The most disturbing aspect of this is the open hostility to conservative Christianity. It's perfectly legitimate to debate moral issues and critically examine her record, but to personally attack and demean someone for her religious beliefs borders on depravity.
It's a Religious Thing, They Wouldn't Understand
Dennis Prager observes that every religion has aspects that look downright kooky to outsiders. Religious views on chastity and sexuality fall in that category, especially in today's sex-drenched, id-driven culture.
A few points in Christine O'Donnell's defense:
Her chastity campaign was conducted within the Christian community and was not directed at passing any laws. It spilled out into the larger culture as a direct resonse to the stupid liberal "just give them condoms and birth control pills" approach.
Birth control pills do nothing to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and they have a list of side effects and potential health hazards a mile long. Condoms only prevent a small subset of STDs, provided they work properly.
Finally, sex is a big deal, especially for emotion-driven adolescents still trying to find their place in the world. I have seen adults go nuts over relationship problems, and it's worse for hormonal raging teens. They are simply not ready to deal with the baggage.
So abstenence is not the joke the laughing hyenas on the left make it out to be.
O'Donnell is also attacked for equating self-pleasure with adultery. Well, if you're playing with yourself instead of your spouse, and when pornography on a computer screen takes the place of a flesh and blood partner, there might be some dysfunction going on.
Again, I stress that this is a conservative Christian belief that no one is forced to comply with. No laws, no secret cameras, no mastubation police knocking on your door. This is advice that free Americans can follow or reject in the privacy of their own conscience.
Democrats -- The Whackjob Party
Newsweek Democratic propagandist Sharon Begly breathlessly attacks O'Donnell's advocacy of mastering one's domain, making comically absurd statements along the way. She starts by saying maybe we should just give Christine a pass and ignore it all...
... but no, this issue is so weighty, mankind hangs in the balance!
"But that would be a mistake: the stakes are simply too high, going all the way up the very survival of our species."Terrorism, falling birth rates, dwindling natural resources... These issues pale in comparison to the towering issue of self-indulgence! Here's her central, laughable thesis:
"Were O’Donnell’s unscientific views of the practice to spread, it would be a worrisome threat to family values."Family values??? "OK Johnny, wash your face, brush your teeth, and don't forget to play with yourself before bed..." And they are calling Christine O'Donnell kooky?
Unscientific? I love it when progressives with liberal arts degrees invoke science. They know nothing whatsoever of the scientific method, but they fetishize science and genuflect at the very word. They scream "science!" as a debate silencer, when real scientists will tell you it is a debate opener. Science is an investigation tool, not a bullwhip for enforcing politically-correct dogma.
We're All Animals
Here's my favorite part:
"Evidence from elephants to rodents to humans shows that masturbating is—counterintuitively—an excellent way to make healthy babies, and lots of them."
"... the practice has been documented in Japanese macaques, gibbons, baboons, chimps, elephants, dogs, cats, horses, lions, donkeys, “and walruses that manage to flog the bishop with their fins.”"Animals also eat their own excrement and sniff each others butts. I've seen dogs and cats flop down on their backs in front of God and everybody, spread their legs and vigorously lick their private parts, so I don't think animal behavior is a reliable standard for gauging human activity.
She also posits a theory of "Masturbation might remove old, worn-out, broken sperm from the reproductive tract." Regular sex with your wife will do the same thing, and if you are not married you have no need to worry about "broken sperm." I guess Al Gore could have used this excuse instead of the "releasing my chakras" line...
Angry Wankers, Vote Democrat!
Finally, I leave you with a link to an amusing parody of this issue by liberal funny guy Andy Borowitz. He inadvertantly tags the lunatic left for what they really are: Angry Wankers.
21 comments:
The left must be deathly afraid of O'Donnell.
The left has nothing left so to speak. After all is said and done depravity is all socialists are ever left with, it's at their core.
The American public has always fought this type before but has never been affected by it to such a degree as now and are soundly rejecting it and socialists are showing their true colors.
Great read SF. The left truly has their priorities in order for sure.
So you don't have a job,so the government is slowly takng over every aspect of your life(a turn on for the liberals). But the one thing they will never own is your right to masturbate or have under age sex.
After all they get plenty of practice each time they see the president give one of his orgasmic speeches.
When you state "Her chastity campaign was conducted within the Christian community and was not directed at passing any laws.", we must remember that she is record in stating that we CAN legislate morality. That may have the left all atwitter, but it also has liberty loving patriots concerned as well.
Religion should be a deep, personal relationship between the individual and his/her deity. Not a political prop.
