Re: [Phys-l] The Perils of American Stupidity

[Marty Weiss <martweiss@comcast.net>]

On Nov 9, 2010, at 6:24 PM, William Robertson wrote:

> This isn't the place for such conversations, but let's just look at  
> your comment on Christine O'Donnell. When she asked where separation  
> of church and state were in the Constitution, she made an excellent  
> point. Unfortunately, she did not follow up adequately and explain  
> that Congress not establishing a religion does not equate to  
> separation of church and state. The audible gasps and laughs are more  
> of a credit to the students in that audience not understanding the  
> First Amendment.

They were debating at a LAW SCHOOL.   You don't think these students don't know the spirit of the 1st Amendment?   
The interpretation of the amendment has been separation of church and state since colonial days:

The modern concept is often credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of theEstablishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. His purpose in this letter was to assuage the fears of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them. The metaphor was intended, as the U.S. Supreme Court has currently interpreted it since 1947, to mean that religion and government must stay separate for the benefit of both, including the idea that the government must not impose religion on Americans nor create any law requiring it. It has since been in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court,[1] though the Court has not always fully embraced the principle.[

(Wikipedia:  separation of church and state in the United States)

> O'Donnell did not clarify her comments well, but that  
> does not make her an idiot.

"I am not a witch!   I am you!":      campaign ad since refudiated (oops) disawowed by her before the election.
   
> Ad hominem attacks don't enlighten anyone.

I point out the stupidity of several of the Tea Party candidates, their stands on various issues, and to "refudiate"  (oops) refute the idea that these people are not ignorant and that what we progressives say about them are stereotypes.   There are too many such stupid stands by tea Partiers and Right wing Religious Wing-nuts in recent years to be dismissed as stereotypes or one-time statements.    I repeat:  this country has seen anti-intellectual eras before, but it remains to be seen what will become of any progress we have made on fronts such as gay rights, stem-cell research, teaching of evolution, and others.  

Marty