Now this is my type of debate. An alleged “bearded Marxist” debating an alleged “former witch” about the 17th amendment. You can imagine me wolfing down popcorn in feverish excitement while watching the debate of Delaware Republican Senate Candidate Christine O’Donnell and Democratic opponent Chris Coons.
O’Donnell was ridiculed for her apparent lack of knowledge of the Constitution last night. Now, hold on to your chair, I am about to defend . . . partially.
The first exchange to produce laughs was when she asked Coons “Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?”
That particular question does not necessary show a lack of understanding of the Constitution. Many conservative activists have argued that the Constitution was never intended to create a “wall of separation” between Church and State. Indeed, the language of a “wall of separation” is not in the Constitution. It came from Thomas Jefferson’s famous letter to the committee of the Danbury Baptist Association that reads:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
O’Donnell may have been thinking of the “wall” debate in asking Coons, “The First Amendment does? . . . Let me just clarify: You’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?”
Coons correctly responds with a reference to the establishment clause: “Government shall make no establishment of religion.”
O’Donnell then asks “That’s in the First Amendment…?” Yup.
Coons also correct to again ask O’Donnell about her views on evolution after she appeared to question the separation of church and state. If there is no such separation in her view, it magnifies the importance of her purported view that evolutionary theories are invalid. I have previously written a column about the right of the media to press candidates on their faith when they run in part on faith-based politics.
O’Donnell clearly had trouble on the other amendments. She was asked if she would repeal the 14th, 16th, or 17th Amendments if elected.
“The 17th Amendment I would not repeal” but then asked a person in the audience to explain what the 14th and 16th amendments were, adding “I’m sorry, I didn’t bring my Constitution with me.” I can certainly understand not recalling that the 16th amendment deals with the apportionment of taxes — not exactly a hot button amendment for most people. I can even understand gapping on the 17th on the direct election of Senators. But the 14th is a . . . well . . . a biggy after the whole Civil War thing.
The gap on the 14th was particularly embarrassing after O’Donnell accused Coons of constitutional ignorance by remarking “perhaps they didn’t teach you Constitutional law at Yale Divinity School.”
Now, I want to emphasize that O’Donnell is not expressing hostility to Yale Divinity School because she is a witch. She denies she is a witch. I am still a bit unsure why going to Yale Divinity School is a put down. I would think you would want a suspected bearded Marxist to go to divinity school, particularly after you just criticized him for attacking churches in the same debate. One thing is clear. The Delaware election should never end. For constitutional scholars, this is the best reality show on TV.
Source: CBS
Jonathan Turley
Elaine,
I am southern Baptist. Yes, It is wrong to give to charities to help the poor because when you study tithing in the Old and New Testament, it was to be given to the church and the church would in turn help the poor and needy. Unfortunately, so many Christians are lacking in their tithing that the church can’t do what it is called to do. God however still blesses his faithful tithers. I know because I am a receipient of that blessing.
Byron:
I was simply pointing out that if Sowell has credibility on that basis then so does du Bois. However, it’s hard to make any logical connection between one’s race and political philosophy and one’s credibility in economics. Does a caucasian, current Marxist have more or less credibility?
Mespo:
“As to your premise that a black, former Marxist “should know what he’s talking about,” despite the obnoxiously obvious non sequitur here, it does have some appeal for me:”
How is the fact that Sowell used to be a Marxist and is in fact black a non sequitur? Both are germane and speak to his credibility. As a Marxist he presumably studied socialist philosophy and so has a better understanding of it than most. One must study an opponent to understand his strengths and weaknesses. As for being black, don’t you think he can speak first hand to the effects of bigotry and racism and so has a good deal more credibility than say George Bush or Bill Clinton to speak to it’s effect on an individual?
Mespo:
Do you think all people in business are immoral? Maybe your sample is skewed.
As for the “fruit on the tree”, well any time you want to compare notes on collectivism and capitalism and which one has the better track record let me know.
Even Jefferson thought taking from one man to build up another was a bad idea and he hadn’t even read Marx.
By the way you are aware that Marx wrote at a time when there were severe class distinctions based on the remnants of the feudal system.
Elaine:
if steel costs, say, $1 per pound to produce in the United States but say $0.30 to produce in South Korea (I am just using those numbers as examples) then steel is less expensive for the person who makes steel fence posts and he can hire additional workers that he could not at $1 per pound or he can just be competitive with a foreign company making steel fence posts and keep his people employed.
Jim,
You wrote: “Christ established the church and therefore though my check is made out to it, God knows I am being faithful to him.”
What is “the church” you are speaking of in that statement?
Do you think God gets upset with people who choose to give monetary donations to charities that help needy people rather than to the church?
Byron,
“I suppose I should ask why you think keeping a job in America that can be done overseas for half the cost is saving an American job?’