The most disturbing aspect of this is the open hostility to conservative Christianity. ..amen my friend..I heard them grill her..it was pathetic!
Constitutional:
She said that back in 1996, and here's the quote from HuffPo to give you context:
"The reality of that statement is that if you don't legislate one morality then you are legislating somebody else's morality," she said. "So you can't get around legislating morality."
To her point, she offered a lengthy denunciation of the government's implementation of welfare and food stamps, blaming the two programs for fostering laziness and encouraging drug use.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/16/christine-odonnell-slams-_n_719201.html
More recently, she has said:
O’Donnell explained that “when I go to Washington, D.C., the litmus test by which I cast my vote for every piece of legislation that comes across my desk will be whether or not it is constitutional.”
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-u-s-constitution-in-a-nutshell-odonnell-is-right-coons-is-wrong/
Careful relying on what the liberals say. They will dredge up stuff from 15 years ago, but studiously ignore more recent information that contradicts their worldview.
The bearded marxist she's running against, like all liberal politicians, hates the constitution.
United Angry Wankers
Oh I know what she said and when she said it, liberals aren't the only party that takes the entirety of a candidates spoken and written word.
She also had very little grasp of the 1st, 14th and 16th Amendments in her recent debate in Delaware. I expect much more acumen from my Senate candidates....don't you?
And really.....after writing what you did, you use the specious 'bearded Marxist' comment, as well as an unfounded 'he's a liberal, so he must hate the Constitution' line.
C'mon...you're better than that. If I were a Delawarean, I doubt I would vote for Coons, but I definitely would not cast one for CoD.
Liberals do hate the Constitution. Even Obama said it as an unjust document. I believe that's why liberals study it in college so they can twist it to fit their agenda.
Elena Kagan too said it was "defective".
It's all part of their plan to change the country form the inside out.
Of course they will never "amend" the 14th amendment which is probably the most defective.
It doesn't fit the plan.
Constitutional:
The progressive long march against the US Constitution is well-documented.
I said nothing about ODonnell's fitness for senate. My commentary is on how the left has personally attacked her.
We do agree that political operatives of all stripes will say whatever it takes. Notice how her "legislate morality" comment takes on a whole new flavor when placed in context.
Which is more difficult: cutting back on masturbation, or cutting back on blogging?
I'm just sayin'.....;-)
:0 LOL Fred!!!
You remind me of the wag who, upon hearing of Tiger Woods's sex addiction, said "You mean it's not supposed to be addicting?"
Odd....I didn't find any reference for Obama stating that the Constitution is an unjust document....but I'm not normally one to defend Obama, just the truth.
Now, I would ask Silverfiddle to square his opposition to what he considers personal attacks against O'Donnell with his use of the specious 'bearded Marxist' remark.
And for a completely different debate, I don't necessarily disagree with Democrats acting outside the accordance of the Constitution......the GOP does the same. Neither party is a friend of liberty, but have allegiance only to themselves.
At the moment, I can't recall his name, but there is a psychiatrist who said that liberalism is a mental disorder. Now we know why, Liberals all have mush for brains due to too much wanking, and screwing. Of course if you look at how ugly most liberals are, one can understand why they masturbate too much.
We agree that both parties trample the constitution. Coons called himself, in jest, "Bearded Marxist." So go complain to him.
And the 'bearded Marxist' comment was placed in it's proper context....and explained by Coons. It's starting to sound like you're guilty of what you've been railing against with O'Donnell. COD is bringing that up in debates.
No, I'm not. I think the post explains itself pretty well. You obviously didn't get it.
I think a big government statist is much more of a danger to our country and our liberty than a pro-chastity crusader. Being a constitutionalist, you should be able to see that.
Jiminy crickets I do see that! The problem lies in the fact that the GOP is just as statist as the Democrats.
The problem lies in the fact that the GOP is just as statist as the Democrats.
I agree. They say they've changed (while the dems stubbornly defend statism and promise more) and I'm willing to put them to the test. We'll find out soon enough, I hope.
I bet we can count on one hand, those in the Senate and House who have any indepth knowledge of the Constitution.
Bachmann is giving classes (or making them available) to Congresscriters) on the Constitution. We should make non-partisan classes mandatory, once a year - like an 8-hour seminar for all Senators and Representatives.
Great analysis Silver. Also linked this in the Quote Article of the Day
Silver, we will certainly see.....and I may be proven wrong that nothing has changed. I'll remain hopeful.
Maggie......I think every member of Congress should receive periodic lessons on all of the principles this Republic was founded upon. But Bachmann ranks right down there with Pelosi as anyone I'd go to for that lesson.
Post a Comment