Tea Party Favorite O'Donnell doesn't know 1st Amendment- Seperation of Church and State

This is bad folks. How can a senate nominee not know this? I really hope this isn't a precursor to the things to come.

Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that "religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools."

"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.

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 on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.

"You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp," Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone said after the debate, adding that it raised questions about O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution.

Erin Daly, a Widener professor who specializes in constitutional law, said that while there are questions about what counts as government promotion of religion, there is little debate over whether the First Amendment prohibits the federal government from making laws establishing religion.

news.yahoo.com...;_ylt=AhiTGytRRQzmSKvTfih.ZJhH2ocA;_ylu=X3o'___'NncXRsbHVyBGFzc2V0Ay9zL2FwLzIwMTAxMD E5L2FwX29uX2VsX3NlL3VzX2RlbGF3YXJlX3NlbmF0ZQRjY29kZQNleHByZARjcG9zAzkEcG9zAzkEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawNvZG9ubmVsbHF1ZXM-

Thats not in the Constitution. All that's in the Constitution is "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof." So she's right.

reply to post by toolstarr


But "Shes You"

And people are just dumb enough to vote for that idiot?

And spacekc929, if schools were required to teach Christian creationism, wouldn't that be establishing Christianity as an official religion? Some religions origin story has humans coming up from a hole in the ground. God snapping his fingers is just one creationism story.

If the public school were required to teach Christian Creationism as a primary subject or as the only alternative to Evolution and the Big Bang then yes, it would be; if a public school had a series of classes (elective) that taught on the philosophy of religion and all religions it would not be.

Everybody knows if you bend knee for one silly belief you will have to bend knee for all.

It's a fine line of that's better off not walked; probably the reason the it was written into the first amendment as it was.

She seems to be confused. I wonder who is giving her information? It is a bad omen for me that the the tea party is backing this woman. what is next, the church if america? Just my thoughts, thanks for the post

Obama said there was 57 states and that did not make obama an idiot in your guys eyes.... people make mistakes. get over it. stop nit picking people to death.

She didn't know it was the first amendment.
Coons is smarter by a long shot.
But a vote for him is a vote for Obama and his policies.
That's why she got this far.
Not because she's a good choice, but because people don't want to send Coons to DC to support Obama.

Originally posted by spacekc929
Thats not in the Constitution. All that's in the Constitution is "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof." So she's right.

That is precisely what her opponent stated and she said "That's in the first Amendment?"

See 2:30, 3:30 and 7:00 on this vid...You can even hear the shock and laughter of the audience

Originally posted by FlyersFan
She didn't know it was the first amendment.
Coons is smarter by a long shot.

Or she is as dumb as rocks...6 of this..half dozen of another..

Originally posted by FlyersFan
But a vote for him is a vote for Obama and his policies.

Is it just me being tired of election season or is the bumper sticker rhetoric starting to offend anyone else's intelligence?

If the best argument is that she doesn't have a (D) by her name then that is pretty desperate.

Can the party that claims to want to "Return to the Constitution!!!!" at least read it first.

Is that too much to ask?

I wouldn't vote for her.

People need to realise the TEA Party was co-opted/created with big republican money as nothing more than a tool to re-brand the Republicans after the disaster of a President that was GW.

You do remember him dont you?

Which one of these things is government establishing a religion? And which national religion does it establish?

1. Prayer in schools.
2. Displaying the 10 Commandment at a courthouse.
3. National day of prayer.

I could go on, but the point is the seperation of church and state is not in the Constitution, but it is used to discourage minor displays of religious actions in public. Whereas the 1st Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion. 2 VERY different things.

reply to post by spacekc929

Originally posted by toolstarr

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 on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.

"You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp," Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone said after the debate, adding that it raised questions about O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution.

Erin Daly, a Widener professor who specializes in constitutional law, said that while there are questions about what counts as government promotion of religion, there is little debate over whether the First Amendment prohibits the federal government from making laws establishing religion.

Note Coons didn't say the separation of church and state was specifically in the Constitution. He said the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion. He was correct and that's what it says.

O'Donnell said, "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?" She brought down the house, but not because they were supporting her. She apparently hasn't even read the Constitution.

Clearly O'Donnell, like Palin, is there to represent the Religious Right and they do not think it is necessary for her to understand the Constitution or the workings of the law. They themselves insist they are strict Constitutionalists but in fact they are only strict on the parts they like. The rest they ignore. No, they are trying to elect O'Donnell because she is a faithful mouthpiece for their agenda and to their minds it probably is best if she doesn't think for herself.

