O’Donnell Again: Where in Constitution is Separation of Church & State? SHARE: Tweet </noscript> Delaware Republican Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell is a bit of a political punching bag. She’s an easy target, and there’s nothing particularly challenging about picking off low hanging fruit. But sometimes the need to warn people against voting for someone so criminally unqualified to hold elected office trumps the want to stay away from the Red X affixed to her back. This is one of those times. In a WDEL debate this morning against Democratic opponent Chris Coons, O’Donnell spoke up loudly against Coons’ point that local schools should teach science rather than religion. O’Donnell perked up and asked, “Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” You can hear the audible groans and laughter emerge from the audience at Widener Law School. Coons rightly pointed to the First Amendment, which they also teach in our schools (well, some of them apparently), which states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” At that point, O’Donnell interrupted to ask, “You’re telling me the First Amendment does?” If Coons were a lesser man, he might’ve retorted by saying “Yes, we’re all telling you that. You’re elementary school teacher told you that. Your Social Studies teacher in high school told you that. Your college professors told you that. Even if you’ve never read the United States Constitution for yourself, at least 50 people in your life should’ve told you that.” Probably not very statesman-like, sure. WDEL is hosting the full audio of Tuesday morning’s debate, but you can listen to the exchange in question here, courtesy of Politico: We’re all for voicing dissent aimed at Washington DC. We’re all for getting back to a representative democracy. There are elements of the Tea Party that stand for good and stand for a vision of America we can all get behind. But why are we actively campaigning against open-and-shut issues? Since when did we start thinking about the Civil Rights Act as a burden to freedom? Since when did we start thinking children of immigrants born on this soil shouldn’t be American citizens, as stated in the 14th Amendment? Since when did we decide to question whether our president is an American citizen? Since when did we decide that ripping up our paved roads was a positive idea for the nation? Now we’re openly questioning the fundamental separation of church and state. How far are we wiling to go? Do we want to live by the First Amendment or the First Commandment?
Kelly 5pts OK, so where is it in the constitution? Really! Teaching evolution is as much teaching a religion as teaching Christianity, Islam or Buddhism. It's just one tenant of Humanism, which is a religion. Evoking "Separation of church and state in response to teaching the other side (intelligent design) is so much hypocrisy. John J. Dunphy, in his award winning essay, The Humanist (1983), illustrates this strategic focus, "The battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: A religion of humanity -- utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to carry humanist values into wherever they teach. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new -- the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism." All these O'Donnel haters have been duped, brainwashed by those seeking to proselytize them to a religion that requires as much, if not more, faith as any other religion.
Monk 5pts To me, the worst part about that video isn't her stupidity regarding the fundamentals of our Constitution. The worst part is her reaction to the audiences gasps and laughter. She turns and gives a big gleaming smile that screams "Oh boy, you got me. The jig is up. This is all a big joke. I have no idea what I'm doing." Yet she doesn't apologize and pull out of the race, she falls back into the charade and plunders on. Enough already.