The Sermon on the Mount is central to Christianity. In it, Jesus calls us to a higher level of morality than what traditional law requires. The law forbids murder, for example, but Jesus says that even to be angry with someone or to call him a "fool" is to expose yourself to the danger of God's judgment. (Are you sure you want to call O'Donnell a fool?)
Continuing with that theme, Jesus says:
You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.So what have you been doing with that hand, eh?
O'Donnell, unlike Jesus, did not go so far as to say that you ought to be lopping off your own masturbating hand. (If you think that, I recommend masturbating with your left hand, if you're right-handed.) O'Donnell took a much more moderate approach to the sacred text (as many believers do). In her view, the real offense against God is abusing the gift of sexuality by disconnecting it from the context of deep love in a marital relationship. In that interpretation, masturbation is sinful. It is mere lust, without love. Is lust a sin? You decide for yourself. She wasn't recommending that the law enforce this higher morality, but what is wrong with it as a personal, religious doctrine? Why is it not respected?
And let's remember: This was back in the 90s. Do you remember how insane everyone was back then? Here's a quick refresher course.
President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, fired Jocelyn Elders in 1994, after people freaked out when she said that young people should "perhaps ... be taught" about masturbation, because it is "is part of human sexuality" and useful in keeping them from doing riskier sexual things.
Posts
306 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 306 of 306Marshal @ 3:29: Did she form it or join it?
Is it national?
Are there enough people in it to legitimately call it a movement?
I have no idea how many people were in SALT, but it does not appear to be something that liberals made up yesterday.
Here's what wikipedia has to say: O'Donnell founded the Savior's Alliance for Lifting the Truth (SALT) in 1996 and served as its president. The organization lobbied the U.S. Congress on moral issues and focused on advocating chastity and other Christian values in the college-age generation.
One of the footnotes points to this document which has O'Donnell as author, and mentions that she was the founder of the organization.
"Not "sexual practices". Sex. The "lifestyles" that lead to HIV infection are (a) IV drug use (easy to avoid) and (b) having sex with anyone, ever."
I have to quibble with (b). It's not "no sex with anyone, ever" it's "no sex with anyone who is infected with HIV." (I won't even put "without a condom" in there.) Mutually monogamous sex is sex. (And according to studies, it's generally pretty good sex.)
Part of why I'm such a prude about some things, like objecting to "no one should *expect* monogamy and therefore should always insist on condoms even with a spouse or it's your own dumb fault", and all the various versions of "expecting self-control is wrong" or "expecting or trying to teach self-control is wrong" is that it seems to me that there is a realistic choice presented us between sex and no-sex, and in the end the results of cultural promiscuity are on the no-sex side.
I was personally crushed when Dr. Elder's teaching masturbation never came to fruition. I had my resume ready and had put together a syllabus. My first lecture was to be the different euphemisms for masturbation: jerking off, beating your meat, choking the chicken, rubbing one out, flagging the dummy, jerkin' the gerkin, milking the cow, petting the poodle, slappin' the salami, strokin' the one-eyed snake, hand to gland combat, dating Pamela Handerson, makin' it snow, rubbin' the nub, spankin' the monkey, cleaning the bean, going to the palm prom, painting the ceiling,...the list goes on, but I want to leave a few for other contributors.
The nuns told us our palms would grow hair and we would go to hell for masturbating. To date, they're 0 for 2.
Ok lets get it straight:
1996 against mastubation unqualified for Senate
1996 bj's from whitehouse interns
qualified for President
Liberals does not compute, please explain...
From now until November, all you're going to hear about from the MSM and lefty websites is every bad thing about the people who comprise the opposition. One story after another. There won't ever be a bad thing said about a Democrat. Count on it.
Where's dtl?
The organization O'Donnell founded linked to gay therapy sites, including Desert Stream Ministries:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010408185604/http://thesalt.org/saltresources.html#homosexual
datechguy, right back at ya: president committing adultery deserves impeachment, led by
speaker of the house, who is doing the same thing.
1996 against mastubation unqualified for Senate
1996 bj's from whitehouse interns
qualified for President
Basically only weirdoes thus counsel the young, and who wants a weirdo as their senator?
Compare the aptly named "Dingbat," in The Adventures of Augie March:
It went something like this; both Dingbat and Nails in their best clothes, black suede shoes and wearing spotless, eye-cramming fedoras and key chains. "Boys, the first thing you got to understand is how important it is to live clean, train hard, get plenty of milk and vegetables, and sleep with open windows. Take a fighter like my boy here"-- happily grinning Nails, toughly sending them his blessings--"on the road, makes no difference where, Nagel works up a full sweat at least once a day. Then, hot shower, cold shower, and a fast rub. He gets the body poisons out of his pores, and the only time he gets to smoke is when I give him a cigar after a vict'ry. I was reading where Tex Rickard wrote the other day in the Post, that before the Willard fight, when it was a hundred in the shade out there in Ohio, Dempsey was trained so fine that when he took a nap before the event, in his underwear, they were crisp and there wasn't a drop of sweat on him. Boys, I want to tell you, that's wonderful! That's one of the worth-while ways to be.
So take my advice and don't play with your dummy. I can't tell you how important that is. Leave it alone. Not just if you want to be an athlete, and there's few things that's finer, but even if you got other ambitions, that's the first way to go wrong. So hands off; it'll make your brains fuzzy.
And don't play gidgy with your little girl friends. It don't do you or them any good. Take it from me, I'm giving it to you straight because I don't believe in shady stuff and hanky-panky. The hot little punks I see around the street--just pass them by. If you got to have a girl friend, and I don't see why not, there's plenty of honest kids to choose from, the kind who'd never grab you by the fly or let you stick around till one a. m. mushing with them on the steps"--and on and on, with his glare of sincerity to the membership on camp chairs.
