We learned
today that candidate for U.S. Senate,
a candidate who would swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States
if she won,
does not know the first thing
about the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights.
In our fifth story:
Republican Tea Party candidate Christine O'Donnell of Delaware
literally did not know the first thing in the First Amendment.
It is, of course, the fundamental principle on which this nation was founded.
That principle, as you'll see, that she actually disputed is even in the Constitution.
For the record,
before we go on,
the relevant words, themselves.
“Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment
of religion.”
It seems pretty clear.
On that basis, Democratic candidate Chris Coons opposes the teaching of creationism
which U.S. courts have found to be a religious doctrine
in public schools.
Why? Because taking taxpayer dollars to fund teaching of religious doctrine
would be the government teaching and establishing
a religion.
And government cannot do that.
But in the debate today, O'Donnell's first claim that evolution is just a theory.
By the way, gravity's explained in science by the gravitational theory.
If you think gravity is just a theory,
you're welcome to try that out and see how it works for you.
O'Donnell then revealed her ignorance about the Constitution, cracking up the audience of law professors
and students
as you‘ll hear for yourselves. Our public schools should be teaching
broadly accepted scientific fact.
Not religious doctrine. Well, you just proved how little you know. The reason we‘re in the mess we‘re in
is because our so-called leaders in Washington
no longer
view the indispensable
principles of our founding as truly that, indispensable. We‘re supposed to have limited government, low taxation—
One of those indispensable principles is the separation of church and state. OK. With that,
very good dialogue. We appreciate that. Let‘s move on so we can get through all the panelists and
cover a number of areas.
from “The News Journal,” please, if you could ask the next question, please.
Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?
It‘s in—excellent point. Hold on. Hold on, please.
That was embarrassing. The moderater moved on. But Coons went back to it as part of a broader debate about
the Constitution,
including O'Donnell‘s support of Griswold v. Connecticut. While she rejects Roe v. Wade,
which is made possible if not inevitable actually by Griswold.
Despite the laughter she got earlier,
O'Donnell
kept at it.
In my view,
it is important to know whether you have on my side a candidate who believes and supports those
things and on the other side a candidate who‘s both unfamiliar with—Let me just clarify.
You‘re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment.
Government shall make no establishment of
religion.
That‘s in the First Amendment? My favorite part is how smug she looks. That was awesome.
Anyway, joining us tonight is Jamie Raskin, professor of constitutional law
at American University,
as well as state senator of Maryland.
Thanks for your time tonight.
My pleasure. Happy to be with you. Yes, great to have you here. Chris Coons understated things, didn't he?
The First Amendment does not prohibit Congress from establishing religion,
does not merely separate church and state. It says Congress shall not even make any law
respecting an establishment of religion.
What‘s the difference there?
Well, that‘s right. No part of a government can make any law respecting an establishment
of religion and also
the First Amendment guarantees the free exercise of every individual to choose his or her own
religion without
the state imposing another religious choice
upon them.
So, you know, I guess, you know, the Republican candidate is right in this very narrow sense
that
the First Amendment doesn't explicitly say
that there‘s a wall of separation between church and state. That was a phrase that Thomas
Jefferson first used
in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist.
But what the conservatives want to say basically is anything that the government does
with respect to religion is OK
as long as they don‘t literally establish a church.
So, that would mean it‘s OK to
tax the taxpayers to give money
to support particular religious dominations or religious activities or
prayer in the schools, the kinds of things that they
want to push. And so,
they've been attacking Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and the founders
of the Constitution who really did believe in a
radical separation of church and state. That was the whole meaning of the First Amendment
and really the most revolutionary thing about the American Constitution.
What would Thomas Jefferson know about the Constitution, anyway?
And by the way, she went further. She said, establishment of
that we cannot establish religion in the First Amendment, come on.
So, she got it completely and utterly wrong.
But let's go further here to the core of this here.
How revolutionary an idea was that at the time when the Founding Fathers said we shall not
have a state religion?
Well, and look, the glory of the American Constitution,
you know, beyond the separation of powers which it appeared before in other places or due process,
which it appeared before in other places
was the radical break from centuries of fusion of church and state
in Europe.
And this history of Holy Wars, the Catholics fighting the Protestants,
the Crusades, the Inquisition,
witchcraft trials, the rack
and the screws
and torture of people because of their religious views.
The American Enlightenment revolutionaries wanted to break
from that violent history of religious conflict
which they were fleeing in Europe,
and so wrote into the First Amendment
these incredible principles that there will be
no establishment of religion here
and every person would be guaranteed a liberty of conscience to make
his or her own choices to
worship how he or she pleases or not at all, as many of the founders indeed
chose not to do. Many of them were,
you know, described as
heretics and deists and infidels, and Thomas Jefferson was,
you know, considered a radical and Jacobin
because of his skepticism towards organized religion.
And in the truth, the Constitution doesn‘t mention the word God.