And I suppose I should ask why you think keeping a job in America that can be done overseas for half the cost isn’t saving an American job.
*****
“You see the jobs going over seas but you don’t see the jobs created here because jobs are going overseas and products are produced less expensively in America because the raw material is cheaper.”
Now that’s a mouthful. It isn’t clear to me what you’re trying to say.
Byron:
“The market is amoral and so it impartially determines whose job has the greatest value to the economy.”
******************
Who runs the markets? Or more importantly, who decides what segment of our society is free from the constraints of ethics, morality, patriotism, or simple compassion? Why it’s the radical free-marketeers who’ve established greed as an international virtue and perverted our sense of right and wrong so much that we now excuse any manner of evil or insult with the simple phrase, “it’s just business.”
Byron:
“And how do you presume to know the workings of an individuals mind to know whether he actually thought about why he believes what he believes or just blindly follows a belief? If that is your base, then how do you know what you learned in school is correct? ”
******************
Sine we’re on a theological bent tonight, I’ll answer you with a quote even Jim can appreciate: “Ye shall know them by their fruits.” (Matt. 7:15, KJV).
As to your premise that a black, former Marxist “should know what he’s talking about,” despite the obnoxiously obvious non sequitur here, it does have some appeal for me:
The gist of that philosophy [Marxism]is that the value of products regularly exchanged in the open market depends upon the labor necessary to produce them; that capital consists of machines, materials and wages paid for labor; that out of the finished product, when materials have been paid for and the wear and tear and machinery replaced, and wages paid, there remains a surplus value. This surplus value arises from labor and is the difference between what is actually paid laborers for their wages and the market value of the commodities which the laborers produce. It represents, therefore, exploitation of the laborer, and this exploitation, inherent in the capitalistic system of production, is the cause of poverty, of industrial crises, and eventually of social revolution.
(…)
Perhaps nothing illustrates this better than recent actions in the United States: our re-examination of the whole concept of Property; our banking moratorium; the extraordinary new agriculture bill; the plans to attack unemployment, and similar measures. Labor rather than gambling is the sure foundation of value and whatever we call it—exploitation, theft or business acumen—there is something radically wrong with an industrial system that turns out simultaneously paupers and millionaires and sets a world starving because it has too much food.
Why that sounds like W.E. B du Bois, who was indeed, a black, former Marxist. I’ll take the considered, if radical, analysis of du Bois’ over the musings of Sowell, whose betrayal of his heritage for the 17 pieces of silver is now complete. While both are ideological, du Bois lived the times and wasn’t shilling for the corporate oligarchy by lambasting the duly elected representative of the people; decrying the decriers of racism; and tarring public education, even as he befitted from it as a child and young man.
Jim:
“All atheists will bow their knee and declare that Jesus is Lord! By the way, both of you will also do the same.”
*************
Don’t count on it there Jimbo. You do your own groveling before the mythical deity. By the way, even if you assume that one of the world’s religions (or even one of the myriad of Christian sects) is utterly correct in its mutually exclusive claim to parlance with the divine, don’t you cower at night knowing the law of averages puts you in much more jeopardy of hellfire than me!
Think about it Jim: Of all the thousands of religious sects claiming divine sanction, only yours is correct. Why that would make you an atheist to all the others, and you’ve already told me what happens to atheists. How’s your Arabic or Hindi? They might come in handy if you’re wrong and have to grovel in front of another person’s deity begging forgiveness.
As to your reading of scripture and because “God knows [you’ve] been faithful” to it, I want you to phone all your family right now and tell them you detest them all–even mom and dad and the kiddies. A great theologian such as yourself surely knows Luke 14:26 which quite clearly says: ““If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.”
Fine religion you got there my good man. I think I’ll stay upright if you don’t mind.
Jim,
“Christ established the church ” … wrong … the Church was established by mere mortals … thus it was back in 325AD at The Council of Nicea where the Emperor Constantine had hopes that Christianity would be the uniting force of his empire. The followers of Jesus’s teaching were convinced that in following said teachings they would, like he, earn their place in heaven.
Rulers and upper class members of society recognized that all these small groups of Jesus followers (not worshipers, followers)were organized well and that if they adopted that organizational pattern to their government and incorporated the followers of Jesus into their government things would go well for the big boys.
There was one big problem … all these little people were so intent upon following the teachings of Jesus and convinced that in so doing they would attain heaven that they really had no need to listen to a bunch of elite royals and noblemen.
Constantine and his buds solved this problem by taking Jesus out of the “man/teacher” category and elevating him to god status… Father/Son (adoption of a creed outlining correct belief about the Son’s relationship to the Father)and of course no one was allowed to think he could be god. Thus the big boys took over, established the “priesthood” (who owed their elevation to priest to the Emperor) and the church as we know it was born.
