# Is Christine O'Donnell an Imbecile Who Doesn't Know the First Amendment? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 24, 2010, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-christine-odonnell-an-imbecile-who-doesnt-know-the-first-amendment/558168 "2010-10-24T05:49:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-christine-odonnell-an-imbecile-who-doesnt-know-the-first-amendment/558168/61 "2010-10-25T19:22:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, I agree the best social policy is the one that exists now. Now that is dodging the interesting question. Do you think that the constitution read correctly permits school sponsored prayer? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-christine-odonnell-an-imbecile-who-doesnt-know-the-first-amendment/558168/62 "2010-10-25T19:30:50Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Now that is dodging the interesting question. Do you think that the constitution read correctly permits school sponsored prayer? In some circumstances, I would read the Constitution to permit a limited form of prayer, precisely akin to the practice every legislative house in the country has of opening their sessions with an invocation from a cleric of some kind. (Like that permitted in Marsh v. Chambers) ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-christine-odonnell-an-imbecile-who-doesnt-know-the-first-amendment/558168/63 "2010-10-25T19:32:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In some circumstances, I would read the Constitution to permit a limited form of prayer, precisely akin to the practice every legislative house in the country has of opening their sessions with an invocation from a cleric of some kind. In order to maintain the constitutionality of this, would you support a centrally approved list of acceptable prayers or leave this to the school to determine what language is acceptable and who may deliver it? Or is there a third option? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-christine-odonnell-an-imbecile-who-doesnt-know-the-first-amendment/558168/64 "2010-10-25T19:41:09Z")
> [@villa](#): > > In order to maintain the constitutionality of this, would you support a centrally approved list of acceptable prayers or leave this to the school to determine what language is acceptable and who may deliver it? Or is there a third option? I think an “official” list of prayers would be both limiting and constitute the very establishment the text forbids. Rather I think that broad guidelines should limit the practice from being overly intrusive (prior to important events, for example, and not a daily practice) and sufficiently inclusive (selection of benediction from rotating cross-sections of religious and secular sources). But as the Court in Marsh observed: > [@](#): > > On September 25, 1789, three days after Congress authorized the appointment of paid chaplains, final agreement was reached on the language of the Bill of Rights, (citation omitted). Clearly the men who wrote the First Amendment Religion Clauses did not view paid legislative chaplains and opening prayers as a violation of that Amendment, for the practice of opening sessions with prayer has continued without interruption ever since that early session of Congress. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-christine-odonnell-an-imbecile-who-doesnt-know-the-first-amendment/558168/65 "2010-10-25T19:45:30Z")
Oh I accept that I am flying in the face of established precedent on this - I just think the precendent is palpably wrong… I’d agree you cannot have an approved “Book of Prayers.” However, I am not sure how you can consitutionally, in the words of the King, “have it your way.” “Sufficiently inclusive” is, as far as I can see, impossible. Excluding any individual religous belief seems problemmatic to me. As soon as your invocation to Satan has been rejected, then you have a problem. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-christine-odonnell-an-imbecile-who-doesnt-know-the-first-amendment/558168/66 "2010-10-25T19:49:59Z")
Only by pretending that the “deism” you’re including is “ceremonial” - pretending that the religion you’re having the State establish actually has no content to it. If it \*really \*didn’t, why bother? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-christine-odonnell-an-imbecile-who-doesnt-know-the-first-amendment/558168/67 "2010-10-25T19:51:42Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Oh I accept that I am flying in the face of established precedent on this - I just think the precendent is palpably wrong… > > I’d agree you cannot have an approved “Book of Prayers.” However, I am not sure how you can consitutionally, in the words of the King, “have it your way.” > > “Sufficiently inclusive” is, as far as I can see, impossible. Excluding any individual religous belief seems problemmatic to me. As soon as your invocation to Satan has been rejected, then you have a problem. The problem is that you apparently wholeheartedly embrace precedent, such as incorporation, that helps you. On what basis do you approach the Court’s jurisprudence _a la carte_? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-christine-odonnell-an-imbecile-who-doesnt-know-the-first-amendment/558168/68 "2010-10-25T20:01:04Z")
Don’t misunderstand me. I accept precedent defines what the law _ **is** _. I don’t think it necessarily defines what it **should be**. Were I preparing a brief to defend a client’s position on this, I would recognize _Marsh_ as controlling. I might argue for its reversal, but I wouldn’t base the whole brief on that. Similarly, if in the 1940’s I was arguing a case that African American students in Alabama were illegally discriminated against, I would not lead with an attempt to have **Plessey** overturned. I’d argue that the resources provided for African American education were such that the provided schools were separate but not equal. Hell - probably the worst decided case in the history of the U.S. still out there (and that might be worth a thread) is the _Slaughterhouse Cases_. The Court was flat out wrong there, but trying to fight a discrimination case on the basis of Priviliges and Immunities ain’t gonna get you far. That doesn’t alter the fact that both _Marsh_ and _Plessey_ were wrong when decided. How do I decide what I feel is wrong? Same way as you do, I imagine. I apply my legal knowledge and analytical technique to the case itself, and attempt to discern an answer. Where we come to a different answer, you just simply need to realize I am right and you are wrong. I think, from what I have read, the Court’s decisions on incorporation have been generally correct. Personally I’d go for whole hog incorporation, and damn the consequences. Court didn’t think so, though. Court’s wrong there, but the outcome is right when they incorporate piecemeal (even though their method is wrong). ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-christine-odonnell-an-imbecile-who-doesnt-know-the-first-amendment/558168/69 "2010-10-25T23:00:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, I agree the best social policy is the one that exists now. So IOW: No religeous instruction in public school (McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71) No school sponsered prayer (even if it’s nondenominational) (Engel v. Vitale) No reading of the Bible over the intercom (Abington School District v. Schempp) No posting of The Ten Commandments (Stone v. Graham) ? ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-christine-odonnell-an-imbecile-who-doesnt-know-the-first-amendment/558168/70 "2010-10-25T23:29:18Z")
