Some bloggers and tv commentators have seized on remarks by Christine O’Donnell to suggest that she is unaware that the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of religion. I don’t think that’s right. What she denies is that the First Amendment requires “the separation of church and state.” Here’s something I wrote about this question several years ago that, I think, is on point:
Conceptual clarity has not been a feature of the discussion of whether religion is having (or threatens to have) a dangerous influence on American government. People mean different things when they talk about “theocrats,” “the separation of church and state,” and “secularism.” The word “secular” can describe both irreligion and neutrality about religion. Yet commentators often throw around these words and phrases as though they had single, uncontested meanings—or, worse, exploit the instability of the phrase for polemical purposes.
Did the Founders often observe that churches and governments are engaged in different enterprises? Well, then, they established a principle of “secularism”—which is then held to require a revision in the Pledge of Allegiance, or funding for human cloning. Religious conservatives have done their part to add to the confusion. They have said, some of them, that they “don’t believe in the separation of church and state,” that it’s a “myth,” that it “isn’t in the Constitution.” Christians who say these things generally mean to endorse one or more of the following propositions: The Constitution does not make Thomas Jefferson’s understanding of the proper relationship between churches and governments mandatory; government may promote religion in some nonsectarian and non-coercive way; there is nothing wrong with voters’letting their religious beliefs influence their political views.
They do not, generally, mean that the government should set itself up as a kind of church, or vice versa. They accept the ACLU definition of separation, and therefore reject separation. But liberals, and much of the public, understand the conservatives to be denying the importance of religious liberty. Vague terminology keeps people talking past one another.
I am surprised at how many Americans believe separation of church and state is a Constitutional issue when, in fact, it isn't mentioned in that document.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseApparently, Mr. Ponnuru hasn't listened to the relevant audio clip from the debate, which can be found here:
External Link
Initially, she does indeed question whether the separation of church and state is in the First Amendment. Coons replies with "government shall make no establishment of religion"- a pretty good off-the-cuff paraphrasing of the actual text, which is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". O'Donnell replies with a skeptical-sounding "That's in the first amendment"; you could maybe put a question mark at the end of what she said if you were transcribing it. Her tone implies that she means something like "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?" or "Are you sure that's in the First Amendment?". Her reply does *not* appear to be a concession that the sentence regarding establishment of religion is in the text. A fully informed reply on her part would have been to say something "sure, the stuff prohibiting establishment of religion is in the text, but that doesn't imply separation of church and state". She didn't say that, though. She seemed to be questioning Coons' fairly accurate quotation of the First Amendment text.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think over the years we have allowed the left to define what the first amendment means with regards to religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;".
The key here is make no law. How this has been twisted into any display of religion by government, such as the display of a creche or menorah being construed as the establishment of a religion is beyond my comprehension. What has happened to the law part of the text? In the absence of such a law or laws, the entire argument would seem moot. I guess that's why I'm not a lawyer.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere's a play on that misconception (and the Ratification Clause): Supreme Court Strikes Down Constitution External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is an odd defense, no? It's not like she was mounting your argument, Ramesh; Coons was using language from like, the intro of the amendment, and she was reflexively questioning the veracity. It wasn't a moment of intellectual nuance; it was "oh, so you're telling me that GRAVITY is why we're not all floating over mountains right now, huh?"
Sure, the separation of church and state is more Jeffersonian concept than Constitutional principle, but that's not what she was saying.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSome people should just not be anywhere near the levers of our national government. Christine O'Donnel is one of them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShe is attractive and speaks well when in a scripted environment but could not think herself out of a box and is a serial embellisher of her accomplishments if not in fact a straight out liar. But she's got an R behind her name so Ramesh has to defend her.
She was clearly responding to - and completely oblivious of - the Establishment Clause, not mounting a nuanced argument against the Jeffersonian extra-constitutional conception of a "wall of separation" between church and state.
Ramesh is bending over backwards to the point of implausibility to defend O'Donnell, who has proven herself utterly indefensible as a senatorial candidate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLet me expand upon my earlier comment by adding a link to the video of the debate:
External Link
The exchange I referenced in my earlier comment is at the 7 minute mark of the video. When Coons supplies the "government shall make no establishment of religion" paraphrase, O'Donnell replies with a skeptical smirk as she says "That's in the First Amendment" with an "Oh, really?" tone. If she really knew that the First Amendment prohibits an establishment of religion, she certainly didn't do a good job of making that clear.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Constitution has exactly one thing in common with the phrase "Separation of Church and State".
....the word "of".
Jefferson introduced the "separation" term in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists. His point is clearly to assuage their fears of any kind of govt. interference and assure them they can practice their faith in complete freedom.
If this letter is the basis for removing every religious symbol from every inch of the public square, I'll eat my hat.
External Link
Please read Jefferson's letter. There is a line in there that we never hear from the "separation" crowd, who are most certainly the same folks who support hate crimes laws.
