What does Christine O'Donnell believe about God?

So we have that O'Donnell is a Catholic, and she has carefully, with an informed conscience, determined to embrace the moral teaching of the Church. Even though I'm not, I can handle people being instantaneous creationists -- and such a position (which, when one believes in God, is certainly tenable), for it does not obscure the teachings of Jesus. The Pope obviously is also a creationist, and no dogma of the Catholic Church is either for or against evolution as a means of God's creation.

Some of my candidate's (or plural candidates') religious beliefs do influence my vote, if the beliefs are likely to affect legislation. I do not care about Ms. O'Donnell's position on masturbation. She is unlikely to ever vote on laws controlling the practice. I care about her position on abortion, because she may well have opportunity to vote on laws restricting a woman's right to choose.

I hope this woman never needs to transition to senator. She would not do a good job of it.

O'Donnell goes on CSPAN and slams Welfare, Pop Culture, advocates censorship, single sex education, says "you can legislate morality," and seems to be saying women should be admitted into the military - SHE IS A SCARY NUT!

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/ID/97612&start=2207&end=3666

Here's O'Donnell on CSPAN saying AIDS gets too much money . . . while she equates it to other diseases, which are NOT communicable. There's a lot of blaming the victim on this too. I mean, this one is just about as ignorant as a person gets.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsk-5eRzS_4

And that's not even mentioning (which you didn't), the lies she told about her education, her financial issues, including the alleged misuse of campaign funds to pay her personal bills while not paying her staff, and on and on and on. I've seen political careers go down the drain over plagiarism in college, and candidate Obama deep fried in the media over things his preacher said - not him. Yet, she is somehow exempt from taking responsibility for her own words and actions?

Why is the media promoting this nut? Could it be that the giant corporations who own the media will benefit from a GOP majority in the Senate? There's a reason the GOP said she is unelectable, and the MSM isn't going to hide that from the public.

Thankful she and her "altar" ego Palin are living now and not when our Constitution was written.

2010 will go down in political history as the year of "Throw the bums IN."

Ms. O'Donnell has the right to run for the Senate and to represent her state, if elected. However, a Senator must represent all the people of the state, not just those who choose to believe what she believes. A Senator is also responsible to uphold the Constitution, which clearly draws a separation of Church and State. If she can not do so because of her religious convictions, Ms. O'Donnell should withdraw from the race.

"Do your candidates religious beliefs factor into your vote?"

I have never, and will never, vote for someone who subscribes to ignorant, superstitious beliefs.

"What do you make of O'Donnell's public statements on religion and morality?"

She appears to be an ignorant, superstitious person.

"Can she transition from a public role of religious evangelist to Delaware Senator?"

I'm not sure what you are asking.

I'd be more worried about a candidate without religious beliefs.

Without God, there is no absolute morality - all we are left with is that individuals can dictate what is true or not true, moral or not moral. Without an absolute standard, you can never argue that someone else's actions are absolutely wrong, even if you run into the most repulsive human abuses. The most you can say is that you disagree with them.

Something like slavery can only be absolutely wrong if every person has equal human dignity, and that can only be granted by an absolute creator. It certainly isn't something granted by an impersonal universe or biological process.

Her views are not unusual.

They are wacko.

She is what Freud called a "sexual hysteric."

She suffers from massive "daddy issues," and God is her invisible sky daddy.

Ephesians 6:5-9, "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free. "

Obviously slavery was not considered absolutely wrong when this was written.

I'll happily vote for an atheist if I agree with their well considered rational position on issues.

How would she know that you cannot masturbate without lust?

There are times when a candidate's religious views might influence my vote. I would have a difficult time voting for a right wing
evangelist Christian, especially on social issues. I also have some doubts about Mormons but only because they seem to be very similar to evanglist Christians. As for O'Donnell, I thought she was a evangelist and find it incredible that she's Roman Catholic, especially with her views on creationism. Do I think she can
"transition....." No. And by the way, the word transition is a noun, not a verb.

This mental midget can believe whatever she wants, but don't try to influence public policy with your freaky, wacky, ignorant beliefs. We REMAIN a culturally backward wasteland. Pathetic.

One "toes" a line, as in a dance class, not "tows" it as does a stevedore.

The English Police are up and watching you.

The is the era of the con-artist have a voice too! Yep you betcha!