Allen, yes, and from now until November, all you're going to hear about from FOX and righty websites is every bad thing about the Democrats. One story after another. There won't ever be a bad thing said about a Republican, unless his name is Mike Castle. Count on it.
I heard Hannity going off on Castle this afternoon. Castle is a bully, living off the taxpayers of Delaware for 40 years, ungrateful, and so on.
Brave talk from Hannity, now that it's clear that Castle is out of the running.
I would bet any sum of money that Hannity didn't have anything like that to say before Castle lost the primary.
Peter,
I hardly watch Fox at all, but it's not unusual for me to hear something negative about a Republican when I do.
And spouses who are faithful to each other who are not already infected will also avoid AIDS There are really quite a few of those types of people around you know.
"My partner and I are faithful to each other and neither of us are infected" is the HIV-avoidance strategy most of the AIDS patients in America thought they were following, too. The ones you call "dumb as a bag of hammers".
See, the problem with your scenario is that you can't actually know that you and your spouse are "faithful to each other and uninfected". You can know that about you. With him, you're guessing. Approximately one in four husbands cheat on their wives, and the most common form of cheating is visiting prostitutes -- who, of course, have hundreds or thousands of sex partners and a high rate of IV drug use. When's the last time you had your husband tested? When's the last time he had you tested?
Or are you relying on the good old-fashioned "oh, he wouldn't lie about something that important" approach to STD avoidance?
1996 against mastubation unqualified for Senate
1996 bj's from whitehouse interns
qualified for President
Liberals does not compute, please explain...
Er... I'm not agreeing with either point, but where's the contradiction? The first point amounts to "if you're anti-sex you shouldn't be in government", the second amounts to "if you're oversexed it is ok to be in government". There's no inconsistency there.
And peter hoh -- Clinton wasn't impeached for cheating on his wife. He was impeached for what he did to cover up the fact that he was cheating on his wife.
Clinton and Elders! Bill got a lifetime pass, as I recall. I thought it might expire after, Waco, but no.
Revanant, yes, I know the impeachment charges centered on lying.
I was working with what datechguy had given me.
blake
Duh?
Let's see she accuses someone of making her feel so threatened that she is afraid of bodily harm, and therefore won't give out her address-and now she wants his endorsement.
Common sense should tell you that she doesn't think that badly of him.
Yet-she claimed to fear harm from him.
Those two sentiments don't seem too consistent to me.
They can't both be true.
Integrity is an issue with me.
I'm not willing to toss it away.
There is a lot more than that-to show her lack of integrity.
****************************
bagoh20-
I'm still thinking about what you said...
I guess it makes me want to do a variant of the Tea Party"anti" mantra-but turn it on them.
I won't vote for Sharron Angle, and I don't care abut losing the Senate -everyone in theater, or unemployed or fearing future taxes, or worried about the looming Health Care can just stuff it.
I want to teach the Tea Party, and punish them until they can recruit better candidates that agree with me, and Pundit X 90% of the time.
Sounds kind of irrational and self centered -right?
Now here is the exception Sharron Angle won with class-she did it fair and square. That position is unfair to her.
OTOH with O'Donnell you have to toss away the value of integrity and give her a six year term.
Coming from a culture where things like "honor codes" are institutionalized I believe asking people to vote for O'Donell is asking too much.
How does Clinton keep popping up in comment sections about O'Donnell-it happened on Volokh too.
Is it because lying on your tax returns is a form of perjury?
Approximately one in four husbands cheat on their wives ...
I think that it's fewer of us than that, just that Tiger Woods bends the curve.
Unless you're counting "lusting in the heart" when we see a gorgeous young redhead with ...
Then it's 100%, if not more.
One in four? I thought it was closer to half.
Tiger Woods bends the curve.
Oooh gawd.
I hate where my mind went w/ that.
LOL!
I'm gonna burn in hell.
What is it about powerful women that makes Democrat men so crazy?
Why are so many Democrats so misogynist?
They'll sit respectfully in a college lecture while some murdering tin pot religious fanatic dictator explains why there are no homosexuals in Iran.
But when faced with a strong American woman they start hysterically throwing monkey poo?
I really think many Democrat man have real insecurity about their manhood.
"Please return to your knuckledragging, already in progress."
I always drag palms down to rub off the hair that grows there.
Even if O'Donnell stands fast against the evil tide of masturbation, the Republic will never have to worry that there will ever be a shortage of jerk-offs in the Senate!
I'm gonna burn in hell.
Probably not.
yh wins; thread closed.
"See, the problem with your scenario is that you can't actually know that you and your spouse are "faithful to each other and uninfected"."
You can't, but you have to. And maybe you just have to hope your guy is one of the three out of four.
That's why I think that promiscuity is anti-sex. The drive to portray cheating as normal, expected, and not really bad after all, or to insist that it's simply unreasonable for young people to be chaste now means, or can mean, a lifetime of necessary sexual suppression later. It's not just AIDS, but VD that has no cure and having to be careful every single time so that you're not infectious, wear a condom forever and ever no matter what. Yuck.
Wait a minute.....
Ann's post of her looking at Gerry Butler is all starting to make sense now.
Blog theme!
oy.
"My partner and I are faithful to each other and neither of us are infected" is the HIV-avoidance strategy most of the AIDS patients in America thought they were following, too. The ones you call "dumb as a bag of hammers".
It's the HIV-avoidance strategy of most married couples in America, the vast majority of whom don't have HIV.
