Christine O'Donnell defending the right of Christian freedom
Christine O’Donnell, First Amendment, Separation of Church and State, Delaware Election, Delaware Politics, Politics, Election 2010, Delaware Senate Race, Obama News
In a debate at Widener University, with a leftist crowd of uneducated college students (who seem to believe the 1st amendment actually contains the phrase “separation of church and state”) Christine O’Donnell stood up to the leftist belief that religion has no place in the public square, that only secular godlessness reigns supreme in the public square. As a result, the leftist blogosphere is atwitter, literally, accusing Christine O’Donnell of not knowing what the 1st amendment means. Oops!
It turns out she does, and they don’t. The 1st amendment in no way shape or form articulates this mythological ‘separation of church and state’ that has been used by secular, godless, leftists to chase any religious value systems out of the public square in favor of so-callled value-neutral secular judgements. As the Freedomist has covered for some time now, there is no such thing as a value-neutral law. Your laws will be based on some value system, in this case, the value system is godlessness, is ANTI-Christian. The Federal government has decided to create a church, the church of atheism. Christine O’Donnell represents a substantial portion of Americans who are fed up with having atheism forced down our throats, with haivng God chased out of the public square in favor of Atheist, State control laws and out-of-control Supreme Courts that can barely protect our right to bear arms (5-4 vote, remember that?)…
Here is a snippet from an excellent article defending the Christine O’Donnell stance on the 1st amendment:
In a debate at the Widener University Law School, Ms. O’Donnell interrupted her Democratic opponent, Chris Coons, as he argued that the Constitution does not allow public schools to teach religious doctrine.
“Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” Ms. O’Donnell asked him, according to audio posted on the Web site of WDEL 1150 AM radio, which co-sponsored the debate.
The audience at the law school can be heard breaking out in laughter. But Ms. O’Donnell refuses to be dissuaded and pushes forward.
“Let me just clarify,” she says. “You are telling me that the separation of church and state is in the First Amendment?”
When Mr. Coons offers a shorthand of the relevant section, saying, “government shall make no establishment of religion,” Ms. O’Donnell replies, “That’s in the First Amendment?”
Matt Moran, Ms. O’Donnell’s campaign manager, wrote in a statement after the debate that “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,” Mr. Moran said
Read our editorial on Separation of Church and State and the great divide in America that O’Donnelll exposed:
Rush Limbaugh articulates a fundamental defense of O’Donnell that follows along the path we are making in this excerpt from his radio show 10/19/20:
In short, if you want to follow the MSM logic, the logic of the left, you will discover a world where only atheists and secularists can make decisions that govern the majority of Americans who still hold to and follow Christian value systems. This is a world controlled by a godless minority, and we shall not let that continue.
________________________________________________________________________
more on Christine O’Donnell First Amendment
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/10/19/chris-coons-cant-name-the-five-freedoms-in-the-first-amendment/
Delaware Election- Chris Coons really knows his Constitution- he can’t even name the Five freedoms
Delaware Election, Delaware News, Chris Coons, Delaware Senate Race, Constitution, Five Freedoms, Politics, Obama News, Election 2010
Coons wiffs on Basic Constitution Question
Delaware Election- Chris Coons wants State to Replace Religion- not just be separated from it
Delaware Election, Chris Coons, Separation of Church and State, Delaware Senate Race
Coons thought he had Christine on Separation of Church and State, but his answer reveals State usurpation of Religion, not merely separation
http://www.conservatives4congress.com/2010/10/bad-signs-for-democrat-chris-coons-in.html
Delaware Election- Why Chris Coons could lose to surging O’Donnell
Delaware Election, Chris Coons, Christine O’Donnell. Politics, Delaware Senate Race
Is Chris Coons tanking with two weeks to go until the special Delaware Senate Election?
