elected. She seems very sweet but very ill suited for ANY influential role in government.
How about the 48 AGs that think protesting a funeral isn’t protected speech. Remember y’all, the 1A and not knowing the Constitution cuts both ways.
If she gets elected you should feel sorry for Delaware (and us).When people vote for her in a primary when she is obviously unqualified, we should all be concerned of who our choices are!Voting for anyone out of frustration is not a very intelligent choice. You may not agree with the current administration but do you really want to return to the failed policies of the past?
I wouldn’t spend too much time worrying about O’Donnell getting elected. O’Donnell won’t be elected, and neither will Paladino. They are both bad candidates. Unfortunately, the “Rent is too Damn High” guy won’t get elected either, and that’s a crying shame. I would write off California too. After all, it’s California. I still hold out hope for my main man, Al “Satin” Greene in SC. Go Satin!! As for Coons/O’Donnell……neither one of them seem to understand the Constitution. Coons couldn’t name the freedoms the first amendment even provides for. Funny that didn’t get mentioned here. Oh, wait, I forgot where I was.
@marinm
And that has not been determined yet. Free speech is not without limitation.
Slow, I think O’Donnell is sort of the flag ship person for those who perhaps should not be running….the Jessie Ventura of 2010. Speaking of which, we haven’t heard much from your man down there in SC. Mr. Green.
Last night on Larry King, Penn Jillette, who is a Liberterian, was asked if O’Donnell was a nut job as Meaghan McCain said. He thought that was insulting to people who really are nut jobs. He said she’s just plain stupid.
So, if she does get elected.. The electorate is ____________ ?
Batsh*t crazy.
And nothing said about Coon’s ignorance of the 1st Amendment? His stupidity about assuming “separation of church and state” is actually in the 1st Amendment and could not mention the other freedoms listed in that amendment?
Not to mention his support for communism?
Shocking.
Aww Cargo, I don’t think he was ignorant at all. The other topics weren’t being discussed. You are just being partisan now.
I heard nothing that supported communism.
The question is, is O’Donnell really an acceptable candidate. Her opponent has proven he can run county government. And we all know that she should not be running and that Rep. Castle should be running.
I like O’Donnell. I just don’t think she is senatorial material. Not even close. Same with Palin (other than I do NOT like her). Both women have plenty to say about what they are against. Howver, we are kept quite in the dark about what they are for.
o’donnell is correct, there is no such concept as separation of church and state in the first amendment. that is a concept introduced to us by liberals over the last 50 years. all the first amendment states is that there shall be no state sponsored religion, which is a different thing altogether.
From the Huffington Post:
That’s something for the (potentially) batsh*t crazy voters of Delaware to decide. Her win might be a good thing but her loss would only mean that the TP will just try harder and get a better candidate in next time.
This isn’t just about November – it’s about taking over the change mantle and bringing us out of the current far left that we’re at and moving us back to where we need to be. If it’ll take 20 years, so be it.
MH, Cargo is right. That part wasn’t included but as the First Amendment Center noted:
“Later in the debate, O’Donnell challenged Coons to name the five freedoms of the First Amendment. He came up four freedoms short.
Welcome to the club. First Amendment Center surveys show that most Americans can name just one freedom in the First Amendment and only one in 25 can name all five — freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the rights of petition and assembly.”
Sure, she had a gaffe. She confused the idea of seperation of church and state in the 1st but atleast she knew the other provisions….
Andrew Breitbart would’ve been proud of the thread starter……………………………….
More from Anderson Cooper:
The above video is just embarrassing. The lady is making claims that just aren’t there.
that’s correct, the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the first amendment, but millions of folks are under the erroneous impression that it does.
all five members of cooper’s audience undoubtedly will be impressed with his sagacity and unbiased journalistic objectivity
O.K., so I’ll bite and throw the grenade into the room.
If, as Mr. Coons maintains, the whole ball of wax of “separation of church and state” is made so crystal clear in the First Amendment, why would we need Thomas Jefferson to explain the concept ex post facto? And why would we have had all these court cases? And why would we be having this debate even now, 300 years later — Christmas decorations in court house squares, memorial crosses on hillsides or in national parks, and so on and so forth? And, if church and state are clearly and absolutely separated, why do both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have religious chaplains and open each session with a religious prayer? Are they considered above the Constitution?
O’Donnell was right. She was just not a good enough debater to get her point across. The part of the First Amendment pertaining to religion was written in such a simplistic way that it was sure to beg a long period of debate and interpretive discussion amongst ourselves and in the courts. Precisely why Jefferson led off the debate by trying to clarify the concept in his correspondence and writings. Obviously we are still having at it.