O'Donnell believe masturbation is a sin, because she likens it to adultery. But, if one is unmarried, what is it then? She is a fool. Fools seem to be having a heyday in politics lately, largely because of propaganda emanating from corporate sponsors and their Right-wing, Fascist-leaning media buddies on Fox. Now, with large cash infusions from multi-national corporations lining the pockets of certain sympathetic candidates, confusion and political treachery has become the normal mode of campaigning. The Tea Party is just the human face of Fascist-Corporate American business, brought to you by the Koch Bros and Dick Armey's Freedom Works.

O'Donnell's views on religion and sex are pretty ridiculous, but so are many peoples'. What scares me about her is that she seems convinced that it's OK, even obligatory, to impose her moral views on the rest of us. This is the opposite of conservatism; it's actually quite radical.

I see that every section of WAPO and every other liberal rag is out to destroy O'Donnell.

In this section it's her religious beliefs. Well, I'd rather see someone who actually believes in God voted to office than some of those who are in DC who's lack of belief belie their professing their "faith."

The progressives in the GOP are vilifying O'Donnell because they lost a progressive colleague, Castle. The progressives have to be weeded out of the GOP and true conservatives have to take their place in order to tip the balance to the "center-right."

Coons is a Democratic progressive who wrote a paper titled "The Bearded Marxist."

We don't need any more progressives in DC, they are already destroying our nation economically and any other way they can.

November can't come soon enough!

If a candidate espouses sick and twisted religious views, I expect them to apply those views to their politics.

If by some chance she becomes a Senator, O'Donnell may not attempt to outlaw masturbation (or she might...), but she'll probably attempt to turn some other aspects of her religious dogma into law.

O'Donnell is mostly ridiculous. But if she becomes a Senator, she will be a genuine threat the nation.

She believes there is MORE evidence supporting creationism than evolution? This would be very funny if it were not so scary. That a person like this can be elected to any office at all is very scary. The US is going to hell in a hand basket.The religious right is trying to take over the country so they can take away certain rights we have. They want to force Christianity on everyone in a time when the US is more diversified than ever before. Individual rights be damned, if we say this is how it was then this is how it is then this is how it is. Be an individual and you could end up in jail. Sex before marriage, the religious nuts will put you in jail. Oral sex, there are people in jail now for engaging in oral sex. Gil Scot Herron was wrong, the revolution will be televised.

whoa...let the Catholic bashing begin. gotta love all the secular progressives... i'm sure all the agnostics would have no problem if she were a muslim though. better not burn the koran but sure, stick the cross in a tub of urine, that's free speech. and i love all the references to superstition. i guess you're referring to the resurrection 'cause all of the other aspects of Jesus' life have been documented by thousands of historians.

She's obviously as dumb as a rock, a Sarah Palin clone.

Do candidate's 'religious' beliefs factor into my 'political' vote? You betcha not !!

Religion: keep it as private as possible...to oneself and family......don't impose it on others......I don't really care or want to know about one's religious beliefs. I'll just deal with their actions and deeds.

Politics: keep it as public (if that's at all possible).....remember the word 'transparent'.....keep all politicians in view, and keep their actions in the news.....but above all......keep Religion as far away from them as possible.

That's all.

And she's hypocrite. Here is a excerpt from her Wikipedia entry (not the most accurate source, but I believe she said this).

EXCERPT - She did not grow up as a strict Catholic, but rather came to a turning point in college after, "drinking too much and having sex with guys with whom there wasn't a strong emotional connection"

So - she can have her fun, then attempt to tell the rest of the world to toe her perceived moral line?

"Without God, there is no absolute morality..."

absolute morality = absolute idiocy

The history of humanity is a history of societies "with" God/gods whose ideas of morality were "absolute" but inhuman and, by today's standards, abhorrent.

Does the writer believe we should return to burning at the stake any who offend absolute morality?

Or the chopping off of limbs?

Is not the absolute morality of "thou shall not kill" mocked by state sponsored executions and wars?

No one has ever claimed the perpetrators of those acts, then and now, were "without God". On the contrary, the acts were done in the name of God/gods by earth-bound self-proclaimed servants of God/gods!

Constructs such as "absolute morality" appear conveniently when needed then fade away when not.

"If by some chance she becomes a Senator, O'Donnell may not attempt to outlaw masturbation (or she might...),..."