The Founding Fathers never intended the 1st Amendment to apply to the states. Look at Connecticut that had an official religion until 1818. I agree with O’Donnell that the First Amendment does not explicitly ban separation of Church and State, but likewise I agree that as governments became stronger, not separating Church and State is a violation in spirit of the Amendment ---
**Author:** ![B.Serum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/b.serum/32/14266_2.png) [@B.Serum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/B.Serum)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-christine-odonnell-an-imbecile-who-doesnt-know-the-first-amendment/558168/71 "2010-10-26T01:20:54Z")
> [@ruadh](#): > > …You can argue the framers didn’t mean the separation to go quite as far as it has, in fact they probably didn’t…\ Except for, you know, [Thomas Jefferson](http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html). ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-christine-odonnell-an-imbecile-who-doesnt-know-the-first-amendment/558168/72 "2010-10-26T03:16:15Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > The Founding Fathers never intended the 1st Amendment to apply to the states. Look at Connecticut that had an official religion until 1818. I agree with O’Donnell that the First Amendment does not explicitly ban separation of Church and State, but likewise I agree that as governments became stronger, not separating Church and State is a violation in spirit of the Amendment The probably did, but there was the real political consideration of actually getting the states to agree on accepting the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-christine-odonnell-an-imbecile-who-doesnt-know-the-first-amendment/558168/73 "2010-10-26T05:46:14Z")
> [@B.Serum](#): > > Except for, you know, [Thomas Jefferson](http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html). Haven’t we already established that Jefferson wasn’t one of the framers? ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-christine-odonnell-an-imbecile-who-doesnt-know-the-first-amendment/558168/74 "2010-10-26T05:55:51Z")
Would O’Donnell have made her point better if she asked “where in the Constitution is the right to remain silent”? ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 10:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-christine-odonnell-an-imbecile-who-doesnt-know-the-first-amendment/558168/75 "2010-10-26T10:33:40Z")
> [@ruadh](#): > > Haven’t we already established that Jefferson wasn’t one of the framers? Well, James Madison was [definitely one of the Framers](http://www.loc.gov/wiseguide/may05/constitution.html) (of both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights). And he had pretty strong views about the separation of church and state, or no establishment of religion, or whatever you want to call it: > [@](#): > > Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever? – James Madison, [_Memorial and Remonstrance_](http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions43.html), 1785 As for the terminological debate–should we call it “separation of church and state” or “no law respecting an establishment of religion” or what you will–I kind of like to go with good old-fashioned originalism and call it “separation of religion and government”: > [@](#): > > Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together. – James Madison, [Letter to Edward Livingston](http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/madison_livingston.html), July 10, 1822 ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-christine-odonnell-an-imbecile-who-doesnt-know-the-first-amendment/558168/76 "2010-10-26T11:45:28Z")
> [@ruadh](#): > > Haven’t we already established that Jefferson wasn’t one of the framers? Yet also as established earlier… _“Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was a prototype for the First Amendment”_ Also as established earlier… _"The phrase “separation of church and state” became a definitive part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in Reynolds v. U.S. 98 U.S. 145 (1878), where the court examined Jefferson’s involvement with the amendment and concluded that his interpretation was “almost an authoritative declaration” of its meaning. … "_ ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-christine-odonnell-an-imbecile-who-doesnt-know-the-first-amendment/558168/77 "2010-10-26T13:05:33Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Yet also as established earlier… > > _“Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was a prototype for the First Amendment”_ Well, let’s look at the text of that statute. It begins thusly: > [@](#): > > Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free; > > that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, How would you like that put into the Constitution? ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-christine-odonnell-an-imbecile-who-doesnt-know-the-first-amendment/558168/78 "2010-10-26T13:37:23Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > Would O’Donnell have made her point better if she asked “where in the Constitution is the right to remain silent”? Well she would have been better off if Coons explained she had such a right and she in turned used it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-christine-odonnell-an-imbecile-who-doesnt-know-the-first-amendment/558168/79 "2010-10-26T14:05:07Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > So IOW: > No religeous instruction in public school (McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71) > > No school sponsered prayer (even if it’s nondenominational) (Engel v. Vitale) > > No reading of the Bible over the intercom (Abington School District v. Schempp) > > No posting of The Ten Commandments (Stone v. Graham) > > ? My statement was more of a general one regarding the sense of the general current public policy, and not intended as an enthusiastic endorsement of each SCOTUS decision. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-christine-odonnell-an-imbecile-who-doesnt-know-the-first-amendment/558168/80 "2010-10-26T14:07:42Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > Would O’Donnell have made her point better if she asked “where in the Constitution is the right to remain silent”? No, because her opponent would have said, “Well, that right is inferred from ‘…nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…’” And she’d reply with a disbelieving tone, “You’re saying that ‘not compelled to be a witness against himself’ is in the Constitution??” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-christine-odonnell-an-imbecile-who-doesnt-know-the-first-amendment/558168.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-christine-odonnell-an-imbecile-who-doesnt-know-the-first-amendment/558168.md?page=5)