Bill Maher has released another Christine O’Donnell video from the late 90’s. In this video, O’Donnell tries to tell the Politically Incorrect crowd that evolution doesn’t exist and her proof is that monkeys still aren’t turning in to humans. HUH?????
Oh, Christine, Christine, Christine. Public school or parochial?
I’m fairly direct so if I were her I’d release one press notice to answer Maher’s promise to air more material.
I do not negotiate with terrorists.
🙂
I think what Maher is doing is fair. I think what SNL is doing is not fair. They are positioning her in an embarrassing role played by someone else.
In the case of Maher, he owned the video footage and the words were O’Donnell’s own.
What I fear is that she sees nothing wrong with what she said about evolution. I don’t think anyone who thinks like what I heard come out of her mouth should be in any leadership role.
Haven’t watched SNL.. I miss the Palin run.. She brought life back to SNL.
Maher has every right to do it and I don’t look down upon him for doing so. It’s pushing his ratings up. Good on him. Free market at work.
I’m still pulling for her to get elected.
If Maher wished to even remotely appear fair, he would also showcase my favorite Democratic Senate candidate, Al “Satin” Green from South Carolina. Now THAT man has raw, pure talent!! He is clearly the intellectual leader of the Democratic party.
Actually, any time Bill Maher and “Slow Drip” are used in the same thought, it seems so right!!
Did we find the missing link? Are we descendants of monkeys?
It seems to me that O’Donnell isn’t under attack as much as her Christian beliefs. When I view her clips I hear her say that we should strive for sexual purity, try to tell the truth at all costs, not practice witchcraft and that we are created by God. Yet, these are the reasons why everyone mocks her? Other than allegations against her misuse of campaign funds I haven’t understood the uproar against her.
Honestly, I can’t grasp how someone could look at the universe and believe it’s all just happenstance. I recently heard an analogy that it would be similar to a strong wind blowing through a junk yard and creating a 747 airline jet. In my opinion, it’s just not possible to be anything but divine creation.
Not a sermon, just a thought…
I don’t fault Maher at all. He’s got good material on her and it gets him ratings, visibility and may make some people cringe. That’s fair.
He has an individual right and a right as a corporation to effect an election under the 1st Amendment. I support that.
I agree with Alanna. Religious beliefs versus secular beliefs. Fair to debate. Unfair to mock. Maher is a mocker. Always has been. Teach the details of both and let each individual decide for himself or herself.
What does Beck do? He mocks on a daily basis. However, it is under the guise of commentary. Maher admits he mocks. Also, O’Donnell willingly appeared on his show. Does Beck’s mocking of people, to include the President of the United States offend you, Wolverine?
Why would science be put on the same level as religious belief? Why would a school be delivering instruction that deals with religious belief? Does science negate religious belief? How did all the physics come to be in the first place? Some folks might say JUST IS, other folks might say God invented physics.
I don’t think so. I just don’t think that public schools have any business pushing religious beliefs.
However, asking how come monkeys aren’t still evolving into human beings is mockable and a totally stupid thing to say. It shows that she doesn’t understand the first thing about ‘evolution.’ O’Donnell should at least understand something before disagreeing with it.
These are not equal beliefs. One is science, and based on the scientific method. The other is religion and part of one’s faith. It is the quintessential apples and oranges problem.
How do you teach comparative religion without explaining the doctrines and beliefs of each religion? Since religion has been such an important part of history, to avoid the fundamental bases of religion is to leave us with an educational gap. You’re explaining it, not endorsing it.
Science is not infalllible just because it is science. My father succumbed to complications from Alzheimer’s Disease. I was told by the science community that it was a certain plaque on the brain that caused this terrible illness. Now some scientists are reversing themselves and claiming that it looks to be some kind of out-of-control protein and not the plaque. The plaque, they appear to be claiming, is actually a sort of self-protective mechanism activited by our immune systems. And then there is coffee. One day good. Next day bad. Next day good again. And then there is Pluto. I grew up being told it was a planet. No more. And, finally, Al Gore swore that the polar bears were disappearing.
I don’t like mockery period. I don’t know exactly how Beck conducts himself in this regard because I do not watch his shows and do not frequent his blog. Nor do I watch Matthews, Maddow, and all the rest (except here). I used to watch Maher back when he was on the network but probably because I needed some cussing practice. I do listen on the radio while doing other things and often find myself critical when radio commentators engage in such nonsense. Limbaugh can make me cringe in a minute when he engages in some of that stuff. My usual reaction is: “Gosh, Rush, you didn’t need to say that. Get back to a debate on the facts.”