If she does manage to outlaw masturbation, I'll just have to redouble my efforts.

I don't mind.

joepa1:"i'm sure all the agnostics would have no problem if she were a muslim though."

If she was a nutjob Muslim (the way she is currently a nutjob catholic) then, yeah, we'd have a problem.

But this is America. Our religious wackos are all "Christian." Just like you.

JOEPA1 - "whoa...let the Catholic bashing begin"

As someone raised and confirmed in that perverted, criminal enterprise called a church, I heartily agree. Bash away - they deserve it.

Although I consider myself to be a person of faith and daily prayer, I don't expect politicians to share my religious beliefs. I do like them to have respect for people who disagree with them, however, and I don't like it when politicians try to win votes by advertising their piety (particularly if it seems insincere).

To call her dumb as a rock does a great disservice to rocks everywhere. Even a rock knows better to keep quiet rather than embarrass itself with drivel.

I just have to believe that the primary voters in Delaware really did not know who they were voting for. Palin says, "she's my gal", and her followers turn off their common sense. The GOP should have had a few more candidates to choose from.

For the sake of all Delawarians, right, center, and left, let's hope she doesn't get elected to the Senate. Her madness would be a national embarrassment. Though, admittedly, it would be the greatest gift to fake news and late night show hosts in decades!

O'Donnell's absurd contention that is 'just as much, if not more' evidence for creationism as there is for evolution shows her to be a scientific dunce.

This woman's win is a product of the anti-elitist theme of conservatism. You might say she has reached the pinnacle of anti-intellectualism.
Education and ideas used to be important qualifiers for success. How much dimmer must Congress be in order to satisfy the angry hordes?

I think this gal's views are solidly American mainstream. Unfortunately, mainstream is legions of white, clueless, mindless and overfed morons who have too much time to obsess on Jesus,go huntin' and brood on the impending demise of their demographic.

ROFL, the leftist media of collusion spends more time in one day attempting to vet O'Donnell than they ever did in years with Obama...

I guess I'd better check my inventory of sex toys in case she gets elected and decides that di1doe$ need to be outlawed.

Masturbation is adultery? Really? How so? My husband and I use the same hands to pleasure each other when we're together and horny that we use to pleasure ourselves when we're alone and horny.

According to her sexual theology, I should never have an orgasm that my husband doesn't stimulate. What if he's out of town for an extended time and I get a case of the raging hornies? Should I just take so many cold showers that I risk pneumonia?What if you're married to a really wonderful man/woman who just happens to be a little inept in the bringing on an O department? I guess you should resign yourself to a lifetime of frustration.
If you never marry, do you have no right to ever experience an orgasm?
How does a person become so fearful of her own genitalia?

That should be "O'Donnell TOES the Catholic line," not "TOWS the Catholic line."

Some of Christine O'Donnell's views seem not to have been thought through. For example, she's against masturbation AND unmarried people having sexual relations. It seems one would encourage self-pleasure as a reasonable means towards achieving the later goal. To place them both "off limits" is not a realistic view of us humans or of our bodies.

Christian nationalism, as represented by Palin and O'Donnell are threatening the very foundation of America. There's nothing funny about this movement. She is a serious threat to our way of life. We can service different Republican or Democratic administrations. We can not survive if we let these people take positions of power.

RWNJers are becoming the norm of rethuglican land

You ask, do I find her religious views unusual or out of the mainstream? Well, no more than those of the Muslim in the White House. By the way, have you raised the same "mainstream" question about the current occupant of 1600 Pa Ave?

You ask, do I find her religious views unusual or out of the mainstream? Well, no more than those of the Muslim in the White House.
Posted by: dennis10

*****************************************

Muslim? That is so 2009. Get with the program! Obama isn't just a Muslim, he's a Martian Muslim! He secured the White House to ensure a steady supply of fresh non-Allah-worshiping American flesh for his ravenous Muslo-Martian family. Soon he will secretly signal for a planetary invasion - or jihad - which will give him the perfect excuse to cancel the mid-term elections.

ITS ALL TRUE!!!

Leftist rag attacks conservative. What? Were there no dog bites man stories?

O'Donnell's positions in the 1990s remind me much more of YoungLife style evangelical born-again Christian than someone schooled in Jesuitical Catholicism.

