Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
A Tea Party candidate in Delaware has a new plank in her platform, a plan to end the scourge of masturbation:
Now that's abstinence. Delaware Tea Party Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell is opposed to masturbation because the Bible says "lusting in your heart" is the same as committing adultery and, as O'Donnell so correctly pointed out in a past MTV interview, "you can't masturbate without lust." During a 2007 debate on sexuality on Fox News, when former Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders complained that "we have a sexually unhealthy society," O'Donnell snapped: "That's wonderful. It's called modesty."
And after success by previous Tea Party candidates, the GOP establishment is taking her campaign seriously:
Jezebel calls O'Donnell a "wackjob," but also points out that dark horse Tea Party candidates can turn out to be stunningly powerful as witnessed in Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski's defeat by Tea Party challenger Joe Miller this week. Now nervous Delaware Republicans are viciously attacking O'Donnell, with state party chairman Tom Ross claiming she "couldn't be elected dog catcher." Dems, convinced they could easily beat O'Donnell, are rooting for her to trounce GOP challenger Rep. Mike Castle in the Senate primary this month.
I think Castle should roll out an explicitly pro-masturbation campaign.
Politics
Comments
I guess the Teabaggers have just gotten tired of being told to go fuck themselves
Posted by: phantomreader42 | September 8, 2010 10:44 AM
Fixed that for you.
Posted by: Chilidog | September 8, 2010 10:44 AM
I can see the bumper stickers now,
"I masturbate, and I vote!"
Posted by: tms | September 8, 2010 10:45 AM
They can't even get the Biblical citations correct can they? The line about lusting in the heart refers to adultery when the target of lust is another man's wife. There is a Biblical story that indicates that God doesn't like masturbation. That's the story of Onan in Genesis (hence the word onanism).
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | September 8, 2010 10:45 AM
I'm wacking off just thinking of her getting the nomination. I wonder how she feels about that. Maybe she's getting a bit randy at the prospects herself. Oh, Christine... you naughty little vixen!
Posted by: Skip | September 8, 2010 10:45 AM
At what point do sane people say Enough! How, exactly, is O'Donnell going to outlaw masturbation? Criminalize sex toys? Protein sensors in tissues? What planet does she come from? However she got here, it is time to send her back regardless of how much help she could provide to the Delaware Dems.
Posted by: MikeMa | September 8, 2010 10:47 AM
Posted by: Morgan | September 8, 2010 10:52 AM
Well, there is one good thing about this. When O'Donnell talks about the little man in the boat, at least we know she is talking about Noah.
Posted by: carlsonjok | September 8, 2010 10:55 AM
I feel cursed with a name like mine. I do LUST after Miss O'Donnell but only in "look but don't touch the joystick" kind of way. I sublimate my sex urges by thinking of our Lord and Savior Glenn Beck, clad only in a loincloth, being crucified for YOUR sins, you sinning sinner. There's Glenn up there on the cross, all hot and sweaty and getting sunburned (because he's a shade of white that a cave fish couldn't reach) and the sweat and blood is running down his proud but humble brow and onto his saintly chest muscles and...um, excuse me, I'll be back in a few minutes.
Posted by: Jack Hoff | September 8, 2010 10:57 AM
Sorry. Onan got punished because he didn't want to impregnate his (dead) brother's wife. He withdrew early and "spilled his seed on the ground", which is where the link to masturbation is claimed, but it wasn't masturbation.
Posted by: a different phil | September 8, 2010 11:05 AM
Oddly enough at a private christian highschool in bible class, it was explained to us that this story has nothing to do with masturbation at all.
Rather, Onan "pulled out" as it were, and allegedly disobeyed God's command to impregnate the widow of a dead man, so that the dead man would be considered to have an heir.
I don't recall what the moral of the story really was other than that disobeying god is bad.
Posted by: Ben P | September 8, 2010 11:06 AM
I thought the main bitch other conservative campaigns were having about the Tea Party movement is that they were choosing to ignore social issues? This seems counter to that plank.
