O'Donnell: "Regardless of my faith. . . it is the Constitution I will defend"

Should religious faith inform political principles?

NO, Absolutely not. Religious faith without exception is grounded in superstition and devoid of any meaningful ethics or morality in context of 21st century life in a global village. Be it be adulation of Abraham, Moses, or Augustine, or Paul, or Mohamed, Jesus, or Rama, Dharmaraja they are all terribly flawed characters. Any person, were to do a small fraction of vile things these characters did they would be excoriated today, by one and all. However, the pious and religious look at the above characters as ideal person to emulate. The most admired of these mythical & religious characters are the most vile of them all by 21st century standards. So absolutely not is the answer to the question.

Where does private religious belief end and public service begin?

Right at the threshold of the public service. The moment you step out of the personal life, when you are dealing with another person on any subject other than mutually agreed to private matter regarding your faiths. Because faith pollutes everything between two parties.

It depends upon the strength of that faith.

Mine absolutely informs my political decisions, and it has made me a socially conscious progressive.

I can do no other.

It depends upon the strength of that faith.

Mine absolutely informs my political decisions, and it has made me a socially conscious progressive.

I can do no other.

Posted by: llamalady
_____________________________________________

Once a friend of mine said in the entire bible, all he cares about is some 28 pages. To that my rejoinder was, it had nothing to do with bible. If he was able to whittle down all of bible to just those 28 pages, then he had learnt nothing from the bible. He already had it in him to figure out what was morally right and what is not. In the similar manner LLAMALADY, you already know it in your bones what is right and what is wrong despite your faith, all you are doing is finding justification in your faith. You are picking from your faith, what is already palatable to you.

Liberal morons want to call O'Donnel as a witch but why is it that true witches will vote for Democrats? Is the Democrat the real party of witches?

Liberal morons are like lemmings following a fool.

Here's a fact. Don't you liberal morons know that Charles Darwin was a theologian and not a biologist? B.A in Theology. Now that's your "scientist".

It only means that Darwinian Evolution is not a branch of science but a branch of Theology.

Hello liberal morons. Why don't you guys gather all the evolutionist biologists you know and present them this fact below. Please stop being morons because you are destroying this world with your stupidity.

Science follow a set of rules. Physics, Chemistry, Math, etc have their set of rules. Darwinian Evolution has no rules because it is not science but a science of fools.

How did the eye, ear, brain, nose, lungs evolve? These idiots have no answer. Of course, because they have no set of rules. It's all random stupidity to them. They just say what they want like stupid babblers.

I think that secular must have been hurt very badly by someone affiliated with a religious organization, and for that experience I am very sorry.

I do believe in a secular government because otherwise we would be changing all of our policies with each shift in public opinion.

I am saying that my faith informs my world view, and I think the more we try and make everything based on individual success and failures, rather than working together, we slip farther and farther down an economic and ethical scale.

Those voices are not the ones screaming the loudest right now. It's the Social Darwinists who are getting all the attention.

That view is opposed to my own faith. And trust me, my political views do not define my faith because I have been a member of both major political parties.

And Spidermean2, I do believe in science. It works with my faith.

Spidermean2
“ Don't you liberal morons know that Charles Darwin was a theologian and not a biologist”
“It only means that Darwinian Evolution is not a branch of science but a branch of Theology.”
“Darwinian Evolution has no rules because it is not science but a science of fools”

Those fools being theologians? Okay, I can live with that. ;-)

“How did the eye, ear, brain, nose, lungs evolve? These idiots have no answer”
But your answer to the same question is merely ‘Goddidit.” Which is saying you don’t actually know either, It’s just magic. At least science is looking in to how we got here and what we are made of, not just taking the word of some anonymous bronze-age science-fiction writer.

BTW, I’ll go ahead and ask about your reference to Darwin as a theologian… I’m not able to resolve that. What I see is that he studied at an Medical school in Edinburgh and an ‘ordinary degree’ at Cambridge’s Anglican college.
FWIW I graduated from a ‘Baptist University’ but I’ve never, ever been considered a theologian.

