At this point the Christine O’Donnell First Amendment story isn’t so much about candidate O’Donnell any more. It’s about the press and its agenda for her—because it turns out she was widely misquoted.
I wrote, in my previous post on the subject of her supposed shocking lack of knowledge about the First Amendment and separation of church and state, “I don’t know if she attempted to clarify [her position], but if she didn’t, she should have.”
But it turns out she was making her position fairly clear. But the MSM truncated and in the process distorted what she said. Ace writes that the exchange in question has now been revealed to have been the following:
[O’Donnell asked Coons,]”The First Amendment does [establish what you claim]? … So you’re telling me that the separation of church and state, the phrase ‘separation of church and state,’ is in the First Amendment?”
In other words, she makes it perfectly clear what she’s questioning. Not that the Establishment Clause says what it says, but whether the phrase “separation of church and state” appears in the clause.
And of course, on that point, she’s 100% right.
Ace also reports that the corrected quote now appears in the original Ben Evans WaPo article as a recent addition, although that fact has not yet been acknowledged by the WaPo.
If anyone believes that the sort of distortion O’Donnell has been the victim of here is an accident—well then, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to talk to them about. And anyone who believes that the dirty work of making O’Donnell seem far stupider than she is has not been already effectively accomplished is naé¯ve.
The technique is used because it works. O’Donnell is now forever the dunderhead who doesn’t know about the First Amendment, and her opponent Chris Coons is the erudite lawyer smoothly correcting her. The fact that she was right, and that later in the debate he was unable to list the other freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment, appears to be irrelevant.
[ADDENDUM: A lot more from Ann Althouse—who, by the way, is a law professor.]
Seem far stupider than she is ????
Sorry, she doesn’t strike me as stupid.
Adrian Day: I’m not insinuating that O’Donnell is stupid. I’m saying that, whatever a person might think of her (including, in the opinion of some, that she’s stupid), the press she’s gotten on this one aims to show her to be far stupider than she is.
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/10/what-if-christine-odonnell-were-right.html
Hmm, she still has some time to correct this. It could be a great campaign issue if she framed it the way conservatives are.
Example: We got where we are now because the press covered for Obama (insert a couple here; make different versions of the commercial with a different couple items each time) and attacking Palin for underserved things (paying for rape kits, can see Russia from her house). They’re up to it again.
Basically, remind the moderates they were played last time (without rubbing it in their face) and they’re being played again now.
Makes me wonder what the professors at Widener Law School have been teaching for the students to gasp like they did.
off topic:
Hostile Youtube commenters to Obama’s ads
http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/20/obama-ads-on-youtube-draw-overwhelmingly-negative-response/
I can’t stop thinking about the students laughter at O’Donnell’s comments. Something just isn’t right. Why no laughter at muslims that surely must irk liberals with their “backwardness”? What about Hindus and Buddhist who cling to ancient religion?
The students didn’t have to be told to laugh at this. It’s almost like a reflexive response that had to get programmed into them. And it curiously only occurs when the suggestion of a judeo/christian idea is present.
I think what we saw (or heard) was the next group of elitist snobs brainwashed to be bigoted specifically toward the religious foundations of western society, in the larval stage.
So essentially she was just mumbling on-air. The nature of the statement, “Separation of church and state” is the spirit of the establishment part of the 1st amendment … so why mumble about the clarity of this … does she have a contrary view?
nyom, It’s the ‘spirit’ for some in America.
Not all.
It is the crux of the disagreement between the two camps. Activists vs. constitutionalists.
She should have a contrary view.
And so should you.
Try separating church and state at every turn – see how far you get.
“Separation of church and state” is the phrase liberals use when making the argument against “In God we Trust” on coins and leading the Congress with a prayer.
The constitution actually has words in it. Not spirit. It has words that you should interpret.
The americanthinker.com has a corresponding view on the nature of the slander and defamation which the democratic politicians and state run media are resorting to. The following is a direct link to Paul Schlicta’s article, “This Year’s October Suprise.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/this_years_october_surprise.html
The doctrine of “separation of church and state” means a completely different thing to a progressive than to a conservative. It is now the progressive’s version which is the law of the land. That version results in a denial of the free expression of religion especially since the “State” has been expanded to all government and now dominates all walks of life.
De facto or de jure, we won’t stand for it anymore, neither big government nor denial of the people’s right to free expression of religion.
Precedent for our “rebellion” has been set, and indeed, is the fount from which the Republican Party sprang.
