The Thomas, Williams, and O'Donnell Stories are Beside the Point

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Fox is # 1 on cable. Beating second place CNN by 3-8 times depending on show. Their fair and balanced agenda pleases their growing audience.
Juan has been a respected regular liberal view on Fox shows.
“Uncle Tom” reference by you is SICK. Bigot. Cheap shot. Shows your low class…
The few remaining people such as yourself don’t understand doing the right thing. Even THE VIEW stands up for Juan.
Enjoy the new make-up of Congress come January...

Bill Hedges of MO 10:45AM October 25, 2010

How much Neocon Mileage can FOX get out of Uncle Juan?

nader paul kucinich gravel mckinney 4:03AM October 25, 2010

Madison's idea of a perfect separation of church and state included his attendance of church services in Statuary Hall. His magnificent writings on the subject should be read with that knowledge. Church services were held in many federal buildings during the Jefferson and Madison administrations... including the Supreme Court.
Their concept of separation was very different than what it is has come to mean today.

Mike of GA 6:47PM October 23, 2010

Here's what Madison, author of the First Amendment, thought:
"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819)."
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820)."
"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822)."
O'Donnell and other Theocrats and amateur Constitutionalists are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Separation of Church and state is EXACTLY what the framers meant in drafting the First Amendment. They left a "Christian nation" for the express purpose of not living in one.

Orlando J. of FL 5:20PM October 23, 2010

"What part of "Congress Shall Make No Law Regarding the Establishment of Religion" don't the neanderthal element understand??"
Maybe a review of Everson and subsequent court rulings which have defined the modern doctrine of separation of church and state would be helpful. The Constitution and the First Amendment are for simpletons obviously. I have the court cases written on my cave wall here and I'll try to copy and paste onto the blog ... pictures and all.

Mike of GA 3:43PM October 23, 2010

The separation of Church and State in our political system is very clear from the US Constitution's first Amendment. Anyone who doesn't get it is a fool. But then again, anyone who feels her Christian beliefs obliges here to rat out Jews to Nazis if asked is going to be stupid enough to miss the first amendment. Face it, O'Donnell has very low cognitive abilities. Maybe that is why she's a teabagger.

steve of IL 2:28PM October 23, 2010

O'Donnell is not the uninformed player in this episode but Coons, the Widener law students/ professors, and the majority of journalists are evidently ignorant. The concept of separation of church and state at the time the First Amendment was ratified bears little resemblance to the modern doctrine which didn't enter constitutional law until 1947. As President of the Senate in 1800 Jefferson signed his approval for church services to be held in the halls of Congress. He attended his first service in Congress in 1802 two days after he wrote his famous letter to the Danbury Baptists containing the "wall of separation" statement. Madison, Father of the Constitution and one of the authors of the First Amendment, attended church services in Congress throughout his presidency. The current doctrine of separation of church and state and its nutty application is a modern creation of the courts and does not exist in the First Amendment in word or intent beyond the principles of prohibitions against a federally sponsored religion and prohibition of FEDERAL government interference with religious practices. Massachusetts required its citizens to be members of a church and pay church taxes until 1833 ... 42 years after ratification of the First Amendment. So where was the separation principle?
O' Donnell's position is correct ... both literally and in fact. See this exhibit from the Library of Congress and see if you think either Jefferson or Madison intended or interpreted the modern doctrine of separation of church and state to be in the Constitution or First Amendment:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html

Mike of GA 10:48AM October 23, 2010

What Miss O'Donnell was pointing by saying "Where in the Constitution is the separation of Church and State?" is the phrase "separation of church and state" does not occur in the U.S Constitution. My guess is most people have not read the constitution, and are not aware of this.

Jim of MN 6:25PM October 22, 2010

"But 19 years later I still don’t believe Anita Hill."
Perhaps you penned your article before Lillian McEwen decided to come out and begin shopping her Memoirs early? In light of her interviews, in my opinion even the most Kool-Aid besotted Conservatives among us should be required to give their opinion a second look.
After all, the poor judgement of the Senators who confirmed Thomas was ultimately tied to the antiquated notions of the electorate who villified an innocent woman.
I beg to differ that these revelations don't matter today.
The confirmation of Justice Thomas has in large part led to a decrease in Privacy, a major erosion in the value of Free Speech of the Individual Citizen opposed to the Corporate Citizen, an unreasonable extension of the powers of the Executive Branch, and now in this decade may well be the deciding vote on limiting the Establishment Clause's application to the 14th Amendment.
It is apt you dismiss Canidate O'Donnell's gaffe in how she delivered her opinion on the First Amendment. If because the words "Seperation of Church and State" don't appear in the Amended Constitution the Establishment Clause shouldn't be interpreted to exclude prayer from school and religious icons from public buildings.
Do you think her unique in her opinions? Isn't it likely that this crop of upstart social conservative Republicans share at leat that opinion? The significance is that we are poised to elect a large number of new legislators that echo the same doubts you have about Ms. Hills' testimony; except they are willing to doubt our entitlement of fundamental rights.

Nathan of IL 3:50PM October 22, 2010

Right. Any time a poster-boy for conservatism reveals him- (or her-) self to be a liar or hypocrite, they call goes out to claim "Naw, this doesn't matter." Actually it does matter, because if Americans had known about the real Clarence Thomas I'm *sure* he would not have been confirmed for a position on the supreme court. Now there's really no difference between Larry Flint and Clarence Thomas, is there?

er mitchell of UT 3:24PM October 22, 2010