The Separation of Congress and Fact

Christine O’Donnell is surfing in the wake of another media storm. This one centered on an exchange between her and her opponent, Chris Coons, regarding the First Amendment and the concept of the Separation of Church and state.

A quick summary of the argument:

O’Donnell made the contention that the “separation of church and state” was
not in the constitution

Coons refuted that by quoting the Establishment Clause in the First
Amendment which states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The aftermath:

Mr. Coons (and the majority of those viewing and watching the debate) thought that Coons had won the exchange. The Establishment Clause has long been associated with the concept of the “separation of church and state.” (Several Supreme Court decisions on the topic have referred to it as such—Lemon v. Kurtzman being the most prominent, but there are quite a few others).


However, O’Donnell felt that she had won—as nowhere in the Constitution do the words “Separation of Church and State” exist. Her position made the (unarticulated) argument that the role of the establishment clause is to keep Government out of Religion—but not keep Religion out of Government.

Here we can get lost in a spiraling and ultimately pointless debate.

The staunchly Conservative side will try to scare us into believing that those who interpret the Establishment Clause as dictating that the Government uphold a strict “separation between church and state,” thus disallowing religion from the public arena—and that the end result will be an society steeped in secular amorality.

The extreme Liberal side will try to scare us all into believing that the Conservatives seek to eliminate the separation of church and state for the purpose of building a theocracy.

And thus—in the “debate” the actual content of the argument and the facts of the matter get swallowed up. So, let’s eliminate the phrase “Separation of Church and State” and actually look at the purpose of the Establishment Clause and how the Supreme Court has interpreted it:

The biggest landmark case regarding the interpretation of the Establishment Clause (as I mention above) was Lemon v. Kurtzman. The judgment helped define the bounds of the Clause by providing a 3-part Litmus test for determining if an action violates the First Amendment. The 3 tests are as follows:

1) The government action must have a secular purpose;
2) Its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) There must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Using this test, the Supreme Court has made several important decisions. One of which was banning states from requiring that Creationism be taught in schools (the court determined that it violates all 3!)

Here I have to add that Ms. O’Donnell has, may times, stated that, Constitutionally, the States have the right to determine if religious messages (such as Creationism/Intelligent Design) are taught in public schools. Though she is free to desire this as a matter of personal preference—as a matter of Constitutional Law—she is simply wrong. Senators take a pledge to uphold the constitution—but it is not within their authority to INTERPRET the law. That is a matter for the Supreme Court (and, in this instance, it is one that the Supreme Court settled some 40 years ago).

The Crux:

My issue? Polarization. These debates turn into sideshows that skirt the actual issues. In places, I thought Coons did a good job of trying to push a few key points: the candidate’s willingness to seek bipartisan compromise for one (this is what I see to be the most vital trait of anyone elected to Congress these days). The sad part?—those quotes didn’t get any media buzz.

These debates (and candidates) don’t address the economic realities. Conservatives scream about cutting Government funding, but few will identify any existing programs they would cut (with the exception of the absolutist Libertarians who want to cut EVERYTHING—a position so extreme and void of potential comprise that it is, in effect, useless).

We have Progressives who cite the need for improving Government efficiency and reforming agencies to reduce waste and promote growth—but they aren’t delivering any clear path of specific actions they would take to do it.

Instead, they squabble pointlessly, using polarizing non-issues, such as the “Separation of Church and State” and both sides then create narratives to create boogie/counter-boogie men.