Republican Senate Candidate Christine O’Donnell today challenged her Democratic opponent Chris Coons on his statement that the Constitution disallowed the integration of religion into the federal government, asking, “Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” The exchange, which prompted laughs from the studio audience, came during a debate this morning at Delaware’s Widener School of Law, which was aired by WDEL radio. In a discussion over the whether or not public schools should be allowed to integrate religion-based ideas into science curricula, O’Donnell argued that local school districts should have the choice to teach intelligent design if they choose. When asked point blank by Coons if she believed in evolution, however, O’Donnell reiterated that her personal beliefs were not germane. “What I think about the theory of evolution is irrelevant,” she emphasized, adding later that the school of thought was “not a fact but a theory.” Coons said that creationism, which he considers “a religious doctrine,” should not be taught in public schools due to the Constitution’s First Amendment. He argued that it explicitly enumerates the separation of church and state. “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 US Constitution …
Home » Church vs State » Christine O’Donnell: “Where in the Constitution is the Separation of Church and State?”
Christine O’Donnell: “Where in the Constitution is the Separation of Church and State?”
Posted in Church vs State and tagged as Christine, Church, Constitution, O'Donnell, Separation, State
16 comments on “Christine O’Donnell: “Where in the Constitution is the Separation of Church and State?””
Leave a Reply
VoyagerAbove
November 13, 2010 at 2:33 am
‘Least she’s not aiming for VP.
Hairysteed
November 13, 2010 at 2:43 am
The constitution doesn’t say “you can say whatever you want” either or that “Torture isn’t allowed” 😀
10101110101111111111
November 13, 2010 at 2:45 am
epic fail, l2play O’Donnell.
thebassistable
November 13, 2010 at 3:38 am
and we want to but our country in the hands of these morons
well if the tea party says obama is doing a bad job i say
hes doing a damn fine job
calvintoronto
November 13, 2010 at 4:19 am
@LiberalDrivel
A sure sign when someone doesn’t know what they are talking about: they throw out the word fascism, which is really a shorthand for “I’m don’t think.”
Conservative Drivel here wants to replace it with single-party rule under Republicans. And we all know what happened when the Republicans lead as single-party rule: the US now is in one huge fiscal mess due to Republican cozying up to Wall Street and making law to make the rich richer. This is called “republican progress.”
TicTocKnight
November 13, 2010 at 4:23 am
@BoredomCorner Well to be technical the term “seperation of church and state” is quite famous but is not in the constitution, the term came from a letter from Jefferson to a baptist church. I’m not endorsing her, I’m not saying government should get invovled in religion, but she is right in this case, and I do advocate knowing the specifics. The quote is quite famous, so lets do it justice by knowing exactly what we are quoting when we bring it up.
BoredomCorner
November 13, 2010 at 5:22 am
@LiberalDrivel What part of “Congress shall not establish or endorse a religion” do you not understand?
BoredomCorner
November 13, 2010 at 6:17 am
@LiberalDrivel How are the Democrats fascist? And how is the corporation-loving Tea Party/GOP any better?
Doc418
November 13, 2010 at 7:06 am
@LiberalDrivel Actually, no, the Separation of Church and State is clearly implied in the establishment clause.. Hugo Black was merely following the what Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1801, and more importantly, what James Madison(who wrote the first amendment) explained what the Establishment clause means. It clearly creates a separation of church and state.
op132mvt3
November 13, 2010 at 7:57 am
LIberal Drivel: you obviously don’t understand history very well. One of the founding principles of the US is religious freedom. However you slice it — that is still a fact. You are an idiot.
LiberalDrivel
November 13, 2010 at 8:38 am
@hottpoker We don’t need a backdoor path towards fascism. It is already here with single-party rule under Obama and the Democrats, but that will change in a few days.
LiberalDrivel
November 13, 2010 at 9:20 am
There is nothing about “a wall of separation between church and state” in the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment prohibits the government from creating a state religion, much like many of the original 13 states had. The word “church” never once appears in the Constitution. The current secularization of our government occurred as a result of a 1947 Supreme Court decision written by Justice Hugo Black, a former lawyer for the KKK and FDR appointee. O’Donnell is absolutely correct.
AwesomeBlvd
November 13, 2010 at 10:17 am
The word Constitution is starting to sound really weird after being said so many times.
hottpoker
November 13, 2010 at 11:03 am
This empty suit and that other buffoon fram Alaska are two of a kind. As I said before this bunch of clowns tea partiers have nothing to offer this country of ours, but ignorance, backwardness, nutty religious dogma, and a backdoor path towards fascism.
TheWaechterWorld
November 13, 2010 at 11:47 am
@requiemoftruth ok she is “pretty” but no more
requiemoftruth
November 13, 2010 at 12:22 pm
She is a walking void. I cannot understand FOR THE LIFE OF ME how this woman has gotten as far as she has. Oh, wait… because she’s pretty. Or “pretty”.