So, all who side with Coons on this point, please clarify for the rest of us precisely how you view separation of church and state. But, in so doing, please try not to trip over that other Constitutional right called free speech. First two points only are given: (1) the state cannot force the citizenry to accept a specific faith or to accept a faith at all or even make laws affecting religious faiths; and (2) the state cannot interfere with the free organization and practice of a faith. Take it from there.
Oops — 223 years later.
@Wolverine
And one could say exactly the same thing about the 2nd amendment.
However, the question was about teaching intelligent design in public schools. O’Donnell was wrong. She needed to be much more articulate if she was going to take on the establishment clause.
And E –it doesn’t say ‘establishment clause’ in the Constitution either but we all know what is being talked about when we hear it.
And no O’Donnell wasn’t right. Clearly she sat there giggling and laughing and not knowing how foolish she looked. The discussion wasn’t about what words were written down. And hopefully that isn’t what our national debate is coming to–some pissing contest about who can memorize the Constitution, word for word. If we do that, then lets send the Supreme Court home, save the tax payers some money and just turn the entire Constitution into a multiple choice test.
I totally support what Coons said and I don’t need to argue with O’Donnell. Why not just find myself a first grader to argue with. The thought processes are about as developed.
When one sets themselves up as a Constitutional expert, such as she did, she should have known exactly what he was talking about. She didn’t.
One of my favorite organizations is Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, headed up for decades by the Reverend Barry Lynn. Most educated people know exactly what this expression means. Why does the world suddenly go dark after O’Donnell opens her mouth?
First amendment issues will always be pushed, pulled, tested and debated because some of our most basic tenents of freedom are contained in that very first amendment. ‘Freedom of the press’ and ‘free speech’ are just as misunderstood and debated, as is the second amendment.
That’s probably why it is a good idea not to set one’s self up as a Constitutional expert in the first place unless one is prepared not only to quote the amendment but also all the court cases that have gone on interpreting said amendments.
About Jeffereson and the establishment clause.
http://www.pbs.org/godinamerica/people/thomas-jefferson.html
You can also see this in the God IN America series in part 2 10:20
http://www.pbs.org/godinamerica/view/
There you go. He wrote it. He talked about it. He had a hell of a time getting the establishment clause in the Constitution.
Moon, that is precisely what the national debate has been about: a very short and single phrase (not even a whole sentence) in the First Amendment addressing the freedom of religion. That phrase in its brevity is the first stepping stone in the debate which rages right up to this day. We come right back to it every time with our queries and even our puzzlements whenever we discuss the nuances and practicalities of specific religious expressions within the confines of contemporary governance.
If you insist, let us do take up the subject of the teaching of creationism. I am of a mind that, if the state permitted the teaching of creationism as the sole explanation for the existence of our world, this would, indeed, be a violation against the prohibition of the establishment of a state religion. In effect , it would be a Judeo-Christian value imposed on a society composed of a wide variety of religions and of those who have no religion. Point given. (I maintain the same personal view about prayer in public schools, principally because the administrators and teachers can be considered representatives of the state; and a prayer of any sectarian nature would violate that First Amendment clause.
But what mystifies me is the growing attitude that ONLY evolution should be taught because it is “science” and that creationism, the strong belief of a very large number of Americans, is to be tossed out and not addressed at all. There has even been a court case in this direction.
Where, I ask, is congenial compromise in all this? Are we not intelligent enough to devise an educational system in which students can be given factual information on the various religious beliefs in this country with regard to creation, along with the evolutionary theories of our scientists? Why would we , in effect, exile the dearly held beliefs of such a large part of the population and risk creating a divide which is already too large and threatens to become very hardened. Is there no give at all on the evolutionist side? Moreover, my own preference is that we instruct our students in the key elements of all religions in this country and, if possible, outside this country so that they can have a much wider and surer view of the makeup of the very diverse human race. Teach all this academically in the public schools, not as if our kids were in a seminary.
My own sense of this is that I am seeing not only a defense of evolutionism against creationism but also a certain hostility toward the believers in the latter which can bode only ill for society. The growing refusals to allow people of faith to display that faith in the public square, with the full assurance that their displays are not the “official word” of government on the subject of religion, threaten, in my opinion, to create a sort of socio-religious Balkanization in this country. We will arrive at a point where one part of the population will only speak to the other part in the most hostile and mistrustful of terms.
