The Infectious Virus of the O'Donnell Doctrine

Troutfishing has a excellent Rec'd Diary up detailing the depth of the Counter-Factual "This is a Christian Nation" Doctrine that denies the Separation of Church and State, and how that has begun to slip into our military. But I want to take this back a bit to O'Donnell herself, who clearly thought she Nailed It when she desputed Chris Coons assertion that the First Amendment established the Separation of Church and State.



As Rachel takes us back to re-examine the tape, it's clear that O'Donnell really does think she's won on this point. That Chris Coons accurate quoting of the beginning of the First Amendment is ALL FAIL.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Constitution also says this in Article VI.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Taken together these two Constitutional clauses establish that Government will not impose religion on the people, and that religion will not be imposed or required of the agents of the government.

Behind this and the letters of Jefferson and Madison you have the Treaty of Tripoli from 1797.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.[

Although this seems self-evident to many of us, and has been affirmed in many court cases including Reynolds and Engle v Vitale (1962) which barred the state from imposing "Official" prayer in public schools. It's not just what's in the literal words of the Constitution, but it's also from multiple judicial interpretations of that phrase.

Further (ht Sam Wise Gingy) O'Donnell doesn't seem to realize that the scenario she suggests - that a local School Board has the "Right" to place Intelligence Design in their curriculum - has already failed before the Courts as it did in the Dover Case - where the Judge overruled the School Board and made this finding.

Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

Coons was absolutely, 100% correct.

But the Wingnuts see this in a completely different light. Sharron Angle says that Thomas Jefferson was "Misquoted" in his letters to the Danbury Church. Yeah, that's why Dan Burton has been cutting Jefferson out of Texas Textbooks, because he's been "Misquoted". Those are some easy examples and then there's the Big One.

And then there's - Rush Limbaugh.

Limbaugh: Christine O'Donnell was absolutely correct. The First Amendment says nothing about the Separation of Church and State.

And the left has taken this to say that religious people can not 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 is. Yet both require faith because neither can be proved.

Separation of church and state is not in the Constitution, and the fact that people laughed about this is what's really scary.

So Limbaugh feels she won too. What we're seeing here is part of a larger counter-factual dynamic coming from the right. They are deeply invested in things that are clearly not true, they deeply believe in things that can be called little more than a series of self-aggrandizing fantasies.

And Limbaugh isn't alone - here's the American Spectator on the O'Donnell Doctrine.

The political and pundit class is in a tizzy because Delaware Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell had the effrontery to question Supreme Court jurisprudence that has established a "wall of separation between Church and State."

But while O'Donnell may not have been as articulate as she should have been, she's nonetheless right: The phrase "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the Constitution. It was penned, instead, by President Thomas Jefferson in a letter that Jefferson sent to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut.

And, as the Heritage Foundation has observed, far from being a "principled statement on the prudential and constitutional relationship between church and state," Jefferson's missive, in fact, was "a political statement written to reassure pious Baptist constituents that Jefferson was, indeed, a friend of religion."

See, from Jefferson own words "Separation of Church and State" they devise that he was a "friend of religion" - I guess because he agreed to refrain from using the power of government against them, even though they had opposed his Presidency, but then again - "Freedom of Religion and Expression" also stems from the First Amendment doesn't it?

Here's one more example from the "Freedomist.com".

In a debate at Widener University, with a leftist crowd of uneducated college students (who seem to believe the 1st amendment actually contains the phrase “separation of church and state”) Christine O’Donnell stood up to the leftist belief that religion has no place in the public square, that only secular godlessness reigns supreme in the public square. As a result, the leftist blogosphere is atwitter, literally, accusing Christine O’Donnell of not knowing what the 1st amendment means. Oops!

It turns out she does, and they don’t. The 1st amendment in no way shape or form articulates this mythological ‘separation of church and state’ that has been used by secular, godless, leftists to chase any religious value systems out of the public square in favor of so-callled value-neutral secular judgements.

Yeah, we leftists are such godless bullies against the faithful, because we seem to feel that if we were to establish State Sponsorship for religion, exactly which Religion would that be? Protestant? Catholic? Episcopalian? Anglican? Calvinist? Baptist? Mormon? Jewish? Muslim? Baha'i? Hindu? Kabala? Aqua Buddhist?