It doesn't matter to her supporters what she knows or what her I.Q. is. She's parroting their line and that's all that matters to them.

Unfortunately, her supporters are the kind of dogged ideologues who will show up at the polls in November when the forces of the left are only lukewarm about the president and many will probably stay at home. So frightening as the thought is (and it frightens me--I'm going to vote!) she may well win the election.

If for no reason other than to keep nuts and fanatics from grabbing the reins of government again (as they did while Bush was in office) I would encourage all those who truly understand and respect the Constitution to get their asses in gear and go vote come November.

reply to post by toolstarr



You are very young I can tell the man who is a heart beat away from the presidency,whose seat she is trying to winn,is and was a complete idiot.

Back in the day,when main stream media was more neutral,back in the 70's when he was a junior Senator,they would have a commentor who would report on some stupid thing Biden would say,to show his ignorance.

I guess if the people of Delaware would elect this guy 5 or 6 times then she will fit in perfectly.

Actually it is not in the Constitution as it was originally written.

It is in the first Amendment to the Constitution.

I am pretty sure even Biden does not know what all the amendments are.

He used to ride the train back and for from Delaware to D.C.

He could never figure out the freeways and the beltway around D.C. and could not even read the signs while driving.

Or knew which way east and west was.

I heard he has a secret service agent assigned to find his butt for him.

reply to post by Oneolddude


does not matter if it is an amendment! an amendment is part of the constitution and therefore law! my god! would you say the same thing about the 2nd? speaking of which, what about the part that says "a well regulated militia?" seems to be left out quite a bit?

this woman is an embarrassment. never had a job and doe not lead the life she preaches!

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

My conclusion upon the matter is that in its purest sense, the above ia a restriction upon Congress and Congress only to never be able to do two things: One, legislate law that will respect on religion over another and two, legislate law that would stop someone from exercising their religion of choice.

Yet, they have done so via multiple avenues. Our tax code, which originates within the House of Representative (aka Congress) is law both respecting and prohibiting religion. Given that it is the tax code that codifies what exactly shall be determined what is a religion for tax purposes.

A second example is the Federal involvement in State cases and local cases regarding religiously connected items on display in or around public buildings. This too violates the First Amendment, as it prohibits the exercise thereof of the people.

What candidate O'Donnell says, is contextually and factually correct. That there is no separation of Church and State within the First Amendment. There is however, a prohibition placed upon Congress to legislate law in regards to a religion establishment and their ability to restrict the people from exercising whatever religion they see fit. What the States and People do is not within the scope of the Federal Government, well, it used to be that way.

This debate really should have been about what was said within the first few seconds in regards to what candidate Coon replied to. He states that a State and by extension, communities of that State have no right to teach what they see fit, by representation of the people of that State or community have deemed acceptable.

By proxy, the Federal Government has sidestepped the First, Ninth and Tenth Amendments with the creation and establishment of the Department of Education. Through that department, policy is created that prohibits the free exercise clause by deeming all public schools there own, and not the States'.

Reply to post by ownbestenemy

She is right.

So what is the issue here?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

She is an idiot. Here is a "best of" video on you tube of her. Of course most people in politics are not there because they are smart. It's because they know the right people or can kiss butt with the best. The system is broken and the goons are on both sides, but yes she is a doozy.

hope she wins just to make all you libs mad. I love how you dig up every little bit of dirt on her but when it comes to obama..................................................................cant dig up dirt on our dear leader!

reply to post by Oneolddude


If she was running against Biden, you long, irrelevant rant about Biden might be relevant.

But in the context of reality, your post is off-topic, has no bearing on her candidacy, her opponent, the election she is competing in and is just more of the same distraction tactics. Biden is prone to say stupid things...WTF does that have to do with this OP?

Originally posted by camaro68ss
hope she wins just to make all you libs mad. I love how you dig up every little bit of dirt on her but when it comes to obama..................................................................cant dig up dirt on our dear leader!

This seems to be the destructive attitude of many on the far right...eager to support racists and proud idiots...because they think it will "make liberals mad".

The threshold for support by the far right has de-evolved into...the dumber the better...For the sake of the country, as well as the GOP, how about you stop thinking like a 5 year old.

FYI - When a candidate proudly makes an idiot out of themselves on national TV during a debate, it does not qualify as "digging up dirt".