tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post8035603139263856542..comments2024-03-29T03:19:09.227-04:00Comments on The Philosopher's Stone: AND AGAIN, CHRISTINE O'DONNELLRobert Paul Wolffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-63872860625743957602010-10-24T05:57:32.096-04:002010-10-24T05:57:32.096-04:00Thank you for the confirmation. My sister asked m...Thank you for the confirmation. My sister asked me how I knew such things and I said, truthfully, that I intuit them. It was the only explanation that made sense out of what was otherwise totally puzzling -- not merely stupid -- behavior on O'Donnell's part.Robert Paul Wolffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-8461808440562004682010-10-23T22:50:47.401-04:002010-10-23T22:50:47.401-04:00I can attest to the use of this line in right-wing...I can attest to the use of this line in right-wing circles by the utterly misinformed. My father is a fundamentalist Christian pastor. When I was a teenager and we once came to intellectual blows over the issue of separation of church and state, he spurted out this line about separation of church and state not being in the constitution. Being at the time in my high school Government course, I was able to offer him some simple exegesis of the first amendment and to explain the intent behind it as well as a bit about the history of its interpretation. He was unmoved, however, and I have heard him utter this nonsense ever since. I believe that he was once given this line at a right-wing conference at some time, as well.Charles Richard Booher IIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14324216316198289808noreply@blogger.com