Abraham Lincoln re-entered politics because of the ‘Dred Scott’ decision which declared a slave the property of his master even in new territories. Even though ‘Dred Scott’ was the law of the land, Abraham Lincoln had no intention of letting it remain so. Here are excerpts of a speech he gave in 1858 on July 10:
“I have expressed heretofore, and I now repeat, my opposition to the Dred Scott Decision . . . all that I am doing is refusing to obey it as a political rule. If I were in Congress, and a vote should come up on a question whether slavery should be prohibited in a new territory, in spite of that Dred Scott decision, I would vote that it should. . . The sacredness that Judge Douglas throws around this decision, is a degree of sacredness that has never been before thrown around any other decision. . . the Republican party is made up of those who, as far as they can peaceably, will oppose the extension of slavery, and who will hope for its ultimate extinction.
Be forewarned, those of you who slander and defame and who seek to limit our liberties through the perversion of our own system: There is less binding us to you than what bound the parties to the Civil War. We will fight, by all means peacefully, if we can. But just like the Civil War, if things get bloody, it will be you who will initiate the bloodletting as you begin to lose and see the inevitability of our victory.
I agree the students’ snickering was impolite and offputting.
I think the two debaters were really just talking past each other. Mr. Coons was talking about interpretations which have been rendered about the meaning of the “establishment of religion” clause (at one point in the video I’ve seen he explicitly references that he is talking about judicial interpretations) and Ms. O’Donnell was talking, I think, about the actual text of the First Amendment.
What I do find troubling is that Ms. O’Donnell didn’t know what the 14th Amendment was. I honestly don’t understand how an adult, particularly one running for high federal office, lacks awareness of the Civil War amendments and what they are about. She also didn’t know what the 16th Amendment was, which I would expect would be pretty important to a tax-cutter. Sure, they’re not quite as significant as the 21st Amendment, but still…
Ok, Baklava, I’ll express my view – contrary to yours. See how you will try to misinterpret it this time.
I question the practice of “leading Congress with a prayer”. Why should publicly elected body, consisting of people of various religious faiths plus agnostics plus atheists, conform to demeaning and false ancient practice? Ok, part of them might actually believe in prayer nonsense – but the rest do not. Why should they mumble after others the words they see no sense or reason in? Wouldn’t it be hypocritical? Wouldn’t it make their electorate distrust their integrity? I’d think so.
Further, I think this hsould apply also to the Courts, specifically to the procedure of swearing on Bible. Bible is a book. Some people hold the text written in it sacred, some not – it’s their right. It makes no sense to ask a person to swear on the text he does not believe in. It’s far better, in my view, to ask him to give his word to speak the truth. It’s a more inclusive approach. Which, I think, some of the Courts already implemented.
Another thing, Baklava: try to judge an argument by its merit, not by the source (who uses it). It very well might be that liberals make sense once in a while- even your beloved might!
A preventive note: I didn’t refer to Neo, or her words, or to Robin from Berkley or her words or to Dalaj Lama or his words or any irrelevant topics you might think of in this comment.
Neo:
Glad that was not your intention but I still say your choice of phrasing suggests a level of stupidity that the press has merely exaggerated. Like saying, “they tried to make is seem as though she lost more blood than she did.” It implies she lost blood, just not as much as was implied.
America is in a war. They are the enemy. It’s what they do.
It’s no good complaining about the same thing over and over.
If our side doesn’t hit them back, harder than they hit us, they will win.
I haven’t misinterpreted to my knowledge.
Moving on.
The prayer is what it is. Questioning what is to what end? Do you want to change it? I believe 70% of American’s or more would disagree with you just like 70% of Americans don’t want the Mosque on ground zero.
If the atheist isn’t into God – he/she can tune out. He/she does not need (in this country) to force atheism as the practice. Just like vegetarians. Choose to eat vegetables and leave me the meat eater and person who prays alone.
The first amendment establishes that Congress shall make NO LAW RESTRICTING the freedom of exercise of religion. That is the actual 1st amendment (as opposed to what Coons and Nyom thinks). That is the merit.
There are times that liberals do make sense.
I once was a liberal.
I understand it’s core beliefs.
However, this time is not a time where I will bend. The constitution says what it says and the prayers and swearing on the book are as they are.
As with the Robin from Berkeley point – it was part of my point. I don’t believe Robin from Berkeley is acting like a 14 year old. I stated my point – you chose to ignore it. She talks about her relationship with her liberal husband for all the world to see. Neo has talked about her relationship with her friends.
