What Fresh Hell Is This?

October 19, 2010

Scenes From Teh Crazie Tea Party

First, from Delaware:
Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware on Tuesday questioned whether the U.S. Constitution calls for a separation of church and state, appearing to disagree or not know that the First Amendment bars the government from establishing religion.

The exchange came in a debate before an audience of legal scholars and law students at Widener University Law School, as O'Donnell criticized Democratic nominee Chris Coons' position that teaching creationism in public school would violate the First Amendment by promoting religious doctrine.

Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that "religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools."

"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?" [emphasis added.]
Take a look:

The fun stuff is way at the end - O'Donnell doesn't seem to understand what's in the First Amendment - it's found at about 7:10. She sounds like rather incredulous.

Oh, and at about 1:40 she lectures Coons about how much he doesn't know about the Constitution and about evolution - which she says is not a fact but "a theory."

Her campaign's trying to minimize how Constitutionally ignorant she sounded:
“In this morning’s WDEL debate, Christine O’Donnell was not questioning the concept of separation of church and state as subsequently established by the courts,” said campaign manager Matt Moran. “She simply made the point that the phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution.”
Sure she was. It's obvious that if you listen to what she said and the way she said it, she was obviously making the silly point that the phrase "separation of church and state" does not occur in the First Amendment.

Of course she was.

If you believe that, you'll believe that Evolution has been disproved because monkeys aren't changing before our eyes into hu-mans.


Heir to the Throne said...

If you believe that, you'll believe that Evolution has been disproved because monkeys aren't changing before our eyes into hu-mans.
Evolution was proven until the ignorant Deniers performed a junk science attack on the Scientific consensus.
Piltdown Man

Heir to the Throne said...

And On O'Donnell's Flub: After 24 Hours, It Appears It Was No Flub At All. Washington Post Reporter Ben Evans Simply Lied.

EdHeath said...

So, HTTT, Piltdown man *disproves* evolution as either fact or theory?

And Ben Evans actually simply (mis)paraphrased Christine O'Donnell? What she asked was whether the phrase "separation of church and state" was in the First Amendment (according to your link). She is running to be a Senator in the United States Congress, and she doesn't know what the First Amendment of the United States Constitution says.

Mind you, I couldn't recite the First Amendment word for word, nor all five rights it covers, except now that it has received so much attention (religion, speech, press, assembly, petition for grievances). But I am not running for office, high or low.

Dayvoe said...

The Piltdown Man?!?!!?

That's what you're using to debunk evolution?

The Piltdown Man was shown to be a hoax (and this is coming, HTTT, from your own link to...the wikipedia?) in 1953.

You have to do better than this, my friend.

If you want the grownups to take you seriously, you just have to do better than this.

Heir to the Throne said...

I did not say The Piltdown Man disproves Evolution. I was using progressive Climate Change talking points for the Piltdown Man hoax.
Even more amusing if took 40 years to disprove the Scientific consensus.
But Peer Review/Science is perfect and always gets the fact correct.