O'Donnell Flunks 1st Amendment
Christine O'Donnell: "Where in the Constitution is the Separation of Church and State?"
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?"
Not surprising when this is the quality of the candidate the Republicans run, it's one of the few "safe" seats for the Democrats in an otherwise deservedly horrible political climate.
1st Amendment to the United States Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Of course, O'Donnells campaign is now trying to back pedal from her horrid performance by saying that she was merely pointing out that the words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the 1st Amendment, which while factual, entirely misses the point.
The words "separation of church and state" appear in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in 1802:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & 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 & State." -Thomas Jefferson
but the concept in principle is clear in the 1st Amendment itself. It's further backed by comments from James Madison, the principle drafter of the Bill of Rights:
"practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States." -James Madison
"We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt." - James Madison
These should make it clear that the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment was not an afterthought or unimportant, but vital to the full meaning of it's text. And, it is absolutely essential in practice to prohibit that establishment in order to guarantee full religious liberty in this country, or in fact, anywhere. People must be free to exercise their religion, but also necessary to safeguard religious liberty is the prohibition against the government establishing religion and thus forcing someone elses religion on you against your will. This has been backed up by a plethora of Supreme Court precedent.
The far religious right would like you to think this solely means that the government can not establish a recognized national religion, but this is entirely disingenuous in the same way that the far left would like you to think that the 2nd Amendment only guarantees the right to form militias and does not guarantee individuals the right to bear arms. It's highly selective reading of a very broad statement which utterly ignores the context of the time in which it was written. Indeed, it is entirely insufficient to merely protect an individuals right to freely exercise their religion when a government is still free to engage in preferring one religion over another or over no religion at all, if your ultimate goal is to maintain the highest standard of religious liberty.
Only when it is your goal to begin trampling on the sacred civil liberty of religious freedom will you find it inconvenient to have that establishment clause intact. That desire is the result of a religious majority which wants to begin imposing its will upon religious minorities and curtailing freedoms, rather than a will to protect the religious liberty of the majority. In principle it is the same as the conflict between your fundamental right to life and to pursue happiness. While a deplorable way to be, a person might find that in order to pursue their own happiness they might like to kill or harm another person. But your right to pursue happiness in this case ends where another persons right to life begins. Thus, you are not fully free in the sense that this is not a system of anarchy. In that same way, your right to freely exercise your religion ends where another persons right to not have the government establish religion over them begins.
It's an important concept, and tied directly into the question of Intelligent Design vs. the scientific theory of Evolution and whether or not public schools have the right to teach I.D. or Creationism in class. In terms of Creationism, we have settled law on the matter which prohibits schools from doing this as it violates the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment. Dressed up in another format however, it's become Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, despite some extraordinary claims by it's proponents. It makes a claim much like Creationism it's predecessor that is ultimately grounded in the supernatural, and thus not falsifiable by empirical tests. It is not science by design in fact, it is pseudoscience, and more of a political movement with the sole intent of bypassing the Constitution and begin teaching Creationist ideas in public once again.
This is why in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District in 2005, Judge John E. Jones III ruled:
"The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."
and probably why the voters in PA decided to eliminate all 8 Dover school board members who voted in favor of forcing Intelligent Design into the school science curriculum right afterwards.
But apparently Christine O'Donnell doesn't understand that. Of course, her brilliant mind also can't come up with basic Supreme Court decisions she disagrees with, including Roe vs. Wade when asked, not on the spot or as some sort of "gotcha" media as was often quoted against Sarah Palin by the far right, but as part of a political debate she supposedly prepared for. And then, she had no idea what the 14th and 16th Amendments were either... but who can fault her when at 27 minus two (18 & 21) which basically nullify each other we have so many that no human could *possibly* remember them all?
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?"
Not surprising when this is the quality of the candidate the Republicans run, it's one of the few "safe" seats for the Democrats in an otherwise deservedly horrible political climate.
1st Amendment to the United States Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Of course, O'Donnells campaign is now trying to back pedal from her horrid performance by saying that she was merely pointing out that the words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the 1st Amendment, which while factual, entirely misses the point.
The words "separation of church and state" appear in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in 1802:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & 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 & State." -Thomas Jefferson
but the concept in principle is clear in the 1st Amendment itself. It's further backed by comments from James Madison, the principle drafter of the Bill of Rights:
"practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States." -James Madison
"We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt." - James Madison
These should make it clear that the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment was not an afterthought or unimportant, but vital to the full meaning of it's text. And, it is absolutely essential in practice to prohibit that establishment in order to guarantee full religious liberty in this country, or in fact, anywhere. People must be free to exercise their religion, but also necessary to safeguard religious liberty is the prohibition against the government establishing religion and thus forcing someone elses religion on you against your will. This has been backed up by a plethora of Supreme Court precedent.
The far religious right would like you to think this solely means that the government can not establish a recognized national religion, but this is entirely disingenuous in the same way that the far left would like you to think that the 2nd Amendment only guarantees the right to form militias and does not guarantee individuals the right to bear arms. It's highly selective reading of a very broad statement which utterly ignores the context of the time in which it was written. Indeed, it is entirely insufficient to merely protect an individuals right to freely exercise their religion when a government is still free to engage in preferring one religion over another or over no religion at all, if your ultimate goal is to maintain the highest standard of religious liberty.
Only when it is your goal to begin trampling on the sacred civil liberty of religious freedom will you find it inconvenient to have that establishment clause intact. That desire is the result of a religious majority which wants to begin imposing its will upon religious minorities and curtailing freedoms, rather than a will to protect the religious liberty of the majority. In principle it is the same as the conflict between your fundamental right to life and to pursue happiness. While a deplorable way to be, a person might find that in order to pursue their own happiness they might like to kill or harm another person. But your right to pursue happiness in this case ends where another persons right to life begins. Thus, you are not fully free in the sense that this is not a system of anarchy. In that same way, your right to freely exercise your religion ends where another persons right to not have the government establish religion over them begins.
It's an important concept, and tied directly into the question of Intelligent Design vs. the scientific theory of Evolution and whether or not public schools have the right to teach I.D. or Creationism in class. In terms of Creationism, we have settled law on the matter which prohibits schools from doing this as it violates the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment. Dressed up in another format however, it's become Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, despite some extraordinary claims by it's proponents. It makes a claim much like Creationism it's predecessor that is ultimately grounded in the supernatural, and thus not falsifiable by empirical tests. It is not science by design in fact, it is pseudoscience, and more of a political movement with the sole intent of bypassing the Constitution and begin teaching Creationist ideas in public once again.
This is why in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District in 2005, Judge John E. Jones III ruled:
"The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."
and probably why the voters in PA decided to eliminate all 8 Dover school board members who voted in favor of forcing Intelligent Design into the school science curriculum right afterwards.
But apparently Christine O'Donnell doesn't understand that. Of course, her brilliant mind also can't come up with basic Supreme Court decisions she disagrees with, including Roe vs. Wade when asked, not on the spot or as some sort of "gotcha" media as was often quoted against Sarah Palin by the far right, but as part of a political debate she supposedly prepared for. And then, she had no idea what the 14th and 16th Amendments were either... but who can fault her when at 27 minus two (18 & 21) which basically nullify each other we have so many that no human could *possibly* remember them all?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home