But, in the end, I would surmise that Limbaugh and Beck are often no different in style than the commentators on the other side. Maddow’s penchant for sneering and snarkiness sometimes makes me want to slap her upside the head. However, I draw a mighty big distinction between mocking a politician and mocking someone because of their religious beliefs. I consider the latter to be a personal hurt which I have no business laying on anyone regardless of differences in faith or ideological viewpoint. If someone like Maher is inclined to mock O’Donnell and other American Christians for their religious beliefs, is he also willing to mock an American Muslim for believing that the Prophet ascended to Paradise from the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem? Does he have the guts to verbally piss all over the Koran and Koranic believers the way he habitually has the Christian Bible and Christian believers? If he has, I don’t remember it.
Science is science. It continually changes and refines. No, it isn’t always correct. I think of Alfred Wegener’s theory about continental drift. Was he on to something? Yes. Was he correct? Not really. However, his work led to the theory of plate techtonics which is the current theory in earth science relating to earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, and earth movement. Will it remain the status quo in all that is science? Who knows.
Religion is religion. It doesn’t change as a rule.
I don’t think he mocked her religious beliefs. Since when is monkeys turning in humans a religion? She talked about evolution. Evolution isn’t a religious belief.
O’Donnell cannot make 22 appearances on Politically Incorrect and be an untouchable. If she goes on there and spouts that monkey nonsense, she will be mocked and rightly so. She wasn’t making a serious argument of her religious beliefs.
The important thing to remember is that O’Donnell went on HIS show. Fair game.
I agree with Moonhowler that O’Donnell demonstrates a poor understanding of the theory of evolution. This understanding is one that many (not all) who debate against it use. Please understand that I respect if one doesn’t believe in the theory, but please clearly study it if you are going to argue that it cannot be so.
Evolutionary theory does not state that humans are the goal of evolution. If never says that monkeys turned into humans. It does state that there are common ancestors (in the case of primates, not any particular species of primate that exists today), and that at some point along the line, species diverged and continued evolving very slowly (for the most part).
That should be “it,” not “if.”
Sorry, folks. The actual debate between creationism and evolutionary theory is not what I am addressing here. My objection is to the expressed conjuncture of “mocked and rightly so.” I cannot agree that they belong together in the context of normal public discourse if we want to keep on having a discourse. You mock me. I’ll mock you. Soon we will either be not talking to each other or beating the crap out of each other.
Wolverine, O’Donnell made an incredibly stupid statement. That is why she was being mocked.
I would agree with you if Maher sought O’Donnell out in her home, in the park, on her show, in her church, and made fun of her religious beliefs.
However, O’Donnell willingly went on Maher’s show, Politically Incorrect, and spouted someting inane about monkeys turning into humans. She never stated a religious position. She knocked evolution and gave a stupid reason for what she said.
How can you possibly say her religion is being mocked. I don’t even know what her religion is.
People who want their ideas to be taken seriously don’t appear with people like izzy in a clown suit.
Seriously, Wolverine. She is appearing of her own free will on Politically InCorrect, with the king of kut, makes an idiot statement and you feel she is being picked on? At what point is some of this HER responsibility?
Mocking her for her religious beliefs id fair game, and why, because her beliefs are Christian based. Now I want someone to have the guts to mock the Islamic beliefs to be fair. After all, no one said those 72 virgins were attractive. After all, why do you thinks they’re still virgins?
Several typos, need more coffee!
The thread isn’t about islam, SA.
Do Christians believe that monkeys are still turning in to humans? No Christians I know believe that. My church has been remarkably silent on monkeys, believe it or not.
Christine O’Donnel is stupid and is going to get her butt kicked in the election, which will likely cost the Republicans their chance to recapture the Senate.
I would say she is ill-informed rather than stupid. The question then becomes, do people mind having an ill-informed candidate? Apparently not, in her case. Perhaps 12 years later she is better informed and more skilled at handling herself in situations like that.
She was young and silly when she said a lot of the stuff she is saying. I would advise her to say she was young and silly and that was then and this was now and she isn’t running on witchcraft and monkeys.
Can someone please tell me again what Christine O’Donnel has to do with any of us? Is this going to be another Palin like theme here, an almost daily thread trashing a candidate from a State that has nothing to do with VA.
I can think of only one reason why this would be going on here… but I could be wrong.
@Hello,
I don’t owe you explanations. If you don’t like our topics or how we run things, start your own blog. That is how we arrived here. Didn’t you see that in 9500 Liberty last night?
O’Donnell makes good copy. I will run each of Maher’s released videos.
Her judgment IS in question. She was stupid enough to go on Maher’s show in the first place. That said, her clips are fair play. Now she either gets elected despite them or because of them. Either way, if I were her, I would just ignore Maher.
@Cargo, I don’t know what I would do if I were O’Donnell. Probably say I was young and silly. Maher is going to keep releasing footage.
