Christine O'Donnell: "Where in the Constitution is the Separation of Church and State?"

Republican Senate Candidate Christine O'Donnell today challenged her Democratic opponent Chris Coons on his statement that the Constitution disallowed the integration of religion into the federal government, asking, "Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?"

The exchange, which prompted laughs from the studio audience, came during a debate this morning at Delaware's Widener School of Law, which was aired by WDEL radio.

In a discussion over the whether or not public schools should be allowed to integrate religion-based ideas into science curricula, O'Donnell argued that local school districts should have the choice to teach intelligent design if they choose.

When asked point blank by Coons if she believed in evolution, however, O'Donnell reiterated that her personal beliefs were not germane.  "What I think about the theory of evolution is irrelevant," she emphasized, adding later that the school of thought was "not a fact but a theory."

Critical Contests: CBS News Election 2010 Race Ratings

See all the Ratings for Senate, House and Governors in an Interactive Map

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?"

"Government shall make no establishment of religion," Coons responded, reciting from memory the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (Coons was off slightly: The first amendment actually reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.")

"That's in the First Amendment...?" O'Donnell responded. 

Also during the debate, O'Donnell stumbled when asked whether or not she would repeal the 14th, 16th, or 17th Amendments if elected.

"The 17th Amendment I would not repeal," she said, before asking the questioner to define the 14th and 16th amendments, adding: "I'm sorry, I didn't bring my Constitution with me."

Christine O'Donnell Tries to Leave Past Behind in Debate
Christine O'Donnell's Video Mashup
Christine O'Donnell: My Views on Evolution are "Irrelevant"
Christine O'Donnell TV Ad: "I'm Not a Witch...I'm You"

The 16th Amendment allows Congress to raise taxes without apportioning them among the states or tying the taxation to Census results. The 14th Amendment grants citizenship to everyone born in the United States. The 17th Amendment established direct election by popular vote of two U.S. Senators to each state .

Earlier in the debate, O'Donnell accused Coons of constitutional ignorance, saying that "perhaps they didn't teach you Constitutional law at Yale Divinity School."

O'Donnell's campaign later defended her comments about the First Amendment in a statement, arguing that she "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," said O'Donnell's campaign manager, Matt Moran. "It was in fact Chris Coons who demonstrated his ignorance of our country's founding documents when he could not name the five freedoms contained in the First Amendment."

11 Photos

Christine O'Donnell's 10 Most Controversial Statements

---

Lucy Madison is a political reporter for CBSNews.com. You can read more of her posts here. Follow Hotsheet on Facebook and Twitter.

[CarolinaCapitalist]

What idiots libs make of themselves when they ridicule Conservatives! The only people mocking and laughing at Christine for these statements are those that have no clue as to what the side of the debate is that a Conservative has with their "pet" interpretations of our Constitution. The wording "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution and the intrepretation of "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion" has been long debated. The libs are so narrow minded and imposing of the "wall" that it is totally leaving off the part that says "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof". Today the libs "separation" intrepretation borders on "atheism" or "polytheism"..which in itself are religions. It pushes the wall of separation to the point that today's culture believes that saying Jesus or God is like using profanity....Though libs want to demand that their own interpretation of the "wall of separation" keep any religious (but that to them means only as it refers to the Christian or Jewish faiths) totally out of any gov't funded institution...ah but they get all "wee-weed up" when you bring up Evolution...totally oblivious to the fact that Evolution is not only a theory but actually has established a the scientific religion on every school student. Darwin himself had to have some other belief and theory other than the Biblical one. Science itself should never be censored in discussion nor riduculed when a "theory" is challenged or debated. Since 95% of all Americans are taught the Christian belief it is the schools that fly in the face of a person's religious beliefs in insisting that no other theory or belief in our origin be at least discussed in the classroom. That's like laughing at Columbus for beieving the world was round and not flat. I personally believe that there was life on this planet with creatures that resembled man, then came a lst flood (Noah's was the second) that wiped out the living creatures, then God visited the earth again bringing for the creatures in the sea and creating new creatures and this time created man that we see today with much more intellect. Hey but that's me. The Constitution is WE THE PEOPLE...the majority of which have been taught creationism so to deny and totally refute God's creation of earth is definitely imposing an atheistic religion upon the people of America..and this is where the "wall of separation" should really be argued.