I think that secular must have been hurt very badly by someone affiliated with a religious organization, and for that experience I am very sorry.
_____________________________________________
Sorry LALAMALADY, I have not been hurt by any faith. All the mythology had sounded just like any fiction where the good guys are not always good and bad guys are not always bad. But there is one exception in the mythology of scripture the heroes are without exception are blaggards more often than not. The only reason they are heroes is because they are the favorite of the said deity, or the deity itself. That's when I started questioning this whole religion charade. My analysis has led me to the conclusion that these scripture is all men made and in some cases just a man made. There are at least two of them which are just a man made Koran & book of the mormans. Not only that none of these current day religions are intrinsically better than any of the now extinct religions either. The stories in the scripture are all about in-group solidarity and presented as some kind of virtue. All scripture is very parochial an written for a limited geographical locations surrounding the locales where the religion first started. Most of the strictures are again betray a very poor understanding of the nature and are clearly reflect the prevailing scientific knowledge of the day the scripture were developed, or worse. So I reject them as irrelevant to the global village and the present time.

Here's a fact. Don't you liberal morons know that Charles Darwin was a theologian and not a biologist? B.A in Theology. Now that's your "scientist".

It only means that Darwinian Evolution is not a branch of science but a branch of Theology.

Science follow a set of rules. Physics, Chemistry, Math, etc have their set of rules. Darwinian Evolution has no rules because it is not science but a science of fools.
___________________________________________
Spidermean2, you are just a big wind bag. Every post of yours betrays that fact very loudly. Even granting that Darwin by academic training was a Theologian does not in any way take away from his scientific discovery, which has then been validated by innumerable scientists. If your understanding of Evolution is that it has no rules, that is your ignorance. I strongly suggest you take a course in Evolution 101 to learn it.

Should religious faith inform political principles?

Of course not! Our Founding Fathers came from a Europe that suffered through Inquisitions and religous wars (Roundheads vs Cavaliers, anyone?). That's why our Constitution requires no religous test for public office.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State".
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

A timeless debate topic, especially in this country.

I think it is unrealistic that anyone can claim that their personal beliefs will not reflect in their actions, even in some small way. Whether they should or should not is moot. They do and they likely always will. The real question is to what degree can a particular public figure seperate private belief from public policy? That is highly subjective of course but sometimes, with a case like O'Donnell, we can safely bet they will show.

As for more controversial statesments, I think religious fundamentalists and rabid atheists like Mr secular are two sides of the same coin. On the other hand, I don't enjoy the spiritual placations and airy fairy crap that is so pervasive in the "new age" spirituality either (I hope this doesn't apply to you llamalady). If the spiritual does exist, it is a world at least as complex as this one, so having a simplistic view like "God a big man in the sky" or "It's all light and love" or even "It doesn't exist because I'VE never seen it" is mental laziness.

As for you, shadow, it is all well and good to speak of the lofty ideals of seperation of church and state but as with most other lofty ideals, it often becomes inconguent with human nature. Case in point: No OFFICIAL religious test for political office, but really now, if the most reasonable atheist ran for public office in almost any district in the US, what do YOU think the result would be?

Just like there should be a separation of the idiots on a message board who can't spell the word "separation" properly from those who can, but there isn't.

As for more controversial statesments, I think religious fundamentalists and rabid atheists like Mr secular are two sides of the same coin.

Posted by: ashtar377 |
___________________________________________
Religious fundamentalists and so called rabid atheists are not the same. Because we rabid atheists do not impose anything on anyone. the same cannot be said of the religious fundamentalists. We certainly express our opinions ab out various issues of the day without show of any reverence to the religious superstition or the so call new age spiritual mambo jumbo. In the past rationalists like us would reflexively defer to religious folks a lot more than called for by way of normal courtesy and politeness. Often such deference had been used against us in discussions and debates. The so called rabid atheists are not inclined to give that advantage anymore. Courtesy yes, but deference and reverence heck no. Why would do you expect me to treat Mr. Ratzinger any differently than I would treat a Mr. X who abets or ignores sexual harassment at work place. This not even remotely close to the behavior of the religious fundamentalists in the public. We do not demand that there should be laws against any faith position - like say we do not say the Catholics should not go thru the ritual of transubstantiation. We don't demand that Muslims must not pray five times a day or fast during daylight hours. However, we do not care to be told that we too should fast.