Or are you relying on the good old-fashioned "oh, he wouldn't lie about something that important" approach to STD avoidance?
Somewhat. I'm also relying on the "I'm armed and not afraid to protect myself and he knows it" approach. Also the California Community Property rules. The we live in a small town everyone knows your business and is willing to share it with everyone else rules. The we have both long ago sown any wild oats that we have and have learned our lessons rules
But more so on the fact that I know my husband, his morals,his character, his past and do trust him.
It is sad that you assume the worst of men and women and assume that lack of moral fibre and lack of control are the norm and are acceptable.
This is probably why ideas like O'Donnells are considered weird by the MSM, Liberals, Progressives etc: while they are considered rather ordinary by much of America.
It is hard to have rules and character...It is easy to be a whore, man whore and a slut. Our culture encourages it.
Those two sentiments don't seem too consistent to me.
They can't both be true.
Of course they can be.
"I don't trust you to not mess with me, but you have political power that I need."
What does that have to do with integrity? Should she continue on a harangue about this guy when it obviously doesn't serve any constructive end?
Are you suggesting that because this guy may have abused his power in the past, she shouldn't try to take that power from him now?
Really?
I guess you still don't get it.
Try this.
Blake broke into my house. I am so afraid of Blake and his thugs, who broke into my house and did terrible things to me, that I don't know what they are capable of now.
Now that Blake and I want the same job.
I am very fearful I can't even tell people who are trying to figure out my past stories what my current address is-and if I am using campaign funds for rent because Blake is so dangerous.
Ghee why won't Blake be a peach and give me a reference?
Your response:
Duh.
O'Donnell worries me. She seems like a flake and an opportunist. I'm glad she won't be on my ballot.
Well if you could put yourself in Mike Castle's position it should be:
Duh.
Anyways-I have to roll.
Ghee why won't Blake be a peach and give me a reference?
I thought you were asking why she wanted it, not why he wouldn't give it.
If that's the case, I'm not sure why you presume his honor over hers, but I also don't care particularly.
Peter,
I don't and never have listened to Beck. I can't stand Hannity and won't listen. Since I've had DirecTV I've never watched Fox.
Not "sexual practices". Sex. The "lifestyles" that lead to HIV infection are (a) IV drug use (easy to avoid) and (b) having sex with anyone, ever.
Good luck on avoiding (b). Outside of a few monks and nuns, few do.
Complete fucking bullshit.
Unprotected anal sex and IV drug use are just about the only ways to contract AIDS. AIDS is still almost entirely a disease of gay men and IV drug users
If you are (1) hetero, (2) don't use IV drugs, and (3) you aren't outrageously promiscuous, your chances of contracting AIDS are damned near zero.
You can't, but you have to. And maybe you just have to hope your guy is one of the three out of four.
But that's why it isn't reasonable to say "you're not a victim, its your lifestyle".
Oh, sure, there are some people who know their partner sleeps around or does heroin or has banged dozens of other people and never been tested -- but generally speaking, what most AIDS victims are guilty of is trusting another human being. They didn't get infected because of *their* lifestyle, but because of their partner's.
Say you get in your car to drive to the store. You drive responsibly, but a drunk runs the light and hits your car, crippling you. Is it reasonable to blame your condition on your lifestyle? You could, in point of fact, have chosen to walk everywhere.
Revenant,
What you described would fall into the category of: shit happens.
I think that most people understand that some people are victims... the same way that any person who is murdered is a victim.
But generally, aren't those people somewhat a minority? And, when it comes to that, aren't what they're a victim *of* the lifestyle of others? It's a little bit hard to avoid the fact that everyone knows how to "cure" AIDS, to wipe it from the population entirely as surely as Polio was done away with in the last century.
It's just that no one is willing to do it.
Allen, and I don't listen to the mainstream media. Makes us even.
If you are (1) hetero, (2) don't use IV drugs, and (3) you aren't outrageously promiscuous, your chances of contracting AIDS are damned near zero.
If you're male. Male-to-female heterosexual transmission is easy, for reasons obvious and gross enough to not be worth going into.
Also, "damn near zero" over a lifetime of married sex works out to "pretty likely", so even men aren't safe if their wives get infected.
what most AIDS victims are guilty of is trusting another human being. They didn't get infected because of *their* lifestyle, but because of their partner's.
Bullshit. Speaking about the United States and other countries where they don't believe in voodoo, witchcraft and are at least as advanced as the 18th century...... MOST AIDS infected people have a lifestyle that they knowingly carry on in a way that exposes them to AIDS.
Are there some innocent victims, spouses who have been abused or live with serial cheaters (THAT is a lifestyle choice too you know) or idiots who don't "trust but verify". Those are the minority.
Are there people who live in less than third world nations, in ignorance and poverty. Of course and those people, especially the women and children can be classified as victims. There are plenty of organizations that are trying to rectify this. Can it be fixed. Who knows. We still haven't gotten Muslims out of the 5th century.
HOWEVER----->it is still a lifestyle issue no matter where you are or which way you slice it.
Don't do certain things and your chances of getting AIDS and other STDs is almost nil. Period.
peter hoh said
I heard Hannity going off on Castle this afternoon. Castle is a bully, living off the taxpayers of Delaware for 40 years, ungrateful, and so on.
Brave talk from Hannity, now that it's clear that Castle is out of the running.
In fairness to Hannity, those comments were made due to Castle's unwillingness to support O'Donnell after he lost.
I think that most people understand that some people are victims... the same way that any person who is murdered is a victim.
But generally, aren't those people somewhat a minority?
That's an interesting choice of parallel. The majority of murders are directly or indirectly related to the victim's involvement in criminal activity.
