?I don't see legislate morality or censor hollywood in the list below ? The Contract lists 10 agenda items that it encourages TEA PARTY congressional candidates to follow:[64][65]
1. Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does. (82.03%) 2. Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control carbon dioxide emissions by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of carbon dioxide. (72.20%) 3. Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification. (69.69%) 4. Simplify the tax system: Adopt a single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code 5. Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: 6. Limit annual growth in federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting
7. Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010: Defund, repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (56.39%) 8. Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation. (55.5%) 9. Reduce Earmarks: 10. Reduce Taxes: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, and extend current temporary reductions in income tax, capital gains tax and estate taxes, currently scheduled to end in 2011. (53.38%)?
Unfortunately, we are humans, and we often tend to blur such things together. Personal morals, while great, aren't good for running a country. Why can't we just all get along?
I apologize for preaching to the choir, Green8019. I tend to do that a lot. Sigh.
Who cares about her views on virginity and masturbation in the larger context of abstinence - taken from a video that is 14 freaking years old? Who cares that she is a creationist or is anti-Darwin? She doesn't support passing laws that are anti-masturbation, so who cares about this fluff that passes for news?
Voters care about the high unemployment, the economy, the rising federal debt (poll after poll shows that voters care about these issue more than anything). Most voters couldn't get a rip about O'Donnell's personal views. The ad homs and other past statements from O'Donnell that are being taken out of context won't work against her. They didn't work against Scott brown or Christie in New Jersey and others and they won't work now. People care about the economy, high unemployment, and are angry at the stimulus bill and the rising federal debt and so on.
Scott Brown was further behind that O'Donnell is now and had less time to close the gap.
Well, as a voter, I care about the personal beliefs of potential legislators, because I don't want creationists anywhere near our educational system. In light of all the hard evidence supporting evolution, to have people in a position to advocate for this creationist nonsense as a component in our public education...? No way.... Let creationism stay where it belongs - in church or in the minds of its believers, and not promoted with tax dollars.
T66pix I DO want creationists near our educational system and as teachers in our classrooms! An atheist or even an agnostic teacher is not worth a dime and I wouldn't allow a child of mine to be taught by one! I would pull them out of that class or even out of that school if I had to!
I also pray that someday we'll have creationists, especially born again Christian creationists, in our supreme court, too! I pray everyday that prayer and daily Bible reading will one day be allowed back in our schools! That was the worst thing that the supreme court could have done to our schools and to our children when they took prayer and Bible reading out of schools! And as for your "hard evidence" about evolution, there is none and there never will be! Evolution is still a THEORY not a proven fact! Yes, O'Donnell and many more like her are exactly what we need in Washington!
Incidentally I, too, am a voter and I care about the personal beliefs of our legislators, too, but for the opposite reasons than you do! I haven't failed to vote in a major election in over twenty years and I'll be voting in this one, too!
T66pix There is something else I want to add to my message to you. I, too, was taught evolution in high school. However, I was blessed with being allowed to grow up in a small town in the Bible belt where most people went to church on Sunday and thought that evolution was the silliet thing they'd ever heard of. I was also blessed with a high school science teacher who was a born again Christian and a deacon in the local First Baptist church. He told us that evolution was the silliest thing he'd ever heard of and the only reason that he taught it was because he was required to by law. He stressed the fact that evolution is a theory and not a proven fact. Most of us came from conservative Christian homes and our parent had told us the same thing. Therefore, we agreed with him and we laughed and made a joke of the whole course. Our teacher laughed with us and we all had fun making fun of the pictures! We all said that Darwin's ancestors might have looked like that but none of ours did!
*ahem* JV1970, I believe you need a refresher on what a "theory" is. (as provided by Dictionary.com):
Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.
In other words, a theory is backed by MOUNTAINS of evidence and is more or less proven, though not completely. Some theories include our friends gravity and relativity. If theories were as shaky as you seem to think, I could technically argue that gravity doesn't exist and we are stuck to the earth with crazy glue. That, m'dear, is a hypothesis, until I gather enough data until many, many scientists test this too and agree that we are indeed stuck to the earth with crazy glue.