Which one would rule? Would it be the majority - what if that majority shifts demographically over time? What would happen to the freedom and faith of all the others when that occurs? Do we all have to become Wiccans if they gain electoral dominance and have to write the Pledge to Gaia into our Public School Curriculum?

It's all fun and games to them until someone suggests we have a weekly mass during 5th Period for Thor God of Thunder.

As you can see by how this is written, like O'Donnell, they think they're the smart ones - who have a Special Insight into Truth and we're the ones who are misguided and deluded. They simply don't get it. The only way to protect all faiths, is to ensure to no single faith becomes State sponsored and dominant. There will never be an Official Church of America.

They continue to think that "Intelligent Design" has something to do with Science, and that it should be Taught in Science class, even though it has No Basis in Science. They argue that Evolution is simply a "Theory" - ignoring that you could say the same thing about "Gravity", but I wouldn't recommended stepping off a cliff simply because you don't "Believe in the theory".

E=MC² was just a theory too, until Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The fact that Sunday Schools and Parochial Schools can already teach any religious doctrine they like, is simply not enough for them - they think Government should be able to mandate Religious Creationism-Lite such as Intelligent Design into our Public Schools. They can't pray enough at their own Church, they also have to Pray in Public and have the School Administration use it to intimidate and coerce everyone else to go along? That's all Fail.

Evolution is the core basis of our understanding of Biology, to deny and doubt it would undermine much of our Medicine and Biotech. For example we develop vaccines on the biological basis that living organisms adapt to their environment and can develop anti-bodies to fight off infection. In contrast to this "Intelligent Design" leads us to what Scientifically Valid Conclusions? That we can Pray our Cancer Away? If we fail to understand our own biology accurately, our ability to address disease, infection and injury can be dangerously diminished. That's not just a difference of opinion, that's foolhardy and dangerous.

This type of anti-thinking among the right is also why you find large numbers of Climate Change Deniers among GOP Gubernatorial Candidates.

An exclusive Wonk Room analysis finds that 22 of the 37 Republican candidates for governor this November are deniers of the scientific consensus on global warming pollution. These science deniers are part of an anti-reality wave of Tea Party candidates, who comprise the Republican slate for the U.S. House and Senate. “The GOP is stampeding toward an absolutist rejection of climate science that appears unmatched among major political parties around the globe, even conservative ones,” writes the National Journal’s Ron Brownstein.

Although 97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is manmade, only two Republican gubernatorial candidates in Democratic strongholds — Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie (R-VT) and Lt. Gov. Duke Aiona (R-HI) — want to address the threat. Two more candidates — Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ) and Meg Whitman (R-CA) — accept that global warming is a manmade problem, but oppose enacting policy to reduce fossil fuel pollution. The other eleven candidates have “artfully avoided” any discussion of the threat global warming poses to their states, from flood-ravaged Iowa and Tennessee to drought-parched Nevada.

It's not just Climate Science they deny, it's Science they deny. They are in denial of Fact. This is where we get the "Stimulus Failed" when it's clear that it saved us from going into a new Great Depression. This is where we get claims such as Obamacare leading to "Death Panels" which Rep Paul Broun just Resurrected by linking it to the Stimulus.

BROUN: We see so many unintended consequences, or intended consequences, that are gonna force people off medicare advantage. Obamacare if it stays in as the law of the land is going to hurt the elderly more than anyone else [...] In the stimulus bill Nancy Pelosi set up a panel or something called comparativeness effectiveness research, what they’re doing there with that is they’re not comparing effectiveness as well as I and all the physicians will do, they’re comparing effectiveness of spending a dollar on one person versus another, which means the elderly are gonna be denied the care to keep them living and keep their health in good shape so they can have a useful, fruitful productive life. So see marked rationing of care for the elderly and those who have disabilites and those who have illnesses that will be terminal over a fairly short period of time, that may be who knows, ten years, those people are gonna be denied coverage of care of their health problems under Obamacare. [...] It’s gonna kill people by denying care.

Just like their misinterpretation of the First Amendment, this view is completely upside down - the Comparative Effectiveness Research is intended to find more efficient and cost effective ways to expand coverage to more people, not deny it.

Under the legislation, researchers will receive $1.1 billion to compare drugs, medical devices, surgery and other ways of treating specific conditions. The bill creates a council of up to 15 federal employees to coordinate the research and to advise President Obama and Congress on how to spend the money.