Posted by: tim | September 8, 2010 11:06 AM
You really have to give the tea-baggers a hand for stroking their own egos.
Posted by: Greg Laden | September 8, 2010 11:09 AM
My understanding is that there are only two categories of people. You are either a wanker or a liar.
So into which category do we fit Ms. O'Donnell?
Posted by: JohnM55 | September 8, 2010 11:09 AM
Jezebel calls O'Donnell a "wackjob," but also points out that dark horse Tea Party candidates can turn out to be stunningly powerful as witnessed in Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski's defeat by Tea Party challenger Joe Miller this week.
That quote pretty clearly proves the GOP's willingness to sell out their country for a near-term victory. I'm sure a lot of equally spineless German politicians supported a certain other right-wing wacko for exactly the same unpatriotic reasons back in 1933.
How, exactly, is O'Donnell going to outlaw masturbation?
By giving even more power to the Republicans' only real accomplishment, DHS. As for the specific technical questions, just remember that every technical means employed by Orwell's Ministry of Love/Thought Police is now widely available, only much smaller and less detectable.
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 8, 2010 11:11 AM
Morgan and a Different Phil, valid points (incidentally, Talmudic sources argued a lot over whether the story of Onan only showed that pulling out was a problem in levirate marriages, was a problem only in marriages, or whether any seed spilling was a problem). Still, the story of Onan is a lot more plausibly connected to masturbation than what O'Donnell is quoting.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | September 8, 2010 11:11 AM
They can take my masturbation when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
Posted by: catgirl | September 8, 2010 11:12 AM
But this the party that insists on smaller government, right? So clearly they'll enforce this ban by having random searches and maybe even hidden cameras everywhere. I'm sure those two statements can work together somehow...hey look, a pony!
Posted by: catgirl | September 8, 2010 11:15 AM
Ben P at 11:
That seems to be the point of most stories in the Bible.
Posted by: Jeremy Shaffer | September 8, 2010 11:15 AM
Is it okay if I hate the sin but self-love the sinner?
Posted by: Chris | September 8, 2010 11:17 AM
What's the sound of one hand clapping?
Posted by: MarkusR | September 8, 2010 11:19 AM
Maybe the enlightened minds here can clarify something for me. Tea party, libertarian, and Republicans keep talking about small government but they want to watch what I do when I'm all alone in private?
1) end the department of education
2) leave most policies to the states
3) create a national mutaween to enforce biblical law.
Remember boys and girls sharia law bad Leviticus good.
Posted by: Mr Ed | September 8, 2010 11:20 AM
Dammit, catgirl, you beet me to it. :D
Posted by: Left_Wing_Fox | September 8, 2010 11:20 AM
So it isn't masturbation God hates, but money shots?
Posted by: Freemage | September 8, 2010 11:25 AM
And Rachel Maddow's coverage is a hoot, as she gets so totally embarassed by stories dealing with body things.
Posted by: Scott | September 8, 2010 11:27 AM
"Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great.
If you don't believe this,
God gets quite irate."
and a tip of the Hatlo hat to you know who...
Posted by: Bob Carroll | September 8, 2010 11:32 AM
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Big Brother, indeed. Seems to be the Tea Party platform in a nutshell.
Posted by: momkat | September 8, 2010 11:33 AM
I think there is a joke in there that ends with the punchline "Whatever God catches, he keeps."
Posted by: carlsonjok | September 8, 2010 11:36 AM
Christine O'Donnell is opposed to masturbation because the Bible says "lusting in your heart" is the same as committing adultery and, as O'Donnell so correctly pointed out in a past MTV interview, "you can't masturbate without lust."
Yeah, but what if I'm thinking about my wife when I'm masturbating?
