Monday, September 20, 2010

Masturbation = Adultery ... Ohs Nos!

Christine O'Donnell is running fora 4 year term in the US Senate, in a special election to replace Biden, who left to become Vice President. She's tea party backed to the core, and recently won the republican primary over Mike Castle, (the RNC endorsed candidate). Her views:

Abortion: Against. This is expected, she's a Republican.

Economic Policy: Spend less money. That doesn't sound to bad, okay.

Environment: Block cap & trade. Debatable, but okay.

Gun Rights: Second Amendment protects individual rights.

Health Care: Repeal

Masturbation: It's a sin and a form of adultery .... wait, what?

When asked about her belief on masturbation, she replied:

Yes, I have my personal beliefs," she said when asked about her views. "These are questions from statements I made over 15 years ago. I was in my 20s and very excited and passionate about my new found faith. But I can assure you, my faith has matured. And when I go to Washington D.C., it will be the Constitution on which I base all of my decisions, not my personal beliefs.

Sounds good, right? She's matured, and will base her decisions on the Constitution. Ehh, not really good. StudentLiberal over at Classically Liberal wrote a very good analysis. He says:

Let us go through this statement to see what she is actually saying and what she isn't saying. She says the statements were made when she was young. At that time she had a "new found faith," which means a belief system she adopted wholesale from dead books without any intellectual scrutiny. But "I can assure you, my faith has matured."

What does that mean? Previously she held beliefs without reasons, on the basis of faith. Now she has a mature faith, which means what? How does the mature faith differ from the youthful faith? Faith is faith, it is still not reason. Was she previously a young fool but is now just an old fool? All she said is her faith is mature. People say that they have "faith" when they merely adopt a view without rational reasoning behind it. They hold the belief on the basis of "faith." All this does is tell us how she comes to her beliefs, not what those beliefs are. And both are rather critical here.

She does not indicate at all that her views on masturbation, sex and abstinence have changed at all. In fact, she rather strongly hints that she has NOT abandoned her beliefs whatsoever. She begins her statement saying: "Yes, I have my personal beliefs." This is present tense, not past tense. At best she is hinting that she now understands that there are other ways for her to express the same viewpoints without creating a firestorm. She has not repudiated her "personal beliefs" nor has she said that they have changed, only that her "faith" is now more mature....

The first half of her statement is meant to address the issue of her past beliefs in contrast with present day beliefs. But nowhere does it actually indicate that these beliefs are now different, only that she has a more mature faith—and what that means is never explained by O'Donnell.

The second half of her statement is meant to address how she would vote on issues. It too avoids indicating anything of substance. She says that she will base all her decisions on the Constitution. Whoopee! What a meaningless statement!

If there is one thing that most politicians agree upon it is that they all think they vote according to the Constitution. Believing the Constitution is like believing the Bible. It means nothing. Why is that?

We can all debate what the Constitution means and we each come to our own conclusions. O'Donnell can happily vote for moralistic legislation, if offered the chance, and still proclaim she is within the Constitution as she sees it. The problem is that we have no idea how she sees the Constitution.
The problem with electing someone like this is that there is no way to know they won't put their own morality in front of the Constitution, or in front of your personal rights. She says elsewhere that "as someone who prays about every decision I make, I felt like God was leading me" [1].

If God is real, AND God really talks to people in a physical sense, then a Theocracy could be viable. If either of those two aren't true though, then a Theocracy is a very dangerous form of Autocracy, and nothing more. That is the danger we face when allowing people like O'Donnell into office. She says that she bases all decisions on what she feels God wants her to do, and we have an example of what she believes God's morality is. Is making Masturbation wrong and illegal what we really want? Be careful, Delaware, what you elect.

No comments:

Post a Comment