Well the liberal left is at it again. Distorting what has actually been said and taking sound bites out of context.
At a debate held at Widener Law School the two candidates for the U.S. Senate seat from Delaware were having an exchange over whether or not creationism should be taught alongside the theory of evolution in public schools.
The Democrat candidate Chris Coons of course took the position that it should not be. He said that parochial and private schools had the right to teach as they saw fit, but that due to the separation of church and state, public schools should only teach “SCIENCE”. Christine O’Donnell, the Republican candidate then asked Mr. Coons where in the Constitution was separation of church and state mentioned.
Unfortunately for the future of the nation, the law students in attendance laughed at Ms. O’Donnell’s question as if it were a foolish one.
Mr. Coons then went on to demonstrate his liberal understanding of the Constitution by stating that separation of church and state is held in the First Amendment. He pointed to the “establishment” clause. That clause has been used by the liberal left to hold that there must be a separation at all cost of church and state. It has actually ben used to prevent children from bowing their heads to say grace over their lunch time meals.
The First Amendment reads as : Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Okay. No where in this amendment are we told that there shall be no discussion of religion. In fact we are told that we are guaranteed the right to exercise our freedom of religion.
According to Mr. Coons we are to believe that the establishment clause restricts any discussion of religion in a school or any government setting. This requires us to believe that the mere discussion of creationism will somehow lead to a state-run religion. This is absurd.If we are to ban all discussion of religion in a government establishment, then we could not even have the Supreme Court consider the issue. Are not the Justices employees of the state? Are they not seated in a government building? We have to remember that the issue in the debate was whether or not creationism should be discussed alongside of evolution as an alternative explanation of man’s existence. Since neither the theory of evolution, nor the belief of a creator can be proven beyond a doubt, it would seem that for the purpose of intellectual excellence, both should be allowed to be discussed. Ms. O’Donnell is correct when she states that no separation of church and state exists in the Constitution. What does exist, is a prohibition of a state-run religion. The mere discussion of the possibility of a creator does not constitute a state religion.
Much is made of a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. In the letter Jefferson cites the language of the First Amendment and that it built ” a wall of separation of church and state”. Liberals have used this letter as proof of separation within the Constitution. It does not exist. This letter may be Jefferson’s interpretation, but that doesn’t make it so. Jefferson was not even in the country when the Constitution was written. The establishment clause was intended to prohibit a state run church and nothing else. And like so many liberals before him, Mr. Coons got it wrong and Ms. O’Donnell got it right.
In citing the First Amendment as the law of the land on the idea of separation of church and state, Mr. Coons not only demonstrated his liberal view of Constitutional law, but he also managed to state that public schools have no right to freedom of speech when it comes to religion and he also managed to shred the Tenth Amendment by basically saying that local school districts within states had no right to set their own curriculums.
Chris Coons in this exchange demonstrated that he will put his liberal agenda ahead of the Constitution and ahead of the good of the nation. He has again shown that he cares not for the truth, but only for the power that his election can lend to the Obama administration, and that he would shred the Founding documents to preserve that power. We the voters of Delaware cannot allow this man to represent us in Washington, we must elect a person such as Christine O’Donnell who will not only protect the integrity of the Constitution, but who will protect our individual Liberties.