As for praying and reading in schools, while the idea isn't outrageous, it's simply impossible. I know (besides Christians) Jewish, Muslim, atheist, and Hindu people (etc.) at my school alone. To put Bible study back in schools would simply ruffle too many feathers. Prayer is a maybe, but eventually all of the different prayer styles (and the non-prayers) would lead to teasing, bullying or other problems. Yes, my school is diverse, but we're KIDS. Eventually someone would turn it into a huge mess or a holy war. And believe me, Honors kids can debate anything under the sun; in a nutshell, it's just too tricky to implement the systems you want. If you want your kid to study prayer, take Sunday school, religious education or go to a Christian school; you don't need to force it on public schools. The government is a SEPARATE ENTITY and cannot be forced to sway one way or another, which brings me to your second sentence. In all of my years of learning, not one teacher has EVER EVER EVER told me their religious views, much less pressed them on me. Do you honestly think an atheist teacher would risk their neck preaching to 30 little brats for six hours? Certainly not in these times.
Now, evolution. I could drag out a million different sources adding to the THEORY of evolution (again with our words. Refer to your handy-dandy definition), but you would probably shout me down anyway so I won't go down that path. So I must reiterate, it is a THEORY, time-tested many many times. I personally believe it does fit into creation (but don't go after me for that, I'm talking facts), but our views are nil. We can't just go into the education system and tell teachers what to do- it's like trying to dictate who does what in a nuclear power plant. Creationism, meanwhile, has no mountains of evidence, so it's not a theory. It is not largely accepted in the world of science. Thus, evolution is better taught in schools because it is much more likely to be fact; otherwise, creationism would become the Pluto of curriculum and we would have to cram in Pastafarianism and the cray glue hypothesis because they fit the criteria too.
Next, O'Donnell herself. As I said earlier, the government is meant to be separate from personal moral and religious views. Therefore, whether she's Wiccan, pro-life, pro-turban, anti-voodoo or pro-crazy glue, it SHOULDN'T MATTER. As voters we are supposed to look at her political experience, POLITICAL views and competence, not whether you have similar soapbox speeches. And someone who gets personal morals mixed up with the maintenance of a COUNTRY is not exactly a logical choice.
It's probably a stretch, but I hope that you'll at least consider what I said (it took me a good while to write this, you know). Try common sense; it's vital for survival, or so I've heard.
You people who smear the civilizing influence of the Bible, take note that Stalin and similar secular belief systems have killed about 10x more people than has Christianity.
Christianity may indeed be civilizing, it's just a shame it's based on fantasy. God, the great placebo - doesn't exist, never has done, but it sure feels good to believe in him.
I wish I could agree with what you said, but a check of historical facts will show that more people have been killed in the name of God than for all other reasons combined. There are just too many intolorant zealots that can easily convince themselves that their beliefs are the only ones that are pleasing to God and therefore it is God's will that they put to death anyone who is different. We have many Christian zealots in our country. They would be just as leathal as any Muslim terriorist if given half the chance.
Ya, with a 34% rise (just since 2002) in births among unmarried women, there clearly is no good reason to reevaluate sexual mores in the modern, do as you please, secular USA. Good luck taxpayers, paying for the daycare (now a 'right'), and support for all of these 1/2 parented, stressed out mothers' babies.
But then this 'article' / blog did spent more time on the criticisms of Odonnell's points, than addressing the many good reasons why she may have the ideas that she has.
First off, I love Bible quoters (but then I love all people!) who like to pick and choose what suits their beliefs. If you want to use the Bible as a strict guide, then slavery should be ok (did Jesus ever directly condemn slavery?) and suppression of women should be reinstated to the point where Ms. O'Donnell would not even be allowed to speak publicly, much less run for a public office. And secondly, let me ask you all this: what sort of parent would give their child something beautiful and wonderful, that makes them feel good, that is free and available to everyone, and then tell them that if they used it, they would be condemned and disowned? Do you seriously think that God (as our father) would treat us, his children, this way? What parent would do that to their child? I agree that sex is a gift, but not something to be feared (or forced upon others), and certainly not something to be locked in a closet under fear of damnation for even thinking about it. Masturbation is a normal part of human sexuality, and if looking at naked people excites you (or even people with clothes that stimulate the imagination), then don't feel guilty, but rejoice! because your body is working normally, like it was meant to do from the beginning! If you take Ms. O'Donnell's way of thinking to heart, you best not be scratching that itch either, cause it just might feel too good!