Christine O’Donnell and the First Amendment – By Ramesh Ponnuru …
Oct 19, 2010 … Ramesh Ponnuru writes on NRO: Some bloggers and tv commentators have seized on remarks by Christine O’Donnell to suggest that she is unaware …
www.nationalreview.com/…/christine-odonnell-and-first-amendment-ramesh-ponnuru
Rush: Christine O’Donnell Right About First Amendment (Video)
“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 …
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2610648/posts
Rush: Christine O’Donnell Right About First Amendment
Rush: Christine O’Donnell Right About First Amendment Right on. Date Added: 10/19/10.
thehopeforamerica.com/play.php?id=5532
State-Run Media Crucifies Christine O’Donnell For – Gateway Pundit
Self-professed Marxist Democrat Chris Coons messed up today in his debate with Conservative Christine O’Donnell. Coons insisted that the First Amendment declared, “”Government shall make no establishment of religion. …
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/ – More results from Gateway Pundit
Christine O’Donnell Is (Shockingly) Kind of Correct | Right Wing News
When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O’Donnell asked: “You’re telling me that’s in the First Amendment?” Her comments, in a debate aired …
http://rightwingnews.com/ – More results from Right Wing News
Christine O’Donnell 1st amendment point made- no separation of …
When Mr. Coons offers a shorthand of the relevant section, saying, “government shall make no establishment of religion,” Ms. O’Donnell replies, “That’s in the First Amendment?” Matt Moran, Ms. O’Donnell’s campaign …
http://freedomist.com/
More on Chris Coons
Chris Coons Pension payoffs- cap & trade profiteering- tax gouger- more http://j.mp/aJbez1
The best excuse you can come up with for O’Donnell’s blistering idiocy is to double down on the religious supremacy threats? The people looking at O’Donnell as an idiot are being kind if this is what she REALLY meant. The religious right has been in an echo chamber for the last 30 years and don’t realize that some of their more horrific self-evident “truths” are usually hidden away from public consumption for a reason – because they make the entire movement look like crackpot religious fanatics completely untethered from reality. That’s why an entire room of law students laughed at her, and rightly so.
Christine O'Donnell 1st amendment point made- no separation of ……
I found your entry interesting do I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog
…
explain what value systems should determine our laws?
the topic under scrutiny at the time was whether or not teachers have the right to teach religious doctrine in science class in a public school. sorry, but you couldn’t be farther from off topic.
and by off, i mean on.
[...] more here: Christine O'Donnell 1st amendment point made- no separation of … Share and [...]
Christine O'Donnell First amendment point made- no separation of ……
I found your entry interesting do I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog
…
Now, come on. Whether you agree with the separation of church and state or not, listening to you all clammer about how Christine ODonnell really meant the exact phrase is not in the constitution while the intent is clearly there is simply silly. Its like listening to a child claim that the dog ate his homework. You should be as embarrassed to make the argument as you clearly are having Christine be the one representing your views. I’m sure you’ve got someone more intelligent you could elect.
She pretty clearly was questioning the concept, not the phrase. Mr. Coons’ retort, in paraphrasing the actual passage us what she was mystified by, or worse, amused by.
Do you propose we directly contradict out founders’ explicit desires by establishing a state religion? Do you think opposition to murder & theft are values held only by Christianity? They didn’t even originate in Christianity. Is murder bad solely because it’s in one of the Ten Commandments?
so evolution is accepted science? do you know how many holes evolution has in it? and creationism is religious doctrine? isn’t evolution the doctrine of the atheist faith?
tell me this…what value systems get to form our laws, our education? secularism? godlessness? atheism? not christianity?
The State HAS established a state religion, the church of atheism, or secularism. I am not for state-run religion. I am arguing for people who have ‘religious’ values to be able to use those values to form laws, not forcing religion on people, but lobbying, like anyone else, including godless atheists, to have the laws of the land reflect THEIR values and not a godless miniority that seeks to oppress christian values in the public square…this is why we have as supposed constitutiuonal law, the fundamentally anti-christian standard of allowing women to murder their unborn children..THAT is a value-based standard, one based in godlessness
This is a pretty sad attempt at covering up a poor excuse for a conservative. Of course the words, “separation of church and state” are not in the First Amendment. But unlike all the conservatives I know, she also did not know that the amendment prohibits congress from making a law for the “establishment of religion.” If you watch from beginning to the end, it’s clear she is poorly informed about Constitutional amendments. Let’s at least seek for intelligence in our candidates. I think our founding fathers valued intelligence, education, thoughtfulness, and the ability not just to interrupt and argue, but to actually make a valid point.
