Skip navigation


Recently Christine O’Donnell was grilled over the separation of Church and State (and other topics but lets just focus on that one.) In a debate with her opponent in her local race.

Now first off, because I was going to do a blog on this subject but alas I am unable to…I like her. A lot. Which is saying something in today’s political climate and how often we have burned. But right now she seems to be a straight shooter and someone who is very brave.

Challenging someone in what is in essence, their home turf, being mocked and ridiculed but yet sticking to her guns.

Now from the video there are two ways you can look at her reactions.

One…that she was stupid and did not know what she was talking about, and was ‘surprised’ that the separation of Church and State even existed in the Constitution.

This is the obvious opinion of the students, mocking and ridiculing, laughing, saying OMG and things like that.

The other interpretation was that she was challenging him, forcing him to defend his position, come up with the exact quote, and come up with the proper answer.

And as we found out the phrase does not exist in the Constitution but it has been misquoted as in the document.
The proper reference can be found in the establishment clause of the US constitution.

But, in my opinion, the guy lost the debate. He did not do himself any favors.

He went on and on about things that he thought were important to Delaware, the jobs and the economy and did not touch upon the actual question until much later, at which point is when she asked him.

And then he went onto state the importance of interpreting the Constitution in today’s context, and then went on to cite Roe Vs. Wade and the right to choose.

Now, if I may be blunt, that is not how you should interpret the Constitution. You should interpret the Constitution as it was written, as it was intended, and not for a different context, and not how groping through the Constitution in order to justify the decisions and your interpretations that does not make sense.

It is true that the separation of Church and State is a good idea, it is true that there are documents and letters making a case for it.

But it does not show up in our Constitution, it does not show up in the first amendment, and to add onto that it was originally meant to protect religion from excesses of the Government, and not the Government from religion.

Though it sort of also does that by protecting religion.

It protects Government and religion coming together and forcing religious belief on people.

It was not meant to stifle religion in any way, in fact the clause supports religion, or freedom of in any case.

It was not meant to stop religious freedom in the school yard in the public square, it was not meant to stop people from making decisions based on what they believe God would want.

It was meant to protect all of our searches for the divine in our own way.

And I would have no problem with someone praying in a classroom, after all I would have no problem with teachers or coaches praying and asking for Gods guidance. There is a time and a place for that.

Every school has lunch, breaks, before school, and times for Students to purely be students, alone and rest time.

And no student should be forced to limit their behavior during that time in any way. Except for the obvious illegal ones.

If they want to pray to God well that is up to them.

After all we allow Muslims to pray in some cases without problem in the lunch room and kitchens, and after all Cambridge schools are now recognizing Muslims for holiday.

If this is fine so should a Christian prayer group under a tree…during lunch.

We have a fundamental right to hunt for the divine and to come to God in our own way. And that needs to be restored because it is one of those fundamental ‘who are we’ questions.

Questions that will be answered in this election…and beyond.



  1. yeah…….the establishment clause is intended to defend against the institution of a state church…..something our ancestors fled to this land to escape….a state sponsored religion….aka a theocracy

    to a certain extent it means that religious life and political life should be separate……but the Constitution does not prevent the 2 worlds from intersecting…..if it was intended to do that then religious people would not have the right to vote or to speak their minds…simply put liberty would be virtually non-existent

    • absolutly, great comments. And a terrible truth.

  2. Hmmmm yeah very interesting blog indeed. And it is amazing how no doubt through the (grapevine or the old telephone game) things have gotten blow out of proportion over the years, or fabricated in a completely different way than they were originally intended. In my research here is some interesting facts about that original letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists that started this whole thing.

    • I will have to look at that. 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s