My roommates and I have a wall in our living room that’s littered with Post-it notes that list our favorite quotes from everyday life. Topics range from the show Sister Wives to Katy Perry songs to the “Mobile Leprechaun” YouTube video. This past week, Christine O’Donnell, Republican senate candidate in Delaware, added this gem to our collection during a debate with her Democratic opponent, Chris Coons.

O’Donnell: You’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?

Coons: ‘Government shall make no establishment of religion.’

O’Donnell: That’s in the First Amendment? The audience at Widener Law School could be heard breaking into laughter. O’Donnell’s spokesperson later claimed she had only pointed out that the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution, but given Coons’ clear paraphrase of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (which actually reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”), it’s apparent O’Donnell actually had little idea of what the amendment says.

Yet my biggest takeaway from the incident isn’t that Christine O’Donnell is not nearly well-informed enough to hold elected office (which didn’t need any more proving in my mind). It’s that O’Donnell, by trying to point out that the phrase “separation of church and state” is not explicitly in the Constitution is trying to undermine a principle that she, as a person of deep religious conviction, should adamantly champion.

Conservative Christians like O’Donnell are frequently hostile toward the notion of separation of church and state. You often hear Tea Party candidates or pundits assert that America needs to return to its “Christian” roots through prayer in public schools and displaying the Ten Commandments in public courthouses, among other things. Aside from the dubious historical validity of this claim, O’Donnell and others don’t seem to realize that this more intimate relationship between church and state threatens their own religious rights.

The First Amendment’s religious provisions don’t just prohibit the establishment of a state religion; they also prevent the government from restricting your right to exercise your religious beliefs (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting its free exercise thereof”). Yet laws that would establish prayer in public schools, for instance, fundamentally violate that right to free exercise. Even if such a law doesn’t directly force you to pray in school, it creates a pressuring environment that is inherently coercive. You don’t pray because you want to, but because you feel obligated to by a government mandate. Exercise of religious beliefs is no longer free, and for deeply religious people like Christine O’Donnell or like me, that should be incredibly troubling.

Emory University law professor Abudallahi Ahmed an-Na’im arrives at a similar conclusion in discussing the role of Islam in public life. “I need a secular state to be a Muslim,” he writes in “Islam and the Secular State.” The statement holds true for any religious category with which you might replace Muslim – Jew, agnostic, Hindu, atheist. Any sort of religious identity is only genuine when freely practiced, and the secular state – maintained through separation of church and state – guarantees you that freedom.

Religious conservatives like Christine O’Donnell shouldn’t demand that government institute time for prayer in public schools to encourage the kind of religious faith they want to see instilled in kids (believe me, I do an awful lot of my own private praying in class during midterms season). They should celebrate and champion the fact that we can genuinely choose our own religious beliefs and practices without government coercion.

Hana Suckstorff is a Weinberg senior. She can be reached at [email protected].