So why DO we call them murder "victims"?
The parallel was only because killing your lover is murder. With AIDS that's what it is.
It wasn't a random victim class I picked out of the air.
FLS
Where we disagree is where the left thinks it matters a damn whether she condones masturbation.
I mean its amazing how intolerant liberals become of other people sexual beliefs. You would think the party of barney frank might be more open minded.
And of course we know it is far less weird for a woman to oppose masturbation. There, i said it.
FLS
Where we disagree is where the left thinks it matters a damn whether she condones masturbation.
I mean its amazing how intolerant liberals become of other people sexual beliefs. You would think the party of barney frank might be more open minded.
And of course we know it is far less weird for a woman to oppose masturbation. There, i said it.
MOST AIDS infected people have a lifestyle that they knowingly carry on in a way that exposes them to AIDS.
Right -- having sex. We covered this already.
Don't do certain things and your chances of getting AIDS and other STDs is almost nil. Period.
Your chances of contracting it are "almost nil" because the infection rate among Americans is low. So even when your husband cheats on you, odds are it won't be with anyone infected.
But ok, sure, let's go with "almost nil". Are we in agreement that if it did happen, you would blame it on your lifestyle and not claim to be a victim?
Listen Revenant, you don't know what you're talkikng about.
Stop the fear mongering lies.
AIDS is almost entirely a disease of gay men and IV drug users.
No, married, hetero people are not at risk.
Shut up. You're completely ignorant.
I've buried a number of friends who died of AIDS, and I have friends who have AIDS. Every one of them is a gay man.
Please shut up and stop spreading these lies.
And Revenant,
The truth about AIDS is bad enough.
Quit while you're ahead.
You are completely, totally ignorant. Stop talking and quit making an ass out of yourself.
If you are hetero, don't use IV drugs, and you are reasonably sane about how many people you sleep with, your chances of contracting AIDS over the course of your entire life is damned near zero.
Got it!
Listen Revenant, you don't know what you're talkng about.
Don't mess with Revenant, he knows for a fact how the universe was created. Anyone who has that nailed down certainly knows everything there is to know about everything.
@Althouse
Oh, come off it Ann.
The vast majority of Christians don't object to masturbation--they don't even bother to address it. Jesus in fact did not address lust in the quotation you refer to; he was actually talking about adultery. It would be non-controversial if O'Donnell were condemning adultery. But because she is a nut she focusd on masturbation. Who else do you know who does this?
Your arguments on this are lawyerly hairsplitting and reductio ad absurdums and misrepresentations, not incisive thinking.
Maybe you can get away with that in your classes where the students are at your mercy. But not in a public debate with equals.
Your argument here is truly laughable.
O'Donnell is a wackadoodle. She even said in 2007 that genetic experimentation had led to mice with fully functioning human brains.
She's a joke and you sound very self-indulgent defending her.
"O'Donnell is a wackadoodle. She even said in 2007 that genetic experimentation had led to mice with fully functioning human brains."
Link?
No?
Imagine that.
Synova,
I'm afraid she really did say it:
"They are doing that here in the United States. American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains. So they’re already into this experiment."
That being said, I'd still vote for her. I don't care how much of a wack job she is on social issues if she votes correctly on economic ones.
Listen Revenant, you don't know what you're talkikng about. Stop the fear mongering lies.
I haven't said anything here that is untrue.
If you choose to have sex at all -- even within marriage -- you are assuming a risk. You are taking a chance, however small, of contracting HIV. Now, you and Dust Bunny have chosen to adopt of posture of "its really small so it counts as zero and that means there's no risk and you're a liar Revenant and your mom's ugly and LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING".
Which is, of course, your right. But that doesn't make me a liar; it just makes you a jackass.
I would have commented on this earlier but I had to wait for my eyesight to return and shave the hair from my palms so I could type.
Don't mess with Revenant, he knows for a fact how the universe was created.
Link, please? :)
its really small so it counts as zero and that means there's no risk
That's an interesting point. My doctor once told me the odds of a certain side effect of a medication I was taking was clinically insignificant.
But, what if you're that one person in a hundred or less, like people with peanut allergies? All of the sudden that small probability becomes looming. How many times can you go to the well before those small odds catch up with you? Magic Johnson found out.
"Hey, let's be careful out there."
Dadvocate,
That's assuming that Magic only went to the non-drug-using hetero-well.
If you think that, I recommend masturbating with your left hand, if you're right-handed.) Unless him/her is lefty
Well, if you can't find an internet admirer to love you, you can always fall in love with your own drunken image, in front of a webcam, in order to upload clips of your self-loving loneliness to YouTube.
That's assuming that Magic only went to the non-drug-using hetero-well.
He says he did. Do you have any proof to the contrary? Whether he did or not has no bearing on my point. It was just an illustration.
Listen Revenant, you don't know what you're talkikng about.
Stop the fear mongering lies.
AIDS is almost entirely a disease of gay men and IV drug users.
No, married, hetero people are not at risk.
They could be, though -- there's nothing about being married or hetero to stop it.
In a study of various at-risk populations in southern Africa, 56% of long-distance truckers have the AIDS virus. Chiefly because they're away from home a lot (24 weeks every six months), and because spending the night with a woman is cheaper than a motel room.
http://www.queensu.ca/samp/sampresources/migrationdocuments/documents/2003/unaids.pdf
@Revenant, who wrote, "That being said, I'd still vote for her. I don't care how much of a wack job she is on social issues if she votes correctly on economic ones."
The problem with that position is that she has been deeply irresponsible about money and financial issues in her personal and professional life.
Someone who is a general wackadoodle is not someone you want to trust with national fiscal issues.
