In any case, the simple fact is that candidates for major offices should be able to articulate how the idea of separation of church and state is in the Constitution even though the words are not. It's not so hard, as Chris Coons so ably demonstrated.

Rob Boston explained well the common sense of why Vanderslice, Sapp, and their ilk were so very wrong about all this:

Vanderslice said she advises candidates to instead refer to the "establishment and free exercise clauses of the Constitution." Fair enough - but her approach is still problematic.

To begin with, the Vanderslice view gives away too much to the Religious Right. For years, these groups have argued that separation of church and state is not really in the Constitution, even though the term was used by early political leaders like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison as well as their allies in the religious community. None of those early leaders believed that church-state separation excluded religion from public life. Instead of abandoning the phrase, perhaps candidates should do a better job explaining what it means and why it is crucial to the American way of life.

The phrase came into being precisely because it is a useful way of summarizing the religion clauses of the First Amendment. To be frank, most people don't know what "Establishment Clause" means, and to many, "free exercise" sounds like a special offer at the local gym. The phrase "separation of church and state" sums up in these concepts in a familiar and user-friendly way.

It would be a mistake to abandon the term. Polls show that most Americans support church-state separation. Only the extreme Religious Right groups want to tear down that wall.

Indeed, Christine O'Donnell as a former top staffer at Concerned Women for America, in many ways epitomizes the politics of the Religious Right.  

Here is an excerpt of The Wall Street Journal's account of the debate:

Mr. Coons, the New Castle County executive, said that public schools could not teach intelligent design or similar theories, like creationism and creation science, because they were "religious doctrine" rather than science.

Ms. O'Donnell likened Mr. Coons's position on evolution to those of "our so-called leaders in Washington" who have rejected the "indispensible principles of our founding."

When Mr. Coons interjected that "one of those indispensible principles is the separation of church and state," Ms. O'Donnell demanded, "Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?"

The audience exploded in laughter.

The Bill of Rights begins with the command, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," but it doesn't specifically use the words "separation of church and state."

In 1802, however, President Thomas Jefferson used the metaphor to explain the framers' purpose, and courts since have followed his guidance.

The moderator moved on, but Ms. O'Donnell later returned to this question, demanding of Mr. Coons, "So you're telling me the phrase, `the separation of church and state,' is found in the Constitution."

Mr. Coons began reciting the Establishment Clause, as it is known, prompting Ms. O'Donnell to ask, "That's in the First Amendment?"