The Volokh Conspiracy

So, UK, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Finland, Greece, and Norway are all "in turmoil?" Because all of those states have official religion and no "wall."

(That is not to say that our Constitution permits an official Church, but to point out that Biden has no clue).

Actually, I don't think that Greece is even remotely more "secular" than we are. For instance, see Greek Constitution Art. 3 Sec. 3. "The text of the Holy Scripture shall be maintained unaltered. Official translation of the text into any other form of language, without prior sanction by the Autocephalous Church of Greece and the Great Church of Christ in Constantinople, is prohibited." Seems to me that that is a pretty serious involvement in private religious affairs by the State.

Other states collect taxes in support of their Churches.

So, I don't know what you mean that other countries are de facto more secular. If you mean that people are less religious, that may be so (though again, I think Greece is an exception). But that makes the state involvement in religious affairs even more galling and problematic. Yet, there is no strife.

Biden used the word "every"--which is rather synonymous with "all." Frankly, whether Palin "made up" the Jefferson quote or not, it was a better, less disingenuous answer than Biden's.

Palin clearly shows an inexperience in discussing these issues. Or maybe even thinking about them. She could have answered much better. Biden did well. I can't stand the guy, but he did well here.

You are right, he did use the word "almost"--but he used it following two sentences that began "Look at every state" to imply ALL states. I agree he has some wiggle room (he could say, "I really didn't mean Norway or Greece") but that is certainly not the impression his answer gives.

Look, I know this is a law blog, so people are going to just naturally think that a president’s knowledge of the law is of premier importance. But step back for a moment. I could just as well say “Senator Obama, what are the Zeroth, First, Second, and Third Laws of Thermodynamics? Or any one of them? Basic geology? A little chem? Since you can’t, do you have the right to govern us on energy and climate issues?” or “Senator McCain, what is Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage? Since you don’t know that 101 level of economics, how the hell will you manage the world’s largets economy?” or “Senator Biden, stroke is the third largest killer in the US. What research initiatives are in Obama’s health plan that address this? Or actually, tell us anything you might know about medicine or public health. Anything at all.” What do any of them know about management? Or international trade? McCain knows a lot more about military strategy than the other three, but he still doesn’t know enough to move an inch without advisors. In a general way, what do we expect presidents to know?

Palin on Roe is an excellent example. She knows that an earlier Supreme Court held that there is a right to abortion and that it is currently the law of the land. She knows it’s not specifically in the constitution. She knows that some respected conservative (and not-so-conservative) legal minds have held that Roe is bad law. What else does a president need to know? Anything after that point would involve knowing who to trust more than knowing constitutional law. Even if she can only go in up to her ankles, Biden and Obama can only go in up to their knees, even though they have taught the subject. If anything, people who know more than average are more likely to stupidly think they know it all. (See Biden, 14th Amendment).

I could oversimplify that Bush’s egregious miscalculation of how much he could trust Vlad Putin in the summer of 2001 was his greatest mistake. Much of our later dealing with the UN, Europe, and the Middle East was affected by our over-optimistic hope that Russia would join the company of semi-sane nations and support containment of jihadists rather than exploit that chaos.

I am not arguing that her lack of knowledge is actually an advantage. Of course it’s a disadvantage. But it is nowhere near the disadvantage people are painting it. SNL’s joke about “Can I use a lifeline?” inadvertently hit on this subject. It’s not a quiz show. When we act like it is, it is we who are foolish.

"Why do you think that's so important?"

Ugh. How about "is that a useful metaphor?"

If McCain voters agree with his policy proposals, why not just say that? This compulsion to pretend that every utterance from Sarah Palin is some secret stroke of genius is just too funny. By all means, vote for her if she'll enact policies you like, but you'll never convince the rest of us that she's anything more than what we can see with our own eyes.

Uh_Clem, one of my favorite observations is that progressives put more thought into the wittiness of their remarks than into the substance. Thanks for another bit of evidence for that.

You are using a cultural marker as a competence indicator. Arts and Humanities people tend to like to drop the names of their sources, and are proud of how fast they can run them down. Yeah, that's a really useful skill for a chief executive.

tgp1000, when people exaggerate their opponents' position it's usually an indicator that they can't face the argument straight up. No one is saying that Palin is showing secret brilliance; we're discussing what type and amount of legal knowledge is necessary for a president. She fumbles; she gets things partly right; it is uncertain whether she shows some intuitive grasp of principle that would overshadow deficits in specific knowledge.

Against that, the complaint against her seems so often to be "She doesn't sound smooth. Her store of general information seems different from mine. She must be stupid." It is the ease with which her critics come to that conclusion that is being called into question.

I can't stand her voice and expressive style - but I am was a hypercorrect New England Puritan, and have learned over the years that a lot of people I was taught sound stupid turned out to be pretty smart.

I cannot, for the life of me, understand what Palin just said.

These issues are important in a way that chemical engineering is not is because the former are politica, where as the later are not.

Most anyone understands that the right wing wants to inject more religion into our culture and our government. Heck, I just read where there are conservative ministers in Indiana who are telling their congregation how to vote, and want to challenge the IRS's rules against that. They also want the ten commandments in our public buildings, and prayer in our schools, even the public ones. So as a politician, your views on church and state are relevant to the political issues of the day.

Chemical engineering? Well, it might help you understand certain issues, but I don't know how that's a political issue. Thermodynamics? Ditto. now, one can argue that energy is a political issue, but that still doesn't make sense. Energy is a political issue, but the mechanics of wind power are not.

it would be helpful if a president actually knew something about evolution, because now evolution has become a political issue, and I would expect that he or she would know the basics about it so that we don't get them supporting the teaching of creationism in our schools.

That's Biden -- smiling, confident, self-assured...and just plain wrong.

Although they may have an "official" state religion, the UK, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Finland, Greece, and Norway are all de facto far more secular than the US.

That's not true either. In many European countries, not only is there a state church, but government also provides direct funding for religious schools of other faiths and demoninations. Levels of religious belief in Europe have declined since WWII, yes, but certainly not because of a wall between church and state -- there is no such wall. And obviously these countries have not been in turmoil due to lack of a constitutionally guaranteed separation.

(Just as, BTW, European countries have all managed to work out abortion laws politically without needing a bogus, constitutionally-guaranteed 'right to abortion' invented and imposed deus ex machina style).

Randy R - I've been blogging and blog commenting long enough to know that constructions like "Most anyone understands" translates as "I have no proof, but everyone I know thinks..." Your example of the preachers mounting the IRS challenge is unsound. They are staging a protest to create test cases so that they may endorse candidates within the four walls of their churches. I disagree with that, but it's not quite the same thing as injecting religion into everything.

I see the distinction you are making between a political issue and a something-else issue, but I don't think it holds up under pressure. Alternative energy vs. drilling vs. nuclear is an important issue for the next president, and guessing doesn't impress me much. Which sucks, because I think all four of them are guessing.

As to evolution, the practical effect of whether one believes we were created 10,000 years ago or whether that's just when we became modern cultural humans (that is about when we domesticated animals, planted crops, built shelters, invented beer) is negligible. It is a cultural issue: does one believe in and understand science all of the time or just most of the time, with some religious exceptions. It feels big because it includes the "are you like me" question. It has to be navigated, not resolved, and I don't know that we have anyone in the country who can.