He says he did. Do you have any proof to the contrary?
Common sense suggests that someone who's had thousands of liasons is not the most discriminating. He might have without knowing it, just for instance.
Whether he did or not has no bearing on my point. It was just an illustration.
I get your point. Not sure I agree. On the other hand, I'm quite sure it doesn't matter. Someone who has that many sexual conquests is probably not going to be restrained by fear of any VD.
FLS,
I've read in various places that sub-Saharan Africans have a thing for dry sex. Hard for me to imagine, frankly, but it's said (in these articles) that those abrasive practices are responsible for the prevalence of HIV.
The problem with that position is that she has been deeply irresponsible about money and financial issues in her personal and professional life.
You mean like Barbara "I'm sure Hitler had a balanced checkbook" Boxer?
Someone who is a general wackadoodle is not someone you want to trust with national fiscal issues.
It hardly matters, as Rev says, if she votes correctly.
I started reading this post with high hopes. I was expecting a frank discussion of this important topic. I was hoping some of the younger women would grace us with their insights on how to avoid this pernicious habit. Which is more likely to lead to masturbation: thong bikini underwear or cotton panties? Is the use of ben wa balls considered masturbation? Does the purchase of an electronic device lead to increased masturbation? The full moral compelixity of this subject has been studiously avoided. Instead I find a discussion of hyperinflation and the chances of married people getting AIDs.....Althouse comments: where prurience goes to die.
Google "mouse human chimera".
Calling it a human brain is inaccurate, but certainly a brain with human neurons and certainly a brain that functions in a mouse.
I think that chimera are fascinating, but I also think that we ought to clone humans, so I'm a bit of an outlier.
I disagree with the Dr. Frankenstein alarmists, but I also strongly disagree with those who pretend there are no ethical considerations to human experimentation. Someone being alarmed that scientists are creating chimera is not crazy or strange.
(Oh, and I did know about the mouse-human chimera *before* I googled it.)
I mean... I'll give you the *implication* of "fully functioning human brain" since what exists are not sentient mice.
But if someone thought O'Donnell was a wack-a-doodle for saying that scientists are experimenting with mouse-human nervous system chimera, but without using the unfamiliar term "chimera", then who is the one looking silly?
Sierra wrote:
I would rather see this obnoxious little Palin wannabe in the Senate than on the lecture circuit and in my face with every click. Please pray for her to win.
==================
Ha! If only the Senate was a place were reclusive, camera-shy people worked, I'd agree with you. The best case scenario would be a younger, healthier Senator O'Donnell trampling and accidentally killing Chuckie Schumer, Lindsay Graham, Jen-Claude Kerry and John McCain clawing her way to the Senate camera spotlight stand...
Oh, and that verified clip of her saying she opposed stem sell research because people were already combining humans and monkeys and going on to create mice with fully functioning human brains - Yesh!
But you know that every unpleasant fact will rally champions to the poor, defenseless big-breasted bimbo and be said to be a reason to vote for her, because whether the allegations are true or not - the poor woman's ability and character are being "assassinated".
Maybe if we could have mice and cats with fully functioning human brains, we could outcompete the 6 dollar a day Chinese laborer.
Cedarford... know anyone (besides me) who says we should clone humans?
Clone embryoes and kill them, sure, lots of people support that... but make cloned human babies?
The "bimbo" is a real outlier, huh.
> Back in the 90s, Christine O'Donnell — the new GOP candidate for Delaware Senator — said: "The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery. You can't masturbate without lust!" She's getting teased or denounced or whatever for saying that, but it's not a stupid thing for a Christian to say.
Well, it's all relative, isn't it?
"The world was created in six days." -- Intelligent, to a Christian; idiotic to a thinking person
"The Universe was created 6,000 years ago." -- Questionable, to most Christians; laugh-inducing to a thinking person
"Jesus Christ, born to a virgin who was impregnated by God, died, then came back to life and floated up to Heaven, where he remains." -- Basic reality to a Christian; so silly to a thinking person that they might hurt themselves from laughing
Etc.
"Thinking person?"
Maybe the sort of thinking that is unable to approach the abstract or philosophy or anything that requires actual, you know... thought?
One does not have to accept the reality of a god or miracles to understand the ability to accept them, to create and hold a pattern of thought in suspension. Doing so allows greater ability to understand the "other" and how different people might have different notions about how the world works. Practice at it helps people to recognize the difference between what is belief and what is supported by facts in other areas not concerning gods. So much of what people think is true about the physical world and the people in it is nothing but belief system and faith.
Talking to an atheist who respects those who have religious faith and talking to an atheist who does not makes this dichotomy clear as crystal.
It's not the belief...
It's the belief that those unlike you do not *think*.
Synova said...
Cedarford... know anyone (besides me) who says we should clone humans?
That's really not the point, Synova - O'Donnell was on O'Reilly taped saying she opposed stem cell research (not human cloning) based on her belief that scientsis were already combining human and monkey genes and then created mice with fully functioning human brains.
The race to be the stupidest Bimbo or male dolt in the Senate was firmly in Democrat hands. You had Bill Smith of NH defeated and then Babs Boxer looked like she had tucked away the crown for a decade, with Patty Murray waiting in the wings to be the stupidest. Mel Martinez briefly took over for handing out Republican election strategy papers to Dems on the Senate floor...but Babs came roaring back! With Patty Murray staying stuck on whatever stupid level she had struggled to achieve.
But O'Donnell, (not that she's going to be elected), could have stopped that, and wrenched the stupidest Senator title away from Boxer so fast old Babs would have been left gasping.
she has been deeply irresponsible about money and financial issues in her personal and professional life.
