On Separation of Church & State: Christine O’Donnell is Right
Fronted by Erick.
Christine O’Donnell might not be the model candidate. She has made more than her share or errors, but as the Senator from Delaware, she will not disappoint. She will vote with Jim DeMint, will be the first pro-life female Senator who is not afraid to own it and will not spend our money like it’s her own. I know she has fumbled a few times, but she did not fumble by denying the concept of separation of church and state. It is not and cannot be found in the Constitution.
After Tuesday’s debate, leftist pundits, including Larry King, trounced on her because she questioned Coon’s statement about whether the First Amendment requires the separation of church and state. The First Amendment requires a number of things that are ignored, separation of church and state is not one of them. History simply does not support it.
One of the initial acts of the first congress was to print bibles. The God that Larry King and I’m sure the other commentators on MSNBC think should not be talked about, but one that O’Donnell believes in, is represented in the bibles ordered to be printed by the Congress. If the Congress printed bibles as an initial act, with government money, how were the two separated?
Separation of church and state evolved from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists – a group of constituents. Jefferson did not participate in drafting the constitution and was not a signatory. Jefferson was basically a modern day blogger. Given that the concept developed way after the convention, it has about as much constitutional merit as Roe v. Wade.
If these liberal “historians” were honest, they would be attacking Coons and the activist courts, not O’Donnell. The truth is, even Jefferson did not believe in the separation of church and state. In writing the letter to the Danbury Baptists, President Jefferson was actually explaining that he had no intention on establishing a national religion and that he would not interfere with the ability of the Danbury Baptists to worship the deity of their choice. Jefferson’s view of the First Amendment was that it was designed to prevent the federal government from interfering with the affairs of the church as King George III had. His Second Inaugural Address makes this concept very clear:
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.
Instead of promoting the separation of church and state, history shows that the church was very much part of the state. Congress opened its initial meeting with prayer and subsequently hired a priest. Jefferson himself attended church in the Capitol Rotunda and even advocated for the following as the seal of the United States: “Children of Israel in the Wilderness, led by a Cloud by Day, and a Pillar of Fire by night. . . .”
Over the last twenty years, the courts have stopped all prayer in public schools, prohibited the display of the Ten Commandments and stopped children from reading the bible in public schools. This is what the First Amendment was designed to prohibit. It was never intended to create a wall of separation between church and state. Read the Mayflower Compact: the Pilgrims made the journey “for the Glory of God,” not to separate the church from the state, but for the right to live in the state and practice their religion.
The Investment Business Daily got it right: Decrees of Separation. Instead of laughing at O’Donnell and questioning her intellect, some of these leftist elitists need to read the Constitution again or for the first time.
Larry King and the others are hostile to any public profession of faith and they seem to be more likely to worship secularism than God. They are clearly hostile to the true meaning of the Constitution. O’Donnell as imperfect as she is, wants so come to Washington and shake things up. She will not shake up the Constitution though; she will actually adhere to it.