William K. Wolfrum's picture

    William K. Wolfrum’s Morning – Our Apologies

    By William K. Wolfrum on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 7:26am | Politics, Arts & Entertainment, Humor & Satire, World Affairs

    Sorry about that.

    News/Politics

    Apologize!: Wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas gives Anita Hill a call, asks for an apology. As a matter of fact, yes, Ginny Thomas is Tea Party leader.

    DADT Dead?: The military is now accepting openly gay recruits. But the Obama Admin hasn't given up the fight to keep them out.

    Theocracy: Christine O'Donnell doesn't really understand the First Amendment.

    Sports/Entertainment

    MLB Playoffs: Yankees Lose!

    Glee: And now they're getting naked.

    Russian Spy: The spy game just isn't what it used to be

    Quote of the Day

    If you're a Saudi Prince and you can't beat a servant/lover to death, what's the point of being royalty?

    Blogs

    Richard Day: Mein Kampf.

    Quinn the Eskimo: Hey Dick Cheney! THBBFT!

    AmericaBlog: The British are cutting defense spending. Hint, hint.

    Rude Pundit: A Defense of Presidential "Arrogance"

    Back2Stonewall: Lt. Dan Choi re-enlists.

    Angry Black Bitch: Hispanics? What Hispanics?

    Finally

    Seriously, we're really sorry.

    --WKW

    Crossposted at William K. Wolfrum Chronicles

    Topics: 
    Politics
    Arts & Entertainment
    Humor & Satire
    World Affairs
    Series: 
    William K. Wolfrum's Morning

    Comments

    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.


    by Dan Kervick on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 8:02am

    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.


    by Donal on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 8:39am

    I'll go with Donal on that.


    by William K. Wolfrum on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 8:54am

    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.


    by Dan Kervick on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 9:42am

    "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.

     

     


    by brewmn on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 9:51am

    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.


    by DF on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 3:11pm

    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.


    by we are stardust on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 9:32am

    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.


    by Donal on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 10:33am

    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)


    by we are stardust on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 10:56am

    Latest Comments