The Corner

Christine O’Donnell and the First Amendment

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.

Ramesh Ponnuru — Ramesh Ponnuru is a senior editor for National Review, a columnist for Bloomberg View, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and a senior fellow at the National Review Institute.

Most Popular


Holy Week with Saint Paul

Just the other day, I ordered a replacement copy of The Passion of the Christ -- it can be so impactful for Holy Week meditation. In the years since its release, it’s become something of required Lenten viewing for me. But this year, there is a new movie to help with prayer, Paul, Apostle of Christ, released ... Read More

Heckuva Job, Paul and Mitch

As Thursday's editorial makes clear, the omnibus spending bill is a disgrace. That may be why about 40 percent of Republicans (and 40 percent of Democrats) voted against it. Apart from the absence of a DACA/Dream amnesty, the immigration portions represent a comprehensive victory by the anti-enforcement crowd. ... Read More
Politics & Policy

California’s Pro-Nuclear Renegade

If California’s upcoming gubernatorial race gets decided solely by money, Michael Shellenberger doesn’t have a chance. The latest campaign filings show that Shellenberger, an environmentalist from Berkeley, has about $37,000 in cash on hand. The frontrunner in the June 5 California primary, Lieutenant ... Read More
Politics & Policy

The Sliming of Bari Weiss

If you follow at all the ideological war that’s erupted around the New York Times editorial page, then you know Bari Weiss. It’s too much to call Bari conservative. A better description might be heterodox. On some issues, particularly social issues and immigration, she’s a woman of the Left. On others — ... Read More