In short, I believe BOTH sides have to come to terms with, yes, that part of the First Amendment which forbids government to take sides with regard to religion. But it is also, in my considered opinion, a very poor society which cannot make compromises to allow the open expression of religious beliefs in forums other than a church or synagogue. Surely we are intelligent enough to devise a comity in which religion is free to express itself and in which the true sense of the Frist Amendment is jealously guarded at one and the same time. But what I am seeing now is the attitude of “There is a Christian Christmas display on the courthouse grounds. This does not please me because I am not a believer in Christianity, and it makes me uincomfortable. Therefore, you must throw those Christians and their displays out.” And the socio-religious Balkanization will just grower deeper and deeper. From my personal vantage point of both fundamentalist/evanglical Protestantism and conservative Catholicism, I see it coming already.
The phrase “separation of church and state” doesn’t exist in the first amendment. Can one then explain why all our currency has ‘In God We Trust’ emblazoned on it if ‘separation of church and state’ exists as most would infer?
Jefferson wrote about a “wall of seperation” in regards to the first amendment. Like I said, ODonnel was technically correct, the problem is that she was incapable of articulating her point because she was approaching it from an ideological perspective and not one of constitutional knowledge.
Jefferson wrote about a “wall of seperation” in regards to the first amendment. Like I said, ODonnel was technically correct, the problem is that she was incapable of articulating her point because she was approaching it from an ideological perspective and not one of constitutional knowledge.
In a court of law ‘technically correct’ trumps beliefs every time, so why the outcry over her statement? It’s because most people believe ‘separation of church and state’ is in there somewhere, and so most people are ‘technically wrong’.
Because Billy Graham put the squeeze on Dwight Eisenhower…..
And everyone knows that those words aren’t written in the Constitution. That is a sub theme of this thread. ‘Free Speech’ isn’t in there either.
The concept is in there are many others. In the past over 200 years we have abbreviated. You really need to watch the section in the link I left about Jefferson.
Wolverine, Science is science and faith is faith. Why should faith be taught as science?
Kids are a captive audience and come from all cultures, religions and walks of life. Whose creative design to you propose teaching? Bet it isn’t the Great Father’s design with Brother Coyote and Brother Raven stirring things up. (and that might be very appropriate in the Lakota Reservation schools.)
As for the education of children, religion to the churches. I learned science in school and went to church and got the religious training. I never felt things were that incompatible, but my religious training was not evangelical nor conservative.
I feel the same way about prayer…if a family wants to pray, do it at the breakfast table. The school isn’t going to do it for you. And now we are talking about it, the religions have done it to themselves. They have been so hell-bent on proselytizing and shoving their point of view down everyone else’s throats that this all came about. I, for one, am damn glad my kids were protected from someone else’s hinky religion. I took them to the church I referred. I have seen what people do. I have been victimized by it and so have my children.
Wolverine, Science is science and faith is faith. Why should faith be taught as science?
Kids are a captive audience and come from all cultures, religions and walks of life. Whose creative design to you propose teaching? Bet it isn’t the Great Father’s design with Brother Coyote and Brother Raven stirring things up. (and that might be very appropriate in the Lakota Reservation schools.)
As for the education of children, religion to the churches. I learned science in school and went to church and got the religious training. I never felt things were that incompatible, but my religious training was not evangelical nor conservative.
I feel the same way about prayer…if a family wants to pray, do it at the breakfast table. The school isn’t going to do it for you. And now we are talking about it, the religions have done it to themselves. They have been so hell-bent on proselytizing and shoving their point of view down everyone else’s throats that this all came about. I, for one, am damn glad my kids were protected from someone else’s hinky religion. I took them to the church I referred. I have seen what people do. I have been victimized by it and so have my children.
This is funny, I mean you are talking about Delaware! Who is more qualified – puleese – this is Delaware the home of Old Joe Biden for golly jeepers sakes. Thanks to the ragging idiots at MSNBC, O’Donnell will win by virtue of the name recognition. She’s held her own and IMHO is much more likely to hold to the principles of smaller, more limited government than the alternative.
Somewhere we have lost the context of the Jefferson definition. My understanding is that Jefferson spoke as the chief executive of the nation and his concern that his actions not be confused with his suppport of any religion of denomination. He wanted no official action on his part – to include simply going to church – to be misinterpreted. That is a far cry from arguing that he did not support prayer in the schools or at other public functions – to include the opening of the Congress’s daily activities, taking the oath with “So help me God” or any other list of traditions.
How the hell can you freakin’ defend and or make decisions on a document you don’t even understand.