[JelloWasabi]

So you believe in "Mob Rule". Is that what your America is about? Are you saying that if enough people believe in something that it must be true?

[ge556]

The establishment clause IS in the constitution, and O'Donnell didn't seem to know that. C00ns did.

Atheism is not a religion. It is the lack of a religion. Apparently, you are unable to wrap your brain around that fact.

Try learning what a scientific theory is. Evolution is the ONLY theory for the development of species. IDers try to portray ID as a theory, but it is not one, it is myth and deception, and therefore does not belong in the science classroom.

TruthTeller

[MarkLaRochelle]

O'Donnel war right; Coons was wrong.


http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39596#

[ge556]

How can she be "right", when she just kept asking questions? She didn't know that the establishment clause was in the first amendment. C00ns did flub the wording of the establishment clause, but he at least had a clue. TruthTeller

[dddienst]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-1027-page-20101027,0,2442008.column

[NoWayJose9999]

Right wing morons want to turn the U.S. into a religious dictatorship.(Based on THEIR twisted version of Christianity) What's next? The snake handlers in public office?

[bankersvox]

The Democrat could not even list our freedoms.... that is really really scary.

[ge556]

Your fear is misdirected.

[Druthulhu]

there's a list of "our freedoms" some place other than in the Bill of Rights and its further amendments? I'd like to hear about that list. Seems like they might have mentioned it while I was in school, 'cause it sounds like the kind of important thing they cover there. I guess that just proves how terrible public education is, huh? 'cause they didn't tell us that there was a "list of our freedoms" anywhere OTHER than in the amendments to the constitution. Maybe you could post that list here, bankersvox? Is it one of those things only you high-level citizens with your special decoder rings can actually access?

Please, tell us.

[RobertCFP]

Be0wulf, you are a fool. First off, the "concept" of separation of church and state is NOT "in there". You are, as so many liberals do, blowing a single statement by Jefferson in a personal letter to the Danbury Baptists completely out of context. You are an idiot or simply dense. You and your ilk seem to conveniently take ONE sentence in letter as gospel, yet ignore the plethura of other much more significant writings of all the found fathers that make it quite clear that the involvement of a great reverence for God was intrinsic in our government. I'm sick of you people getting away with that garbage. And as for evolution, it is NOT "proven". It's still a theory, with a lot more than "loose ends" to tie up. It's got so many holes in it that it takes as much "faith" to believe it as it does to believe creationism. How remarkable blind you are.

[ge556]

RobertCFP said, "And as for evolution, it is NOT "proven". It's still a theory, with a lot more than "loose ends" to tie up. It's got so many holes in it that it takes as much "faith" to believe it as it does to believe creationism. How remarkable blind you are."
==================================================================================
A person has to be mightly blind to make such a statement about evolution. It is indeed proven. And creationism has no evidence at all, just lies. The biggest problem with it is that it bypasses all the difficult questions by saying "God did it", but refuses to consider the even bigger question that that raises, namely, "How did God come to exist?" TruthTeller

[NoWayJose9999]

Better stop spending so much time with your meth lab in your doublewide trailer.
The problem for people like you is that reality is sooooooo problematic......

[coonswrong]

Labeling Christine "dumb and ignorant" makes you feel secure, warm & fuzzy?

Try again with an open mind - here's debate video you haven't seen:

http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2010/20101021024521.aspx

[ge556]

Your "biasalert" article sure showed its bias. They claimed that O'Donnell made an 'assertion that the words "separation of church and state" aren't anywhere in the Constitution'. She made no such assertion. She asked whether they were, and then, in response to C00ns's comments, asked whether they were in the first amendment, and then asked whether the establishment clause was in the first amendment. She appeared surprised that there was anything in the constitution about religion. Her "gotcha" moment against C00ns was unimpressive. I couldn't necessarily recite the 5 points of the 1st, but I know the establishment clause is in there, and it is related to "separation of church and state", which she appeared not to know. If she did know it, I wonder why she didn't even try to show it. TruthTeller

[Be0wulf]

