Sharron Angle finally granted a 30-minute interview to the Nevada media. Here's a bit on the separation of church and state:
Pareene parses her answer:
As for the context, she actually got it mostly right:
"Thomas Jefferson was actually addressing a church and telling them through his address that there had been a wall of separation put up to protect the church from being taken over by a state religion, and that's what they meant. They didn't think they couldn't bring their values to the political forum, and it didn't mean that people with religious beliefs shouldn't have that freedom."
Right. No state religion. This is what we liberals try to explain, all the time: that the separation of church and state protects churches. So, thanks for getting on board, Sharron! But I'm still not sure how she squares that answer with a repeated insistence that "the tenet of the separation of church and state is an unconstitutional doctrine," since she seems to be explaining one of the stated reasons for the establishment clause.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to firstname.lastname@example.org.