Your check is made out to a man and if that man spends it on God’s work then you are lucky but most man/priest/pastors/ministers use that money to pay a mortgage on their own dwelling, use that money to buy their own car because they have no job other than collecting money from you and telling you it’s for god’s work.
Before the take over of Christianity by the Emperor Constantine, Christians met in each others homes and ministered each unto the other. Each group elected a bishop to meet with other bishops from other Christian groups and everybody had a job outside the confines of their group … including the bishops. People contributed money to help the poor and sick following in the teachings of Jesus, the man.
Paul, the man you use for your justification had a job outside of his work as a spreader of the Jesus message and he had family money.
“All atheists will bow their knee and declare that Jesus is Lord! By the way, both of you will also do the same.”(Jim) …
Blasphemy!
Elaine:
I suppose I should ask why you think keeping a job in America that can be done overseas for half the cost is saving an American job? For example the steel industry lost jobs to South Korea. There are a few independent mills in America that are productive and make money. But how is saving a job that is overpriced doing anything except transferring wealth and costing the end user of the steel more money? If the end user has to pay more money to produce a product made from steel he has to hire fewer workers and the job you save at USX is at the cost of the worker(s) at the ABC Company in TN.
You see the jobs going over seas but you don’t see the jobs created here because jobs are going overseas and products are produced less expensively in America because the raw material is cheaper.
So how do you determine whose job is more important? Is the union guys job more important because his union gives million of dollars to the presidents campaign or is the open shop guys job more important? The market is amoral and so it impartially determines whose job has the greatest value to the economy.
Elaine,
What you all do not get is that we have no new industries in this country. Clinton rode the technology boom and Bush did as well to an extent. People today really have 3 industries to find work: Healthcare/medical, government, and entertainment. Unless we see another new industry unemployment will continue to rise. People are living longer and technology improvements have reduced jobs. Something has to give. As for outsourcing, you would be a fool to stay in the U.S. when labor costs are so much cheaper oversees. If you don’t get that, then you must not be a business person.
Elaine, MESPO
Christ established the church and therefore though my check is made out to it, God knows I am being faithful to him. You obvious have not read scripture or you would know how the early many members sold what they had and gave to the church. Also, Paul thanks the churches for their gifts which of course came from the members.
All atheists will bow their knee and declare that Jesus is Lord! By the way, both of you will also do the same.
Byron,
I have read Sowell … certainly not all of his books but quite a few, and the two recurring themes seem to be: the market works, affirmative action does not work. I don’t read him anymore because, quite frankly, I found him depressing in his constant repetition and excuse mongering … to the extent that I judged him to be closed to new ideas and stubbornly fixated on the old. I also disagree with many of his opinions wherein he sees negatives as the norm rather than the exception (especially in the area of affirmative action).
Byron,
Your automobile/horse and buggy analogy is a poor one. It speaks to progress and change in a society–not with the outsourcing of the jobs of people who made buggies and whips.
Americans who are out of work because their jobs have been outsourced may not be able to pay $5.00 for a cheap product manufactured in a foreign country. In addition, think of products made in other countries that caused major problems or recalls–like pet food that killed the family pets of Americans, children’s toys with lead paint, etc. Cheap isn’t always better. Products manufactured more cheaply in foreign countries aren’t always the same quality as American-made goods.
Where will all the unemployed Americans find jobs if too many of our jobs are outsourced? How will those Americans earn a living and pay their bills and taxes? Will they become a drain on government resources? It’s not as simple a thing as equating paying $5.00 for a foreign-made product as opposed to paying $10.00 for an American-made product. It’s a lot more complicated than that.
Free thinkers are not bound to free market ideology–or any other ideology.
Elaine:
what was the benefit when the automobile displaced the horse and buggy and put all of those buggy whip makers and ferriers out of business?
What is the benefit of a consumer paying $5.00 for something that would cost $10 if made in America?
Free markets are what free thinking is all about. The freer the better and free markets promote free thinking and innovation.
Byron,
You believe in the free market. I believe in free thinkers–people who know how think for themselves…people not attached to any particular ideology.
Mespo:
have you ever read any of his books? If that is your conclusion then who meets your standards? Apparently everyone is an ideologue in some manner or is it just those of use who believe that government is not the solution but free people are?
I should think a black man and former Marxist should know well of the things he is talking about. He came to his conclusions after much thought and study, he did not and does not blindly believe in his views. They are based on many years of research and thought.
“An ideologue with a mortar board is an ideologue nonetheless, and need not be believed.”
If that is your benchmark, then who do you believe? And how do you presume to know the workings of an individuals mind to know whether he actually thought about why he believes what he believes or just blindly follows a belief? If that is your base, then how do you know what you learned in school is correct?
As Pete pointed out on another thread – “confirmation bias”.
Byron,
So what are the great benefits reaped by our society when Americans’ jobs are outsourced to other countries?