Dittos, 

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Back Home Button
The Rush Limbaugh Show
Excellence in Broadcasting
RSS Icon
ADVERTISEMENT

EIB WEB PAGE DISGRONIFIER

Media Twist O'Donnell-Coons Exchange on Church and State

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: There was a debate between Christine O'Donnell and Chris Coons, and the way the media... I read this this morning, and I knew -- I just knew but I didn't have time to get into the details at the time, but I knew -- with what I had read that it could not be this way. There was a story that was written in such a way as to make the reader believe that Christine O'Donnell did not know that the First Amendment prohibited the government from establishing a religion. The story was written in such a way they had Christine O'Donnell saying, "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?" What she was talking about was this idiot Coons talking about "the separation of church and state." She was saying, "Are you telling me separation of church and state's in the Constitution?" because it isn't.

There's nothing in the Constitution about separation of which you need and state. It was Coons who couldn't figure out what's in the Constitution. It's Coons who didn't know what he was talking about. And so the panic in the State-Controlled Media, they write a story making it look like O'Donnell doesn't know what she's talking about. They had to misquote her and take her out of context in order to make this point. "Are you telling me that that's in the First Amendment?" meaning, the government cannot officially sponsor a religion. That's not what she was expressing incredulity over. She was incredulous that somebody was saying that the Constitution said, "There must be separation between church and state." Those words are not in the Constitution.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Back to Delaware here. I'm reading this story today, and it makes it out like Christine O'Donnell did not know that the First Amendment forbids the establishment of religion by government. My first reaction when I read it was to call somebody. I said, "What the hell is this?" I said, "This can't be. I'm not going to call anybody. This has to be an out-and-out lie." Here's a partial sound bite from a debate this morning in Wilmington. At the Widener Law School during the debate ba-da ba-da ba-da, a discussion of evolution and creationism, after Coons said, "Private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that religious doctrine doesn't belong in public schools." Christine O'Donnell and Coons had this exchange about "the separation of church and state."

O'DONNELL: Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?

COONS: It's in --

IDIOT LAW STUDENTS: (laughter)

COONS: Excellent point. ...

IDIOT LAW STUDENTS: (laughter)

COONS: Hold on. The First Amendment establishes the separation, the fact that the federal government shall not establish any religion?

RUSH: Could you replay the sound bite? I need to hear the whole bite. Somebody interrupted me during the -- replay the bite. Here's what Christine O'Donnell said.

O'DONNELL: Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?

COONS: It's in --

IDIOT LAW STUDENTS: (laughter)

COONS: Excellent point. ...

IDIOT LAW STUDENTS: (laughter)

COONS: Hold on. The First Amendment establishes the separation, the fact that the federal government shall not establish any religion?

RUSH: And she said, "Are you telling me that's in the First Amendment?" What she meant was, "Are you telling me separation of church and state is in the First Amendment?" It's not! Christine O'Donnell was absolutely correct. The First Amendment says nothing about "the separation of church and state." This is a modern and incorrect description of the prohibition of the establishment of a national religion, pure and simple. And the left has taken this to say that religious people cannot be in government and that you can't teach something like creation in the schools while you can teach evolution, because evolution isn't religion but creationism is. Intelligent design can't be taught because that's a religion. Evolution isn't.

Yet both require faith, because neither can be proved as an explanation where all this came from. Nobody can prove where this came from! You can't say that we evolved from nothing, and the anti-creationists don't want to believe that there's a God with intelligent, efficient design, and all that. She was not saying she didn't know that government shall not establish a religion. So that's the bite. You heard the laughter. Now, Michelle Malkin has a different take. Chris Coons cannot name the five freedoms in the First Amendment. This is what's not being reported. ""Delaware Democratic Senate candidate Chris Coons can't name the five freedoms in the First Amendment. But all you'll hear from the MSM today is that Christine O'Donnell -- correctly -- questioned Coons' claim that the phrase 'the separation of church and state' appears in the First Amendment.

"Coons' ignorance doesn't fit the O'Donnell bashers' narrative. So they'll pretend this didn't happen," and here's the story. "Delaware GOP Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell questioned on Tuesday whether the Constitution provides for the separation of church and state. The comment came during a debate on WDEL radio with Democratic opponent Chris Coons, who argued that local schools should teach science rather than religion, at which point O'Donnell jumped in. 'Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?' she asked. The audience at Widener Law School was taken aback, with shouts of 'whoa' and laughter coming from the crowd. Coons then pointed to the First Amendment, which states: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'

"'You're telling me the First Amendment does?' O'Donnell interrupted to ask. Following the next question, Coons revisited the remark -- likely thinking he had caught O'Donnell in a flub -- saying, 'I think you've just heard from my opponent in her asking "where is the separation of church and state" show that she has a fundamental misunderstanding.' 'That's in the First Amendment?' O'Donnell again asked. 'Yes,' Coons responded. O'Donnell was later able to score some points of her own off the remark, revisiting the issue to ask Coons if he could identify the 'five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment.' Coons named the separation of church and state, but could not identify the others -- the freedoms of speech, press, to assemble and petition -- and asked that O'Donnell allow the moderators ask the questions.

