1. David in Dallas says

    F*ck me running . . .

    “Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?”

    Words fail me, but that evidence right there shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that she is completely unqualified to hold public office of any form.

  2. johnny says

    Oh, silly, silly woman. Don’t you think you might want to brush up on the constitution before being in a debate about our country’s laws?

    Christine O’Donnell = Poster Child for Ignorance

  3. Chan says

    That is incredible. I don’t understand how a person could have even the most rudimetary, basic familiarity with the Constitution and not be aware of the first amendment. It’s almost enough to make you beleive she’s some sort of Manchurian candidate planted by progressives.

  4. Powell says

    ok folks… the exact words, “separation of church and state are not *in that form* in the US constitution. They were however in letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists.

    just to be fair. Although the first ammendment does bar the “state” form impeding on religious liberties.

  5. says


    also Madison the actual main author of the constitution wrote many times about the phrase “wall of seperation between church and state” and many times about how a just government founded on liberty had no need of religion or clergy

    Madison was much more adamant than jefferson on the reson for the wall of separation was to protect the state from the church

    especially interesting when viewed in the historical context of the founders witnessing the devastation of europe by religion when given political power

    The intent of the authors is evident to everyone but scalia and o’donnell

  6. Gregoire says

    Separation of church and state is implicit within the first amendment:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

    The Constitution was drafted as response to English government, where church and state are intertwined. If church and state were not separate, one religion or denomination would reign over others, establishing a defacto state religion and disrupting free exercise of any other belief.

    This woman has gone crackers.

  7. latebrosus says

    @Powell is correct, it’s not verbatim “separation of church and state” in the Constitution. That will be enough for teabaggers not only to excuse O’Donnell, but deride Coons for not getting it exactly “right,” so to speak (pun intended, re: teabaggers).

  8. Bart says

    Remember a few months ago when Sarah Palin tweeted that people were trying to “take away Laura Slessinger’s first amendment rights” because they were lambasting her for the use of the n-word eleven times on her radio program (Sarah also said something similiar about herself a year or so earlier when she was being criticized.) It’s no surprise that Ms. O’Donnell is an idiot when her patron saint seems to believe that her first amendment rights are being violated when she’s criticized.

    Can we please let the smart people back into politics now? I’m losing weight vomitting every time I hear something stupid come out of these tea party candidate’s mouths.

  9. tony x says

    OF course she is an idiot — sorry folks the VAST majority of American/Humans are idiots.

    The rich corrupt internationalists figures this out LONG AGO — and they play to them for power.

    This is an old story.

    Look around your at family– seriously how many of them are idiots and LIKE other idiots.

    How many still question if being gay is a choice?

    How many question evolution?

    How many believe in Federal Anarchy (no fedral taxes / no federal services) ?

    That is America.

  10. ravewulf says

    Jeeze, it doesn’t get much dumber than this. Out of the original 10 amendments that make up our Bill of Rights, this was NUMBER ONE!


    I can’t wait until tonight. Cenk is going to tear her apart for this on TYT.

  11. ravewulf says

    @tony x

    In answer to all of your questions I respond: None. Not one friend or family member of mine thinks one of those things. Then again, we live in northeastern Massachusetts where education is king (well, as far as the US goes anyway).

  12. Anastasia Beaverhausen says

    You’d think a witch would appreciate the separation of church and state. Does she not know about the Salem witch trials that resulted in the genocide of her kind?

  13. Gregoire says

    The First Amendment does not specifically say the words ‘separation of church and state’ in that order. She is correct there.

    Of course, the bible does not specifically say “gays shall not get married” but these kind of asstwats are only technical with words when it suits them.

  14. walter says

    the tea party the second coming of the know nothing party. this group led by sarah palin just go to prove it is not definitely what you know. these people just tend to hate everyone who is not white christian. the basis for the formation of the new nazis

  15. TANK says

    The constitution clearly states that congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. This is freedom FROM religion. And the courts have understood this and interpreted it as such.