Posted by: Tommykey | September 8, 2010 11:37 AM
I think it's a ridiculous stretch to claim that the story of Onan has anything to do with masturbation, especially since that act never even occured in the story (nor is it ever mentioned anywhere in the Bible that I know of). Onan's sin wasn't about pleasure, sex, or wasting sperm. He refused to honor his dead brother according to their societal traditions by giving him an heir, and he also refused to take care of his brother's widow in a society where women had no other options except prostitution (which is what she ended up doing). What's even worse is that he had sex with this woman to make it appear that he was doing the right thing. I have absolutely no idea how anyone got anything about masturbation from that story, but I guess when you start with the assumption that sexual pleasure is bad, you can contort anything to justify that position.
Posted by: catgirl | September 8, 2010 11:38 AM
@16: true enough, if you wanted to find a Biblical condemnation of masturbation Onan would be near the top of the list. On the other hand, if you had to pick a sin to condemn with it beyond the obvious interpretation above, I'd say birth control would rate higher than masturbation.
Posted by: Morgan | September 8, 2010 11:43 AM
@Jack Hoff: I sublimate my sex urges by thinking of our Lord and Savior Glenn Beck, clad only in a loincloth, being crucified for YOUR sins, you sinning sinner. There's Glenn up there on the cross, all hot and sweaty and getting sunburned, etc.
I daresay that mental image will turn more people away from sexual thoughts than any legal crackdown ever would.
Posted by: Emily | September 8, 2010 11:43 AM
It's perfectly consistent: they want government to be small enough to fit in your bedroom and not be discovered.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | September 8, 2010 11:47 AM
Joking aside this is a winning gambit for anyone crazy enough to do it. If you're a whack-job (pun intended) it's easy to speak out against masturbation but because of ridiculous mores it's difficult for sane people to discuss it being a good thing - politicians with their hyper aversion to any positive talk of all things sexual in particular.
Posted by: David Durant | September 8, 2010 11:53 AM
We all make a mistake, including Republicans, when we lump Alaskan GOP Senatorial candidate Joe Miller in with the rest of the Tea Baggers. He certainly has some extreme views but my initial encounters with him is that he does not share their deficient level of thinking, he's instead both articulate and highly intelligent. I do think his positions are fatally defective because he started with uninformed or misinformed premises, that's common among fundies who arduously attempt to reconcile their attempts to objective truth, however we greatly underestimate him when we conflate him with Sarah Palin or Sharron Angle. He's kind of the Paul Ryan of the Tea Partiers.
A good example is his argument on how to end earmarks in general in spite of the fact that Alaskans are more dependent than any other state on federal largesse. His position is that it shouldn't end until the federal government gives their Alaskan assets to the state of Alaska.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 8, 2010 12:01 PM
Funny how Canny isn't sharing his/her opinions with an eagerly waiting world on this one...
Will we have to rewrite the Teabaggers' slogan/self-description as "Tickled Enough Already"?
And why is it that this year both major parties seem so fiercely determined to put their worst feet forward?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | September 8, 2010 12:05 PM
"Wackjob", hahaha, that's really funny.
Regarding masturbation without lust, eh, I guess she's never been a male teenager. Us men, uh, at that age, we really don't need a reason to masturbate. Just sayin'...
Posted by: James Sweet | September 8, 2010 12:09 PM
Joking aside this is a winning gambit for anyone crazy enough to do it.
I think you underestimate moderate, non-party affiliated Delaware voters. My counter-prediction is that, unless its renounced, this position will do to O'Donnell what Palin did to McCain. The thing to remember is that moderates by nature tend not to be very vocal about their political support. Even after a politician says something absolutely crazy, they are likely to remain neutral in public, including on surveys. But in the privacy of the voting booth, its a different story.
Posted by: eric | September 8, 2010 12:10 PM
The story of Onan is very odd because it occurred before the Law was given, yet the story indicates that the practice of producing an heir for your dead brother's line was pleasing to God. Indeed, the practice later became incorporated into the Law.
Posted by: heddle | September 8, 2010 12:10 PM
"A Tea Party candidate in Delaware has a new plank in her platform,"
Indeed - a plank made of wood?
Posted by: dean | September 8, 2010 12:11 PM
phantomreader42 beat me to it, and at number one at that. Well played, sir or madam.