Well, John...apparently you like to pick and choose what suits your beliefs...doesn't everyone? Everyone is a unique individual and with that comes different points of view. However, ask yourself one question from history...where has immorality gotten our great societies?
So, God, our Father did make everything perfect for us...you are right...but God's children screwed up the beauty of the perfection by their choices. Can't argue with that...that is unless you come back with God is a punishing God and your argument goes bye bye
Christine O'Donnell said, the "Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery. You can't masturbate without lust." Jocelyn Elders replied that Christine would have a hard time finding support for her views in the Bible. But it is in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus' most famous sermon. Matthew 7:28 says, "Anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Even if a person is "looking" at a woman with his memory's eye, it amounts to the same thing. Jesus is talking about the exploitation of others for our personal sexual pleasure, and that is what masturbation involves. A person uses mental (or physical) images to stimulate sexual excitement.
Abortion is the killing of a person.
Masturbation is the pleasing of self.
All pleasing of self is short lived, does not give lasting happiness, and ultimately destructive to self and others. Sexual intercourse should be for procreation, not for self-pleasure.
All love of self leads no where. The only lasting peace for a person comes from having a self-less love for others, the way a good mother loves her children.
For these similar reasons, sexual intercourse should always be within a marriage.
Christine O'Donnell's views (as they appear in this article) are essentially for the good, and consistent with how God thinks.
The smears begin.....the left acts as if one's religious beliefs are not normal. Christians are not surprised in their reaction. I want to hear about her plans to make America better....through congress. You can pick candidates apart. I thought the left was more interested in leaving sex in the bedrooms, behind close doors....until there's a Republican. America's not interested in her feelings about sex, we're interested in what she can do to help America
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
The Contract lists 10 agenda items that it encourages TEA PARTY congressional candidates to follow:[64][65]
1. Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does. (82.03%)
2. Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control carbon dioxide emissions by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of carbon dioxide. (72.20%)
3. Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification. (69.69%)
4. Simplify the tax system: Adopt a single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code
5. Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality:
6. Limit annual growth in federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting
7. Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010: Defund, repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (56.39%)
8. Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation. (55.5%)
9. Reduce Earmarks:
10. Reduce Taxes: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, and extend current temporary reductions in income tax, capital gains tax and estate taxes, currently scheduled to end in 2011. (53.38%)?
I apologize for preaching to the choir, Green8019. I tend to do that a lot. Sigh.
Voters care about the high unemployment, the economy, the rising federal debt (poll after poll shows that voters care about these issue more than anything). Most voters couldn't get a rip about O'Donnell's personal views. The ad homs and other past statements from O'Donnell that are being taken out of context won't work against her. They didn't work against Scott brown or Christie in New Jersey and others and they won't work now. People care about the economy, high unemployment, and are angry at the stimulus bill and the rising federal debt and so on.
Scott Brown was further behind that O'Donnell is now and had less time to close the gap.
I also pray that someday we'll have creationists, especially born again Christian creationists, in our supreme court, too! I pray everyday that prayer and daily Bible reading will one day be allowed back in our schools! That was the worst thing that the supreme court could have done to our schools and to our children when they took prayer and Bible reading out of schools! And as for your "hard evidence" about evolution, there is none and there never will be! Evolution is still a THEORY not a proven fact! Yes, O'Donnell and many more like her are exactly what we need in Washington!
Incidentally I, too, am a voter and I care about the personal beliefs of our legislators, too, but for the opposite reasons than you do! I haven't failed to vote in a major election in over twenty years and I'll be voting in this one, too!
(as provided by Dictionary.com):
Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.
