I believe it is time to weep for the republic. When you deal with this level of ignorance by someone running for national office, what can you say? What part of "Congress shall make no law...." does she not understand?
Bruce Culver, Dallas, TX

Considering that all American civil servants, elected or otherwise, have to take an oath of office in which they swear to uphold the United States Constitution, a candidate for public office here ought to read it and know what it says long before even thinking about mounting an election campaign:

"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States" (Article 6).

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise thereof..." (Amendment 1).

How can one possibly miss that these words, laid down as law by our Founding Fathers at the foundation of our republic, mean that religion can never be used to qualify or disqualify an American citizen when it comes to holding public office, and that the government cannot make any one religion official, favor one religion over another or ban any one religion?

Plain and simple, these two clauses from our constitution boil down to five words: separation of church and state. And that's just not good for government, which thus avoids getting ensnared in the sectarian dominance, hostility and violence we see in other parts of the world. It's good for religion, too: when the church is too entangled with Caesar, it has a hard time standing up to him if he tries to bend God to his own ends. Then religion loses its integrity and authenticity as a force of conscience in the world.

That a candidate for the United States Senate doesn't get that is a clear and present danger to democracy. God help us!

If you folks want to completely purge all discussion of religion from the public sphere, then you'd better by the same token expunge all issues of politics from the pulpit. You can't have it both ways.

And no, the First Amendment to the Constitution is NOT separation of Church and State. Go back and re-read the Founding Fathers.

When Thomas Jefferson first proposed the "wall of separation" between church and state, he was most concerned with protecting religion, as he had known of the terrible corruption in the western Catholic church as it became a major player in European politics during the Middle Ages and later.

Father McQueen,
Nobody is talking about purging discussion of religion from the public sphere, and what an odd thing to suggest on a web site that pays a great deal of attention to the various intersections ot church and state. You follow that assertion by saying that we need to expunge all discussion of politics from the pulpit because you can't have it both ways. This is a non-sequitur. The same First Amendment that forbids Congress from making laws that would favor religion guarantees the right to free speech. (It's the tax code that is at issue when non-profit organizations endorse candidates.)

As someone who reveres Madison, I'd be very interested in knowing what you think he thought about religion.

Jim,
I was simply responding to the article that was posted. The First Amendment does not forbid the teaching of religious doctrine in schools. It would certainly prohibit the advocacy of one religion over another. Ms. O'Donnell is correct in calling her opponent on that point. If that isn't what he meant, then he should certainly have clarified his statement, but I was simply responding to what was given.

Although I agree that the situation in the Senate campaign in Delaware is particularly egregious, this kind of stuff is going on all over the country in this election year. As I recall, when I was in the eighth grade I took a semester-long course in Civics. But I'm an old coot and that was a long time ago. Apparently some schools don't teach Civics any more. (The election campaigns in Iowa this year are particularly unpleasant and ignorant, on both sides.)

We like to remember the Boston Tea Party with fondness, but it was still a mob.

I haven't read any article that portrays this exchange as you have, Father. I'd be very interested to be pointed toward one. The woman was clearly unaware that the establishment clause was part of the First Amendment.

Perhaps part of why this is so incredible is simply that the idea of freedoms enjoyed by citizens under protection of law are such a huge part of the Tea Party's stated reasons for being, so if you're going to run under that ticket, you'd better know your Bill of Rights, letter and spirit. When she was pressed later, she took a pass on Amendments 14 and 16.

Torey Lightcap

There is no wall of separation between church and state in the First Amendment. There IS a prohibition about the State establishing religion or interfering with its free exercise. There is NO prohibition of the church attempting to influence the state.

The non-establishment clause is what prohibits public schools from teaching doctrine on behalf of any church. But the prohibition is too broadly construed, in my opinion, when it is read as prohibiting the teaching of ALL doctrines equally as part of studies of history, religious history, literature etc.

Jefferson coined the cliche "wall of separation" but as one other commentator mentioned it was keep the state from favoring one group over another. It is not in the Constitution.

Ms. O'Donnell seems to be pushing for a legal philosophy in which the phrase "separation of church and state" must literally appear in the text of the Constitution before we can take it seriously. Our legal system is hardly that simple. The principle may be grounded in the Bill of Rights, but it is also based on two centuries case law interpreting the original text. It is that case law which provides the details of what the government can and cannot do with regard to religion.

Unfortunately for us, it is difficult to describe the rich heritage of English common law on a bumper sticker.

I took a class in Comparative Religion in my PUBLIC high school back in the Godless California in the Godless 1970s (if it's not still taught, it's probably due to budget cuts, not some Stalinist secular humanists expunging religion from the public sphere!)

But from your tone Fr McQueen, I wonder if THIS is what you're agitating for (dispassionate academic consideration of the human construction which is Religion) . . . or denouncing Jefferson's "Wall of Separation", because it prevents one majority group from instituting its belief-system OVER other all other beliefs (whether theistic or atheistic)?

It cannot be plausibly denied that, before the 1962 (?) Supreme Court decision banning (teacher-led!) prayer in schools, Christianity WAS that dominant/dominating belief-system, defacto imposed on all public school children.

I believe it is incumbent on those who would argue that the First Amendment doesn't create a "Wall of Separation Between Church and State" to state clearly how their interpretation of the First Amendment would NOT lead back to the bad old days?

JC Fisher

As off-the-wall as Ms. O'Donnell's remark seems, some are suggesting a method in it. People pick up a great deal of their information from what they hear around them. Hence the right-wing effort to flood the public sphere with their views on talk radio, Fox TV, etc. A consistent effort of the right-wing has been to downplay the idea of separation of church and state. O'Donnell's comment may seem uninformed, but it goes out to her supporters as one more chipping-away at the notion of church-state separation. The air is filled with lies nowadays and those that aren't believed serve to muddle the discussion.

The blogger Armondo, aka Big Tent Democrat, gives a thorough background of the right-wing effort to blur the division between church and state:

The focus on O'Donnell's ignorance with regard to the Establishment clause misses the larger point -- O'Donnell was merely parroting the standard line of the Republican Party and the Right on the separation of church and state. The drive to change the meaning of "separation of church and state" is a program of longstanding for the Right.

Murdoch Matthew, husband of Gary

The URL I used for the church-state analysis doesn't work for me. Try this one:

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2010/10/19/175955/86

Sorry.

Murdoch