I guess the only thing I can add is that if this became law and was vigorously enforced in a rigid manner, the level of frustration in this country would build to a climax that would be unleashed in great spasms of violence.
I saw part of a documentary on HBO last night, and they were saying that in Saudi Arabia 65 percent of men and 72 percent of women were depressed and there was basically nothing to do but shop and go to mosque -- no movie theaters, no entertainment of any kind, no music, heavy internet restrictions, no basic interaction with members of the opposite sex. (Of course I'm sure any royal who wants to can be a drunken pig fucker and it's not a problem). No wonder those people are so ready to fucking kill themselves! If I lived in that society I'd jump at the promise of leaving the desert and 72 women, even if they WERE virgins.
Posted by: Fifth Dentist | September 8, 2010 12:16 PM
Well, now we know why the Tea Partiers want to shrink the size of government so much: they need that extra staff, space, and money to accommodate the infrastructure necessary to enforce Biblical Law.
Posted by: Jim | September 8, 2010 12:30 PM
We MUST stiffly resist these whackjobs, with wooden resolve if necessary. Their monkeyish antics should be met with at least a spanking, and if they're too chicken to show themselves they should be left to choke on their next communion wafer.
[/degeneracy]
Posted by: nunyer | September 8, 2010 12:34 PM
That's a good question: they contend that masturbation is linked to lust, but what if I'm a married man thinking about my wife? O'Donnell seems to have a narrow view of what constitutes acceptable sexual behavior in human beings, which appears to be anything but sticking it in straightaway. And, if she intends to legally enforce this position, how would it even be possible? Practical? Have the police be on the look-out for someone who is masturbating? Enlist a civilian force to knock on doors in each neighborhood 24/7 to make sure that all anti-masturbation laws are being abided by?
Posted by: swedishskinjer | September 8, 2010 12:48 PM
We've had tons of basically unenforceable sex laws over the years. They still get passed.
Posted by: Captain Mike | September 8, 2010 12:59 PM
Oh, I don't know about that. I can see the Democratic opponent saying that if she wants to make this the defining plank of her campaign, then the will of the electorate should prevail: those who want the Federal Government enforcing laws against masturbation really should vote for her, and those who don't should vote against her.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | September 8, 2010 1:11 PM
@ 44
Christianists out witlessing* door-to-door could clandestinely check the houses for any evidence of one-on-none activity -- dildos, vibrators, lotions or smutty mags and videos. During such visits they also could look for clues as to whether Adam and Steve are really just roommates.
* Not a typo.
Posted by: Fifth Dentist | September 8, 2010 1:14 PM
heddle: Wasn't Onan (or his brother) a king or nobleman or something? If so, then his refusal to create an heir would have been detrimental to many innocent people -- by creating uncertainty about succession and thus potentially causing civil strife. If I'm guessing right here, then Onan's crime wasn't just violating tradition (and certainly wasn't mere wanking), it was poor leadership and endangerment of innocent people.
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 8, 2010 2:03 PM
RB,
He was a nephew of Joseph of the multi-colored coat fame. The practice, as far as I know, was a general one. You are right--the crime here is neither masturbation nor birth control, but something else. That something else could be seen as a violation of the tradition--but such traditions usually have a practical value--in this case I'm not sure what it is. Maybe, as you say, it has something to do with leadership. Or maybe it just seemed like a good way to honor the dead--to provide the dead with an heir if their was none.
Posted by: heddle | September 8, 2010 2:19 PM
@#14
I think you'll find that's not two types of people. Liar is logically a subset of "wankers" (which, more or less empirically, is exactly consonant with the set "Everyone").
Thus she is a lying wanker.
Posted by: David Waldock | September 8, 2010 2:26 PM
I fapped twice while reading this.
Posted by: Josh | September 8, 2010 2:27 PM
I'm curious to know how she feels about masturbation of, for the entertainment of, or by your primary sexual partner. What about using your hands, or artificial sex toys, during vaginal sex? Is that banned too? How about masturbation as foreplay? My prurient mind wants to know, and is looking for loopholes already.
