Posted on 10/19/2010 8:25:06 AM PDT by truthfreedom
Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware on Tuesday questioned whether the U.S. Constitution calls for a separation of church and state, appearing to disagree or not know that the First Amendment bars the government from establishing religion.
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Why does this appear on Foxnews? What happened to “Fair and Balanced”.
The reporter is the enemy. And Fox News is suspect. Many have argued that Fox News is pure neocon. Not conservative. I’d like to see Fox News take the Conservative side here.
They carry AP stories on their website. I have been burned by that before. I have read stories on their site and have been shocked at the bias only to look at the byline and see AP. Now, it is the first place I look.
What “clarification” would you suggest she make?
She’s 100% right. She could say the same thing again. “Separation of Church and State is not in the Constitution” is a true statement. It was made up in 1947.
Maybe they should drop AP then as the P seems to stand for “Propaganda” not press as many are lead to believe.
She needs to clarify the antecedent for “that’s” when she replied to Coons second statement. In his second statement he quoted the establishment clause. She replied “You’re telling that’s in the Constitution.” If “that’s” referred to his quoting of the establishment clause, then she’s wrong. If “that’s” referred back to his original “separation” claim, she’s right. She needs to clarify the “that’s.”
Someone who has access to the video needs to check whether “You’re telling me that’s in the Constitution” followed immediately upon Coon’s quoting of the establishement language or whether something came in between to which her “that’s” might refer. If the AP journalista omitted part of the dialogue, muddying the antecedent, the journalista should be fired. But if O’Donnell was replying directly to Coons’s establishment language but intended to refer to his earlier separation language, then she messed up with an unclear antecedent and needs to clarify.
Except that damage is done. They’ve got their latest gotcha.
She may have been incautious. But it’s extremely difficult to guard against media misinterpretation all the time, without sounding pretty stilted.
It’s clear from the earlier part of the discussion that she knows what’s in the Constitution (establishment of religion) and what’s not (separation of church and state).
Moreover, although it didn’t come up here, the Constitution did NOT originally forbid establishment of religion within the states. Massachusetts had an established religion for years, and so did several other states.
See 47 above.
I think she was intent on “separation” and never caught his switch to ‘establishment”.
Nope -- nothing about "separation of church and state" in there.
Yet, how conveniently the liberals ignore the "Free exercise" clause -- as if it were not there either!!!
Well, Christine is right. If they want to call it a gotcha, well, they’re liars.
Here’s from a cbs news article
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20020015-503544.html
“The First Amendment does?” O’Donnell asked. “Let me just clarify: You’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?”
“Government shall make no establishment of religion,” Coons responded, reciting from memory the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (Coons was off slightly: The first amendment actually reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”)
“That’s in the First Amendment...?” O’Donnell responded.
I will say that there’s a real difference between what the 1A says “make no establishment” is much different from “respecting an establishment”
States and localities CAN establish under the constitution.
Congress can’t pass a law repecting that establishment.
I believe that’s basic Constitution 101 - Federalism. Small Federal Government. Letting the states decide.
Christine WAS RIGHT. No “Gotcha”. We need our people on the TV MOCKING those who disagree with Christine. She was 100% right.
“Government shall make no establishment of religion,” Coons responded, reciting from memory the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Except that Yale Law grad got it wrong. The 1A does not say that. And he should have his diploma revoked for failure to understand what the 1A says. This wasn’t merely paraphrasing.
#1 - it says Congress, not Government
#2 - 1A says respecting and “an establishment of religion”
Here’s a reasonable paraphrase. Congress can make no law “dealing with at all (respecting)” “something that is up to the states and localities to decide (an establishment of religion).
This isn’t highly theoretical stuff. She’s basically taking the position that Clarence Thomas lays out so well. Many many scholars have written extensively on this.
technically, it’s respecting not regarding. Not really relevant.
O’Donnell is fascinating in that she is very good at constantly being the center of attention. Whether that gets her elected or not is a bit of an open question.
“Government shall make no establishment of religion,” Coons responded, reciting from memory the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (Coons was off slightly: The first amendment actually reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”)
..............................
I’m astounded CBS would be so accurate.
Dumbfounded even.
If they didn’t want to put her there she wouldn’t be there.
They hate Christians. So they don’t want Christians to win. The only thing they know how to do is to beat people up.
She had no money coming out of the primary. If the media ignored her, there was no real reason to think that she would get the money she needed. But they bashed her, and people responded by giving her money. Now she has twice as much money as Coons. The leftists who hate Christianity just can’t help themselves. This is as predictable as anything in the world of politics.
Delaware is about as Liberal as its neighbor Maryland. Anyone following the Maryland race?
Christine is at the center of attention because she is intrinsically compelling, though. So, not only do the antiChristians hate her, ordinary normal people love to watch her. Same as Palin basically.
~~~~~~~~
(Thesaurus):
"He refused to divulge any information regarding the man's whereabouts."
Nothing there about "supporting or "prohibiting" an establishment.
This is something I always find interesting:
“...O'Donnell criticized Democratic nominee Chris Coons’ position that teaching creationism in public school would violate the First Amendment by promoting religious doctrine.”
I'm curious to know WHICH version of Creation O'Donnell thinks should be taught in public schools vs. the version of Creation that would be taught by the liberal indoctrinators in our public education system.
Whether it violates the 1st Amendment is irrelevant to me. It is just plain dumb.
Will it be the Moon goddess or the Sun god being taught? Will the queer teacher tell the story of Adam & Evan? Given the diversity of many schools, did Creation take 7 days, or was it 1, or 6, or 8, as many religions believe? Was Creation was a result of aliens? Will the story of Cain & Able degenerate into victim-hood for Cain, who was abused, neglected, & disrespected to the point of being right to kill Abel?
I'm sure the teachers unions will decide these difficult questions in a manner acceptable to all parents. NOT!!!!!
Why would ANYONE want their children to receive their basic religious education in our incredibly FAILED & propaganda driven public schools?
Sadly, O'Donnell is proving to be both ignorant & naive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.