In a recent debate between Delaware Senate candidate’s Chris Coons (D) and Christine O’Donnell (R) the US Constitution was a vital theme. A question was raised by the Republican candidate to her counterpart where she asked “Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?” In order to fully understand the purpose of this question the context of the debate needs to be fully revisited.
Democratic candidate Mr. Coons in the prior debate had questioned Mrs. O’Donnell on her belief of the theory of evolution. Rather then provide a direct answer she asked what relevance that had to the substance of the debate? Furthermore, she deflected it by asking what role the Federal government should have in deciding school curriculum through the Department of Education.
That brief spat between the two candidates in the prior debate overflowed into yesterday’s discussion. The debate was held at Widener Law School ,which explains the wide range of questions on Constitutionality; ranging from “right to privacy” to Roe v. Wade. The topic presented at the time centered around the subject of religion and the law.
Again Senate Candidate Chris Coons questioned his opponents belief in the theory of evolution and the validity of why it should be answered. Mrs. O’Donnell criticized Coons for saying that teaching creationism in public school would violate the Constitution. She went further to correct her opponent by calling it “intelligent design.” Credit Mrs. O’Donnell on that note because there is a difference between the two ideologies – a fact the media and moderators failed to notice.
Mr. Coons response was that private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism. However, he said “religious doctrine doesn’t belong in our public schools,” stating the “indispensable principle” of separation of church and state as his reasoning.
He further went on to explain that the separation of church and state was one of a number of “settled pieces of constitutional law” that had been worked out through years of legal development – the Supreme Court playing a vital role.
It is at this point in the debate where we arrive at Mrs. O’Donnell’s infamous question. Here is where I differ from the majority of the media on the issue. The question itself is perfectly valid. The major concern was the reaction from the crowd of Law students and her opponent Mr. Coons – a current attorney.
They overwhelmingly gasped in awe over her question. Democratic candidate Coons took it further responding, rather mockingly, that her question “reveals her fundamental misunderstanding of what our Constitution is….The First Amendment establishes a separation.”
The mistake was not the question by Mrs. O’Donnell. Her major gaff was in her interpretation of the crowd reaction. That is the emphasis of this article.
What is baffling is the typical liberal stance that Mr. Coons takes by citing judicial precedence on the topic rather then Constitutional merit. What is even more disturbing is that judging by the Law students reaction they agreed on that concept. This should raise a red flag and provides another example of how liberal ideology dominates the classroom.
Constitutional Lawyer and conservative commentator, Mark Levin, warns us about this danger in his book Men In Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America, “Well if judicial precedent is settled then we should comply with it…Plessy v. Ferguson decided in the late 1890′s and that held…that separate but equal was equal.”
Mr. Levin merely points out the absurdity of judicial precedence as law, rather than confiding in the constitution. The constitution did not warrant segregation as a legal act. Supreme court justices, in overstepping the boundaries of the constitution, came to that conclusion.
In fact “the separation of church and state,” as Mr. Levin describes in his book, is a fairly recent interpretation “based on a misreading of Thomas Jefferson’s now famous letter to the Danbury Baptists.” The letter was written fourteen years after the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1789. A fact that Justice Rehnquist felt “to any detached observer a less than ideal source of contemporary history to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.” The letter was intent on explaining why he (Jefferson) did not issue a national proclamation of certain religious holidays.
Jefferson references the establishment clause in his letter which states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” There is no “wall of separation” it merely distinguishes that you cannot create a national religion. This explains why he did not issue any declarations for thanksgiving or fasting because they would indirectly establish a national religion.
In a 1947 court decision, Everson v. Board of Education, Justice Hugo Black saw it differently. Ironically the decision upheld the use of public funds to transport children to Catholic schools and Justice Black wrote the majority position. We later learn from Justice Black’s biographer Mr. Roger K. Newman that “he did so for the purpose of undercutting the true meaning of the religion clauses.”
Justice Hugo Black was appointed by FDR in 1937. He was a former member of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920′s. During this time period, history and Mark Levin, remind us that “the Klan was deeply resentful of the growing influence of Catholicism in the United States.” It is this resent that would manifest itself in the misinterpretation of Jefferson’s mention of a “wall of separation,” and the reasoning behind the bastardization of the establishment clauses’ true intent.
The founding fathers never intended for their to be an actual “wall of separation.” In fact James Madison one of the primary authors of the Bill of Rights – where the establishment clause is located – wrote that belief in God was “essential to the moral order of the world.”
Thomas Jefferson, whose letter Justice Black misinterprets in his decision, was responsible for the Declaration of Independence which states: “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator [emphasis added] with certain unalienable rights.” It is no wonder our current president Barack Obama intentionally skipped over those words in a speech recently.
Activist judges and liberals have sought out the exclusion of religion from our everyday lives. Whether through exclusion of prayer in public schools or mentioning the following phrase in the pledge of allegiance “under God.”
Our founders warned against excluding religion from our everyday lives. Thomas Jefferson whom Justice Black references in his decision also believed that without faith liberty was vulnerable: “And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not violated but with his wrath?”
President Washington went so far as to issue the following proclamation:
“Now therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of the great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is or that will be; that we may then unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.”
President Washington essentially called for a national prayer to God within days of the vote on the Bill of Rights. The prayer did not establish a religion, it merely called for prayer to a God, no matter which denomination. This belief in a higher being is quintessential to our founding principles and how the Framers intended the constitution’s interpretation.
There is a need to reexamine many issues in regard to the constitution and how they are being taught in classrooms today. Government has crossed the boundaries the Constitution laid forth for them and is an issue that must be addressed at a national level before we reach a point of no return.
The Constitution is not a “charter of negative liberties” as President Obama states. They are negative according to Mr. Obama because they establish limits to governmental extent. Any casual observer should realize how the constitution may be detrimental to his beliefs. Unfortunately, because its intent has been misinterpreted and taught incorrectly we now see the continued practice of big government and its overreaching arc on such clauses as establishment of religion and commerce.
America needs a reeducation on the dreams of our founders and the intent of the documents they left behind. President Reagan said it best:
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”
Time for America to stand up and become aware of what is happening today or we will be the generation that fails to pass on the theory of American exceptionalism. We are that “beacon on a hill,” don’t allow the flame to extinguish.
