People who "don't know what they don't know" can be more dangerous than disingenuous people who actually know better.
another correction of Sam, and defense of ODonnell, from a professor at Cornell Law School http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/10/what-if-christine-odonnell-were-right.html -- The concept of separation of church and state is not, indeed, in the wording of the First Amendment. Rather, as explained in the 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lynch v. Donelly: This Court has explained that the purpose of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment is to prevent, as far as possible, the intrusion of either [the church or the state] into the precincts of the other. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 614 (1971). At the same time, however, the Court has recognized that total separation is not possible in an absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable. Ibid. In every Establishment Clause case, we must reconcile the inescapable tension between the objective of preventing unnecessary intrusion of either the church or the state upon the other, and the reality that, as the Court has so often noted, total separation of the two is not possible. [p673] The Court has sometimes described the Religion Clauses as erecting a "wall" between church and state, see, e.g., Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 18 (1947). The concept of a "wall" of separation is a useful figure of speech probably deriving from views of Thomas Jefferson. [n1] The metaphor has served as a reminder that the Establishment Clause forbids an established church or anything approaching it. But the metaphor itself is not a wholly accurate description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists between church and state. The reference to Jefferson relates to this passage from a letter Jefferson wrote in 1802, as recited in the 1878 case Reynolds v. United States (emphasis mine): "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions -- I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." So, O'Donnell unquestionably did not agree with the popular liberal conception that the First Amendment by its written terms requires a "separation of church and state," but she was not wrong.
Arguing Law on the Internet for Dummies, helpful tip #1: When you are trying to make the argument that the Establishment Clause does not exist, you should not really cite the Establishment Clause and its supporting jurisprudence.
wow, so the WaPo actually fabricated the ODonnell statement- here's what she actually said: "The First Amendment does [establish what you claim]? ... So you're telling me that the separation of church and state, the phrase 'separation of church and state,' is in the First Amendment?" per ACE: "In other words, she makes it perfectly clear what she's questioning. Not that the Establishment Clause says what it says, but whether the phrase "separation of church and state" appears in the clause." a-****ing-mazing: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/307106.php
and O'Donnell herself: http://www.nationalreview.com/battl...rifies-first-amendment-remarks-katrina-trinko -- Exclusive: O’Donnell Clarifies First Amendment Remarks October 19, 2010 12:51 P.M. By Katrina Trinko Tags: Del. In an exclusive interview with Battle ’10, Republican senate candidate Christine O’Donnell talked about her remarks made earlier this morning that the words “separation of church and state” are not present in the Constitution. “It seems the AP and others are twisting it out of context,” O’Donnell said. “What I was trying to prove is that my opponent does not know the First Amendment.” “What our constitution prevents is … government establishing a religion, but it also says that it won’t prohibit free exercise thereof,” argued O’Donnell. O’Donnell’s original comment was made to address a question asked in a debate this morning about whether local public schools could teach creationism. Talking to Battle ‘10, O’Donnell said that if the local school board approves, there was nothing unconstitutional about a public school teaching the intelligent design theory. “He’s [Coons] saying the school board has no right do that, that the First Amendment prevents that,” she said. “My position was that’s not true. It gives them the freedom to teach that if that’s what local schools want.” “And he said federal government should stop that,” O’Donnell added. “He very clearly said … he would prevent local schools from teaching intelligent design.” O’Donnell stressed that preventing schools from the possibility of teaching intelligent design would violate the First Amendment clause that Congress could not prohibit “the free exercise thereof” of religion. “He [Coons] forgot to quote [that] part,” she said. In a statement, campaign manager Matt Moran said, “In this morning’s WDEL debate, Christine O’Donnell was not questioning the concept of separation of church and state as subsequently established by the courts. She simply made the point that the phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution. It was in fact Chris Coons who demonstrated his ignorance of our country’s founding documents when he could not name the five freedoms contained in the First Amendment.” O’Donnell also told Battle ’10 that race was “going very well.” Arguing that Coons would be a rubber stamp for the Obama/Reid agenda, O’Donnell said, “I don’t think people want more of the same coming from Washington.”
Of course, in the instance of schools (government entities), teaching creationism is dangerously close to establishing religion, as many people do not believe in creationism. The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion by private individuals, it does not give government officials (school teachers or other state employees) the right to teach religious subjects, particularly when those subjects are being taught in a science class. Just goes to show the wingnuts will twist words in any way they can, then just trust that their tortured "logic" will simply be accepted by their followers.
Unfortuantely for somebody posting on this thread, this moment, and the ensuing laughter is preserved for all to see on the youtubes. Tacking on an ex post explanation or pretending like you and random bloggers possess the key to the transcript ain't going to help, not that it matters with her abortion of a candidacy anyway. SAD FACE.
More Republican congressional hopeful jurisprudential brilliance: <object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CkktfiBxJgQ&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CkktfiBxJgQ&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object> And OL's are supposed to be the smartest guys on the field. But at least he had heard the phrase Dred Scott and knew it was something he should disagree with. If it were Rand Paul, who knows what he would have said...
The audience at Widener Law School would most likely be composed of law school faculty and students somewhat knowledgable in the Constitution. So, yes indeed.
It's funny that O'Donnell hasn't the slightest clue about the constitution, but it's embarrassing when longtime members of this bbs show their own cluelessness of the constitution trying to defend her. It ends up making O'Donnell and them look more and more silly with each increasingly pathetic attempt to try and justify her answer.
WTF? Preventing schools (I assume she means public schools) from teaching intelligent design somehow prohibits the free exercise of religion? What the hell is she saying. Is she saying intelligent design's is a religious belief and it can't be prevented from being taught in school? Is she claiming that evolution is a religion? Am I missing something.
I think she has no clue what she's saying. It obviously wasn't thought out with any depth, or understanding of what she was talking about.
This is the most emBBSarassing moment since SamFisher claimed pirates could not use jetskis, thereby admitting he had never seen Water World.
