The scariest thing about the so-called "gaffe" by Delaware Republic Senatorial candidate Christine O'Donnell in the last debate between her and her Democratic opponent Chris Coons wasn't her questioning the presence in the constitution of the doctrine of Separation of Church and State. It was that there seems to have been a room full of law students who don't really know or understand the First Amendment.
It was like walking into a room full of retarded people and saying "well, I see there aren't exactly any Einsteins in here"-and being greeted by howls of laughter.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" is arguably the most flawed statement in the constitution, and has caused a lot of problems, due to the inherent fact that it was, on the face of it, somewhat short-sighted. When it was first written, this was an entirely Christian nation, but of multiple denominations. The clause was meant to insure, simply, that no single one of these Christian denominations would ever be granted status as THE state religion. It was an attempt to insure there would never be a "Church of America" that would predominate and potentially oppress other Christian denominations.
Thus, if you were a Catholic, or a Baptist, etc., the government could not, on behalf of any other denomination, prohibit your freedom to exercise your religious beliefs-in public or in private. Nor could it prohibit any church or denomination from meeting, holding services, taking tithes, or proselytizing, or from performing any other generally understood and accepted function of a religious denomination.
That was the whole extent of it, and it applied solely to the limits of the power of the federal government over this matter, as indeed was and is the case with all of the Bill of Rights. With the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, these restrictions were further extended to the states in regards to the rights of its individual private citizens, or in the case of this amendment, religious organizations.
But nowhere in the First Amendment does the phrase "Separation of Church and State" occur. This was a phrase first used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists in the way of explaining one aspect of the clause, to wit, that the government could not interfere with their rights.
Of course, things have changed in ways the founders could not have envisioned. Now we have Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and even Pagans, and the clause now also applies to any of them to the extent that they are American citizens. Neither the state of Kentucky nor the federal government, nor my present hometown, has no more of a legitimate right to prevent me from participating in public rituals, or conducting my own private ones, than it does to prohibit Catholics from performing devotions to the Blessed Virgin, or to prevent Jews from conducting the next Passover celebration.
Naturally, there has been some chipping around the margins of religious expressions due to the unexpected influx of religions from then foreign cultures. As such, laws against polygamy have come into play, advocacy for women's rights and the protection of children have become predominant over the rights of religious expression, when those things have the potential to come into conflict. Other than these kinds of exceptions, however, owing solely to the extent they do come into conflict with the laws of society, government has no legitimate right to limit, restrict, or to ban religious expression, of any faith, whether it pertain to the majority Christian, or to the smallest minority sect.
Ironically, the same people that loudly trumpet the first part of the clause-Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion-seem to conveniently gloss over the corresponding portion-nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.
There is nothing in the First Amendment that gives government the right to prohibit religious expression, either on public or on private property, and it most certainly does not require, or even suggest, that the government should have the right to restrict legitimate religious expression or practice of Christian denominations for the presumed protection or other benefits of minority faiths. To imagine or to proffer that it does is turning the entire spirit of the First Amendment completely on its head. It does the exact opposite, in fact.
Not only does it prohibit such restrictions on religious expression, it actually encourages religious expressions and beliefs, of all religions. Religious expression in this country has always been a tradition. It was never restricted by the government, nor even within the government. The founders intent was quite plain on all these matters. Separation of church and state, when viewed in this context, is clearly a misnomer, and that was Christine O'Donnell's point. Separation of church and state has been used as a battering ram in order to minimize the extent of public expressions of religion. In some cases it has been used as an excuse to outright ban such religious expressions, which is not only turning the constitution on its head, its actually turning it into the very opposite of its original intent.
There is no legitimate right for the government, whether it be federal, state, or local government, to ban religious expression. In fact, it has the obligation to not do this, just as it has the further obligation to refrain from promoting or imposing a specific religious doctrine. That's the extent of it.
Again, that's what Christine O'Donnell was saying, and she was one hundred percent correct. The fact that law students in a university setting would find humor and presumably reason for derision in her remarks should give us all cause for concern. It's really quite sad, but of course, there is a political component to this.
Her opponent, Chris Coons, did not know the First Amendment as well as she did, and this is demonstrable, though of course you do not see this fact discussed by leftist bloggers and pundits. But the proof of this is a matter of public record.
O’Donnell was later able to score some points of her own off the remark, revisiting the issue to ask Coons if he could identify the “five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment.”
Coons named the separation of church and state, but could not identify the others — the freedoms of speech, press, to assemble and petition — and asked that O’Donnell allow the moderators ask the questions.
“I guess he can’t,” O’Donnell said
The fact remains, no one has a legitimate reason to think that the establishment clause presupposes that no religious expression should ever be permitted in a public setting, whether such expressions are made by private citizens or by (gasp) public officials.
In fact, the right to free and open expression of religion is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment, and applies to all American citizens, of any and all faiths. That obligation in itself would seem to make it quite impossible for there to be "separation of church and state"-certainly to the extent that such a doctrine is defined by the left.
