Christine O’Donnell Loses Debate For Campaigning While Christian


Amazing. Delaware senatorial candidate, Chris Coons, couldn’t name the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment in a recent debate – so, naturally, his opponent, Christine O’Donnell, was labeled ignorant by the mainstrea media.

Not surprising. In fact, I believe that most journalistic stylebooks define “ignorant” as “a conservative Christian who refuses to sit down and be quiet.” Same with “crazy,” “unhinged,” and “dangerous.” In fact, I’ve heard that it’s a pre-programmed macro on every word processor at the New York Times.

The most recent avalanche of O’Donnell bashing started when Coons cited separation of church and state to justify big fat federal government interfering in the business of local school boards. Since James Madison couldn’t be there to backhand him, O’Donnell rose to the challenge.

She demanded a specific constitutional reference, and was promptly punished with derisive snickers from the audience and a renewed frenzy of gleeful name-calling throughout the blogosphere.

Jeffrey Lord at the American Spectator commented:

In a sentiment that speaks volumes about the combination of ignorance and arrogance all too frequently coming out of Ivy League schoolings and American liberal elites, Coons said this in response to O’Donnell’s discussion of the “overreaching arm of the federal government getting into the business of the local communities.” The conservative O’Donnell said: “…our so called leaders in Washington no longer view the indispensable principles of our founding as truly that, indispensable.”

To which Coons stunningly replied: “Ms. O’Donnell, one of those indispensable principles is the separation of church and state.”

O’Donnell immediately replied: “Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?”

The transcript than indicates “laughter.”

Of course, this makes Coons the golden boy, despite his definitely creepy response to O’Donnell’s question: that case law nullifies much of the First Amendment, making previously “inalienable” rights contingent on age, location, and wantedness; and chucking the notion of “free exercise” of religion – in short airily reducing the crown jewel of our liberty into a permission slip to muzzle Christians and incinerate the tiny, helpless, and unwanted.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • RSS
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • Blogplay
  • Ping.fm
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Sphinn
  • PDF