The First Amendment heats up: The historical background

Many Americans were shocked by the debate over the 1st Amendment between Delaware Republican Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell and her Democratic opponent, Chris Coons.

This time witchcraft was not the center of the zeitgeist, rather it was something much more central to American life. The 1st Amendment began showing up in Google Trends near the end of the day Tuesday, along with “separation of church and state.”

It lead many to wonder if people were fact-checking O’Donnell or brushing up for themselves on the Bill of Rights.

Ironically (or perhaps quite fittingly), the O’Donnell-Coons argument over the Constitution's exact wording occurred in a law school.

At Widener University Law School, the two candidates stumbled onto the topic of....

...“church and state” when they began talking about creationism -- Coons said that “religious doctrine doesn’t belong in our public schools.”

From there, O’Donnell began to question where in the Constitution it ever said “church and state.”

One could call it a big semantical debate. The words “church of state” do not actually appear in the Constitution.

The 1st Amendment does, however, clearly state:

"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."

The Constitution was signed on Sept 17, 1787.

It would not be for another 15 years, when the words “church and state” would appear in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a group of Baptists in 1802.

The intent of his letter was to ease the fears of the Danbury Baptist Assn., a religious minority in Connecticut.

He explained that “building a wall of separation between Church and State” was something they could rely on within the newly established nation.

“Separation of church and state” became shorthand for the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, a phrase most Americans commonly use today.

That separation, of course, was once deeply important to the first settlers who made the pilgrimage from Europe and arrived in America. They sought to free themselves from from what they considered religious tyranny in their homelands. We know this, right?

While religion may not be taught in public schools throughout the nation, these foundations of American government and U.S. history typically are.

Whether O’Donnell recognizes "church and state" in the Constitution is another matter.

From the debate, it was unclear whether she was arguing about phrasing or if she did not understand the the Bill of Rights at all. (Check out the video below and decide for yourself).

At one point she says, "I didn't bring my Constitution with me."

One thing we can be grateful for: The 1st Amendment also gives all Americans the freedom to question openly the very words printed on the parchment.

Which is what happened in the debate. Sort of.

Here's a video of the debate:

 

-- Lori Kozlowski
twitter.com/lorikozlowski

Photo: Screenshot from Google Trends on Tuesday. Credit: Google. Video via YouTube.

 

Comments

[Dian5]

Can we just abide by The Constitution. I'm tired of making allowances for every1's rights but my own.

[fsticfrankie]

Do you think she can see Russia from Delaware?

[jake]

Ms. o'Donnell is touted as a candidate for the forgotten Americans. Consistent with the contempt her handlers, the extremists on the right have for the targeted electorates she is completely ignorant. She repeats certain memorized expressions and that is how much she can take in.

[christiesk]

Looking at the video, it appears at first like she is arguing about exact phrasing. But after Coons gives a good reply (calling separation a "principle", stating an inexact but reasonable version of the Establishment Clause, and mentioning judicial interpretation over the years) it appears that she either wasn't listening to him or didn't understand. She kept on as if she was catching him in a gaffe. She was smiling like a cat that ate the bird and thought that the audience was laughing WITH her.

It's a potentially reasonable argument to say that you believe that the Establishment Clause has been interpreted way too broadly over the years; she could have said that, but DIDN'T. She just snickered. Whether you agree with it or not, the principle of "separation of church and state" has been based on the 1st Amendment. She didn't seem to understand that.

[As I See It]

A Republican is just a Democrat with faulty wiring.

[Michael Ga]

Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black , who was a ranking member of the Alabama Ku Klux Klan and an Anti-Catholic, wrote the famous opinion that jettisoned religion from the schools. The 1st Amendment says ""Congress shall make no law" In others words, the framers gave the Federal Government or Congress no power whatsoever in matters of religion. This is well documented in history. Here is a quote from Thomas Jefferson Co-Author of the US Constitution. " In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it, but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of the church or state authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies" The States were to have this authority. So what happened? A radical, racist, and unelected judge made ruling for all in the US to live under. He stretched the meaning of the word "Congress" to mean government at any level, local, state, etc. Good or Bad is not eh question. He did not have authority to make the ruling.

[matt]

As Michael Ga stated so correctly, this is the problem. Abortion was illegal and then legal and could be changed again, slaves were to be returned to their owner if they escaped, schools were to be segregated, The supreme court has had many different judges who have made unfortunate decisions which have later been changed. There is absolutely no reference to a separation in the 1st amendment.

[Susan]

How about that lawyer, Chris Coons. He was unable to respond when asked what five freedoms were provided in the 1st amendment....the Widener students at the debate showed the typical ignorance and arrogance of America's brainwashed youth. Parents of those children should be embarrassed; first, because the kids were rude and second, because they seem to not know what is in the 1st amendment either. The people writing (I no longer refer to them as journalists because they are far from it) also show their shallow grasp of the 1st amendment. This article appears to perpetuate the story put out by the Washington Post, edited to correct their misquote but without a "correction.". Pitiful..and dishonest.

[Best Mortgage Rates]

This conversation is going no where. It’s lacking the place of a good leader to head the things to come out on conclusion...
========
Rosie
========
Best Mortgage Rates

[Tore Simonsen]

I am aware of the first amendment. I am aware the government is outsourcing the first amendment. Are you?