The program responds to a growing concern that doctors have little or no solid evidence of the value of many treatments. Supporters of the research hope it will eventually save money by discouraging the use of costly, ineffective treatments.

Shouldn't we know what treatments work and which don't? Shouldn't we put a higher priority of effective treatments that don't break our bank?

The fact Broun is himself a Medical Doctor, makes this even more insidious. But that's what happens when someone has become infected by the Anti-Fact Virus of the Right. And sadly, whether they take back either chamber of congress - there is all likelyhood that this virus will only intensify after the election. It's not the separation of Church and State that these people should be worried about, it's their own separation of Fact and Thought.

Vyan

Tiller Shooter Warns of More Imminent Attacks - Will We listen?

For those who insist that Scott Roeder is just another "Lone Gunman", apparently *He* doesn't think so...

Scott Roeder called The Associated Press from the Sedgwick County jail, where he’s being held on charges of first-degree murder and aggravated assault in the shooting of Dr. George Tiller one week ago.

“I know there are many other similar events planned around the country as long as abortion remains legal,” Roeder said. When asked by the AP what he meant and if he was referring to another shooting, he refused to elaborate further.

It wasn’t clear whether Roeder knew of any impending violence or whether he was simply seeking publicity for his cause. Law enforcement authorities including the Justice Department said they didn’t know whether the threat was credible.

We've had over 20 years of bombings, acid attacks and shootings at Women's Clinics - including the Olympic Park Bombing Eric Rudolph.



So since this guy is admitting to having knowledge of future attacks how long will it be before the Right-Wing starts demanding he be sent to Gitmo for Waterboarding, so we can "Save American Lives?"

Or do they only think torture is "warranted" for the brown terrorists?

Frankly, I think all they have to do is visit Army of God.com - it's not like they're keeping this stuff a secret, they actually have a recruitment drive going.

Maybe sending out U.S. Marshalls to protect Women's clinics isn't enough, maybe they need to actually enforce the Face Act and start catching these guys before they kill again.

I'm just saying, when killers declare they'll kill again - we should believe them.

Vyan

Busting Open the Christian Nation Myth

This weekend Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich (who was forced to leave his post due to an scandal with infidelity) spoke for three hours in Virginia and "Rediscover God in America" and in the midst of his talk actually claimed that American are now "Surrounded by Paganism - as if that is somehow a bad thing.

GINGRICH: I am not a citizen of the world. I am a citizen of the United States because only in the United States does citizenship start with our creator. [...] I think this is one of the most critical moments in American history. We are living in a period where we are surrounded by paganism.

He along with other speakers such as Mike Huckabee also railed against...

the continuing availability of abortion, the spread of gay rights, and attempts to remove religion from American public life and school history books.

Yes, he attacked abortion just days after a tragic abortion murder. Way to root for the good guys Newt. He claimed, like a great many American Theocrats that America is a "Christian Nation" and ties that argument back to the Declaration of Independence.

Gingrich, now a consultant and author, said the ties to religion in American government date to the Declaration of Independence, when Thomas Jefferson wrote that men are endowed by God with certain inalienable rights.

It is true he wrote that, but what he didn't write - what was specifically left out was exactly "Which God (or other form of Creator)" he was talking about.

Newt is allegedly a student of History, but in a recent Dkos post another Historian, one far from being so high profile as Newt, broke down the true origins of American Religiousity in a response to a Theocrat Relative - and it's nothing like what Gingrich and Huckabee describe.

First in response to a blast email which lists all the state Preambles which mention "Almighty God" our heroine Laine presented the Treaty of Tripoli.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation. (Worth noting that we have not lived up to those words.)

This nation was founded on freedom of religion for ALL- not just Christians. The Preamble for Oregon says:

Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences

The dictates of my conscience, not yours.

The response from her theocrat aunt was pretty much what you'd expect, a personal attack laced with accusations against a long dead parent for their failings in raising such an "Anti-God" Child. To this Laine responded with something I think every person who is confronted with this type of rabid Christo-Facism should have memorized.

~The settlers who came here from England in the 17th century came for various reasons; some as entrepreneurs, some looking for land of their own, some for religious reasons. The latter are the ones we usually think of- hardy Pilgrims coming to the new land for religious freedom. Except not quite- those coming from England came because they held to faith other than the Church of England (Anglican, here in the States we call them Episcopalians). They did not come for freedom, per se. They came to establish a community where their sect would be the official Church. The various early Colonies were a mish-mash of different sects. What was a legal religion in one might be outlawed in another. (Don't believe me? Read up about Ann Hutchinson or Roger Williams- they were both expelled from Massachusetts for failing to toe the Puritan party line.)

