Help please me determine whether an anti-O’Donnell news report is accurate *UPDATED*
Bookworm on Oct 19 2010 at 8:10 am | Filed under: Religion
I have to admit to being a little suspicious of an AP report that has O’Donnell appropriately saying that there’s nothing in the constitution about separation of church and state (that, as you know, comes from a letter Jefferson wrote), but then states that she does not know that the 1st Amendment says that Congress cannot establish a religion.
Here’s why I’m suspicious: The reporter says that Coons said that the Constitution says the feds cannot establish a religion, but doesn’t actually quote Coons directly. Immediately after, though, the report quotes O’Donnell verbatim when she asks “You’re telling me that’s in the First Amendment?” I’m wondering why there’s no direct Coons quote. Is that because he didn’t actually express himself with the clarity the AP reporter implies or was this just a matter of elegant essay writing?
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?”
Any help you can give would be much appreciated. Maybe O’Donnell really is ignorant about the Constitution, or maybe the AP is giving Coons a little help.
UPDATE: Apparently the report is accurate:
Coons said that creationism, which he considers “a religious doctrine,” should not be taught in public schools due to the Constitution’s First Amendment. He argued that it explicitly enumerates the separation of church and state.
“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 First Amendment?”
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” Coons responded, reciting from memory the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
“That’s in the First Amendment…?” O’Donnell responded.
What we now have are two Senatorial candidates who are ignorant about the First Amendment. Coons knows what it says, but doesn’t get what it means; O’Donnell gets what it means, but doesn’t know what it says.
Related posts:
- The irrelevancy of Christine O’Donnell’s personal beliefs *UPDATED*
- What the media sees fit to report about news out of Iraq
- Looking into the crystal ball to determine how Obama will act after the midterms *UPDATED*
Email This Post To A Friend
12 Responses to “Help please me determine whether an anti-O’Donnell news report is accurate *UPDATED*”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“Coons knows what it says, but doesn’t get what it means; O’Donnell gets what it means, but doesn’t know what it says.” And that is an absolutely perfect summation!
Welll… you _could_ give her the benefit of the doubt and credit her with questioning again that the separation of church and state is included in the quote Coons made… As in “No establishment” _requires_ separation…?
But Danny – and you – are probably right. Sadly.
By the way…just as an odd addendum…did you notice that when the last miner was out of the Chilean mine last week, that the entire assemblage sang together what was apparently the Chilean national anthem? I don’t speak Spanish, so they could have been singing anything, but whatever it was, they all knew the words, and they all sang it together. Could any random of US citizens do that any more? How about school children??
I’ve given thought lately about how important it is that children learn songs – and poems. For some reason, rote learning has fallen into disfavor, but the fact is that given moments of stress, it’s the rote memory that kicks in…
I don’t trust SFgate. I don’t trust See BS news either.
Their transcripts are as good as mud.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”
So basically the Dems want to make a law about religion when the the First Amendment says Congress cannot make any law with respect to an establishment of religion or a religion’s establishment.
Disagree with your perfect summation: O’Donnell is perfectly and 100% correct in all respects. Perhaps she’s simply too intelligent for the audience, who all went, “oooohh…” when she said that. She’s assuming that everybody in the room was as informed and as smart as she is. Apparently her assumption was/is wrong. The fact is, nowhere in the Constitution does it proclaim a “separation of church and state.” She not only knows what it means, she also does in fact know how to read and knows what it says – which a dismayingly gigantic number of Americans, including Mr. Coons, evidently don’t.
To say that the state will not proclaim a church (as an “official” religion) is quite different than saying that state and church are to be separate. The one simple statement in the Constitution is neither as broad nor as far-reaching as is widely supposed – or as the liberals have come to pretend it is.
There is not a word in the Constitution that orders a separation between church and state. Not one.
I agree with you, jj, completely. The way the story is framed, though, it makes it sound as if O’Donnell was unfamiliar with the Constitution’s actual language. She clearly understands what it means, but was careless (naive?) enough to leave the conversation hanging as if she was ignorant. There are no do-overs in politics.
“The way the story is framed”
So what. The story is framed and now there is no do over?
There’s plenty. It’s called propaganda. They make their own and then it is countered.
Every election there is a do over in politics. There are plenty of do overs. Propaganda even has more of them.
“but was careless (naive?) enough to leave the conversation hanging as if she was ignorant.”
The media will get you whether you are naive or careful.
It’s propaganda. That’s what it is there for. To make white, black. To make freedom into slavery. To make good into evil.
You cannot beat it simply by “Being” Good.
Well, she probably did better than I would have by just letting it hang. I (according to my wife, the Iron Butterfly) would have looked out over the audience and said something like: “Are you all morons? Because what that ‘oooooh’ tells me is that not one of you out there knows how to read. This guy, Coons, I expect it from, but all of you?”
I probably wouldn’t get elected, either – but I kind of agree with Y: make the damn point, whether it comes with a cost or not. Wake up, America – you can’t do it any younger!
Rush played the applicable sound bites today to illustrate how the media reporting distorted the story.
Her response was clearly to Coon’s allegation that separation of church and state was included in the First Amendment. She was correctly challenging his erroneous statement.
Book, you may be giving Coons more credit than he deserves. The quote you re-printed, was half of the First Amendment. Did he also quote that Congress shall pass no law preventing the free exercise of religion? Does he understand that part any better than the part with which he tried to bludgeon O’Donnell?
The writer you are quoting also seems to use the terms “creationism” and “intelligent design” inter-changeably. I am not sure that is correct. Creationism is a loaded word, much favored by scoffers of Religion. Intelligent Design, although you might argue is rooted in the same concept, simply suggests that all of this could not have happened by coincidence. One would argue that this theory could be perfectly acceptable to many besides Christians. In fact, it is a term favored by many Scientists, who believe there must have been something happening other than the Big Bang. Note that O’Donnell actually used the term “Intelligent Design”.
Later, she asked Coons which 5 freedoms were actually enumerated in the First Amendment. He had no clue; but erroneously used separation of church and state as the only one he enumerated.
O’Donnell has some quirks. She may, or may not, be the brightest bulb in the chandelier. Either way, She should feel at home in the Senate. All I ask is that she remain true to her limited government, pro-constitution beliefs.
I don’t believe a damn thing the Left tells me.
It’s rather healthy that way, you know.