Article VI says there should be no religious test
for public office. And our founders
wanted to create
a society that was safe for religion and for people to practice religion freely
But that meant no religion could come to dominate government
and oppress everybody else.
Jamie, real quick. I mean, this is not a matter of dispute, is it? I mean, every once in a while you‘ll
see these conservatives say, oh, you know, some of the Founding Fathers really believed in
God and hence, we must be right.
I mean, is this something that‘s disputed in
law, in legal circles? Or is it something that‘s absolutely clear,
these guys, the Founding Fathers
clearly said in the Constitution and
meant we shall not establish a religion
and that there should be
a separation of church and state?
I mean, if you ask me, it‘s perfectly clear. Now, you know, I got to say,
Justice Thomas, for example,
takes a very pinched view of the Establishment Clause where he basically says not only does
it mean only that you can‘t establish a religion the way that
the Anglican Church is established. You know, we have a Church of England.
But only Congress cannot establish the church. There are those
who take the position—and I think Justice Thomas is still one of them
who believe that it‘s OK for states to establish their own churches.
That is the mainstream view. That‘s not the pervasive view.
But,
you know, the Republican nominee in Delaware does speak for
a right wing position which is that
the whole wall of separation understanding of the Constitution, which goes back to the
Founders,
is something that‘s been imposed
by Thomas Jefferson and Madison and by other
radical Jacobins. Right. So, you know, they‘re basically still fighting
a civil conflict that goes back to the beginning of
the American republic and they‘re
contesting what the values of the country are. But what‘s made us
a great country, if you think about us versus,
you know, the people that we‘re dealing with in the Islamic world, is that
we don‘t believe in theocracy. We don‘t believe in an imposition of a religion
where everybody‘s got to follow what the state is saying.
At least we brought some people together. Conservative right wingers here maybe agree with
the conservative government of Saudi Arabia.
There‘s some positive out of this.
Well, there‘s a lot of theocracy on the march all around the world.
Oh, unfortunately, there is. Jamie Raskin, professor of constitutional law at American University
thank you so much for your time tonight.
Pleasure‘s mine.
Now, let‘s turn to MSNBC political analyst Howard Fineman, senior political editor for “Huffington Post” as well.
Good evening, Howard. Hi, Cenk.
All right. Look, even O‘Donnell has already been written off politically, Howard, do her views
speak poorly of the people who elected her, namely the Tea Party voters
Yes. It probably doesn‘t help the Tea Party at all. I mean, I suppose you could argue that
by having Christine O'Donnell around and speaking the way she did today makes Sharon Angle
look like Doris Kearns Goodwin or something.
But it—you know, that‘s the only way she might be useful as a point of contrast.
And what‘s really killing here,
what‘s damning here
is that the Tea Party is run in the name of rights and freedom.
And all of those rights and freedoms are enshrined in the very amendments that she seems
totally ignorant of. So that‘s really the crushing contrast here.
that's really the big question contrast here
Well, you know, they always seem to say that they care so much about the Constitution. But other
than the Second Amendment
and this bizarre theory on the Tenth Amendment,
I never really honestly saw them give a damn. I mean, when Bush was running over the Fourth Amendment,
when we still have warrantless wiretaps, I‘ve never seen them protest that.
Have they—have you seen them protest anything outside of those or care about anything
those two amendments?
No, not really, except that the whole sort of the mood music, the theme music, if you will,
of the Tea Party is:
don‘t tread on me.
And don‘t trample on my rights.
And that‘s a big part of what the Bill of Rights is all about,
and they were enshrined and made applicable to all the states and to all citizens
by the post-Civil War amendments. And you know, they are some of the amendments
that they‘re also questioning right now, because
the 14th Amendment basically says that
everyone here who‘s born here, naturalized here, is a citizen of the United States
and their rights cannot be abridged by any of the states.
And yet, the sort of local orientation of the Tea Party,
you heard Christine O'Donnell talk about local option what the local people want to do.
You know, that‘s—that‘s something that is protected by
the fourteenth amendment
Yes. I love that argument. I love the Constitution
and I‘d like to repeal the 14th Amendment
Yes. It doesn‘t make much sense to me. But, Howard The Civil War was—that was sort of what the Civil War was about.
Yes, I think we had a war over that. That‘s right.
So, now, real quick, though, let‘s pick a religion, because if we‘re going to establish
a religion, and there‘s to separation of church and state,
we got to pick one, right? Is it going to be Episcopalian?
Southern Baptist? Mormon maybe, backed Harry Reid, Mitt Romney
I think there‘s an answer to this question, Cenk. It‘s the Aqua Buddha religion of
Rand Paul when he was in college
I think we‘re all going to— It‘s not a bad answer. I hadn‘t thought of that.
Well, we‘re all going to have to be worshipping Aqua Buddha after the Tea Party takes charge.
Right. Because I presume they‘re not going with Islam. That‘s probably out. But—
Probably out. But Aqua Buddha, keep your eye on that one. OK, I will. OK.
All right. Howard Fineman, senior editor for the “Huffington Post”—thanks for joining us.