dagblog - Comments for "William K. Wolfrum’s Morning – Our Apologies"

I doubt that this is really

DF — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 19:11:30 +0000

In reply to I don't think so. In fact,

I doubt that this is really an appropriate explanation. Laughter erupts in the crowd the second she gets done saying, "Where is the separation of church and state in the Constitution?" Also, the debate was held at a law school, so there's a good chance that a number of people in the audience might have found her question laughable.

Some of my Christianist

we are stardust — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:56:37 +0000

In reply to I volunteered at a soup

Some of my Christianist in-laws are proud of the fact that their food charities require prayer first. Their foreign missions, too. It's one of the reasons that missionaries are one of my pet peeves. ;o)

I volunteered at a soup

Donal — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:33:26 +0000

In reply to My understanding is that the

I volunteered at a soup kitchen once, and there was one guy who tried to use the opportunity to proselytize. The rest of us were creeped out, and I think someone talked to him.

"I don't think so. In fact,

brewmn — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 13:51:39 +0000

In reply to I don't think so. In fact,

"I don't think so. In fact, it seemed she was being quite insistent about the point that the First Amendment does not use the phrase "separation of church and state".

Nope. When Coons quoted the establishment clause verbatim, she still looked dubmfounded and again asked "is that in the constitution?" So, since we're reading her comments generously, maybe she doesn't think the Bill of Rights is in the constitution, either (execpt for the 2nd, 9th and 10th Amendments, of course. But the more likely explanation is that she is so fully immersed in the rightwing's alternative version of constitutional history and jurisprudence that she thinks the 1st amendment doesn't present any barriers to wholesale proselytizing by state actors.

I don't think so. In fact,

Dan Kervick — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 13:42:31 +0000

In reply to Digging her grave deeper, the

I don't think so. In fact, it seemed she was being quite insistent about the point that the First Amendment does not use the phrase "separation of church and state". My guess is that the gasping audience was filled with people who know even less about the Constitutional text itself than O'Donnell does, and are under the erroneous impression that the Jeffersonian language is actually part of the document.

In any case, I think Democrats need to move on from their obsession with the Christine O'Donnell train wreck. It was smart politics to make her the face of the Republican Party for a while. But the point has been well made. And now the daily piling on, which is in some cases more groping and ill-informed than O'Donnell herself, is only likely to generate a sympathetic backlash effect.

My understanding is that the

we are stardust — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 13:32:57 +0000

In reply to I guess I'm a liitle bit

My understanding is that the government can't fund or give support to religious teaching or religions. I've been surprised by Obama's financial support of religious-based charities, frankly. His administration's reasoning is that many of those organizations already have structured systems for delivery of money, goods, or services.

On the other hand, some religious soup kitchens require recipients to pray before they get their meal.

I'll go with Donal on that.

William K. Wolfrum — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:54:28 +0000

In reply to Digging her grave deeper, the

I'll go with Donal on that.

Digging her grave deeper, the

Donal — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:39:42 +0000

In reply to I guess I'm a liitle bit

Digging her grave deeper, the Tea Party candidate actually caused the crowd to gasp when, after Coons summarized the first amendment, she asked “That’s in the First Amendment?”

I think more people would argue that O'Donnell didn't seem to know that the First Amendment said anything about church and state than would claim she was making a sophisticated commentary on its interpretation.

I guess I'm a liitle bit

Dan Kervick — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:02:25 +0000

In reply to William K. Wolfrum’s Morning – Our Apologies

I guess I'm a liitle bit puzzled by this so-called O'Donnell "gaffe". The Jeffersonian interpretation of the 1st amendment religious clauses as erecting a "wall of separation" between church and state has been challenged by many constitutional scholars, and not just conservative ones. I think many people would argue that while the 1st Amendment strongly restricts government interference in religious affairs, it does not at all restrict the active participation of religious organizations, as religious organizations, in the political process. So the "wall of separation" language is surely entitled to be seen as controversial.