Now, it seems to me that some people are arguing that she is technically correct because the words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the Bill of Rights. I would submit that those people are retards because the First Amendment is pretty clear in that the government cannot restrict any religion nor set any religeon above another. Decades of subsequent Supreme Court decisions have backed up the interpretation of the First Amendment as a separation of church and state.
In fact that seems to be a common debating tactic of “Tea Party” types (as well as stupid people in general for that matter). That is to say, to be deliberately obtuse and pedantically pick apart technicalities and irrelevant minutiae in an attempt to distract from any real argument and claim “victory” when the other side simply gives up in frustration and disgust.
So to clarify the topic of the debate:
Is there any doubt that the First Amendment refers to a separation of church and state, even though the phrase is not specifically stated?
For bonus points: Did Christine O’Donnell know the First Amendment and was trying to be clever or is she just ign’ant?
I think she wasn’t actually listening to what Coons was saying. He never said that that phrase is in the Constitution, but instead was careful to say that case law has established as so. Ironically, she was playing a Gotcha Game and lost.
Does she know the First Amendment? Obviously not, not in any real sense. Is she an imbecile? Not in the technical sense. Stupid liar, definitely. She’s in it for the power, obviously. But there is a stronger case that anyone who votes for her or supports her is an imbecile. But, as Karl Rove discovered, it is not politically correct for a Republican to criticize her.
Running and supporting such a nitwit indicates that the Republican Party is intellectually and morally bankrupt. Jar-jar Binks was a better legislator than she would be.
I don’t think so. You can argue the framers didn’t mean the separation to go quite as far as it has, in fact they probably didn’t, but forbidding Congress to establish an official religion is pretty much imposing separation of church and state by definition.
It’s pretty clear from watching that clip. The attempts to spin it as her trying to be clever are pathetic. Nobody except the most die hard Christine O’Donnell supporters could possibly believe that.
The developed case law makes that very clear. But there is an argument to be made that our case law got that wrong; “make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” is not the same as “separation of church and state.” Indeed, if “separation of church and state” were the actual law, it would be hard to justify the current ceremonial deism exceptions.
That’s the argument, I think, that O’Donnell was trying to make. But because she’s an idiot, she failed spectacularly.
She was trying to be clever. But she failed. Because in watching the clip, she obviously doesn’t even know what the actual words of the First Amendment say. It;s one thing to smugly deny “separation of church and state.” Although that’s a fair summary of case law, it’s not the text. But she questions whether the First Amendment says “Congress cannot make laws establishing religion,” which the text DOES say.
So in her oh-so-clever attempt to make a subtle point, all she did was expose her own vast ignorance.
That seems to be a common Tea Party trait. They seem to take exception over the media (both Liberal and regular) playing the “Gotcha Game” when their candidates are caught being ignorant of what seems to me to be important things they should know about policy or current events. However their response is to play the Gotcha Game by being overly pedantic and obtuse regarding obscure facts and commonly accepted beliefs or to make bizzarre inuendo over minnor inconsistancies.
I feel the Tea Party is a vast grass roots movement by ignoramuses (ignorami?) who really don’t understand anything about economics, foreign policy or any other relevant topic and are trying to fill that void with jingoism.
I think she does, and just doesn’t like what it says. But that is much harder to defend when your whole schtick is “get back to the Constitution,” so feigned obtuse ignorance seemed like a good idea that backfired on her.
The fact that the idiot is a contender for the office is horrifying; the possibility that she might well be elected is more so. For a person like her to receive even the tacit support of the Republican Party suggests to me that there is no low to which that party will not stoop in their quest for power.
It’s hard to justify anyway. The notion of deism being “ceremonial” was invented precisely for the purpose of handwaving the Constitution away. The fact that you yourself embrace that dodge does not support your claim that the First does not entail SOCAS.
To the OP, O’Donnell is no imbecile, merely comfortably “ign’ant”. She seems to have ordinary intelligence but fails to apply it. IOW, as she says, “I’m you”.
See this is what I don’t get. How could our case law “get it wrong”? The Supreme Court interprets the meaning and application of the Constitution. They have repeatedly interpreted the First Amendment to mean a separation of church and state. So by definition, their interpretation IS the actual law.
Watching the clip of the debate, it was clear that she thought the audience (at a law school!) was laughing with her rather than at her. She later confirmed this in interviews, claiming to mystified over how “the liberal media” had spun Coon’s gaff into something different.
She is stupid squared: So stupid she doesn’t even know she is stupid.
The SCOTUS can reverse itself, as it has on a number of occasions. Would you not say that they “got it wrong” then? Did they get it right in Dred Scott? There is a difference between getting it right and laying down the law. You can play semantic games all day about what the definition of “right” is.
I didn’t see the whole debate, but I seem to recall from the news summaries that the topic was whether or not Creationism could (or should) be taught alongside evolution in schools. Now, that’s a little more complicated than even the SoCaS issue because it also speaks to the incorporation of the 1st amendment establishment clause, which is fairly recent. So, one might make the case that they “got it wrong” when they incorporated that clause. I would be surprised if she understood the concept of incorporation, though.
[Hijack]
I’m not actually sure that this is true. I think that with an explicit “separation of church and state” it’s easier to justify ceremonial deism because many things go into making a church. If I’m not mistaken, the idea behind ceremonial deism is that a generic, least-common-denominator God gets evoked to give various ceremonies and the like some kind of gravitas. But in this situation, there is no doctrine, there is no hierarchy, there is no preaching. In short there is no church, which seems to imply that ceremonial deism is watered down enough to keep church and state separated. Whereas, religion itself does not need any of these things to be developed, thus making it much easier to run afoul of the actual establishment clause.
[/Hijack]
IMHO she was trying for the old “the 1st amendment doesn’t contain the words ‘separation of church and state’” argument. Also IMHO, it is stupid to make that argument in the first place, and it is even more stupid to fumble it as poorly as she did.
She is an imbecile who seems to be adept at lying about her education, personal finances and lifestyle when it suits her, then crying victim when she is called on her naked dishonesty…
I think that she was going for the Glenn Beck University point that the separation of C&S is a liberal fallacy. Unfortunately, the line of argument falls apart in an instant. She was not prepared for that–she was thinking she’d get in a good point that would play well to her base and bolster her talk radio/Fox News cred. It did the latter, but highlighted the shallowness of the GB point, which in turn reflected on her.
In terms of smartypantsness, the more accurate comparison is between her and the Becks, Limbaughs, Hannities, etc. of the world: those able to take and argue absurdities and innanities with a straight face and a quick enough stream of logical convolutions to slip by the majority of their fans.
In my experience this is a primary hallmark of stupid people. Smart people tend to be aware of what they don’t know. Stupid people on the other hand are sure they have all the answers and if they even acknowledge there is something they don’t know they dismiss it as unimportant.