She strikes me as fairly intelligent, but her views sound like something gleaned from a textbook -- there isn't a whole lot of lived, original, experience that I can discern from her views. She's definitely lived with a degree of poverty from what I understand, but I don't get the sense that she's really grappled with real, hard poverty and real, hard injustice.

I'd guess that O'Donnell's views are probably shared by about one in four to one in five Americans. As far as her Catholicism goes, her views definitely trend towards an extreme within the American community.

I don't think it is at all unusual that she believes scientists have created mice with human brains.

Are her views out of the mainstream? Likening masturbation to adultery "It is not enough to be abstinent with other people, you also have to be abstinent alone," adding, "The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery, so you can't masturbate without lust."
She opposes the theory of evolution.
"There is not enough evidence, consistent evidence to make it as fact, and I say that because for theory to become a fact, it needs to consistently have the same results after it goes through a series of tests," O'Donnell told host Miles O'Brien. "The tests that they put -- that they use to support evolution do not have consistent results. Now too many people are blindly accepting evolution as fact. But when you get down to the hard evidence, it's merely a theory."

She thinks she knows what socialism is..."The definition of a socialist economy is when 50 percent or more of your economy is dependent on the federal government."
I really like the wrongful termination lawsuit filed by Christine O'Donnell in 2005 against her former employer, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute for a cool $6.9 million. She states --Up to $3,952,447 in "Direct Damages, including back pay" and "lifetime lost income and liftetime damage to reputation."

--Up to $500,000 "for emotional distress, humiliation, emotional pain, embarrassment, depression."

--Up to $3.5 million in punitive damages for "willful, legally-malicious and outrageous conduct" by ISI.

O'Donnell claimed that ISI had caused her to suffer "mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, mental and physical pain and anguish"--and that, according to an amended complaint, she had to "seek treatment for her distress."

Also she states "the July 2005 complaint alleges that "ISI violated its promise to allow Miss O'Donnell time to take master's degree classes at Princeton," thus causing a loss of "earning power." Only one little problem there...she had never been accepted to any masters degree program at Princeton. She had not even received her bachelors degree yet. Not many masters programs that I know of that allow students with out bachelors degrees to join.

I have no use for this candidate- at all but I am a practicing Catholic.

So,"teenagers indoctrinated by hours of religion classes", really?!

"Indoctrinated"? You mean like in North Korea? No input from other sources or views?
Not religious "education" but "indoctrination"? Was her Yalie Divinity opponent indoctrinated too?
How come I never read about Jews being indoctrinated? The press doesn't even use that for the Taliban Madrais!
Guess we know where the author stands on us Catholics.

Be at least a little clever in disguising your bias and antipathy.

"Leftist rag attacks conservative. What? Were there no dog bites man stories?"

Aw, c'mon--this woman's a nut! Going public to speak out against masturbation and claiming that there's a wealth of scientific evidence for creationism?

If you spout stuff like that, you have to expect that even some of your friends are going to call you out.

I HOPE SHE WINS!

The more crazies the better. Perhaps a total collapse of this country is what is needed to turn it around. Vote Republican and let them go to work dismantling America from the Middle class down.

Not totally surprised she won the primary. After all...several months ago there were rallies in Delaware where trailer-parkers/birthers were shouting "I want my country back!" They voted for her in spite of her personal fiscal irresponsibility AND her primitive views on sexuality. What a world!

"absolute morality = absolute insanity"

That's an odd thing for a leftist to say.
Aren't your progressive leaders imposing their version of morality on this country right now?

What drives one to force people in to purchasing health insurance?
Is it not your "morality", that motivates you to support stealing from some, to give to others?
Is it not your version of "morality" that drives your leaders to pass regulations to "save the Earth", by punishing it's inhabitants?

You leftists are about as tolerant of dissent from your "morality", as the Taliban.

You realize that religiously oriented people like O'Donnell make this stuff up in their heads and then try to pass it off as gospel, don't you? Don't you?

During the New Testament period, especially from 30 AD on, slavery was TOLERATED by Jesus and by the leaders of the 1st Century Church.

But, they really didn't approve of slavery itself. It's just that it was legal in the Roman Empire to own slaves. The punishment for runaway slave was execution.

Paul wrote a letter (aka Epistle) to Philemon to tell Philemon that Onesimus had accepted the LORD, too. And Paul told Philemon to accept the runaway slave Onesimus as a brother in the LORD and treat him like a member of his own family.

