Vote Darwin

The Georgia congressman who called evolution "lies straight from the pit of hell" won reelection Tuesday in an uncontested race. But 4000 of his constituents managed to find a write-in candidate they could believe in — the father of evolution, who has been dead for 130 years. (Via Jennifer Ouellette)


  1. In fact, Darwin probably got rather more votes than you say: those 4,000 are just from Athens-Clarke County. The other 24 counties either haven’t yet supplied complete results or don’t tally votes for improperly certified candidates.

  2. It’s an embarrassment to America that this guy is on the science committee. What can you do to oust him?

    1. I wouldn’t get my hopes up.  He puts me in mind of John Ashcroft, who lost his re-election to the Senate to a dead man in 2000.

      If only that were the last we’d heard from Ashcroft.

  3. He’s also one of Bachman’s islamic sleeper cell conspiracy theorists, so of course he’s on the Homeland Security Committee as well.

    We’ll know sanity has returned to the GOP when his only assignment is on the prayer breakfast seating arrangement committee.

  4. At least he’s not an M.D., so no one will think he’s qualified to sit on a House subcommittee dealing with health matters; oh, wait…

  5. One wonders what happend to the separation between state and church (resp. any other religion) . Next thing is that you get some flat earthers for Geography. But seriously now. Isnt there any local, state or federal law under which this person could be deemed unfit for the job?

    I mean this kind of delusions isnt your run of the mill stuff we all have (more or less).

    1.  Actually, it’s partly the separation of church and state that means that we can’t entirely get away from this sort of thing–that, and the related “no religious tests for public office” rule.  These rules are not at all the same as the official secularism of, say, Turkey (at least up until recently), in which there was an active bar on many forms of religious expression in the public sphere.  The idea here is that the government AS AN INSTITUTION is supposed to be completely neutral on religion.  This neutrality is supposed to extend even to the religious beliefs and expressions of individuals involved in government.  A lot of people find this a bit subtle.  It can be in some situations.  This is not one of them.  A person’s beliefs are not, under the rules, supposed to create legal bars to where a person can serve in government. 

      It’s up to the voters to keep out people with dangerous ideologies (religious or political).  Incidentally, the “no religious tests for public officer” rule applies only to the government.  Voters can vote on whatever basis appeal to them.

  6. How is it that nobody ran against him? Hearing him speak should get one to think instantly “I can do a better job”

  7. How is it that nobody ran against him? Hearing him speak should get one to think instantly “I can do a better job”

Comments are closed.