Oh-so-superior left-liberals make utter fools of themselves
Mock mockers after that.A friend who watched the Chris Matthews program this morning told me that Matthews and his gaggle of left-liberals, including the supremely dislikable Cynthia Tucker and the (I presume) still pumped-up-with-male- hormones Andrew Sullivan, all ganged up on—and I can’t believe that they’re still trying to draw water from this empty well—Christine O’Donnell for having said that “separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution. But of course separation of church and state is not in the Constitution, but comes from a letter by Thomas Jefferson, in which he spoke of a “wall of separation between church and state,” and which liberal judges over the last hundred years have dishonestly attempted to inject into the Constitution.
The liberals on the Matthews program think that since non-establishment of religion is in the Constitution, therefore separation of church and state is in the Constitution. But of course non-establishment of religion and separation of church and state are not the same thing. Non-establishment of religion means that no religious denomination shall be favored in law over others; that no denomination shall receive public revenues; and that membership in any one denomination shall not be a requirement for voting or holding political office. (Indeed, since it was Congress, not the states, that was barred from establishing a religion, several states had religious establishments until well into the nineteenth century when they voluntarily ended them.) By contrast with non-establishment of religion, separation of church and state means that the state shall have absolutely nothing to do with religion.
The most evident proof that the two are not the same, and that they have never been understood by the U.S. Congress to be the same, is that the first Congress in 1789 passed the First Amendment which barred the Congress from establishing a religion, even as the same Congress did all kinds of things to advance religion, including hiring pastors for the Congress, holding daily prayers in the Congress, and distributing Bibles to the Northwest territories, and no one ever suggested that in doing these things the Congress was violating the First Amendment. In reality, the Congress, while it properly refrained as per the First Amendment from establishing any one denomination over others (which in the context of America meant establishing any one Christian denomination over other Christian denominations), it did not erect a wall of separation between religion and state but promoted religion (which in the context of America meant promoting Christianity).
Is there anything more contemptible than people who contemptuously mock a person as an ignoramus, when in reality the mockers are the ignorant ones?
And guess what? After the Matthews gang had had their way with the supposedly stupid Christine O’Donnell for a couple of minutes, they went back to an even older exhausted well and spent another couple of minutes mocking Dan Quayle for his entirely understandable misspelling of “potato” twenty years ago.
To what shall one compare these liberals, who deride others as ignoramuses and haters, but in reality are themselves ignoramuses and haters? They are like the devils in Paradise Lost, who in the final scene in hell are transformed into a huge mass of hissing snakes.
Tim W. writes:
You noted how liberals are still ganging up on Christine O’Donnell to a ridiculous degree. It’s a form of bullying that the left specializes in. If a conservative gets caught in a gaffe (real or imagined) there’s a feeding frenzy in which the Democrats and the mainstream media both pile on until they destroy the victim. There’s no sense of proportion involved, let alone any reflection on the propriety of what they’re doing.LA writes:
Here is the passage from President Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists Association in 1802:LA writes:
Why do I say that Quayle’s mispelling of “potato” was entirely understandable? First, it was not his spelling. He had been given cards, and was asking pupils to spell the words on the cards. The card Quayle was given put an “e” at the end of “potato.” He was just responding to what had been given him. Second, since the plural of potato is “potatoes,” it would not be unreasonable to think for a moment that the singular also has an “e.” Third, English is an unusually hard language for spelling. The spelling of English words is highly un-phonetic and often arbitrary, and learning to spell correctly in English is a lifelong project, as every writer knows.Clark Coleman writes:
Your recent entry about the left-liberals mocking the right but making utter fools of themselves reminded me of this piece from Gary Bauer’s daily e-mail last week:LA replies:
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 24, 2010 05:16 PM | Send