Senate nominee O'Donnell asks whether Constitution prohibits establishment of religion

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Delaware Senate candidates Chris Coons (D) and Christine O'Donnell ®

BEN EVANS

AP News

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.

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," said Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone, adding that he thought it raised questions about O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution.

Source: AP News

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

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

It's not in the Constitution, or the First Amendment. Try again.

[Danno 1,228]

Delaware Senate candidates Chris Coons (D) and Christine O'Donnell ®

BEN EVANS

AP News

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.

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," said Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone, adding that he thought it raised questions about O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution.

Source: AP News

Strangely enough she was in front of "legal Scholars" when she suggested the phrase "Separation of Church and state" is not in the Constitution....... and it appeared they thought it was.

And what a prime example of Media bias.

The Lady asks "Where is ""separation of Church and State"" in the constitution"

And the story gets reported : O'Donnell asks whether Constitution prohibits establishment of Religion

When the Liberal Media (this is the AP) can't score honest points off of O'Donnell...you know things are bad.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

It's not in the Constitution, or the First Amendment. Try again.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_exclusive/20101019/pl_yblog_exclusive/church-state-and-the-first-amendment-what-odonnell-needs-to-know

The first 16 words say, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

[Obama 2012 1,714]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_exclusive/20101019/pl_yblog_exclusive/church-state-and-the-first-amendment-what-odonnell-needs-to-know

The first 16 words say, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

establishing a religion and having general practices are two completely different things.

Separation of Church and State is a made up fiasco...

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_exclusive/20101019/pl_yblog_exclusive/church-state-and-the-first-amendment-what-odonnell-needs-to-know

The first 16 words say, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The idea was to prohibit a national religion, specifically favor one form of Christianity over the other, or establish "The Church of the United States". It did not prohibit the individual states, however, from favoring one religion over another, as many states already were predominately of one religion, or another, or even to allow Utah to be established as a Mormon territory.

ETA: Jefferson's "Wall of Separation" aside, the founders intended to keep government out of the affairs of religion, not keep religion out of governance.

Edited October 20, 2010 by ##########

[Heracles 417]

I have to agree with her. While it says congress shall pass no law, it certainly does not suggest our local government cannot have a Christmas tree on their land.

This is also a no-brainer in most other first world countries might I add. It's quite common for a county, school, state government office etc to celebrate a religious holiday along with its constituents. The government also often contributes to community projects, be it religious in nature or not. Basically they do not discriminate.

After all, the government is there to represent the people - it's constituents; well overseas anyway.

[Heracles 417]

The idea was to prohibit a national religion, specifically favor one form of Christianity over the other, or establish "The Church of the United States". It did not prohibit the individual states, however, from favoring one religion over another, as many states already were predominately of one religion, or another, or even to allow Utah to be established as a Mormon territory.

ETA: Jefferson's "Wall of Separation" aside, the founders intended to keep government out of the affairs of religion, not keep religion out of governance.

The idea was common sense. England had the church of England, the US did not want one specific religion interfering with governmental affairs; which was the case in England.

Nowadays, pretty-much all countries have similar amendments; however, as you pointed out, this does not mean the government [government = we the people] cannot celebrate along with its people and their beliefs. Also why most countries that are predominately Christian, have Easter as a federal public holiday.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Heracles

[Heracles 417]

I do have to say, I like this lady much more than Palin.

She at least thinks for herself and is not a puppet like Palin.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I have to agree with her. While it says congress shall pass no law, it certainly does not suggest our local government cannot have a Christmas tree on their land.

This is also a no-brainer in most other first world countries might I add. It's quite common for a county, school, state government office etc to celebrate a religious holiday along with its constituents. The government also often contributes to community projects, be it religious in nature or not. Basically they do not discriminate.

After all, the government is there to represent the people - it's constituents; well overseas anyway.

It must be so difficult for you living here in third world conditions and having to dream about all those other first world countries. No wonder your so miserable.

[Heracles 417]

It must be so difficult for you living here in third world conditions and having to dream about all those other first world countries. No wonder your so miserable.

Weirdo mode alert..

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Weirdo mode alert..

Not me. I don't say, "in every other first world country" fifty times a day. If I was as unhappy as you are, I'd move. That would be the smart thing to do.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Not me. I don't say, "in every other first world country" fifty times a day. If I was as unhappy as you are, I'd move. That would be the smart thing to do.

He can't even afford a lawyer and has to come bum off Visa journey and you expect him to move?

[Heracles 417]

He can't even afford a lawyer and has to come bum off Visa journey and you expect him to move?

Not to gloat, but I actually had some of the fastest visa processing times on here. Helps when you have connections.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Heracles

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Not to gloat, but I actually had some of the fastest visa processing times on here. Helps when you have connections.

You're just so special.