I believe you are picking fights and being judgmental and it isn’t becoming. Let’s move on and agree to disagree. You believe Robin from Berkeley is acting 14. I don’t.
BTW, I like you Tatyana.
I see your feisty and I like the passion.
I believe the passion and judgmentalism is misplaced this time.
If you are an atheist – don’t pray
If you are a vegetarian – don’t eat meat.
If you don’t like that a commenter is talking about their relationship – don’t read it.
I don’t understand trying to force others not to pray, to not eat meat, and not talk about the things that are IMPORTANT to them.
I am not trying to stop you from talking. I like what you have to say 90+% of the time.
🙂
Why isn’t the rest of the country now laughing at Widener Law Students and faculty?
Make a mockery of them. They deserve it. We need a round of jokes about Widener Law Students and faculty.
We need to mock all the mockers. We need to deconstruct all the deconstructors. We need to presume skepticism of all the skeptics, and be cynical about all the cynics.
That is the only way to treat a Liberal – with utter disdain, lack of respect, mocking laughter, and so on.
We should ALWAYS say to EVERYTHING they say: Are you nuts!!!??? You think what!!!??? How stupid is that!!!
They should never even be argued with. Those days are over. It’s war. Derision and disdain at ever corner, on every inch of intellectual, factual, or practical real estate there is. Every inch. Never conceded that it is even a blue sky on a sunny day. Make them prove it, or simply tell them to shut up.
Anything less is to concede defeat to them, since they are ruthless in everything.
She is stupid…
but not the way most are trying to think…
she is stupid because Tsun Tsu told her over 1000 years ago, it would be stupid…
1It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.
she did not know her opponent or herself…
2. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.
her position and answer and end was way too long, and out of her control… this is why having an erudite argument in these situations given the opponent, is not the smartest thing to do
3 what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy’s strategy
you should read what he has to say about fighting on someone elses territory, fighting in a way not fitting the opponent, etc.
and for ALL of us looking at progressives, fabians, socialists, communists, et al..
Engage people with what they expect; it is what they are able to discern and confirms their projections. It settles them into predictable patterns of response, occupying their minds while you wait for the extraordinary moment – that which they cannot anticipate.
isnt that what obama did?
isnt that what she got suckered into
did she not realize that the reporters are part of her enemies camp?
To see victory only when it is within the ken of the common herd is not the acme of excellence.
Show him there is a road to safety, and so create in his mind the idea that there is an alternative to death. Then strike. –Tu Mu
Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.
I question the practice of “leading Congress with a prayer”. Why should publicly elected body, consisting of people of various religious faiths plus agnostics plus atheists, conform to demeaning and false ancient practice? Ok, part of them might actually believe in prayer nonsense – but the rest do not. Why should they mumble after others the words they see no sense or reason in? Wouldn’t it be hypocritical? Wouldn’t it make their electorate distrust their integrity? I’d think so.
why?
Respect for the sanctity of other minds and beliefs
without that, your just a collectivist who says how they think should be how everyone thinks, or else its old, not real, no sense, and everything you listed and more.
the point?
in a free society where there is a plurality of ideas, your position basically is anathema, antithesis, and soviet… (whether you appreciate it or not)
and what you dont realize is that your way or thought leads to what might makes right!!!
that is, since only one idea will be tolerated as the right one, we will h ave to fight tooth and nail to impose OURS or else we lose participation.
those who do not know how to respect would answer the way you did…
such a person would start a war over trivialities, like which end of an egg you open to eat it by…
one has to understand respect to give it or earn it
those on the left or raised by them, or teamed up with their groups, like feminists, have learned to not respect, so that they can destroy, oppose, and impose without guilt.
sad really
Oh no, Baklava, you do misinterpret and twist. You did before and you do again.
This is a country of equality of opportunity, not an equality of being stumped by majority.
How about an opposite proposal: let those who want to pray to do so silently, so as not to offend those who does not believe in the travesty. How about respect to the opinion and beliefs of non-theists? Or are you going to enter “70% majority” rule again?
I don’t like you, Baklava. I used to; not anymore. Because you show yourself to be ungentlemanly, patronising and self-righteous; you are often off-topic, have a tendency to highjack the thread and are self-centered. But enough about you.
As far as your logic goes…well. You don’t like the smell in the air – don’t breath.
We need remember that O’Donnell is just the target of the moment. The leftist and the media believe that we are all O’Donnells.
We are all ill informed.
We all cling to our guns and religion.
