baltimoresun.com

« Pope defends priestly celibacy | Main | Poling: If we might have a word ... (continued again) »

October 19, 2010

O'Donnell questions separation of church, state

Associated Press writer Ben Evans reports:

Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware on Tuesday questioned whether the U.S. Constitution calls for a separation of church and state, appearing to disagree or not know that the First Amendment bars the government from establishing religion.

The exchange came in a debate before an audience of legal scholars and law students at Widener University Law School, as O'Donnell criticized Democratic nominee Chris Coons' position that teaching creationism in public school would violate the First Amendment by promoting religious doctrine.

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?"

Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.

"You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp," Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone said after the debate, adding that it raised questions about O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution.

Erin Daly, a Widener professor who specializes in constitutional law, said that while there are questions about what counts as government promotion of religion, there is little debate over whether the First Amendment prohibits the federal government from making laws establishing religion.

"She seemed genuinely surprised that the principle of separation of church and state derives from the First Amendment, and I think to many of us in the law school that was a surprise," Daly said. "It's one thing to not know the 17th Amendment or some of the others, but most Americans do know the basics of the First Amendment."

O'Donnell didn't respond to reporters who asked her to clarify her views after the debate. Her campaign manager, Matt Moran, later issued a statement saying that O'Donnell wasn't questioning the concept of separation of church and state.

"She simply made the point that the phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution," Moran said.

During the exchange, she said Coons' views on creationism showed that he believes in big-government mandates.

"Talk about imposing your beliefs on the local schools," she said. "You've just proved how little you know not just about constitutional law but about the theory of evolution."

Coons said her comments show a "fundamental misunderstanding" of the Constitution.

The debate, their third in the past week, was more testy than earlier ones.

O'Donnell began by defending herself for not being able to name a recent Supreme Court decision with which she disagrees at a debate last week. She said she was stumped because she largely agrees with the court's recent decisions under conservative chief justices John Roberts and William Rehnquist.

"I would say this court is on the right track," she said.

The two candidates repeatedly talked over each other, with O'Donnell accusing Coons of caving at one point when he asked the moderator to move on to a new question after a lengthy argument.

"I guess he can't handle it," she said.

O'Donnell, a tea party favorite who stunned the state by winning the GOP primary last month in her third Senate bid in five years, called Coons a liberal "addicted to a culture of waste, fraud and abuse."

Coons, who has held a double-digit lead in recent polls, urged voters to support him as the candidate of substance, with a track record over six years as executive of the state's most populous county. He said O'Donnell's only experience is in "sharpening the partisan divide but not at bridging it."

Posted by Matthew Hay Brown at 2:30 PM | | Comments (8)
        

Comments

I guess we don't have any minimum required level of legal knowledge to run for Senate.

Hmmm maybe it's me but does she not sound like a certain candidate who run for vice president in 2008 because not knowing thing like the 1st amendment and supreme court case leads me to believe that she would be a right wing mouth piece doing only what she is told to do by the right and to make a statement like the one she did in a law school is an insult for the students and professors at the school.

kwolf - I think your being a bit paranoid. She is nothing more than a Palin disciple who will get trounced in the election. If the Republicans want to get a majority they won't do it with illinformed extremist like this.

The woman is a nincompoop. She becomes the Republican Party like a light gone dim on a street gone sour in a city of blight. Tea Party, my left foot. The Boston patriots would cringe and turn in their graves. She considers knowledge about the Constitution a redundancy. The Republican Party is trying to run from her but she wants them in a tight embrace. Those who have gone to the Tea Party School of empty ideas, don't know a thing about legislating. Instead of reform and small government we'll have bickering and chaos. Both parties are filled with ill informed extremists Rino, but this woman takes the cake. She wins the race of the intellectual midgets by ten thousand miles and beats Sarah Palin to the goal post and that is no mean feat. Hurray to the era of legislators who insist that the Constitution is an inconvenience to know and digest. Where does it say in the Constitution that church and state should be separate? Perhaps the woman was referring to the Bill of Rights of witches and warlocks?
R Anon

R Anon - That wasn't nice, insulting nincompoops by dragging them down to Christine O'Donnell's level. The whole Tea Party movement was created to keep the clueless outhouse types on the lower rungs of clueless support for the Republican corporatist party from falling off. Perhaps they put Christine O'Donnell out their to make the screech-owl from Alaska seem like a Rhodes Scholar by comparison.

Littel thats why we need left wing alarmists like you pulling from the other side to keep things balanced. As long as cluess left wing sheep pull as hard as the right wing ones maybe the country won't drift too far one way.

Speaking of nincompoops.......

"Speaking of nincompoops......."

bleeted the left wing sheep.

Post a comment

All comments must be approved by the blog author. Please do not resubmit comments if they do not immediately appear. You are not required to use your full name when posting, but you should use a real e-mail address. Comments may be republished in print, but we will not publish your e-mail address. Our full Terms of Service are available here.

Verification (needed to reduce spam):

About Matthew Hay Brown
Matthew Hay Brown writes and blogs about faith and values in public and private life for The Baltimore Sun. A former Washington correspondent for the newspaper, he has long written about the intersection of religion and politics. He has reported from Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Middle East, traveling most recently to Syria and Jordan to write about the Iraqi refugee crisis.
-- ADVERTISEMENT --

Most Recent Comments
Baltimore Sun coverage
Religion in the news
Charm City Current
Stay connected