On latest debate with Coons, defending local schools’ right to teach intelligent design as a theory alongside with evolution, when she asked “where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state” (and got scorned and ridiculed for it). Coons’ answer revealed he cannot distinguish between “separation of church and state”, and the prohibition of the establishment of a state religion by the government suggested in the First Amendment. The First Amendment’s purpose was to protect the free practice of religion by individuals fleeing from a persecuting government (that of England at the time), not to abolish it.
Coons’ interpretation would restrict local schools’ (and their principals, teachers, parents and students’) rights and freedoms, not promote them. This would not be in keeping with the intent of Thomas Jefferson, reputed here to be the intellectual author of the Establishment Clause:
http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
Also, the state-run media and the Left are always eager to interpret this “separation” as only one-way – religion not in government, but not as government not interfering with religion. Here’s a good exposition of the latter danger:
http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state.htm
People of Delaware beware – you’ll lose much more than your tax dollars if Coons gets elected to be Harry’s and Obama’s rubber-stamp in November (despite his empty promises he won’t be) and joins the increasing number of elites from both parties that will first nudge, then mandate and ultimately dictate how you ought to live…after all, they are smarter and wiser than us and will save us from ourselves…
Victoria Coates
Daniel Horowitz
Christine O'Donnell needs to use this in a spot
izoneguy (Diary) Tuesday, October 19th at 7:02PM EST (link)The point cannot be made often enough: Modern liberalism, as embodied in the Obama presidency, is the defender of the status quo. And the status quo is a road to economic ruin. Political forces cannot redistribute the wealth that the economic system does not produce.
With a disclaimer
Sean (SIConservative) (Diary) Tuesday, October 19th at 8:13PM EST (link)I cringed when I saw the media accounts of O’Donnell’s debate comments. The disclaimer is that, since I’m in China PRC, I’m unable to see the video, so I’m not sure how exactly it went down. Judging by the accounts I’ve read, though, O’Donnell was attempting to make points she was incapable of making. To be sure, I agree with her that the “separation of church and state” as it is commonly understood and interpreted today is a far cry from what the authors of the first amendment wrote and intended. Given the widespread misunderstanding thereof, though, any attempts to speak out about that wide gulf in a public forum, especially one in Delaware, must include an explanation of how that gap was created and how it subsequently widened. A failure to provide such an explanation, in my view, makes a candidate look like a zealot. Regardless of whether Castle’s defeat was a good or a bad thing, it’s become clear that O’Donnell wasn’t, and still isn’t, ready for prime time.
Hello Neil and Eric: I thought we weren't to be bashing candidates here?
knitwit (Diary) Tuesday, October 19th at 9:10PM EST (link)Some folks just can’t plug all the holes in their head and keep their thoughts inside until Nov. 3.
“I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country”–Nathan Hale
Compromise: The art of giving to your enemy that which he is not powerful enough to take.
"Separation of church and state" was from Thomas Jefferson
Finrod (Diary) Tuesday, October 19th at 9:48PM EST (link)Jefferson was in France when the Bill of Rights was debated and passed, and his phrasing was years after they were passed anyways.
O’Donnell should have mentioned that, but even if she had, the Left still would have whined like a stuck pig, like they always do when one of their misconceptions gets outed.
Let’s get down to brass tacks here. How much for the ape?