Paul wrote in another Epistle that Believers in Jesus should obey the laws of their country as long as those laws don't interfere with their relationship with Jesus.

Paul knew nothing about a country with a government like that of the USA.

Do NOT take Scriptures of their original contexts to support your own personal and/or religious agenda.

Ms. O'Donnell is 41 and single and says masturbation is a sin.
It's almost enough to make you feel sorry for her (but not quite).

She also says the Earth was created in 6 successive 24 hour periods.
What a absolute moron.

She is not married and probably masturbates to beat the band, but feels guilty about it.

odd views? to put it mildly....

she's nuts

i'm so sick of FAUX "Christians"

They don't even know what it means...judge not lest you be judged....etc etc etc

"They don't even know what it means...judge not lest you be judged....etc etc etc"

LOL. Yes, you certainly seem to be schooled in scripture to the point that you can judge who is a true Christian and who is not.

Your hypocrisy is laughable.

""Well, creationism, in essence, is believing that the world began as the Bible in Genesis says, that God created the Earth in six days, six 24-hour periods. And there is just as much, if not more, evidence supporting that," than evolution"

Wow, and this woman is supposed to make decisions on governance based on facts and reason?

What is this evidence and what science is there in the bible?

With the masturbation thing, if u have lust masturbating then surely u have lust in the courting period with a potential lover/husband? So basically u just cant win with sin and lust. If u cant masturbate because of lust u cant be attracted to someone because of lust. But this chain of logic obviouly means nothing to her.

What a moron

I would never ever vote for any person of any religion that brought religion into politics. Simple!
This lunatic, fringe group of teabagers does not seem to understand what separation of church and state is all about. They think just because they are nuts, we should all be just a crazy.
I personally have nothing but contempt for religion. Too many people have died uselessly in the name of some stupid god or another.

"she's nuts"

followed by

"They don't even know what it means...judge not lest you be judged....etc etc etc"

LOL

Aside from the hypocrisy in that comment, you don't seem to understand the one verse that you partially quoted.

When it says "judge not", it is saying "condemn not".
That's mainly because we don't have the authority to judge in the name of God.
But we are to draw conclusions from what we see, and react accordingly.

"I charge thee therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and at his kingdom:
Preach the word; Be constant in season, out of season. Reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears.
And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and be turned unto fables."

With Ken Cuccinelli as attorney-general of Virginia, there is a need to ask this question?

No politician who believes in "creationism" should be permitted to have anyone in his/her family get immunized against the flu or numerous other diseases, because they reject the scientific basis of immunization. And, assuming that they are not hypocrites, and assuming that they actually believe Jesus' preaching, the swarms of self-proclaimed "compassionate" "conservative" "born-again" "Christians" who attack health care for everyone have condemned themselves to hell ever-lasting.

I find her religious opinions dubious but if the President's religion is irrelevant to his governance (as liberals argue) and is preserved and protected by the Constitution (as liberals argue) then O'Donnell's religious views merit the same protections. Who cares? What relevance has this for how she would govern? I have more of an issue with how she poses with her mouth gaping open. Well, that and the fact that she's a rightwing throwback to Attilla the Hun. That said, critiquing her religious views is as silly as critiquing Obama's.

"Without God, there is no absolute morality - all we are left with is that individuals can dictate what is true or not true, moral or not moral. "

Trouble is, we have no dictates that show any real evidence of coming directly from this "God" of yours, only human interpretations. So that equally leaves us with individual decisions - which "God" do you follow, which dictates of that "God" do you emphasize and which ignore or play down or consider outdated, how do you listen to "God" and do you value your Inner Light over your holy text or otherwise, etc.

Besides which, that leaves you on rather shaky ground should God not in fact exist. The assertion that morality is not possible without God (a shaky one at best, as I know many moral atheists) is not in itself evidence for the existence of God. If in fact God doesn't exist, are you suddenly going to turn into a ravening murderous thieving scoundrel? Would your beliefs about morality even change appreciably?

"Something like slavery can only be absolutely wrong if every person has equal human dignity, and that can only be granted by an absolute creator. It certainly isn't something granted by an impersonal universe or biological process."

Why not? If a biological process in an impersonal universe leaves us all as part of the same human species, why would we not have equal human dignity?