"'I guess he can't,' O'Donnell said." So when he got caught with his own intellectual pants down he ran to the moderator for cover. All she was saying was the Constitution doesn't say anything about "separation of church state." listen to the bite again, because the scary thing here is that the audience laughed. That's the scary thing. The scary thing at a law school, the scary thing is that a bunch of idiots laughed at the notion that the Constitution doesn't say "separation of church and state." Here's the bite again. It's number 31.

O'DONNELL: Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?

COONS: It's in --

IDIOT LAW STUDENTS: (laughter)

COONS: Excellent point. ...

IDIOT LAW STUDENTS: (laughter)

COONS: Hold on. The First Amendment establishes the separation, the fact that the federal government shall not establish any religion?

RUSH: That's not in the Constitution. "Separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution, and the fact that people laughed about this is what's really scary. Most of the Framers and the congressmen who were first elected to the House and Senate prayed every day and went to church in Congress on Sundays, and in fact the House is opened every day with a prayer! Apparently back in the day, the Founders didn't know that there was separation of church and state. All the Founders said was that the state shall not establish an official religion. It does not say that people in government shall not practice or cannot practice a religion. The Senate opens with a prayer every day, as does the House. The House has a chaplain, for crying out loud!

So this story was purposely written to make it look like Christine O'Donnell does not know what's in the First Amendment, when she was right. Nowhere in the Constitution will you find the words "separation of church and state," and nowhere in the Constitution will you find anything written to convey the meaning that religion is not permitted to be part of government. All it says is that the government shall "establish" one. The United States government cannot proclaim, "This is a Christian nation." It cannot proclaim, "This is a Jewish state," cannot proclaim the official religion of our country is Islam. They cannot do it. But we can have Islamists in government, we can have Christians in government, we can have Jews in government, and they can pray while serving! This has been one of the tricks of the left for as long as I've been alive.

To get God out of our culture, to get God out of the schools, to get God out of everyday life. It's to try to say that the Constitution prohibits God, that's what they want the interpretation of the First Amendment to be. The Constitution does not prohibit God. I mean, for crying out loud, look at the Declaration, acknowledged as one of our founding documents. We are all "endowed by our Creator." The reason for this phrase in the First Amendment was where were these people fleeing? England! The Church of England. Henry VIII established a religion so he could get divorced. Pure and simple, he wanted to get a divorce. Religion said, "No." "Okay, I'm going to make my own religion. Screw you! I'm gonna behead somebody. Screw you!" They were fleeing religious persecution. The scary thing is that a bunch of dummkopf, dingleberry law students and audience at a law school laughed at the correct portrayal of what's in the Constitution.

Christine O'Donnell may be as "stupid" as Justice Scalia. You want to know what he said about it? Justice Scalia: "In holding that the establishment clause prohibits invocations and benedictions at public school graduation ceremonies, the court with nary a mention that it is doing so lays waste a tradition that is as old as public school graduation ceremonies themselves and that is a component of an even more long-standing American tradition of nonsectarian prayer to God at public celebrations generally. As its instrument of destruction, the bulldozer of its social engineering, the court invents a boundless and boundlessly manipulable test of psychological coercion." That is Justice Scalia writing about people amplifying the establishment clause to suggest that God can't be mentioned, that prayers cannot happen at public graduations.

That was Justice Scalia writing about those on the Supreme Court who would rule that God could not be part of anything to do with government or anything public. The Constitution doesn't say it. Christine O'Donnell was right. Chris Coons couldn't name the five freedoms enumerated in the First Amendment. (interruption) Christine O'Donnell is... (interruption) Well, does she...? Snerdley says that Christine O'Donnell's not slick; she doesn't know how to say it to get past these connivers and SOBs. I guess not if you want to look at it that way. The guy says establishment of church and state. She says, "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?" She knows full well it's not. It's not that she's not slick enough. She's assuming that everybody is as smart as she is. She's assuming that everybody's as informed as she is. That's the mistake many of us conservatives make: We assume everybody knows what we know. We assume everybody is as informed as we are. That's why I say it was really scary that these lamebrains at that law school laughed at the absolute correct assertion that she made.

END TRANSCRIPT

ADVERTISEMENT

Rush 24/7 Audio/Video

Watch Live Listen Live

Facebook

ADVERTISEMENT

Most Popular

EIB Features

ADVERTISEMENT: