Christine O'Donnell | Delaware | News | Tea Party | Teabagger

BigGayDeal.com

Watch: In Debate, Christine O'Donnell Asks, 'Where in the Constitution is the Separation of Church and State?'

Odonnell

At a Widener Law School debate this morning against her Democratic opponent Chris Coons Delaware Teabagger GOP Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell inspired gasps and laughter from the audience as she appeared not to know that the First Amendment calls for barring the government from establishing religion, the AP reports:

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?"

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Wow. She doens't even get that people are laughing at her.

    Posted by: jakeinlove | Oct 19, 2010 1:23:14 PM


  2. 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.

    Posted by: Gregoire | Oct 19, 2010 1:33:58 PM


  3. @ David In Dallas: You took the words right out of my mouth.....you MUST be psychic!

    Posted by: Rebel Yankee | Oct 19, 2010 1:46:11 PM


  4. 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
    party.

    Posted by: walter | Oct 19, 2010 1:53:51 PM


  5. Damn.. the Republicans found someone who can make Sarah Palin look smart. Now I'm scared!!

    Posted by: Phil M. | Oct 19, 2010 1:56:38 PM


  6. My head just exploded.

    Posted by: Chad | Oct 19, 2010 2:12:34 PM


  7. 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.

    Posted by: TANK | Oct 19, 2010 2:23:57 PM


  8. "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".

    Posted by: CoMo'mo | Oct 19, 2010 2:27:13 PM


  9. She was prepped by the same people that prepped Palin, enough said.

    Posted by: patrick nyc | Oct 19, 2010 2:31:54 PM


  10. 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).

    Posted by: Mike | Oct 19, 2010 2:52:21 PM


  11. Dear Christine.

    You are an asswipe.

    Posted by: jamal49 | Oct 19, 2010 2:53:57 PM


  12. 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.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4ddpFDC63Y

    Posted by: TANK | Oct 19, 2010 3:04:23 PM


  13. 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.

    Posted by: jtaskw | Oct 19, 2010 3:29:44 PM


  14. @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.

    Posted by: JFE | Oct 19, 2010 3:50:24 PM


  15. 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.

    Posted by: voss | Oct 19, 2010 4:24:08 PM


  16. Proof that lack of masturbation reduces brain cells?

    Posted by: Leesa | Oct 19, 2010 5:51:50 PM


  17. "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.

    Posted by: Sevvy | Oct 19, 2010 5:58:09 PM


  18. 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.

    Posted by: MadM@ | Oct 19, 2010 6:02:17 PM


  19. 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?

    Posted by: We Don't Need No Stinking Constitution | Oct 19, 2010 7:47:47 PM


  20. 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.

    Posted by: jexer | Oct 19, 2010 8:47:11 PM


  21. Box of Rocks comes to mind

    Posted by: Rich in FL | Oct 19, 2010 11:26:59 PM


  22. « 1 2

Post a comment







Trending


« «Jail Operations Staff Sergeant: Mississippi Corrections Officer 'Fired Because He Turned Out to be a Faggot'« «