But you are right…it will either help or hurt her. For every person who is turned off, there will be someone who votes for her because of the tapes. Just look at the disagreement the one tape has generated here on this blog.
Question: How many people would let ‘evolution’ influence how they vote?
Since nothing that Congress does is based either on evolution or any form of creationism, I would hope that no one would vote on that basis alone.
Everyone knows that one should only base ones vote on how historical the election is. And having O’Donnell win Biden’s seat is pretty historical………
😉
I would let that influence me because of establishment clause issues. There…I have said it. As you would let 2nd amendment issues influence your vote, I would let 1st amendment ones influence me.
i remember a similar question being asked in the 2008 campaign. I recall checking off how people answered. I think I even wrote it down. Actually how a person feels about that influences a great deal, starting with how the earth began. Earth beginnings tend to influence all of science, somewhere down the line. I had a slow burn on during the Bush years over the book being in the Grand Canyon Book store saying the GC was only 6,000 years old. That to me is just bad science.
Seeing that book in that store really did something to me.
Well, mocking her is perfectly natural. The reason that humor “evolved” if I may use that word is as a social sanction against inflexible behavior. Obviously the woman is not only stupid but closed-minded, so it is the most natural thing on earth that we mock her.
As a voter I find her dangerously stupid but then again a vote for the Democrats is a vote to validate a status quo of ignoring popular opinion and pursuing failed policies and intellectually vacuous “solutions”. Voting for this imbecilic woman at least sends a message. So i’d be leaning that way. The more idiotic and unsuitable she is, the stronger the message.
I would fear I would end up with an inknowledgeable person.
The devil I know….
With me, its just a matter of degrees and who offends me less. Sometimes that message gets blurred.
@Alanna Thank you for articulating so eloquently my exact feelings on this issue.
The most telling Maher quote:
“And the other part of me is rooting for her because she’s going to get her Christian ass kicked in the general election.”
Her “Christian ass”?
I still don’t feel that her religious beliefs are being attacked, at least on this blog. I have no idea what is going on with Maher. Not enough information.
I am somewhat uncomfortable with the notions that:
1. Christians believe monkeys used to turn in to humans
2. The idea that people who don’t believe this aren’t Christians
3. Real Christians don’t accept theories of evolution.
So what is the take-home, then? That people who hold certain religious beliefs should be disqualified from public office?
And I’m at a loss as to where O’Donnell said that Christians believe monkeys used to turn in to humans.
Perhaps we could try a little fill-in-the-blank: ““And the other part of me is rooting for her because she’s going to get her _____ ass kicked in the general election.”
Let’s try any one of the following: Muslim, black, Mexican, Jewish, fat, female.
Do any of these other filler words make anyone uncomfortable in that context? Does any of it sound like “hate speech”?
Just curious.
I don’t think O’Donnell is going to make it across the finish line first, here. However, Cuomo may be in trouble, and I really didn’t see that coming.
“So what is the take-home, then? That people who hold certain religious beliefs should be disqualified from public office?”
Disqualified? No. Those beliefs considered when determing how to cast ones vote? Absolutely.
@Bubberella Fair enough. In the same way that I feel that Obama’s lifelong relationship with a racist, anti-American preacher played a significant part in my 2008 voting decision. That leopard will never change his spots.
Emma, I have been going round and round for 2 days on this so some of what I wrote was implied from earlier comments. I don’t think she offered up any Christian beliefs.
I think people who are elected to office should be informed. I don’t believe people’s personal belief’s should be turned in to policy.
The question then becomes how do we separate the 2. I probably just wouldn’t vote for someone who held beliefs I found unacceptable to my way of thinking. That isn’t disqualifying anyone.
Emma, I had the same problem, although I don’t think he knew Wright until he was an adult. I got over it real fast when Palin came on the scene. It simply because a matter of which was more offensive to my way of thinking. I looked at the distance from the White House and decided I could not vote for Palin.
That priest was every bit as bad.
Can we please agree on something here? When someone makes a statement with which you radically disagree, perhaps even think is outlandish and way off base, is it not better to say: “Well, I see where you are coming from; but I disagree with you, and this is why.” Is this not a whole lot better than saying or implying to that person that they are stupid, and ignorant and then adding mockery concerning their genuinely held belief systems?
It seems to me that the first keeps the dialogue going and may even give you an opportunity for persuasion. The second, however, tends to create animosity and hostility when such can be easily avoided. Moreover, you keep on using the second tactic, and soon that may be the only element in the entire scenario. There was a time when we used to finish that kind of debate on a dueling field.
Wolverine, I think we did real well with a volatile issue. Can you imagine how this topic might fly on other blogs?