You go on to say "On the other hand, I don't enjoy the spiritual placations and airy fairy crap that is so pervasive in the "new age" spirituality either (I hope this doesn't apply to you llamalady)".

How is that different from our position? Only thing extra we do is not let believers truth claims go unchallenged, any more than any other non-religious truth claim go unchallenged. We all, including the people on the fence and the believers will not let non-religious truth claims unchallenged, why should we allow religious truth claims go unchallenged.

Then you further go on "If the spiritual does exist, it is a world at least as complex as this one, so having a simplistic view like "God a big man in the sky" or "It's all light and love" or even "It doesn't exist because I'VE never seen it" is mental laziness"." Absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence, it is not mental laziness. It is a well established principle that the burden of the proof is on the claimant, not on the detractor. Say if I postulate a deity, "Invisible Flying Pink Unicorn". There is no compunction on any one to respect or show any deference to that unless I show its existence at least, if not its divinity. If anything equating the Atheists to Religious fundamentalists is intellectual laziness.

Science is a set of rules. I can state the rules in Physics, Chemistry, Math etc. But can anybody give me just a single rule in evolution?

What's the first step or an Evolution rule which makes an eye evolve. How did it start?

Name any body part and state a single Evolution rule why that part existed and how it appeared.

No body part was ever duplicated in the lab because nobody knows what are the rules of Creation let alone the rules of Evolution.

No rules means it's a SCIENCE OF FOOLS.

How God did it is not the same as no rules did it.

It would be very laughable if you see an individual trained in Theology becoming a project engineer telling other engineers how to build structures. It would only happen in a cartoonish world.

Hello liberal morons. Can't you see how cartoonish you have become?

Darwin did study theology and at one time he intended to be a clergyman. He did also study medicine in Edinburgh, but was too horrified by the sight of surgery (no anesthesia then, all you anti science folks) to continue. His passion was what was then called natural philosophy. To say that he was not a scientist makes no sense, because in the 19th century there were essentially no professional scientists until the 1870's or so, and Cambridge offered degrees essentially in philosophy and mathematics. Science was dominated by clergyman, many of them wealthy, who had time on their hands. Darwin's great influences were the great geologist Lyell, also a clergyman, and Malthus the mathematician, another clergyman. You can't throw ahistorical accusations around.

As for how the lungs, etc, evolve there is not "no answer". There is an extensive body of literature of which creationists choose to remain ignorant. Start with Dawkin's book the Greatest Show on Earth, easy and entertaining to read, and then get into it more deeply is it interests you. Many religious people are able to keep their faith and yet be scientists too. The wonder and beauty of the universe are very great and a reasonable person could believe some larger principle or intelligence is at work. The only thing that is ruled out by science is new earth creationism, and anyone who believes that may as well believe the earth is flat and the sky is a solid firmament studded with our small sun and tiny stars, and that the moon gives its own light. If large numbers of Americans insist on crippling their minds and worse, their children's, with this nonsense we are lost. We are going to be overrun by India, China, the EU and other places where the disbelieving in rationality is not such a problem ( I understand evolution fits in nicely with Hindu beliefs).

Science is a set of rules. I can state the rules in Physics, Chemistry, Math etc. But can anybody give me just a single rule in evolution?

What's the first step or an Evolution rule which makes an eye evolve. How did it start?

Posted by: spidermean2
___________________________________________
I don't know what you mean by set of rules. Science is the study of nature with goal of explaining the natural phenomenon and their underlying principles. Insofar as Evolution, goes the the principles are:
1) Replication is not 100% perfect.
2) Imperfections in replication, also called mutations, that are beneficial to the organism will differentially enable it to survive longer to reproduce.
3) This allows the mutation to be inherited by the progeny ans passed on.