We are all confused and “misunderstand” what Obama and the dems have done for us.
WE are all to be mocked and ridiculed.
But O’Donnell in 2010, just like Palin in 2008, is an immediate danger and they will do ANYTHING to destroy her.
Wrong bak, it says, “prohibits the making of any law “respecting an establishment of religion”
Freedom to exercise ones religion has nothing to do with equality of opportunity.
You continue trying to force people to be silent.
I’ll continue to follow the first amendment.
and… 🙂 I won’t be silent.
And … the smell here is fine.
Look in the mirror – read your comments – are they gentlewomanly?
No… it isn’t about me – it’s about people’s right to exercise their religion. The 1st amendment says what it says – (on topic) 🙂
If you are a theist – don’t live by the laws on man, live by the laws of God.
Nyom,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
It’s clear there are five freedom’s. It’s clear that Congress shall not
Thank you for the opportunity to make it clear.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion.
ok….
there are 4 more clauses….
…no, but there are 4 horsemen..
I don’t think this rises to the level of an October surprise, but apparently the NYT and others do:
http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/liberal_blitz_on_gop_chief_i2CGMY2pnf70TdawgzDZIN
John Boehner caught in affair before big election! I think they overestimate how many people know who Boehner is. Those who are paying attention might just get a bit more ticked off than they already are at yet another personal attack.
Like you said, it’s what they do. Often it works, but this time around I don’t think it will affect the bloodbath at the polls.
nyo Says:
“So essentially she was just mumbling on-air. The nature of the statement, “Separation of church and state” is the spirit of the establishment part of the 1st amendment”
It is not… the establishment of a state religion is. That is her point and there is a very strong case for that argument…
…and the Jefferson’s wall of separation marks the divide between “establishment a state religion” and “the baby steps towards establishing a state religion” … fortify that wall.
I’m waiting to see what form Tatyana’s preferred oath of office will take. An oath needs some gravitas, does it not, Madame?
I expect to wait a right good while.
Baklava – that was hilarious, coming from oyu.
Flash news for you: I don’t have to be gentlemanly – I am not a gentleman.
But I, I practice loyalty. I would never tell on my lover to a bunch of strangers, no matter what our disagreement is. I would not share my private conversations with a person I chose to be my spouse with people who most likely would be negative about her.
You have no understanding of a concept.
‘You are not a trustworthy person.
Invoking 1st Amendment so you’re free to bitch about your “Significant Other”!
That’s priceless.
No, I don’t like the smell here lately.
Smells like church incense: sanctimony, hatred, stupidity, hypocrisy, aggression and bullying.
I think I’ll take a break, maybe indefinite. I feel soiled after reading disgusting remarks on today’s threads.
An oath needs some gravitas.
Some people need it. Without God some people are capable of doing anything, but then, there are some people who don’t have to recognize divine supervision to do the right thing because they have a conscious, and if they do wrong then they alone are responsible and no one can forgive them unless the one they did wrong to forgives them. They don’t desire to scape goat their responsibilities in any way.
If we walked away from this superstition we would have a much much much clearer picture of who is evil and who is good in the world. And otherwise good people would not feel compelled to do evil things.
They’re many many today who are walking away.
Keep walking away and keep building up that wall. 🙂
You know, I used to be an atheist (for 25 years). I was brought up a “lapsed” Catholic, was atheist from 15-40, and have been a devout Catholic ever since.
By the time I was 20 or so, I was over the insulting of religion and religious people. I treated people and their beliefs with respect.
re: Tatyana’s comment “It makes no sense to ask a person to swear on the text he does not believe in.”
This is true – it doesn’t, and non-Christians can ‘affirm’ instead.
But, “Smells like church incense: sanctimony, hatred, stupidity, hypocrisy, aggression and bullying.”
You have consistently made rude comments about believers and their beliefs. I don’t know what, if any, religion that Neo practices, but she is respectful towards beliefs as well. Do you think that you might follow her lead rather than picking fights?
You have some interesting perspectives at times, but when you go off about religion, your nastiness drowns out your good comments.
I am repeating these words from a post I wrote some time ago:
I do not have time to police this blog for personal fighting. I find it takes away from the point of the blog, as well, when that sort of thing comes to dominate too much in the comments section.
I don’t mind a certain amount of it; I realize it’s inevitable, and I understand that a blog comments section is not a genteel place, nor should it be. But I do mind when it goes on for a while. I don’t have time to determine who’s right and who’s wrong in any given altercation, nor do I believe it should be my job.