no one, not her, or anyone else, wants to establish a state religion. The question is, can the state kill christian values in the public square, as godless people like you seem to want to do (clever little name there..I know that trick, pretend to be a christian and slam the faith while you do it). do you believe in secularism? if so, you can hardly be called a ‘faithful christian’. Tell me what values can influence the public square.
i bet you have no problem with state church of atheism, secularism, godlessness
No, evolution is not doctrine – it is the best explanation of phenomenon of life science has at the moment. Every aspect of it is subject to refinement, correction, and even refutation. Countless efforts to validate it have done so. Predictions based upon it have been successful. But like Newton’s theory which was likewise until Einstein came along, it is not dogma. Religious doctrine is the opposite – it is not subject to testing validation, refutation. Get it?
@paulcollier:
Would you please send me directions to this “state church of atheism, secularism, godlessness” please? As an athiest, I’ve been searching high and low for this mythical church… Oh. Wait. No, I haven’t. I’ve been busy living my life, trying to leave the world a better place than I found it (picking up litter; helping little old ladies with their groceries). Your religous attacks against posters in an attempt to drown out the fact that our core values are older than 2500 years makes me sad. I think what I’ll do now is go shopping, buy enough extra food to help the retired couple down the street who are drowning in debt because they have no savings, and go for a walk. I’m going to enjoy the glorious noon time sun, smile at my neighbors, and do my best to be a good citizen. But don’t forget, @paulcollier, I’m a baby killing athiest who, according to you, wants to brand all of Christianity as bad. Please have a wonderful day. I mean that sincerely.
<>
Why yes, yes it is. Pretty close to verbatim, actually. This exchange belies your point that Ms. O’Donnell actually knew what was contained in the 1st Ammendment, but was arguing over a semantic point.
Also, even if that *were* the point she was trying to make, it’s still wrong. The exact words “separation of church and state” are not in the Constitution, but the intent is clear. This phrase comes from Thomas Jefferson’s own writing on the meaning of that clause of the 1st Ammendment.
Look, argue all you want over whether there *should* be separation of church and state, but to argue that Christine O’Donnell somehow did not make an ass of herself or that this is not in the Constitution is ridiculous. You’re allowed to disagree with the Constitution, though. It’s why we have the ability to ammend it. Arguing about the constitutionality of a thing is not the same as arguing over what is right or wrong.
Just an FYI for you.. the constitution was written precisely to protect the people from the masses when the masses consist of people like you. somehow you have the belief system that you know whats right and those who disagree are “godless”.
I saw the video, she clearly was defending the supposition that somehow the first amendment defined separation of church and state…the SUPREME COURT said it does not completely do that, recognizing, for instance, prayer in congress, in god we trust on our money, etc……so, you have made only one point, you hate Christine O’Donnell and you hate Christian values being a part of the public square.
Do you believe that Christian values have a right to affect the public square? or do you believe in “humanistic” value systems, and just who gets to define what that even means?
Evolution is decidedly flawed and untested..and Doctrine…you see, you evolutionist fanatics get people banned from colleges for even suggesting the possibility of a divine creator..explain to me, mr evolution worhsipper, complex machines at the microbiological level…how did they magically evolve? show me the proof of spontaneous life being capable of coming into being..enough said, evolution worshipper
godlessness just means you believe in value systems not based on God…and you are the tyrant..you want to impose your minority view of a godless value system on all of us, at the federal level..I for one do not believe the federal level should have nearly the power it has today, that value systems emerge from the people, at the local level..you can have a godless value system in your town, I can choose a godly system in my time…you can be an atheist in my town, but you can’t kill your babies in my town..you can kill them in your town though
I would love to see one of you retards make the argument that there is no separation of church and state because that precise phrase is not in the First Amendment to a federal judge. After being hit with sanctions for making a frivolous argument, you would be laughed out of court.
I alllowed this comment to go through to illustrate to our readers how progressives work when they can’t win the debate, they call you names and demonize you. I am truly honored you took the time to create an email in my name and you called me a “retard”..is that a politically correct phrase to use mr bleeding heart liberal?
