09/25/2010 05:31 pm ET Updated May 25, 2011

Christine O'Donnell Denies Jesus/Satan on Hannity

If you didn't catch Christine O'Donnell on "Hannity" this week -- in what she says is her last interview with the national media -- you missed this:

"My faith has matured and as a U.S. Senate candidate my promise to the people of Delaware is that it is the Constitution by which I will determine how I vote on all legislation coming across my desk."

Which was nice of her to say -- promising, if elected, to obey the law. (And not Satan.) But it also runs directly counter to what she promised to do for Catholic Families for America, in exchange for their endorsement in June.

(Catholic Families for America is an organization that calls itself "one of the largest groups of lay Catholics in the country" but seems to meet at a post office box on K Street and inside a guy in Lafayette's head. It appeared out of nowhere shortly before the elections in 2008, has no apparent membership beyond its two officers, and counts as its greatest political achievements a "nationwide petition" against Elena Kagan that gathered 67 signatures and a fundraising drive for 43 Republican candidates for the House and Senate that raised $70. Obviously, Catholic Families for America speaks for Catholics like the Unabomber speaks for the Union of Concerned Scientists.)

Here's the thing: To earn that endorsement from the CFA, Christine O'Donnell had to fill out a 51-part "candidate questionnaire" in which half the things she promised to do were just cruel and inane, but the other half were borderline unconstitutional and entirely driven by religion.

So she's lying to someone.


Are you using the Constitution to determine how you vote if you answer yes to this question:

Do you promise to advocate that judges who attempt to establish secular atheism as the state religion should be removed from office?

How about this one?

Do you promise to advocate that judges who attack the First Amendment rights of believers should be removed from office?

This one?

Do you support what we know from natural law, that marriage is strictly for a man and a woman?

This one?

Once again considering the principle of subsidiarity, will you oppose any effort for federal funding or regulation of childcare?

Or this one?

In keeping with Church teaching, do you support legal immigration?


QUESTION 1: Yes and no. This question has been deliberately written as a slippery hypothetical double reverse-o. The First Amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion, so if a judge suddenly got the power to establish a state religion -- which a judge doesn't have -- and if atheism was a religion -- which it isn't -- he'd have to go. Also if he transformed himself into a Decepticon. He'd be waaay out of line. On the other hand, Article VI, paragraph 3 of the Constitution reads "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States," so no, you can write yourself in knots, but you can't use the Constitution to decide to remove a judge for being an atheist.

QUESTION 2: Yes. Christine O'Donnell would be following the Constitution if she removed a judge for attacking a believer's First Amendment rights. I hope she checked "yes" to this one last June, because it means she's in favor of building the Ground Zero Mosque.

QUESTION 3: Yes, but no.
I guess a senator could be opposed to gay marriage on "natural law" grounds. He/she could also oppose it based on the law of the jungle or the rules of Monopoly. But that's not the same as saying it's in the Constitution.

QUESTION 4: No. Not because the Federal government should or shouldn't regulate childcare -- am I missing something? Is this an issue that comes up a lot? -- but because subsidiarity isn't a Constitutional principle; it's a Catholic principle. (Oh man, and I just checked Wikipedia... it's also a guiding principle of the European Union! Europe! Boo! Hiss!)

QUESTION 5: Oh, come on. This question is another reverse-o, and the lead-in to a lot of other immigrant-bashing questions on the CFA quiz, making sure that just because Mexicans are Catholic doesn't mean you want them around, or even alive. You could use the Constitution to determine how you vote on immigration issues, but that's sort of the opposite for using "church teaching." It's like using subsidiarity to decide how to deal with daycare, or, come to think of it, "sanctity" when making laws about abortion.

I'm just guessing that Christine O'Donnell checked yes to all the statements on the CFA's questionnaire. They won't release her answers, and neither will she.

St. Paul said something about not hiding your candle under a bushel, but what did he know?

We do know she passed the test, because she got the endorsement.

So will Christine O'Donnell govern with the convictions of her faith (Catholic/evangelical/Wicca) or won't she?

She was either lying Tuesday, to Hannity, or in June, to one of the largest groups of lay Catholics in the country.

Which was it?