Nor has your "absolute creator", if S/He/They exist at all, been seen as giving humans equal human dignity through most of history. Most religions throughout history have emphasized differences in rank and status among people as "God-given" and necessary - sometimes class differences (the "Great Chain of Being"), sometimes differences between believer and infidel, man and woman, free person and slave, etc. Slavery was sanctioned and promoted using religious language. (So did the abolitionists use religious language, granted - religious beliefs are malleable and may imply many different things, depending on your emphasis. So much for "absolute morality" based on religion - we as humans, as Americans, as religious believers, etc. have never had full agreement on moral beliefs even within religions, let alone between them.)

"Paul wrote a letter (aka Epistle) to Philemon to tell Philemon that Onesimus had accepted the LORD, too. And Paul told Philemon to accept the runaway slave Onesimus as a brother in the LORD and treat him like a member of his own family. "

There were two classifications of escaped slaves under Roman law. One was runaways intending to escape permanently, who were executed mercilessly. The second, to which Onesimus belonged, was runaways who escaped merely to avoid an unfair punishment, who sought out an authority figure and asked them to intercede for them with their master, and who fully intended to return once mediation had been achieved. Onesimus was seeking Paul's help to ask his master for mercy, not running away for good. Paul did so.

And whatever the opinion of the initial Christians, many slave owners in America used religion and the Bible as justification and support for that practice. John Brown and others found their religion commanding them to work for abolition (and in John Brown's case, for equality of the races - he was remarkable for his time in actually seeing black people as his equals, his brothers and sisters). Which demonstrates that even the same religion speaks differently about morality to different people, and therefore that religion, being so subject to human interpretation, does not in fact provide us with an absolute morality.

"I find her religious opinions dubious but if the President's religion is irrelevant to his governance (as liberals argue) and is preserved and protected by the Constitution (as liberals argue) then O'Donnell's religious views merit the same protections."

The President is not attempting to make my sex life or my marital life or my child's science education conform to his religious rules. There's the difference.

It's sad that even a sizable minority of voters in a first-world country would choose to slough off our status as a modern scientific and technological leader by letting people like this anywhere near leadership positions. To imagine that anyone who chooses assertions made by anonymous human authors in a Bronze Age religious artifact (the "book" of Genesis) over the reasoned conclusions of modern science is fit for leading in the 21st century is really the depths of lunacy and ignorance.

Indeed, numerous studies have shown that the more education you have, the less likely you are to believe the Bible is the literal truth. WHY would we want our country led into the new millenium by someone who is effectively living in the first century A.D.? These fundamentalist Christians are often compared to the Taliban in their cultural development level, but even the Taliban is stuck in the 7th century (when the Koran was created), a full 5 or 6 centuries more advanced than the Bible dwellers.

Evangelical Catholics have a theological viewpoint that is more Bible based than run of the mill Roman Catholics.

Think Mel Gibson without the hostility.

Only those who never masturbate can vote for her, I believe.
I am not sure she can find anybody these days unless they go to confession. lol.

Oh, yeah, right. Like she never stirred the soup, herself.

"Do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" Glenn Beck and Huckabee "Christian" are hell bent on bringing on the next civil war.

Let's hope that if there is a god, she grants no more than 25% of Americans who can't see through the shallow "religiosity" that this woman is playing poor old Jesus for political gain.

What's left of the GoP is betting it all on that there are. Let's show them in November that they're delusionally wrong.

While liberals like to scoff at religion, the political fact of life is that most Americans like to vote for politicians with a strong faith in God.

So, liberals can have their fun scoffing, but I am comfortable with politicians who have a religious persona.

Our Constitution calls for a separation of Church and State...so believe what you want, just keep it to yourself and don't try to make others share your beliefs

no religious nut would EVER get my vote

I remember the relentless media attack machine in overdrive right after Sarah Palin's nominations as Republican VP and here we go again with another Conservative female Republican..... meanwhile where's the far left's "bearded Marxist" and Scary "The war is lost" Harry's pet, and why did he call himself a Marxist in the first place, washpost??? Zzzz.........zzzz...zzz

I do not find her comments unusual and I no longer find asking this question unusual since the Washington Post has become a "rag", a tool of the Democrat party...