This long series of mutations that continuously enhance the survival and reproduction cumulatively produce eyes, ears, nose, etc, etc.

Hence the evolution is not perfect far from it as it there is no do over. Every new mutation only betters the previous one but does not erase it. As a designer could do, if she chooses to. That is why human body is such a Hodge Podge of a design, because it evolved. If you still believe that sky-daddy did it, I have only one thing to say, your sky-daddy is a losy designer. What kind of an idiot designer would put a huge entertainment extravaganza in the middle of a sewage canal. What kind of a designer is your sky-daddy, who has not internalized fault tolerance and redundancy. How else do you explain redundancy in case of kidneys, and lungs but not for heart, brain, eyes. Don't make the fool assumption that two eyes provide redundancy or fault tolerance. Humans need both eyes to see because the way eye evolved requires both for human to see correctly, with help of tremendous amount of software in the brain. In fact lowly octopus & squid have far better eyesight than us. Hope after this I don't see your stupid posts about Evolution. If you don't understand this I rather you just shut up.

"Replication is not 100% perfect".

There are no similar persons as there are no similar t-shirts or devices 100 percent. But it doesn't not mean that these t-shirts will someday evolve into pants.

People will still be people and would never become into another creature.

Evolution has no rules that is why it can easily engage into cartoonish ideas.

When the eyes, nose, ears first appeared, they appeared just like any tall buildings appeared. They were designed and built and not built on their own without set of rules.

A science without established rules is a SCIENCE OF FOOLS.

When two persones are different, it doesn't mean that the other is imperfect. Evolutionists don't know this because they are a bunch of IDIOTS.

"Imperfections in replication, also called mutations, that are beneficial to the organism will differentially enable it to survive longer to reproduce."

When a person has mutated, he is called a mutant or somebody who has DEFECTIVE DNAs.

In the field of manufacturing, it is called a defective product. If IDIOTS call this a form of evolution , it is because they are IDIOTS.

( I understand evolution fits in nicely with Hindu beliefs).

Posted by: maryannevans2
_____________________________________________
You understand very very poorly. Please down load "The Laws of Manu". The first four pages will set your understanding right about Evolution fitting nicely with Hindu beliefs. It fits in nicely for Hindus is because 99% of them have never cast their eyes on their own scripture beyond abridged versions of Ramayana & Mahabharata, which do not address this issue. So they think that there is no Hindu creation myth. There are in fact multiple of them strewn in different musty tomes. Fortunately they have been consumed on the dust heap of history, hence the ignorance. Alas there is a silver lining in ignorance.

Case in point: No OFFICIAL religious test for political office, but really now, if the most reasonable atheist ran for public office in almost any district in the US, what do YOU think the result would be?
--------------------
Ashtar - Perhaps T. Jefferson was the last deist (and possible atheist) to be elected to public office. That was over 200 years ago. Are we as enlightened today and are we as tolerant as the voters back then? Probably not. But he DID have quite a way with words:

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 (Richard Price had written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion and wrote "Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?")

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820

"This allows the mutation to be inherited by the progeny ans passed on."

A two head snake is a mutant. This kind of defect or any kind of defective mutations cannot be passed on. What actually passed on was the STUPIDITY of Darwin. It has infected many people and made them into MORONS.

Morons are morons because they tend to SELF-DESTRUCT. Someday DOOMSDAY will occur because the time for morons to self-destrcut has come.

I actually tried to read Darwin's book "The Descent of Man". You can tell that the man has no real background in science. The first page was already full of speculations and I didn't continue.

It is more like a fantasy book which can actually be placed side by side with the likes of Spiderman or Aquaman. Man evolving into spiders or fish. He only reversed the process.

If you buy O'Donnell's comments here, I have a bridge to sell you. Where do you think her interpretation of the Constitution comes from? A rigorous understanding of constitutional principles? I seriously doubt it. Do you think she believes in the separation of church and state and would vote to protect it? No way.