Saturday, October 23, 2010

Separation of Church Mouse and State

Chris O'Donnell, of the human-mouse hybrid brains, provides endless amusement, is a satirist's dream. So, the other day, when she said that the Constitution doesn't call for separation of church and state, her audience, at a law school, started laughing. She held her ground, noting that the words 'separation of church and state' do not, in fact, occur in the First Amendment. Rush Limbaugh quickly defended her. And the outcry came from the right that this was yet another example of the elitist intellectual left media jumping on a righty even when she's correct.

The obvious response is to point out that the First and Fourteenth Amendments are universally accepted as requiring a separation of church and state, and that O'Donnell is an idiot. But there's more to it. Her remarks, which the right applauds, have to be seen in the context of the right's demand for a literal reading of the Constitution, for a jurisprudence and governance based on the founders' 'original intent'. When she says that a separation of church and state isn't in the Constitution, she's attacking the legitimacy of that separation. She, and the right, are advocating the repeal of 200 years of jurisprudence to destroy one of the very cornerstones of this country's founding principles, one easily documented as central in the thinking of pivotal figures amongst the founders. And she's being applauded for it.

Let's, by all means, laugh at the mouse brains, the witchcraft dabbling, all of it. You can always get a chuckle out of an audience by talking up masturbation. But this is deadly serious business. Make no mistake about it. It doesn't stop with O'Donnell.

2 comments:

BlakNo1 said...

I will laugh heartily when Coons beats her by at least 5 percent. Unfortunately, the rest of that election day won't be much of a laughing matter, more than likely.

ProfWombat said...

Yup. And she's too easy a target. Meanwhile, all this crap keeps sloshing around, and becomes legitimate.