Ya'll should read what Thomas Paine had to say about the "virgin birth." Okay, historical context here. England, and most of Europe supported religion out of public coffers. Many of the colonies/states also supported particular religions. This is a sore point for those who had to pay the taxes, and support religions that they viewed as heresy. The Baptists were particularly adamant that state support and for that matter federal support of religion stop. Most of our founding fathers developed their whole political philosophy from the European Enlightenment; thus, they viewed religion with suspicion. Ben Franklin was particularly sly--he gave money to many religions to avoid offending people. Read what he had to say about the evangelist George Whitfield: it is hilarious. The draft for what we now call the ten amendments was written by James Madison--see the above quotes to get the feel of his ideas. O'Donnell is correct that the explicit words are not there, but the concept is there. This is why she is being ridiculed. If she can't understand language as straightforward as the First Amendment, how does she hope to be a Senator. And her thoughts on evolution are very telling. She believes that intelligent design is science--it is nothing more than the Judeo-Christian concept of creation in a new book binding. The Federal courts have made that clear--the Judge in Pennsylvania that ruled on the decision was a Reagan appointee. I don't think the Supreme court even bothered with the case. Evolution is a theory: as far as scientists are concerned they just need to tie up some loose ends. It is proven. My eight year old knows this. The evidence is overwhelming--unlike the Bible. Some have had success with reconciliation of the facts, but you have to give up the 6 day thing to make that work. To those who state "the Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it" please do not think while reading the Bible--it will make your head hurt. It is full of contraditictions, paradoxes, and downright falsehoods. Oh, and do not read the book of Job all the way through because if you think about the ending it will drive you mad.

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8618-503544_162-20020015.html?assetTypeId=41&messageId=9985342&tag=contentBody;commentWrapper#ixzz139JXj7KN

[oldarkie]

If my schoolroom lessons are correct in the interpretation of the Constitution the buck stops with the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). I think I am correct in that the SCOTUS opinion(s) specifically used the words, "separation of church and state". No, I am not going to cite which Opinion. I am relying on the hope Ms. O'Donnell is aware of the Supreme Court and its authority and is capable of having someone find the Opinion and read it to her.

[dddienst]

What is sad is you do remember your school room unfortunately they for got to teach you that the buck actually stops with the states that formed the binding contract on the federal government and that Nullification is a valid state recourse to unconstitutional edicts even if upheld by the supreme court. After all how can a branch of the federal government be truly impartial since it is part of the federal government. And history has shown to be predisposed toward Federal power. Just look how far they stretched the commerce clause!

[ge556]

dddienst, what makes you so certain that nullification is a "valid recourse"? It didn't work out so well for South Carolina, did it? TruthTeller

[almostnovember]

OK. This is what should be reported in the news. Not whether she is right or wrong for asking the question. We should be debating the intent of the language. I have a fantastic book for those of you that want see the other side, Under God: George Washington and the Question of Church and State. This book explains how George Washington (and most of the founding fathers) interpreted the meaning of the 1st amendment with regard to religion. George Washington, continuously refers to God, the Creator, and how God and morals are imperative to our society. He purposely avoided taking any religious sides and specifically chastised Protestants, the dominant religion, for their actions against Catholics and Jews. However, he specifically authorized the spending of money for promoting generic religious causes, and promoting the overall moral conduct that is the foundation of our society. To try and argue that our culture is not based upon Judeo-Christian cultural morals is obscene and a total rewriting of American History. We need only look at the United States Supreme Court Building with Moses and the Ten Commandments being depicted on the front fa?ade, on the doors of the Court Room, and throughout the building (not to mention, references to being endowed by our Creator in the Declaration of Independence, in god we trust on our money, and numerous other references throughout American life.

[kuching88]

by slappy_mcfudpuck October 20, 2010 7:28 PM EDT
by bankersvox Have you no shame ? In the US SENATE , there is "IN GOD WE TRUST." OBVIOUSLY AND CLEARLY, the founders wanted God in our lives, prayers, and guidance. Have you ever read about Washington? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The United States in is no sense founded upon the Christian religion." George Washington, Treaty of Tripoli, 1796 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" - John Adams ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "What has been Christianity's fruits? Superstition, bigotry, and persecution." --- James Madison ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology." -- Thomas Jefferson ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "I looked around for God's judgments, but saw no signs of them." - Ben Franklin ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." -- Thomas Paine ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "I never once met a religious man who was not a brainless boor." - George Washington ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Revealed religion has no weight with me." Benjamin Franklin ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "I do not find in Christianity one redeeming feature." Thomas Jefferson ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "This could be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it." John Adams ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "I disbelieve all holy men and holy books." Thomas Paine ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The Christian god is cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust." Thomas Jefferson ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ?Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind." - Thomas Paine ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." - Thomas Jefferson