    As to her pathetic distinction between creationism and intelligent design, and her belief that intelligent design (which is creationism with a new name) is in any way a science and should be taught alongside biological evolution (which is a FACT–there is simply no alternative that explains life, and nothing in biology would make any sense at all without it), is rubbish. She is scientifically illiterate, and willfully promoting antireason and antiscience and supernaturalist superstition.

  16. CoMo'mo says

    “Goldurnit Verna, this girl’s okay. I mean, she’s OKAY! I din’t know that thing about religion and gummint. Musta been snuck in there by some atheist Masons when Frank Rosenfeld got in (rot his syphilitic carcass)!

    “Easy Red, easy–don’t git yer heart churned up.”

    “Now we know who ta vote for with that Bear Mama”.

  17. Mike says

    She is technically correct, “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the Constitution. And there is legitimate discussion to be had on whether or not the government has strayed from the original intent of “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Of course, that discussion is highly unlikely to happen in today’s sound bite world.

    No comments from anyone about how Coons couldn’t name the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment? (Hint: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances).

  18. TANK says

    Mike, elaborate on this legitimate discussion about how the government may have strayed from the original intent (already assuming that original intent is a viable model of jurisprudence without defending it…but how’s this for original intent: “…I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”). Nah, don’t bother…uninteresting as everything you could possibly say has been said, and dealt with.

  19. jtaskw says

    O’Donnell: Let me just clarify…you’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?

    Coons: What I’m telling you is no establishment of religion.

    O’Donnell: That’s in the First Amendment?

    No way in hell is she correct or even “technically correct”, as there is in fact an establishment clause the existence of which she questioned.

  20. JFE says

    @latebrosus and @powell You are actually giving the nuanced answer to this that many conservatives do. The crazy thing is that O’Donnell hasn’t even pondered these things. She doesn’t even KNOW that “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion” is even IN the 1st Amendment!

    Not to mention the LONG history of using the 14th Amendment to make all the Amendments officially apply to state government as well: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

    Yeah, none of this nuance is important to O’Donnell.

    Ridiculous. And please stop talking about how she is a witch. This is far, far, far, far worse.

  21. voss says

    Why concentrate any more attention on this woman? While I agree that her ineptitudes should be addressed and that her proximity to power is ridiculous, there are real issues in the republican party that are operating behind this media phenomenon. We can’t focus our anger with republicans on this woman any longer. We must find targets for our politics which are operating more subversive and destructive narratives.

  22. Sevvy says

    “Seriously, what planet is she from, or perhaps more appropriately, what planet or the dumbasses who voted for her from??”

    She is from planet Jesus! Welcome to America, land of the stupid Christians. Ugh.

  23. MadM@ says

    People- this woman and logic/reason are like that door where the harder you push the harder it pushes back. Her followers won’t be fazed by any of this, and this clip will circulate as evidence that all these liberal eggheads just think they know everything.

    She is supported by people that claim to hold the bible as the cornerstone of their lives but can probably name 3-4 of the 10 commandments. The voters that she taps into take what their leaders say at face value and just can’t be bothered to fact check what’s fed to them because they’re just too gosh darn busy, too thick, or straight up don’t care.

    Forget know nothings, these people want to head back to the dark ages. Plenty of time for church and family then.

  24. We Don't Need No Stinking Constitution says

    I think even Jesus had some quote or other calling for separation of church and state, you know, render unto Caesar blah, blah, blah.

    But I always thought that was kinda chicken shit reply because He had no real power to render anything.

    So even after we replace the Constitution with the Bible there will still be a conundrum.

    Tea Party candidate: “Now where in the Bible are those Conundrums? Is it before or after the psalms?

  25. jexer says

    Smug Christine is oblivious to how stupid she looks.

    She thinks she’s successfully mocking her opponent because she’s parroting the viewpoint of right-wingers who adamantly refuse to interpret the words in the first amendment the same way the rest of us do.

Leave A Reply