"that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions...."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs another blogger pointed out, the relevant language in the First Amendment is "shall make no law", but there is an even more important word prior to that which is "Congress". The First Amendment restricts Congress from making a law that establishes a religion, and the only way that teaching creationism in school violates that is if public education is something that is handed out by the federal government and then Congress passes a law deigning the teaching of creationism. If this is the case, then the problem we have is that government is involved in education, not that the schools are teaching creationism.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot, only that, but many states actually HAD the established churches at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. The First Amendment prohibited only the federal government from establishing the church, not the states.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusemany of the comments here represent the willful partisan misreading of facts. To conclude that she was questioning at the end whther the establishment clause was in the 1st amendment one would have to conclude that she had never read it or could not recognize it when recited. This is hardly likely given what she has said elsewhere and given the obvious rhetorical nature of her first question. She clearly was not asking out of ignorance where separation of church and state was found in the Constitution. She asked because she knew it wasn't there. Coons all but admitted it by reciting the actual words which discuss establishment, obviously intending to argue that that language naturally means separation of church and state. It is this implicit argument, that non-establishment means separation, is clearly what she was contesting by saying "Oh really".
Given the blinkered ignorance of so many in the legal field she should not have assumed that forcing Coons to recite the actual language of the amendment would reveal that the concept is not there. She should have spelled it out for the slow of wit.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think it is clear from watching the video that she did not have any idea about what she was talking about. If you are going to try and play sarcastic you need to play it better than she did, especially when you are in the position of many people questioning whether you are qualified for the position.
It is also clear by the reaction of those in the audience that they did not think she was trying to make a truthful point about the actual words "separation of church and state" not being in the Constitution.
Additionally, she did not help herself by having to ask about the specifics of the other Amendments that she was questioned about. I don't think it is too much to ask our representatives to have a passing familiarity with the Constitution and its amendments.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusechrisboltssr,
The "Congress shall make no law..." language isn't actually an issue because it's "incorporated" to apply to the states (and by extension local governments) through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe controversy gets to the heart of what the Supreme Court must decide.
Coons argues that the Constitution is a living, breathing document put together by some really old dead people for a different time and place in history. He ventures that the document has needed revisions along the way to make it relevant for today. Of course, he and some members of the Supreme Court to name a few, are the present day fabricators of what the Constitution entails today as a living document. Obviously Coons et al believes that the contemporary Constitution should be interpreted so as to restrict the government-run public entities from allowing anything of a religious nature.
Ms. O'Donnell believes the Constitution is relevant today in its original form. As such, the first amendment should simply be read that there should not be government sponsored and supported religion(s) over others, as was the Church of England.
I had to laugh when listening to Coons as at the end of his statement his voice went up, an indication that perhaps he himself was uncertain of what he was saying.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePublius, which is why I also stated my last sentence about government being involved in education. However, even considering the fact that the Bill of Rights is "incorporated" via the 14th Amendment, the words "Congress shall make no law" is explicit enough: unless you are ready to argue that the state and local governments are extensions of the federal government (Congress), then the literal interpretation of "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." is that this is an explicit restriction upon Congress, not the states or local governments. If the states prior to ratification of the Constitution understood that the 1st Amendment was a restriction upon the states as well as the federal government, do you think they would have ratified the Constitution?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCoons brought up the phrase "Separation of Church and State" first and O'Donnell returned to the point and that's when she asked where that specific phrase was found in the Constitution. When one listens to the debate in its entirety and to previous O'Donnell comments on the topic it's clear she has no argument with nor ignorance of the non-establishment clause.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRamesh is correct to defend O'Donnell. As I wrote in my book on "Christians in the Movies':
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis philosophy (secular humanism) was reinforced by Supreme Court rulings beginning in the 1940s regarding various “church-state” issues. The most famous of these occurred in the 1947 case Everson vs. The Board of Education upholding New Jersey’s right to give funds to Catholic schools for textbooks and activities unrelated to religious promulgation. In writing the majority opinion, Supreme Court Justice and ex-Ku Klux Klanner Hugo Black cited Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists about the existence of “a wall of separation” between church and state. Since then, this phrase has been regularly cited in the press and in court opinions such that many believe it to be in the Bill of Rights, whereas the First Amendment only affirms the freedom to worship as one pleases and the prevention of the establishment of a state-sponsored religion which was common in the colonies.
Given the ignorance of the supposedly knowlegeable audience, I am only sorry that Moran felt compelled to say she wasm't talking about "separation of church and state" as affirmed in later judicial opinions and rulings. By no penumbra or emanation can this construct be found in the Constitution no matter what Black and his successors say. I hope it stirs up some attention to this issue.
Mr. Ponnuru knows what he's talking about. Ms. O'Donnell does not. When Mr. Coons quoted the Establishment Clause almost exactly, she smirked at him like she thought he was making it up.
Mr. Ponnuru, Djovanelo, chrisboltssr, or I could probably have explained the difference between the Establishment Clause and the slogan "separation of church and state" during that debate without being laughed at, but Ms. O'Donnell did not and could not. It was actually a lay-up because the debate was about school districts and the Establishment Clause limits the power of Congress, not school districts.
Publius is correct that the 14th amendment rolls over that (plus he has a Latin pseudonym which is always good), but they were speaking only about the 1st amendment.
Anyway, to get wrapped around the axle that the Establishment Clause does not constitute "separation of church and state" because they are not the same words is as silly as saying that the 2nd amendment is not about "gun rights" because it does not include the word "gun."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd of course all the fol de rol is about Christine O'Donnell and NOT THE FACT THAT CHRIS COONS WAS EXPOSED AS NOT KNOWING WHAT THE FIVE FREEDOMS ARE. And this is NR, not the Daily Kos, so what is the lesson here? Elite snobbery reigns and give the Progressive a pass.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNow do you want to sit here and have a debate about what Sarah Palin meant about "1773"?