In other words, a theory is backed by MOUNTAINS of evidence and is more or less proven, though not completely. Some theories include our friends gravity and relativity. If theories were as shaky as you seem to think, I could technically argue that gravity doesn't exist and we are stuck to the earth with crazy glue. That, m'dear, is a hypothesis, until I gather enough data until many, many scientists test this too and agree that we are indeed stuck to the earth with crazy glue.
As for praying and reading in schools, while the idea isn't outrageous, it's simply impossible. I know (besides Christians) Jewish, Muslim, atheist, and Hindu people (etc.) at my school alone. To put Bible study back in schools would simply ruffle too many feathers. Prayer is a maybe, but eventually all of the different prayer styles (and the non-prayers) would lead to teasing, bullying or other problems. Yes, my school is diverse, but we're KIDS. Eventually someone would turn it into a huge mess or a holy war. And believe me, Honors kids can debate anything under the sun; in a nutshell, it's just too tricky to implement the systems you want. If you want your kid to study prayer, take Sunday school, religious education or go to a Christian school; you don't need to force it on public schools. The government is a SEPARATE ENTITY and cannot be forced to sway one way or another, which brings me to your second sentence. In all of my years of learning, not one teacher has EVER EVER EVER told me their religious views, much less pressed them on me. Do you honestly think an atheist teacher would risk their neck preaching to 30 little brats for six hours? Certainly not in these times.
Now, evolution. I could drag out a million different sources adding to the THEORY of evolution (again with our words. Refer to your handy-dandy definition), but you would probably shout me down anyway so I won't go down that path. So I must reiterate, it is a THEORY, time-tested many many times. I personally believe it does fit into creation (but don't go after me for that, I'm talking facts), but our views are nil. We can't just go into the education system and tell teachers what to do- it's like trying to dictate who does what in a nuclear power plant. Creationism, meanwhile, has no mountains of evidence, so it's not a theory. It is not largely accepted in the world of science. Thus, evolution is better taught in schools because it is much more likely to be fact; otherwise, creationism would become the Pluto of curriculum and we would have to cram in Pastafarianism and the cray glue hypothesis because they fit the criteria too.
Next, O'Donnell herself. As I said earlier, the government is meant to be separate from personal moral and religious views. Therefore, whether she's Wiccan, pro-life, pro-turban, anti-voodoo or pro-crazy glue, it SHOULDN'T MATTER. As voters we are supposed to look at her political experience, POLITICAL views and competence, not whether you have similar soapbox speeches. And someone who gets personal morals mixed up with the maintenance of a COUNTRY is not exactly a logical choice.
It's probably a stretch, but I hope that you'll at least consider what I said (it took me a good while to write this, you know). Try common sense; it's vital for survival, or so I've heard.
Regards
But then this 'article' / blog did spent more time on the criticisms of Odonnell's points, than addressing the many good reasons why she may have the ideas that she has.
And secondly, let me ask you all this: what sort of parent would give their child something beautiful and wonderful, that makes them feel good, that is free and available to everyone, and then tell them that if they used it, they would be condemned and disowned? Do you seriously think that God (as our father) would treat us, his children, this way? What parent would do that to their child? I agree that sex is a gift, but not something to be feared (or forced upon others), and certainly not something to be locked in a closet under fear of damnation for even thinking about it. Masturbation is a normal part of human sexuality, and if looking at naked people excites you (or even people with clothes that stimulate the imagination), then don't feel guilty, but rejoice! because your body is working normally, like it was meant to do from the beginning!
If you take Ms. O'Donnell's way of thinking to heart, you best not be scratching that itch either, cause it just might feel too good!
So, God, our Father did make everything perfect for us...you are right...but God's children screwed up the beauty of the perfection by their choices. Can't argue with that...that is unless you come back with God is a punishing God and your argument goes bye bye
Masturbation is the pleasing of self.
All pleasing of self is short lived, does not give lasting happiness, and ultimately destructive to self and others. Sexual intercourse should be for procreation, not for self-pleasure.
All love of self leads no where. The only lasting peace for a person comes from having a self-less love for others, the way a good mother loves her children.
For these similar reasons, sexual intercourse should always be within a marriage.
Christine O'Donnell's views (as they appear in this article) are essentially for the good, and consistent with how God thinks.