[...] (read the original article here: Christine O’Donnell First amendment point made- no separation of church and state phrase there- De… [...]
Paul makes an interesting point, though its not a legally defensible one. The first amendment does not create the separation of church and state; in fact, some states like Connecticut had official religions until the 1830′s. However, the 14th amendment binds the states to the entire bill of rights, including the clause regarding the establishment of religion. It’d be interesting to hear debate on whether ALL levels of government and all agents or agencies of government are so bound…
no level of government can force religion on people..not even christians can do that…..we call it free will..the argument is that Americans at the local level have the right to have their local laws, their local schools reflect their values, not teach values that are counter to theirs. The myth has emerged that there can be some value-less system that does not trample on anyone’s ‘rights’ or value systems, but that is NOT possible. There is NO valueless system. As soon as you make a decision, you create a value, like abortion- the value judgement is whether life is sacred and therefore must be protected versus the woman’s body and right to choose…..if you allow abortions, you choose to devalue the life inside..if you deny abortions, you choose to devalue the woman’s body….there is no compromise..so each locality must define for itself the values it wishes to have reflected in its laws….even a christian-based community cannot force children to pray or learn the bible..they can only offer it..but they CAN decide if gay marriage is right for them..they CAN decide if abortion is right for them..not the myth of secularism being forced on us from a top-heavy machine that becomes the de facto established religion the 1st and 14th protect us from….the church of secularism forced on the majority by the minority
The first part of my comment was supposed to have been this quoted portion of the above article:
–
When Mr. Coons offers a shorthand of the relevant section, saying, “government shall make no establishment of religion,” Ms. O’Donnell replies, “That’s in the First Amendment?”
–
I guess it got ommitted because I put little bracketty things around it. Anyway, that was central to my main point, that no matter what anyone personally thinks of the separation of church and state or the constitutional-basis thereof, O’Donnell didn’t know this was part of the 1st Ammendment at all, even when presented with something close to the actual language. She reacted as though she thought the audience was laughing with her at her opponent’s ignorance of the 1st Ammendment, when everyone was actually laughing at her rather obvious gaffe.
Your point about the Supreme Court is an interesting one, but if you familiarize yourself with the actual ruling on why it was ruled okay to have “In God We Trust” printed on our money, it’s because they decided that phrase had lost religious meaning through repetition, not because it would be okay to endorse religion itself or any one religion on our currency. So, this is an example of the Court holding that one specific example does not actually serve to establish religion, as would be proscribed by the Constitution.
Do I hate Christian values being part of the public square? Yes, I suppose I do. Frankly, I kind of hate quite a few Christian values, period (some are okay by me, like the stuff about being good to each other), but this is supposed to be a free society, and as such people are free to believe and worship as they please. What I really don’t like is people trying to impose their beliefs on others or hiding behind old documents (Bibles, Qu’rans, Constitutions) and pretending that they are without flaw can be used as a substitute for thinking and rational discussion.
And I don’t really hate Christine O’Donnell, but I do find her to be intellecutally incurious and dangerously incompetent to hold public office.
Yes, the same way you’ve called everyone who disagrees with you on this subject “godless.” Good job, man.
She was not arguing semantics. This article is just trying to cover up the fact that she is a complete idiot and couldn’t pass political science 101 in any United States Division 1 school.
“I didn’t bring my Constitution with me.” – Christine O’Donnell
Word for word, she basically states in the debate that she doesn’t know what is in the Bill of Rights. Then, she asks if that is really in there as an actual question, not as some cynical sarcastic remark.
