That’s in the Constitution?
Published in El Pais
(Spain) on 20 October 2010
by Yolande Monge (link to original)
(Spain) on 20 October 2010
by Yolande Monge (link to original)
Translated from
by Elizabeth Marcus.
Edited by Juan Bernal.
The fervent tea party candidates use the United States Constitution as their compass. It is their reference book and what they put center stage in every encounter with the press, or by waiving copies of it before followers. The Constitution contains the answers to everything, including the cure for the current evils they believe the country is suffering from.
This is why it is at the very least surprising, if not offensively ignorant, that one of the most well-known figures of the movement,Delaware Senate seat candidate Christine O’Donnell, asked during a debate at Widener University Law School where the principle of the separation of church and state is written in the Constitution.
Probably every eyebrow in the place was raised. Among the law students — the majority of the attendants — the debate produced loud laughter. “You’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?” O’Donnell asked, surprised. It is, Miss United States Senatorial candidate.
The tea party candidate’s ignorance was proved when Democratic candidate Chris Coons argued that public schools should not teach the theory of intelligent design — the creation of the world by a superior being, almost always God — alongside evolution. For O’Donnell this was “a blatant violation of our Constitution.” “Where is the separation of church and state written in the Constitution?” she asked, convinced of the contrary.
Among the wrecks O’Donnell has had to defend herself against since she arrived on the national political scene, when she won the Republican Party nomination to run for a seat in the U.S. Senate, is her confession that in her free time she practiced witchcraft. A few weeks ago she tried to resolve the problem, beginning her campaign video by informing future voters: “I am not a witch.”
This is why it is at the very least surprising, if not offensively ignorant, that one of the most well-known figures of the movement,Delaware Senate seat candidate Christine O’Donnell, asked during a debate at Widener University Law School where the principle of the separation of church and state is written in the Constitution.
Probably every eyebrow in the place was raised. Among the law students — the majority of the attendants — the debate produced loud laughter. “You’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?” O’Donnell asked, surprised. It is, Miss United States Senatorial candidate.
The tea party candidate’s ignorance was proved when Democratic candidate Chris Coons argued that public schools should not teach the theory of intelligent design — the creation of the world by a superior being, almost always God — alongside evolution. For O’Donnell this was “a blatant violation of our Constitution.” “Where is the separation of church and state written in the Constitution?” she asked, convinced of the contrary.
Among the wrecks O’Donnell has had to defend herself against since she arrived on the national political scene, when she won the Republican Party nomination to run for a seat in the U.S. Senate, is her confession that in her free time she practiced witchcraft. A few weeks ago she tried to resolve the problem, beginning her campaign video by informing future voters: “I am not a witch.”
The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Which simply means that the government cannot mandate a state religion (which is one of the reasons many colonists left Britain).
“Separation of church & state” is not found anywhere in the Constitution. I could elaborate further on the differences between the phrasing, but don’t feel the need to point out the obvious.