You know what I find interesting, all this hysteria over Sharia law infiltrating the laws in the US. But somehow, people like me, and others, who disavow ANY law based on ANY religion, puts me in a category of “not ” understanding our forefathers Christian adherence. HELLOOOOO!!!!! The day you people have no problem suggesting we all partake in muslim prayer will be the day I believe you really mean that religion should have a formal place in ANY public institution.
Yeah, Christian kids are gonna learn a hebrew prayer in school….NOT. We all know what “prayer in school” means, give me a break. As a Jewish kid in a school with 90% Christian kids, prayer in school would have meant praying to Jesus.
oh wait, Christine ODonnoll has a been to a graduate fellowship and studied the Constitution, she BRAGS about how this austere degree qualifies her to be a Senator. Yes, 7 days DOES qualify one as an expert constitutionalist. Maybe that’s why she can’t remember the 14, 17, and 19th amendments.
People, please, defend conservatives all you want, but don’t defend ignorance.
I often wonder if our elected officials and people who are in key decision making positions in our government are being compensated fairly. This isn’t an argument for “big government” but my experience in life and in hiring people is that you get what you pay for. Personally, I don’t want my elected representative to be “like me.” I want him/her to be 10 times smarter than me. I wish people would stop with the “one of the people” crap, I mean, God bless Joe Sixpack but I don’t want him making laws.
Maybe if we paid more we’d attract better talent. Just a thought.
Cato,
THAT is exactly what I have said about our Board of County Supervisors. You get what you pay for. However, I believe part of the problem is nasty politics has become. Even with Christine ODonnell, I felt really uncomfortable when people laughed at her. Challenge her on the credibility of her statement but don’t laugh at the woman.
Cato brings up a good point about wanting out elected officials to be 10x smarter. You won’t get that with our set up. How many times has one of them asked his county constitents what to do or say? Cato probably said what many of us think…I don’t want ‘one of the people’ representing me either, at the risk of sounding like an elitist. I want someone well-educated and conversant on a multitude of subjects. No one wants to be led by a dumb ass.
more…….Christine O’Donnell makes it hard to not laugh. She came in to her race with entirely too much baggage to survive. Opposition research made mincemeat of her with very little effort. Still, I get uncomfortable with the laughter also.
Sadly, some not very far-reaching or far thinking people really shot themselves in the foot. Not so sad for Democrats. They probably would have lost the Senate had extremists not pushed in an unqualified candidate.
Joe Six Pack should run for some office where he can sit back and learn. There are places for Joe 6 pack, just not as VP.
You people are right ,our form of government is flawed ,UNLIKE ALL OTHER FORMS!
I personally wish Stephen Hawking was King and we could do without all this voting stuff.
Everybody is looking at O’Donnell……Toomey is in the lead over Sestak……
“Joe Six Pack should run for some office where he can sit back and learn. There are places for Joe 6 pack, just not as VP.”
You mean, like ……. President?
@PWC Taxpayer
I don’t know of anywhere on this blog that anyone is saying Jeffereson ruled against school prayer. I left a link for the history of Jefferson getting the 1st amendment included and ratified in the Constitution, but I feel certain that isn’t what you meant.
Cargo,
GWB junior was not exactly Joe 6 pack!
CArgo, I was thinking more like dog catcher.
Admiral Sestak is a good man. A career Navy officer who has been a solid member of the House in the 111th Congress. He’d be a good pragmatic choice.
Elena, GWB was closer to Joe Six Pack than the current holder of the office of the Presidency AND had more experience.
However, to be clear, I’m not sure I understand the reference to “VP” as that would imply that the sentence is talking about Biden……
The son of an oil rich family is no good ole Joe six pack in my opinion.
How tragic that a “regular person,” especially a woman, can’t run for office without being hounded and jeered at for her lack of polish. By today’s high standards, humble old Abe Lincoln would not have stood a chance. I guess the message is that politics is for the educated elite only; all others proceed at your own risk.
Emma, surely you expect a level of expertise from those in elected office?
Would you elect someone to City Council who didn’t know where Peabody Street was or know that City of Manassas was an independent city and rather than an incorporated town?
Gender has nothing to do with this. Regular senators need to have certain skills. I agree with Cato. I want my elected officials to be 10x smarter than I am, or at least 10 times more knowlegeable.
Speaking of which, I heard the Gerry Connolly moped the floor with Fimian. Skill level triumphs once again.
In which case, most of the current crop of politicians need to resign. After watching some of the incumbents defend their seats, they don’t seem to be all that polished, able, or honest.
If you are seeking office holders with skill and talent, how do you explain the disaster that THEY have caused and their continuing denial that they have had anything to do with it? If this is what happens when we have the “highly educated experts” running the show, maybe we need those that have not had common sense polished away.