Morality is not the same as religion. Our law and the various rules of our society should be founded on morality, which can be discussed and debated based on logic and clearly understandable thinking. A diverse, tolerant society should not be based on the practices and forms of a single group of people to which not everyone belongs. There is no morality that says that I should go to church on Sunday. There is no morality that says that I should learn creationism in school when scientific observation clearly refutes it. There IS morality that says I shouldn’t murder someone and steal there stuff. See the difference?
godless is a simple adjective that describes values and laws based on an assumption of no god
so i imagine you have the same problem with coons and his inability to cite the five freedoms in the constitution- no?
this is a lie of the secularists, the idea that “morality” is value-neutral. what is your morality on murdering the unborn, on allowing gays to marry? do we as a society get to determine our values or do some eggheads with big degrees get to determine what is “logical” (highly subjective term) and “moral” (another highly subjective term…show me your value system and I will show you how imposing it will infringe on MY value system..do you believe in the power of the local or the power of the state? I would never pass a law to force you to practice being a christian, like making you ‘go to church’, but I would not want to live in a community, if I HAD the choice, but I don’t..because secular fascism is imposed at the stat level, that allows the unborn to be murdered..is that moral? is that logical?
as for evolution being settled fact..just explain complex machines at the micro-organism level…and them come back and tell me it’s ‘settled science’..it is dogma…..atheist, secularist dogma that demands we accept as science that God is dead, or never existed..that humans are their own gods…as you wish, progressive…don’t force your state godless church on me and I won’t force my godly church on you..
morality is ALWAYS based on a value system..be it a ‘religious’ one or a secularist one (as you seem to support)….your value system of ‘logic’ is based on much less of a sure foundation than my one because it is extremely relative and subject to the interpretation of the arbitors of logic in whatever state-controlled system you dream up in your progressive worship services
Quibbling over the exact words of the First Amendment is like nitpicking over technicalities. Like it or not, the First Amendment does establish a degree of separation between religious groups (aka, establishments of religion) and the government. Congress is forbidden from passing laws benefiting any particular establishment of religion, and it is equally forbidden from interfering with the free exercise of religion. Can you honestly argue that this is not separation between churches and the state?
Also, since you brought it up in some of your comments, I have to ask: Do you understand what science is really about? Take your comments about evolution. You asked if evolution was accepted science, despite the holes in it, then leapfrogged from there to claiming that since creationism was religious doctrine, that evolution was the doctrine of some atheist faith which you claim exists but which I have seen no proof of.
Leaving that aside, let’s look at what a scientific theory really is. It is an explanation which fits the observed evidence. So, tell me, is there any evidence which validates creationism? You can’t use the Bible, because it isn’t proof – you have to use what actually appears in nature.
As of yet, the only arguments I’ve heard in favor of creationism/intelligent design are based purely on negative ‘evidence’; for example, that various organs are too complicated to have developed on their own and could only have been created as a single distinct unit. But that’s flawed, because it assumes that there is no way that a simpler organ that performed a similar function could not have developed into something more complex over time. Furthermore, it assumes so despite the mechanisms that we can observe for how life changes itself over time.
I assume that is one of the ‘holes’ in evolution you mentioned. Would you care to bring up any more of them?
Getting back to the point, evolution is a theory which fits the observed evidence that we have available. The scientific community as such constantly has new scientists coming in who are absolutely itching to find a way to make a name for themselves by knocking down an existing theory. Given the controversy over evolution, if there were actual real flaws in it (instead of exaggerated claims made by people who either don’t understand it, or have a vested interest in trying to ‘disprove’ it because of their faith), it would already have fallen as a theory, and some other, better theory would have taken its place. It’s really that simple.
You want to disprove evolution, that’s fine. But you need to actually DISPROVE it, not just state that there are flaws in it and that it’s ‘untested’, which show only how little you actually know about the whole subject.
What I find most astounding about this whole insipid ‘debate’ is the number of people who claim to worship God, yet cannot accept God using some method they don’t believe in in order to have life come about. Who are you to say that God did not use the processes of evolution in order to make it so that life could come about on any number of planets without the direct intervention claimed by Genesis?
evolution is not proven science…..it is THEORY….look up meaning to that word….creationism is also THEORY….not a proven science…NOR…does it promote ONE particular doctrine..or dogma..or religion…..many religions believe in creation theory…not just Christianity…there are atheists, by the way, who also doubt the theory of evolution..not just christians..and hindus who do…and muslims..and all kinds of people with a multiple of belief systems..but thanks for the stereotype…scientific history is rife, by the way, with accepted theory being proven wrong…so that logic is..well..illogical at best….
you understand the fight we are having here….evolution is not the fight….the right to have my values..not my specific ‘religious’ laws (like going to church or tithing or worshipping christ), but my values, like valuing human life at the moment of conception, have as much right to affect law as your human-god centered value systems do…….