I am saying to everyone on the blog that I am going to adopt a less hang-loose policy about repetitive personal attacks between commenters. It’s not that it can never happen. But if I see it going on too long, I will delete the entire comment of the person involved (that is, if I see the comment; I don’t always catch everything). Defending oneself is fine, but if the defense includes an attack, that’s not okay and will be deleted. And then, if it goes on again, I will ban the person or people involved. I am very reluctant to do this, but I will if I need to do it.
If it continues in this thread I will close comments for the thread.
You know, I used to be an atheist (for 25 years). I was brought up a “lapsed” Catholic, was atheist from 15-40, and have been a devout Catholic ever since.
You know, I used to be a Canadian Mountie (for 25 years) … and you point is? If you can’t argue about religion then you can’t get to the heart of anything about the human condition, Dear.
Good piece of patriotic agitprop:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m06sSoZ5bo
If you deem it worthy, pass it on. It sums up the last two years in (melo)dramatic fashion.
nyo Says:
“…and the Jefferson’s wall of separation marks the divide between “establishment a state religion” and “the baby steps towards establishing a state religion” … fortify that wall.”
Says whom? Your quotes sound third personish.. Plus; Jefferson, taken in context, seemed to have less hostility towards religion in public life than those who quote him. I’d go so far as to say that most who quote his seperation of church and state letters take him out of context.
You can take the woman out of myopic communism but you can’t take myopic communism out of the woman.
Pingback:Christine O’Donnell Does not Know the First Amendment? « Sake White
nyom,
The comment prefaced my main point. Its intent was to make clear that I understand the thoughts and feelings of many atheists, and am not attacking atheism or atheists since I’ve been there.
I have no issue with argument/debate, but rather insults. If you are not an insulting poster, than feel free to ignore the comment – it wasn’t directed at people who use civility in their posts.
Think it was Joni Mitchell who once lamented that you don’t know what you’ve got til its gone. There has been a push in this country to use Separation of church and state to eradicate Christian faith from the market place and its influence from government. Few people in this country realize that the most basic freedoms we enjoy ride on it being there. At present we are still “endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights” at least until someone can figure out how to get it out of the Declaration of Independence. It is only this premise that keeps us from relying on the benevolence of the state for the freedoms we enjoy. So long as they are tethered to God (whether you choose to believe in him or not) no man can take them away. Take that out of the equation and your freedoms are granted according to the pleasures of state. If I were of a mind not to believe in God, I would still muster enough faith to keep him in the public square for that reason alone. I know better than to place my faith in man, particularly political man.
Jefferson, taken in context, seemed to have less hostility towards religion in public life than those who quote him.
This is a pull from Wikipedia, but it’s something I’m already aware of:
The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was Thomas Jefferson’s effort to extract the doctrine of Jesus by removing sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects…
I think Jefferson expressed what he could for his time. But look at what the whole of the founders agreed on … the U.S. Constitution. A compendium of writings not based on religious teaching, but on innate morality, common sense, and the affirmed rights of mankind, and more. Christianity was just tame enough to accept this, though as I’ve written there is a never-ending requirement to push-back. On the other hand, Islam has a BIG problem with said Constitution — they require more than a push back with word, the extreme of them require our bombs.
Flash news for you: I don’t have to be gentlemanly – I am not a gentleman.
Flash news for you: If your no lady he dont have to give you special consideration.
ie… that phrase, like man up, is only used when a woman wants to short circuit a loss to make it a win by playing the “give into me card”.
its the ONLY time its used…
man doesnt hold a door… he isnt a gentlman
translatio, he didnt bow to my greatness and hold it open for me so i could move through the world unconcerned and uninterupted.
ever sit by a door, and watch? take out a pad and tick off (code) the watching… women basically ignore who is behind them most of the time… and so the doors close in others faces.
the only reason you want him to be a gentleman is that YOUR definition of gentleman says that “i have a hole, i have to win”.
that went out with men and women are complimentary pairs that exhibit comparative advantage…
when women act like gentlemen, then we might start taking up the foolish thing again. but now we are equal and they are mroe equal..
a lady would not ask a gentleman to cave in on some issue because she is female
a manipulative person playing people would, as she would ignore what was honorable, and seek to by pass it.
chivalry was never to be globally equally provided without any consideration
it was a special reward for being of the caliber and worthy of another sacrifice. thanks to feminisms desire to abuse it to their ends, we have forgotten that gentlemen and ladies, is a title earned, not given