~The Founders (who signed the Declaration of Independence) and the Framers (those who helped draft the Constitution) were a very interesting group of men. They came from all walks of life, and all sorts of backgrounds, ethnic and religious. The greatest number of them were Episcopalians, and there were also Presbyterians, Congregationalists, a few Methodists, Lutherans, etc. There were also several Deists- among them George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin (though Franklin would occasionally cop to being basically agnostic).

~I have to explain here what 'Deism' is. Deism is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme god created the universe, and that this and other religious truth can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for faith. Deists generally reject the notion of divine interventions in human affairs - such as by miracles and revelations. It is a handy vague vision of God than excludes no one.

~Now, go back to the Colonies and their disparate religions. One of the difficulties in putting together any federation of the colonies was the religious issue. And this is why the various documents that stitch together our country refer only vaguely to a non-specific God. Because they are trying to avoid what we would now call a Balkanization along religious lines. By using the very vague Deistic references, they can go honor to God without invoking sectarian conflict. (Pretty smart guys, those Founders.)

If you were to adopt the Christianity of the original settlers - ignoring the existing religion of the Native American's who had already been here for countless centuries - the State Religion of the United States would most likely be Puritan. Or maybe Quaker.

These sects who fled English shores for America to avoid being persecuted by the Church Of England (C.O.E.) aka Anglican. That Church itself only came into existence as an offshoot of the Catholic Church when King Henry VIII (now made slightly more famous by Showtime's The Tudors) wanted to be able to divorce his first wife Catherine, but was barred from doing so by the Roman Pope.

In forming the C.O.E. Henry made himself it's Pope, and then proceeded to divorce and/or behead 6 several more wives. In the meanwhile he made it an act of Treason to oppose and criticize his action in splitting with Rome, yet one Protestant author named Dr. William Tyndale did criticize Henry and was eventually executed for it. Reportedly as he died he exclaimed, just as he was strangled to death and later burned at the stake - "Lord! Open" the King of England's eyes!"

So yet again we see the problem and the danger of "Which God" the Declaration and various Preambles describe, is it the Catholic/Protestant/ Anglican/Episcopalian/Puritan/Quaker/Jewish/Muslim "God" that Thomas Jefferson was referring to? Since he himself was a Deist, the not so simple answer is All of Them and also none of them.

The point was the allow the Freedom to persue the Religion of our individual choice, but not to attempt to force that choice upon others. America is designed to specifically NOT to have a single Church authorized for the state or else we may face the type of orthodox religious wrath that befell Dr. Tyndale.

Or for that matter, Dr. George Tiller.

Vyan

Teabaggers Call for Ye Ole Fashioned Book Burnin'!

In this video of a Glenn Beck 9-12 Tea Party, one participant in response to a speaker describing the "Brainwashing" that goes on in our colleges loudly suggests that we Burn The Books!

A few seconds later she's asked whether she was serious and she says - "Yes! We should burn all those 'Brainwashing Books' - with all that Evolution Crap!"

Holy Sheep Shit!

And just to go one step deeper into the crazy, before this occurs the guy is loudly talking about the "Constitution Party" and suggests people "Google It".

Well I did. And this is what I found.

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

These people are Full-on Theocrats! They want us to go back to Burning Books. Denying fact and science simply because it differs from religious doctrine. What's next - gonna go out Burn a Witch at the Stake if she ways more than a duck? I mean seriously - WHAT. THE. FUCK!!
Rather than embrace knowledge, rather than embrace truth - and openly debate and argue for the greater truth - (which includes the fact that Creationism and Evolution are NOT Mutually exclusive) these people would rather remove knowledge Farenheit 451 Style. This shouldn't be happening in the 21st Century. It really shouldn't.

Update: But in all fairness there is the "possibiliy" that this woman could have simply been - A SPY FROM ACORN!!!



Stranger things have happened...

Ok, well - no they haven't in reality, but in the mind of a Wingnut - all things are possible at the same time. People can be pro-Obama and Pro-Tea Party Tax Revolt (right after Obama CUT TAXES WITH THE STIMULUS BILL) simultaneously. Amazing.

Vyan