I don't see the connection. Voting on spending and taxation bills bears no resemblance to managing your personal finances.
know anyone (besides me) who says we should clone humans?
OK... I'll have a go at it.
Can we clone humans? I think so. We have cloned other animals, so why not.
However, my question not on should we clone humans, but to what purpose?
Certainly not for organ harvesting. That seems to be an unethical use of another unwilling human being. I know that there have been instances of people having a second child specifically for the purpose of bone marrow transplants on an older child. The psycological ramifications of that on the 'donor' child can be horrific. On the other hand.....it does save a life.
Do we think if we can clone a human who has been significant, like Einstein, that we would obtain another like him? I don't think so. I do believe that much of our skills and potential are genetically derived, however, many of the results of the potential are determined by environment and experiences.
How ethical would it be to clone Einstein and then experiment with multiple baby Einsteins to see if we can't produce the same human being.
The ability to do something doesn't mean that you should.
Clone humans.....to what purpose?
(I'm going to be traveling, so if you respond Synova, and I don't get back to you it isn't because I'm ignoring you.)
Peter,
So it seems DTL made two embellishments in a single paragraph to make O'Donnell seem crazy. Does that seem right to you?
"The problem with that position is that she has been deeply irresponsible about money and financial issues in her personal and professional life."
Ah, and lucid joins the whisper campaigns. When you see a sinister summary completely devoid of factual support it means the facts don't support the impression the summary is intended to leave. In other words, it's propoganda.
I've spent a week looking for specifics on the scary beliefs and/or actions O'Donnell is supposed to have taken (and I suspect there is something). But I'm astonished that all these people lined up to denounce her cannot point to why, but instead have only blatherly vague accusations. This shows her accusers (at least that I have seen thus far) have no understanding of anything about her, and are just following the media narrative. This says much more about them than it does about O'Donnell.
peter,
I just read your follow up accusation, and it kind of pisses me off as I thought you were better than that.
First, you addressed a single one of my three questions, but apparently you can't count.
Secondly, people do have other things going on in their lives. Claiming I'm avoiding your response when you haven't even responded in full is pretty weak. If that's the standard you use to claim you win debates I'd say you're borderline delusional.
Third, I never claimed those things weren't true, I said I question them. I don't believe I know everything about everything, which is apparently something too many people refuse to admit about themselves.
And I see you're more of a self-righteous asshole than I previously believed. Noted.
Even if O'Donnell stands fast against the evil tide of masturbation, the Republic will never have to worry that there will ever be a shortage of jerk-offs in the Senate!
I'm so stealing it!!!!! I'll give you credit though.
Marshal, I realize that people have other things to do, and yeah, you showed up again. I'll pull my comment.
All too often on these threads, people make claims and then drop out when their claims are answered. It's a pattern.
You raised three questions. The first is answered without a doubt.
The second is fuzzier. What makes an organization national? O'Donnell appeared on national TV shows representing her organization, and they lobbied congress. Sure, local organizations lobby congress, too. On the other hand, she wasn't lobbying congress on a local issue.
Your third question is fuzzy, too, as there is no clear line between what constitutes a movement, and how many people need to be in it.
Marshal @9:17: yes, DTL made unfounded assertions. I never bothered to defend or otherwise address DTL's smears. I took issue with your 2:09 suggestion that FLS was making stuff up.
OK, was the point of Althouse's post that O'Donnell's comments are neither bizarre or unintelligent when taken in the context of her religious beliefs and are entirely consistent with those beliefs? The more relevant question relates to how one's religious beliefs affect one's actions, the lives of others, their role in politics, governing, law making, and law enforcement.
In reviewing the vignette, it appears that O'Donnell does not keep these beliefs to herself, acting on them and broadcasting them for the purposes of educating others and/or changing the thoughts and actions of others.
As has become so apparent since 9/11, the impact of religion is dependent upon the characteristics of the person holding those religious beliefs and the social, cultural, political, and economic conditions (context) the person is operating within.
I remember as a ten-year old kid I would internally scoff at my father when he would say that 'Over the course of human existence, more people have died in the name of religion than anything else". Forty five years later I can now more fully appreciate what he meant.
FLS did make up at least two things: that this entity was "national" and that it constituted a "movement", neither of which is true and both of which exagerate the event. These exagerations are exactly the sort of thing her detractors are claiming she does, and which they further claim is evidence she is "unstable", "delusional", and "paranoid".
Now seeing your description from wiki I'd add a third item I'm skeptical about, that it is a "youth" movement. It appears to be a lobbying group.
I see you're claiming uncertainty on the other two items, but you can only support this with inappropriate parsing. Lobbying a national group does not make the lobbying entity national. Nor are lobbying groups movements at all. Movements are large groups of people pursuing an agenda. FLS would need to show her group had a large number of people or led other groups with large combined memberhip. There's no evidence any of this is true.
"Christine O'Donnell felt so strongly about young people's masturbation she started a national youth movement, The Savior's Alliance for Lifting the Truth"
"In reviewing the vignette, it appears that O'Donnell does not keep these beliefs to herself, acting on them and broadcasting them for the purposes of educating others and/or changing the thoughts and actions of others."
All of which is perfectly within the American tradition. I don't have any problem with this as long as she doesn't advocate governement doing these things. But even if she did how is that different than what environmentalists do every day?
" remember as a ten-year old kid I would internally scoff at my father when he would say that 'Over the course of human existence, more people have died in the name of religion than anything else"."
You should have continued to scoff. Religion is no higher than third. 1 and 2 are "government" and "I want your stuff".