Except that the scientific definition of theory is NOT the same as the common definition. The common definition boils down to mean “an untested idea or opinion”. This is very clearly the definition you’re relying on. The problem with your idea is that a scientific theory means a hypothesis (which refers to a posited explanation based on observations, and comes fairly close to the common definition of a theory) which has been tested, verified, and is accepted as being true (although they can still be tinkered with and improved).
In short, no, evolution is accepted as valid science. The only reason that any ‘controversy’ exists is because of the common layperson’s misunderstanding of the scientific definition of a theory.
Now, as for creationism, it is not a theory, it is at best a hypothesis. There is no actual proof to back up the sequence of events as written in the Bible. I don’t care how many people believe in it; belief is not proof. The same goes for any other religion’s creationist beliefs; they are not proven and thus are not anything more than beliefs.
I don’t doubt that there are people who don’t agree with the theory of evolution. But their disagreement doesn’t matter unless they can prove it wrong. And that’s all there really is to it. I will say that it is highly unlikely that evolution is ever going to be accepted as a scientific law, because we’re missing too much evidence to prove it that conclusively. But, again, that doesn’t prove it wrong.
As for your statement about accepted theory being proven wrong, theories can and have been refined as elements of them are discovered to be flawed. That isn’t the same as the theory being proven wrong, because the theory itself is still valid; it’s just the individual part which gets replaced.
By the way, who said my value system was centered around humans as gods? I certainly didn’t. I’m a Christian, and I believe in God. I just don’t accept this idea that a book written thousands of years ago by humans who were trying to come up with explanations for why the world came about is more accurate than what we can discover today through the methods of science.
For what it’s worth, I have no issues with teaching about religion in a general sense in schools. However, I vehemently reject the idea that creationism/intelligent design should be taught as scientific theories when they’re nothing of the sort, or other arguments of that ilk. If the people who prefer not to accept evolution as the valid scientific theory that it is want to disprove it, let them do so. But they have to actually disprove it, legitimately, not just make claims about its ‘flaws’ that don’t hold up to even a simple analysis.
paulcollier, Take a few minutes and talk to a scientist about what scientific theory means.
Other than mathematics, there are no laws in science. A theory is a model that explains the observed facts. When a model is created that better fits the observed facts, the theory is updated or replaced. Scientists accept this uncertainty.
Creationism has no observable facts to be checked against, thus it is not a scientific theory. Other religions may have creation myths. If you get abstract enough, they agree. Start looking at details and they diverge.
There may be atheists who do not believe in evolution. So what?
I absolutely disagree that your values should impose limits on my rights, just as my values should not limit your rights.
paulcollier, I have faith that you will reject what I write without taking the time to consider it.
If this country had an atheist value system, there would be no religion. No churches, no religious leaders, no tax breaks for churches, no restrictions on selling on alcohol on Sundays, no Easter parades, no Christmas.
Instead we have a value system based on common values and respect for the beliefs of others without allowing any one group’s religious beliefs to dictate our laws.
Want to do something about abortion? Offer to adopt a child. Lobby for better sex education. Lobby for better education in general. Push for universal health care that supplies free contraceptives.
paulcollier, No two cults of any religion agree on everything. How do you know your god is the real one? How do you know what your god thinks?
There is a huge difference between my imposing my views on society and my keeping you from imposing yours.
Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature — as “favors granted.” Jefferson’s reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion — only of establishment on the national level. In the letter Jefferson argued that the most important code in the constitution is the “wall of separation between church and state,” which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: “Separation of church and state.” It’s not a leftist, mythical, godless phrase… unless you’re willing to accept that one of our greatest founders was such a man.
[...] Review, the American Spectator, First Things, Right Wing News, and other sites—have come to her defense. They claim O’Donnell was disputing not the Constitution but liberal interpretations of it. [...]
[...] Christine O'Donnell First amendment point made- no separation of … [...]