You people are so arrogant.
I'll preface my next statement by saying that I believe in the vast majority of the principles on which the theory of evolution is based. And this has nothing to do with the beliefs of anyone.
I just want to ask a question to those who shrug off legitimate questioning of the process theory.
How could even the simplest life form, have ever accidentally come in to being?
A single-celled organism has four complete, separate components that have separate functions, working in unison, to provide each other with sustenance and "purpose".
Every cell has a
1) membrane
2) a system that creates DNA
3) a system that reproduces DNA, and
4) a system that processes the energy required for sustenance.

My question;
Which operating system of that complex cell structure evolved first?

And how did it sustain itself, without the other components that enable it's survival....not for a short time....but for the millions of years that it would have taken these separate systems to combine in to a cell?

And while the crickets are chirping, awaiting a response, ask yourselves;
How sure are you of what you "know"?

I am a fiscal conservative, but to me she sounds a total wacko. Delaware is a moderate state, I can't see a Christian Taliban getting elected there. No abortion even in case of rape sounds very Taliban to me.

So, it's become "unfashionable" to say that you're not an atheist. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. The "big guy" also gets a nod in Lincolns' Gettysburg Address. A passing fancy, no doubt. How about substituting "one nation under absolutely nothing" [cheers of "All hail Nothing" in the background. The POA is DOA? Now, doesn't that have a fine ring to it, make your eyes tear? Wonderful, people. Bob Lusby, Nova Scotia, Canada.

"Which operating system of that complex cell structure evolved first?

And how did it sustain itself, without the other components that enable it's survival....not for a short time....but for the millions of years that it would have taken these separate systems to combine in to a cell?

And while the crickets are chirping, awaiting a response, ask yourselves;
How sure are you of what you "know"?"

POSTED BY: MRMEANER

----------------------------

I am not surprised no one answered you -- it is painful to try and teach basic biology to someone like you about complex organic molecules that evolved to 'feed' upon various amino compounds for 'energy', resulting in self-sustaining androgynous bio-forms that became more complex over time.

Since you asked the question and then appear adamant that it didn't happen, you obviously don't have knowledge to understand the answer. Take a 'science' course some day when you're free from your bible class.

By the way,......ALLAH AKBAR, death and nasty, gooey stuff to all infidels. Now, may I run for congress? Lovely! Imagine all that big crowd of apostates, just sitting there and me with a belt of C4 under my robe. Truly shall there be uplifting legislation. "You're so funny,Rashid." I know, it comes naturally, my father[pieces be unto him] was a fire-eater in a travelling caravan sideshow."Oh? He's dead,you indicated?" Yes, by mistake he picked up Bin Ladens' suitcase and well..."Ah, it was meant for the infidels?" Yes, ni-tro glycerine instead of my fathers' kerosene. "Yes ,I see, so the "pieces be unto him", right?" It is so, Faisal, it is so......

"complex organic molecules that evolved to 'feed' upon various amino compounds for 'energy', resulting in self-sustaining androgynous bio-forms that became more complex over time."

Oh, I see.
Then you shouldn't have any problem showing me a link showing the lab work that proves that theory.
Thanks

About the Pledge of Allegiance-it was written by an out-of-work socialist actor in 1893 and did not contain "of the United States of America" or "under God"-USA was added in 1920's over his objections and lawsuit-Supreme Court not only ruled against him but took away his rights to royalties saying Pledge now belonged to american people-funny how capitalist principles only apply to wealthy-"under God" was added in 1950's-thankfully author was dead by then...

Anyone produce an amoeba by laboratory processes yet? If so, did it vote the democratic ticket? It said what? I want my mummy? Odd.....

Hubler1, Greetings, yes, I brushed up on it in Wikipedia, copyright laws and judicial rulings leave something to be desired to say the least.The 'under God' bit was, I think,added in 1954, a new kid in town. I just think the whole verse sounds a bit uplifting, so to say, in its' present form. Those who like it, like it a lot.[an invitation for a plagiarism lawsuit if I ever uttered one] Anyway,it will probably be modified once again, so as not to offend practitioners of other beliefs or those that prefer none. Good while it lasted, so to speak. Even here in the great white, frozen north,{Eeegad, not another stereotype Beasly?} most are aware of your society and its' ways. Not too shabbily done for only a couple of centuries. First nation to luna and back, via advanced science. You're still doing well, just,well, "Don't follow leaders, feed the parking meters." Bob Zimmerman. ciao.