You can pick at FLS's statement all you want, but I specifically asked you if you doubted that O'Donnell started SALT. You replied with "Did she form it or join it?"
You're the one who claims to have spent a week researching O'Donnell. You tell me -- did I answer your question about whether she formed it or joined it?
Your other two questions get back to your issue with what FLS wrote, rather than what I asked you. None the less, I did my best to answer your other questions.
O'Donnell certainly presented SALT as though it were a youth entity.
I suspect that SALT was probably just a handful of people who got their funding from somewhere.
Plenty of national movements get there start like that.
I'm fairly certain that Maggie Gallagher refers to the National Organization for Marriage as a national movement, but when it started, NOM was just a handful of people on a conference call or in a room. Gallagher is a lot better at what she does than O'Donnell.
You should have continued to scoff. Religion is no higher than third. 1 and 2 are "government" and "I want your stuff".
Across the globe and for most of human history(up to and including the present), religion and government have been indistinguishable.
Peter,
I'm wondering exactly what your problem is. When you asked me if that was my question I told you I had three specific questions. You answered one. OK, so FLS was wrong in two ways instead of three.
You're acting as if the fact that I had a question which you could answer means I was somehow wrong. Do you know the difference between a question and an assertion?
Mark,
Not indistinguishable. Far more often than not they are distinct institutions, often in slight opposition to each other.
Marshal, I was astounded that someone would suggest, as you seemed to suggest, that the idea that O'Donnell had formed such an organization was merely the product of an addled imagination.
That's why I asked the clarifying question.
Had I realized that you were specifically objecting to FLS's claim that it was a national youth movement, I probably would have dropped it.
Your 3:29 response to my direct question seemed to be further evidence that you doubted that she even founded the organization, which I found absurd.
FLS did make up at least two things: that this entity was "national" and that it constituted a "movement", neither of which is true and both of which exagerate the event.
According to thesalt.org's archived website, the group was
1. National in that Christine O'Donnell promoted the group's work on national TV, and
National in that Christine O'Donnell carried The SALT's message to youth nationwide -- Speaking engagement schedule for sample year 2000:
Speaking Engagements
September 29 and 30
Road To Victory 2000
Sponsored by the Christian Coalition
At the Hilton Washington in Washington D.C.
Call 1-800-325-4746 for more information.
October 5-9
Anaheim, California
Youth Specialties National Youth Workers Convention
Call (619) 440-2333 for more information
November 9-13
St. Louis, Missouri
Youth Specialties National Youth Workers Convention
Call (619) 440-2333 formore information
November 17-21
Atlanta, Georgia
Youth Specialties National Youth Workers Convention
Call (619) 440-2333 for more information, and
National in that the organization claimed to have chapters in high schools and colleges nationwide.
2 Oriented to Youth in that it was a Generation X NPO, and
Oriented to Youth in that it was dedicated to organizing and training young people, and
Oriented to Youth in that its raison d'etre was to encourage young people to live a life of chastity, and
Oriented to Youth in that it sought to equip young people to be a light to other young people.
3. A Movement in that the organization was dedicated to mobilizing young people, and to mobilize means to put into movement.
Who, What & Why???
The Savior's Alliance for Lifting the Truth is a Generation X, interdenominational (e.g. Evangelical, Protestant, Catholic, Methodist, etc.) non-profit organization dedicated to mobilizing and training young people to be salt and light in their generation and culture.
The SALT was founded by Christine O'Donnell, who has worked extensively in our nation's capital for pro-life and pro-family organizations. Through her TV and radio appearances, the SALT's work has been featured on MTV, ABC's Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher, The Leeza Show, Fox News Channel and others.
The SALT exists to encourage young people to live a life of chastity -- as opposed to abstinence -- for chastity is a concept which goes beyond saving sex until marriage, and in fact is a lifestyle which Christ calls us to live out through our entire lives, be we single or married, man or woman.
The SALT also exists to turn people away from those practices which conflict with a lifestyle of chastity, including: abortion, pornography, pedophilia, homosexuality, premarital sex, adultery, eating disorders, and drugs.
Finally, the SALT seeks to equip young people to be a light to their generation through our local SALT chapters at colleges and high schools nationwide.
What We Believe
We believe the entire Bible, both Old and New Testaments, is the inspired word of God. It is the final and sole authority for all Christian life and practice.
We believe in the unity and trinity of God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit).
We believe in Jesus Christ, God's only begotten Son. We believe further in His pre-existence, His incarnation, His virgin birth, His death on the cross, His bodily resurrection from the grave, and His personal return from heaven.
We believe in the ministry of the Holy Spirit, who convicts, regenerates, baptizes, indwells, enlightens and empowers believers for Godly living.
We believe in salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, apart from human merit, works, or ceremonies.
We believe that the church is the spiritual body of which Christ is the head, both eternally and functionally.
We believe in the resurrection of the human body; the eternal existence of all men either in heaven or hell; in divine judgments and rewards.
From the web archive of thesalt.org
Who, What & Why???
The Savior's Alliance for Lifting the Truth is a Generation X, interdenominational (e.g. Evangelical, Protestant, Catholic, Methodist, etc.) non-profit organization dedicated to mobilizing and training young people to be salt and light in their generation and culture.
The SALT was founded by Christine O'Donnell, who has worked extensively in our nation's capital for pro-life and pro-family organizations. Through her TV and radio appearances, the SALT's work has been featured on MTV, ABC's Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher, The Leeza Show, Fox News Channel and others.
The SALT exists to encourage young people to live a life of chastity -- as opposed to abstinence -- for chastity is a concept which goes beyond saving sex until marriage, and in fact is a lifestyle which Christ calls us to live out through our entire lives, be we single or married, man or woman.