What I think probably hasn’t come out that this kind of talk is bi-conditional. There is an assumption that this is a one way street–that “Christians” are offended by evolution or something.
I am going to throw down the gauntlet and say that I always find it extremely offensive for people to assume those of us who are not fundamentalist (literal interpretation of the Bible) are also not Christians. I would offer up the same remarks for Jewish people since our biblical roots of beginnings are the same.
Was Mr. Green ever on the Bill Maher Show? Does he own video clips of Al Green?
I think it is fairly obvious that Green shouldn’t be running for anything. No one has explained that one yet. Does anyone even consider him a legitimate candidate?
I went and re-read the comments. I want to clarify…the reason Christine O’Donnell is catching Hell from so many camps is not necessarily because she discards the theories of evolution but because she doesn’t understand them. There is nothing, anywhere, in any book, for the past hundred eighty years, that states that monkeys turn into human beings.
Regardless of one’s beliefs, religious or otherwise, before she knocks something she should understand it enough to knock it. She makes a reputable theory sound like the Wizard of Oz or Cinderella’s coach where the pumpkin turns into a coach because the godmother waves her magic wand.
Regardless of what people believe, it is imperative to at least be familiar with major scientific thought. That is part of being educated. After giving this question more thought, I think that Christine O’Donnell mocks those who don’t share her beliefs by making science a joke. If she is going to crack on science, she needs to at least be accurate about what she is cracking on.
Science continually changes, as new information is discovered and brought into the body of acceptable academic thought. To just kill off new thinking takes us back to Galileo.
@Moon-howler
“The question then becomes, do people mind having an ill-informed candidate? Apparently not,”
That is perfectly demonstrated by any number of incumbent Congressional representatives and Presidents. I will leave any actual list to the readers as I’m sure that our respective lists will contain different names…..
The reason that O’Donnell is catching hell is that she had the nerve to actually win the primary, thus proving all of the experts wrong. Just watch what happens if she wins the election…..head on the right and left will implode…….where’s the popcorn?
That would be “HEADS on the right and left”
Edit THEN post.
I don’t think it is all that weird that she did win a primary. That’s fairly typical, don’t you think? I think the fact that she beat out someone who was pretty certain to win is the rub.
It gives me one guarantee of a thread a week until election day. I am already wondering what Bill Maher has in his war chest to release next week.
For those who want to hear some Alvin Greene, he’s on youtube – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrldN7wn3Cw .
It is funny listening to the guy; Stern plays the tapes.
People are confusing the faith of a belief in G-d with science. They are NOT mutually exclusive. ODonnell can be as silly as she likes regarding masturbation, which by the way, is perfectly normal, to “adultery” and that is her opinion. However, I for one, get quite apprehensive when someone is running for a political office that seems to soley rely on their religious beliefs as doctrine that can ,and probably will be codified, in some way, legislatively.
Evolution is not simply about monkeys. It is about how cells evolve and it is VERY complicated. Her response was simply immature and childlike, which is fine, unless and until, you plan on inserting yourself into a position of power like senator.
I believe in a higher power, but that does not negate the facts regarding evolution. Creationism is a belief, not based on any fact and actually refuted by concrete data that cannot be denied. The world in not 10,000 years old, it is billions of years old.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
I was going to comment on Christine O’Donnel, but the evolution conversation is more interesting. Let me say first I am a Christian . I believe the Bible is an excellent book written by fairly ignorant people afters years of oral history. It’s not their fault, education wasn’t developed yet. The more “educated” religious leaders edited it to suit their beliefs and over the centuries we have adopted it as a recipe for the Jewish and Christian Religions. Science fills in the missing gaps and should not replace anyone’s faith but it can’t be ignored either.
BTW She is dangerous and should not be representing anyone but herself!
I questioned somewhat the street smarts of any over-confident conservative who appeared on the network version of Politically InCorrect with the “king of kut.” (I have never watched the cable version for more than ten seconds.) It was always a shooting gallery with the deck stacked and all guns aimed at the conservative target of the evening. Most of the time it degenerated into a rat-a-tat-tat of one liners in which scarcely anyone could get a cogent thought through the ack-ack, much less a discourse on creationism vs evolution.
One of the few times I saw Maher and a like-minded guest get their heads handed to them was when Maher made the mistake of inviting the late songstress Earth Kitt and than giving his usual BS about his preference for a licentious lifestyle in which sexual satisfaction was the only thing that mattered. I think Kitt was about to burst at what she considered to be an insult to the dignity of womanhood. When the guest, a Black hip-hop type, I think, agreed with Maher, Kitt stood up and bent over him with a long finger wagging in front of his face and telling him what a stupid chauvinist pig he was. For a minute there I thought she might actually slug the guy. I loved every minute of it.