[James Burtner]

The issue is pretty simple. When Jefferson wrote of the seperation of church and state, it was a reference to the first clause in the the first amendment, the 'establishment clause'. What the Supreme Court did in 1947, 1954, and 1962 was to tie the statement to the 2nd clause, the free exercise. This directly violated the founding fathers intent. They were adamant about religion, morality, and virtue being essential to maintaining liberty. Just read Washington's inaugural addresses and his farewell address. In each, he ties essential liberty to religion. He even states that anyone who tries to undermine religion cannot be called a patriot because of it's essential role in society.

[shawn]

The first amendment states that the federal government cannot make a law creating a religion (e.g the Church of England) or stop people from practicing religion. It does not say that religion has to be separate from government. 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.

[Time Lord Shepherd]

What Micael Ga. left out was Hugo Black was placed on the court by FDR who knew that Hugo Black was a member of the KKK and wanted him there for his view. Black was trying to take power away from the church and the Jews and FDR was trying to take power away from the people. Together FRD & Black made a great Left Wing Hate Team and hero of today Left.

[Matt Jarvis]

Does anyone have a good argument as to why there should not be a separation of church and state?
I don't give a flip if you think the words in the Constitution don't exactly say that. How, exactly, is that relevant to me, 223 years later? This same document said that the slave trade was perfectly fine for another 21 years.
I like American constitutional democracy. I like many parts of the Constitution. But, just because a bunch of guys who I respect like all get out came to write particular words down, it doesn't make those words particularly right. Legal and right are two distinct concepts.

Can you justify your argument for a lack of separation of church and state WITHOUT an appeal to the Constitution? If not, then your point is "they ain't following rules that aren't particularly good." In which case, you're being very trivial.

My justification for a separation of church and state? The history of the world is replete with examples of nations that exploited others in the name of religion. Thus, there are ample reasons to conclude that it's a bad idea.

[phootball phreak]

The seperation of church and state rules set forth, were not intended to mean that the state could not have any religious symbolism or rhetoric in or about its institutions, but instead was only meant to say that the state can not in any way impose a religion (or lack therof) onto the public. In other words, you go have your religion whatever it may be and we won't interfere. It does not mean (though it has recently been interpreted this way) that no religion should be recognized by the state. We were clearly establised as a christian based country. Our laws are based on christian principles and laws. No where does it say that no religious words or symbols shall appear in any government building or monument. Get over it people. I am an athiest and I think that religious symbols are ok in our buildings and monuments. They are NOT forcing me into a church and they are NOT forcing me to believe. Why should I force them to do things my way?

[Judith J. Spice]

An 'established' religion is one the only allows members of that faith to vote, own property, etc. Yes, our government and laws are based on Christian principles and you would have to tear down every building in Washington to get rid of it. The 10 commandments portrayed in the Supreme Court building are a good philosophy for everyone to live by. Muslim countries prefer to live by Sharia law.

In a Democracy, the majority rules but now, every dissident faction controls the majority - why? The tail wags the dog.

[AJ]

The term ( separation of church and state ) was from a letter from Andrew Jackson. Which was taken " out of context ". If you was to read the full letter, you would see that it is about how the two ( church and state ) should NOT be separated. If you doubt it, then check it out for yourself. There is no constitution, amendment or law of any kind stating that there should be a separation. In case you have forgotten, one of the things that this country was based and built on was religon.

[Guy]

It seems that non God oriented people have always pushed for anything that resembles a religious standing be stricken from public view.

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.

This phrase above states the government shall make no law respecting(supporting or denouncing) relion, as an establishment or otherwise. What it doesnt say is that people cannot make religious jestures, monuments, flags, signs, and sermons in public or on public land. The operative words here is LAND! All public lands are owned by all the people not just non believing citizens but all of us. Therefore, since I am armed with the 1st Amendment, I am a tax paying citizen I should be able to exercise my amendment right to post a symbol of my belief on PUBLIC land if the majority approves. And let no man take it down. We live in a Democratic state.....Majority rules.....we have freedom of speech, expressions and religious belief.Why is it that one person can take away these rights. Take this example, that one man has taken away the right of the people that died saving our nation and that this memorial stands for them....those whom have died....Maybe this one man should go ask those men, the dead, what their wishes would be....

We have let the ignorance and arrogance of a few dislodge the majority all so many times.

They have taken prayer out of school even though some wanted to practice it. Taken our flags away from public view, complain about the useage of the name GOD in public, what next.

I am not sure why the ACLU would back such actions of the few in such a manner that it separates a nations. If the man really wants God taken our of public view....tell him to go to the court and get a law passed that makes it illegal to use a bible in any court. illegal to "swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth so help me GOD" oh and dont forget to sue the government and national reserve for printing legal tender with the words...."In God We Trust"

Thank you kindly for reading you can reply if you desire to my email at ....gepzeus@yahoo.com

[Jax]

Is someone this dumb actually allowed to run for office? I think it's sad when immigrants applying for citizenship know more about our Constitution & it's applications than that woman. To make it worse, she carries that self-righteous "I know I'm right" smile upon her face. She's likened to one of those people who heard something one time, and is convinced it must be truth, maybe she read it in Enquirer... Please, please Delaware, don't let ignorance perpetuate!

[Kenny R.]

If George Washington was here today the first thing he would do is boot everyone on the butt and try and point all of the political professionals in the right direction. Seems to me that there should be an amendment to make it illegal punishable by incarceration to be a professional politician. Do your term, do your duty, no retirement, no stealing then go home and be productive. Why else would people spend millions of dollars to get elected? Because a good portion of them know they can steal more than that back!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jose]

@Jax--is someone as dumb as you actually allowed to post comments?

[TemplarX]

Democrats/liberals have a defect of reasoning!