The SALT also exists to turn people away from those practices which conflict with a lifestyle of chastity, including: abortion, pornography, pedophilia, homosexuality, premarital sex, adultery, eating disorders, and drugs.
Finally, the SALT seeks to equip young people to be a light to their generation through our local SALT chapters at colleges and high schools nationwide.
What We Believe
We believe the entire Bible, both Old and New Testaments, is the inspired word of God. It is the final and sole authority for all Christian life and practice.
We believe in the unity and trinity of God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit).
We believe in Jesus Christ, God's only begotten Son. We believe further in His pre-existence, His incarnation, His virgin birth, His death on the cross, His bodily resurrection from the grave, and His personal return from heaven.
We believe in the ministry of the Holy Spirit, who convicts, regenerates, baptizes, indwells, enlightens and empowers believers for Godly living.
We believe in salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, apart from human merit, works, or ceremonies.
We believe that the church is the spiritual body of which Christ is the head, both eternally and functionally.
We believe in the resurrection of the human body; the eternal existence of all men either in heaven or hell; in divine judgments and rewards.
Home | Our Mission | Upcoming TV & Radio | Message Board | Photo Gallery Abortion Story | Chaste Article | | Links
Christine O'Donnell's Speaking Engagements for 2000:
September 29 and 30
Road To Victory 2000
Sponsored by the Christian Coalition
At the Hilton Washington in Washington D.C.
Call 1-800-325-4746 for more information.
October 5-9
Anaheim, California
Youth Specialties National Youth Workers Convention
Call (619) 440-2333 for more information
November 9-13
St. Louis, Missouri
Youth Specialties National Youth Workers Convention
Call (619) 440-2333 formore information
November 17-21
Atlanta, Georgia
Youth Specialties National Youth Workers Convention
Call (619) 440-2333 for more information
Blogger ate my first comment.
The SALT was national in that
1. Christine O'Donnell plugged it on national TV
2. C O'D plugged it on her nationwide speaking tour
3. The SALT's website claimed to have chapters in high schools nationwide.
The SALT was oriented to youth in that
1. It was a Gen X organization
2. It was dedicated to mobilizing and training young people.
2. It existed to encourage young people.
3. It existed to equip young people to be a light to their generation
Finally, The SALT was a movement in that it existed to mobilize young people, and mobilize means to put in movement.
I see I left off that The SALT claimed to have nationwide chapters in colleges as well as high schools.
DBQ, if you get back from traveling and see this.
My purpose for thinking we ought to clone humans is "why not?" But it's more than that, really. Right now we do a whole lot with human genetics and human materials and we don't see any of that as actually being human experimentation. It's harder to deny that a human baby is not a human baby than it is to make up reasons why it's okay to reproduce life in the lab and then chop it up for medical research.
I think that we can only go forward and as we do I'd rather we figured out the question of who counts as human as soon during the process as possible.
(I heard there was another new "horror" movie about children being grown as organ donors. That movie has been done a dozen times before but I guess this one is based in a private British school instead of a South West super-facility where everyone wears white jumpsuits so it ought to be extra creepy.)
(Also... anyone who thinks "I want a child just like me" is going to have a rude surprise... on the other hand... I think that a clone is better for a purposeful single-parent than an unknown donor daddy or mommy because a the child wouldn't have half of their genetic history a complete blank *on purpose*, but have the normal sorts of intergenerational connections. True the parent is a time-shifted identical twin and not a biological parent, but that shouldn't be a legal problem.)
Props to you, FLS. I tried to find SALT's website, but I guess I didn't know the right way to tease it out of the google.
All of which is perfectly within the American tradition. I don't have any problem with this as long as she doesn't advocate governement doing these things. But even if she did how is that different than what environmentalists do every day?
Sounds like you equate any cause, movement, belief system, or ideology (e.g. environmentalism) with religion. I suspect that religion, while possessing things in common with these aforementioned phenomenon, also have some distinguishing characteristics.
marklewin
"Sounds like you equate any cause, movement, belief system, or ideology (e.g. environmentalism) with religion. I suspect that religion, while possessing things in common with these aforementioned phenomenon, also have some distinguishing characteristics."
You think saying we shouldn't single out religion for special (negative) treatment means I think everything actually is religion? Odd.
I'm think we should not be biased against religion. Environmentalists advocate for their cause, it's unclear to me why someone religious advocating for theirs should be considered disqualifying for public office.
FLS,
I can't reach the site, but here are the limitations of your evidence as I see them.
You note a few speaking engagements and comments which claim "chapters" nationally. What I see (so far) is indistinguishable from a one person public speaking outfit giving seminars as part of larger Christian centered events. If you've ever been to similar events (religious or not) they normally ask people to sign up for "newsletters", etc, which could be interpreted as "chapters". This also could refer to chapters of the organizations she appeared on behalf of rather than solely SALT. Such speaking organizations are routinely held out to be something greater than they are to impress attendees.
That this organization tried to mobilize youth does not mean that it in fact did so. I also see no evidence of actual youth "training" beyond the speaking itself.
Further, this entire line of assault does not fit with the other accusations made against her. COD is being criticized for making grandiose claims about herself when according to reports last year she made 6,000 as a marketing consultant. She's being criticized for being a gadfly, of making no worthy contributions. If she founded a national youth movement why is this not being touted to refute these accusations? Further, what happened to the movement? Why are these national chapters not rallying to her cause, at the very least setting the record straight about her contributions?
Wouldn't her work forming a national youth movement sound something akin to being a community organizer? Why is this not central to her campaign?
Your interpretation doesn't fit the other facts.
Post a Comment