I would. Bat **** crazy republicans are hot. why do i feel like i just watched a video-dating service video!? The Link
Not to nitpick, but doesn't it depend on how you define "separation of church and state"? Since the context of her discussion and no clarifying remarks are included, I really don't know how she defines it personally, but consider this:
i can't believe i am defending O'Donnell, but no where in the constitution are the words "the separation of church and state". We can go on and on about interpretation of the 1st amendment and freedom of religion, but technically O'Donnell is right. *****Prodigal beat me to it by seconds, if you are to believe the time stamps.
Well, if it helps you, I DID have to go back and edit my response, so technically you have an argument.
And btw, if we're going to label her as "stupid", then I would say we need to take a poll of how many people know that the words "separation of church and state" are not used in the Constitution, and that there are no specific prohibitions on the government from borrowing from religious laws in writing its own laws or for allowing religion to be mentioned or even encouraged in a general sense. I bet we'd find a whole lot of "stupid" people if we did that. Many on this board.
O'Donnell was not making some kind of semi-sophisticated textual analysis of what the exact wording of the 1st Amend. was. She just doesn't know. She's kind of an idiot. This is old news.
This came up because O'Donnell criticized Coons for his stance that teaching creationism alongside evolution in science class would be an affront to the first amendment. She has little grasp of the establishment clause or the judicial background of the first amendment.
This came up because O'Donnell criticized Coons for his stance that teaching creationism alongside evolution in science class would be an affront to the first amendment. She has little grasp of the establishment clause or the judicial background of the first amendment. I doubt her understanding of evolution is much better. It's amazing that we have so many people who don't accept evolution.
Good lord. It's not just the First Amendment. It's the substantial legal authority clarifying and defining the separation of church and state pursuant to the First Amendment. It's not a novel concept. Although people can debate its parameters, its existence and the constitutional and legal authority mandating its existence is not debatable. To feign ignorance of the principle by stating words to the effect of, "it's not written exactly like that," is, well, ignorant and worthy of scorn. (Of course, anyone who thinks evolution is a myth has bigger issues than her grasp of constitutional law.)
Prod - Do you think teaching creationism alongside evolution in science class in a public school violates the establishment clause? Because that is what this interaction was about...not all the stuff you've brought up.
The Daily Show said that the same Palin "advisors" who prepped Sarah for her interview which included the question "name a SCOTUS decision with which you disagree" were the same advisors who prepped O'Donnell for the same question. I mean, Citizen's United? The eminent domain case from a few years back?
Prod - Do you think teaching creationism alongside evolution in science class in a public school violates the establishment clause? Because that is what this interaction was about...not all the stuff you've brought up. Not a bad question but we need to know more. Is the intent to show what a complete scientific joke creationism is? Or is to show that creationism is a valid scientific viewpoint (which really means in this context to show it's a religiously derived viewpoint).
what is very troubling is that a room full of law professors and students would laugh....the fact is the words "seperation of church and state" are not in the constitution.
