{"id":11199,"date":"2010-10-20T15:27:26","date_gmt":"2010-10-20T15:27:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2010\/10\/20\/christine-odonnell-and-the-first-amendment\/"},"modified":"2010-10-20T15:27:26","modified_gmt":"2010-10-20T15:27:26","slug":"christine-odonnell-and-the-first-amendment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2010\/10\/20\/christine-odonnell-and-the-first-amendment\/","title":{"rendered":"Christine O&#8217;Donnell and the First Amendment"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">Although O&#39;Donnell &#0160;comes across as an airhead, she was actually right: there are no such words as &quot;separation of church and state&quot; in the First Amendment.&#0160; The Establishment Clause reads, &quot;Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .&quot;&#0160; Chris Coons got it wrong when he misquoted the clause as &quot;Government shall make no establishment of religion.&quot;&#0160; Not government, but <em>congress<\/em>.&#0160; <a href=\"http:\/\/legalinsurrection.blogspot.com\/2010\/10\/what-if-christine-odonnell-were-right.html\" target=\"_self\">William A. Jacobson<\/a> explains why this matters&#0160; Not &quot;make no establishment of religion,&quot; but &quot;make no LAW RESPECTING an establishment of religion.&quot;&#0160; In other words, Congress shall not enact any law that sets up any particular religion as the state religion.&#0160; (But it seems it also can be interpreted &#0160;to have the further meaning: Congress shall enact no law that<em> disestablishes<\/em>&#0160;&#0160;any particular religion that happens to have been established.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">I refer you to <a href=\"http:\/\/legalinsurrection.blogspot.com\/2010\/10\/what-if-christine-odonnell-were-right.html\" target=\"_self\">Professor Jacobson<\/a> for detailed analysis.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">And another thing.&#0160; I have never understood why liberals oppose the posting of the Ten Commandments in, say, a judge&#39;s chambers. (Well, I do understand why they oppose it; my point is that I can&#39;t see that they have a logical or First Amendment leg to stand on.)&#0160; First, the Decalogue is not specific to Christianity or to the other two Abrahamic faiths: it is precisely common to all three in virtue of its Old Testament provenience. &#0160; Hence even if its posting could establish a religion as the state religion it would be no particular religion that would be thereby established.&#0160; Second, and more fundamentally, it is ludicrous to suppose that the mere posting of the Ten Commandments could have the effect of establishing any particular religion as the state religion.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">What motivates leftists (and contemporary liberals whose slouch towards leftism leaves them for all practical purposes indistinguishable from the former) is hatred of Judeo-Christian religion, and with, it hatred of the morality that such religion conveys.&#0160; Note that I wrote &#39;Judeo-Christian&#39; and not &#39;Abrahamic.&#39;&#0160; For it is a bizarre fact about the Left that they are soft on that religion which is uniquely violent and uniquely anti-Enlightenment at the present time, Islam.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Although O&#39;Donnell &#0160;comes across as an airhead, she was actually right: there are no such words as &quot;separation of church and state&quot; in the First Amendment.&#0160; The Establishment Clause reads, &quot;Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .&quot;&#0160; Chris Coons got it wrong &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2010\/10\/20\/christine-odonnell-and-the-first-amendment\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;Christine O&#8217;Donnell and the First Amendment&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[32,16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11199","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-current-affairs","category-u-s-constitution"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11199","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11199"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11199\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11199"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11199"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11199"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}