Posted by: stripey_cat | September 8, 2010 2:47 PM
I just masturbated again reading stripey cat's comment
Posted by: Josh | September 8, 2010 2:51 PM
heddle: catgirl made a good point about taking care of the widow -- and ensuring she had a place by making her a mother. Does this sound plausible to you? I'm sticking with the kingship/succession idea, but protecting the widow also seems a valid requirement.
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 8, 2010 2:52 PM
@6 MikeMa: Actually, there are several states where it is illegal to sell sex toys, in some cases punishable with jail time. This is why sex toys are often labeled "novelty only" or, my personal favorite, "cake topper". Now, you would have to be about 5, or dumber than a bag of rocks to think some of these things could ever be a cake topper, but that's what the package says to skirt the law.
It's tremendously irritating for buyers, sellers and distributors. (IIRC, most of the states with these laws are in the South.)
Posted by: JustaTech | September 8, 2010 2:57 PM
She wants to outlaw that?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Oh, and I thought Michelle Bachmann was crazy. (Okay, Michelle Bachmann *is* crazy, but at least she hasn't suggested that.)
Posted by: Calli Arcale | September 8, 2010 3:07 PM
This sounds like something that Hunter S.Thompson wrote about while on acid.
Posted by: Paen | September 8, 2010 3:15 PM
That's certainly one part of the whole Levirate Marriage thing. However, the main purpose was preservation of inherited property. Ascribing the child of the widow to her late husband wasn't just a note on the birth certificate, it was about maintaining the entailed property of that branch of the family.
A key to how much was about looking out for the widow can be found in the fact that the only widows who qualified were those who had not already borne (male) heirs.
The entire Book of Ruth is about Levirate marriage. It's a short read and actually a pretty good story.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | September 8, 2010 3:17 PM
@JustaTech,
I guess I was vaguely aware of some states with restrictions on sex toys. They are the ones with the huge stores selling them just over the border. Will they never learn?
Posted by: MikeMa | September 8, 2010 3:17 PM
The story of Onan is very odd because it occurred before the Law was given, yet the story indicates that the practice of producing an heir for your dead brother's line was pleasing to God. Indeed, the practice later became incorporated into the Law.
Posted by: heddle | September 8, 2010 12:10 PM
Without sounding TOO snarky; I just LOVE how heddle trots out all these smart sounding words strung together to look like an intellectual endeavor; in service of arguing that the earth is ACTUALLY flat. It boggles the mind.
Posted by: WBPNYC | September 8, 2010 3:20 PM
She doesn't stand much of a chance. Recently, O'Donnell has been alienating the local press by closing press conferences off to them but letting WSJ and other national syndicates to join in. If you don't have the support of your local press, you won't win the election.
But she probably wants to be the next Sarah Palin, so she's on the right track.
Posted by: Shawn | September 8, 2010 3:44 PM
I'm wacking off just thinking of her getting the nomination. I wonder how she feels about that. Maybe she's getting a bit randy at the prospects herself. Oh, Christine... you naughty little vixen!
For a stick-up-the-ass puritan, she IS kind of hot. Much better eye candy than Palin.
Posted by: Gern Blanston | September 8, 2010 4:29 PM
@55
As of now, only Alabama has a law prohibiting the distribution of sex toys. Attempts to revoke it under both federal and state laws have proven unsuccessful, upheld by the 11th Circuit and the state's Supreme Court respectfully.
Texas' sex toy ban was overturned by the 5th Circuit as a violation of the 14th Amendment (another reason the wingnuts have to hate the 14th!), citing Lawrence v. Texas to support the majority ruling. By extension, Mississippi's prohibition on sex toy dissemination would no longer be enforceable.
Interestingly, the 11th circuit struck down a Georgia law prohibiting advertising sex toys. Also interesting is that while Virginia has a law banning obscene items from being sold, sex toys are not labeled as an 'obscene item'. (The obscenity test can be found here.)
Posted by: Objective Scrutator | September 8, 2010 4:37 PM
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but going by her campaign bio and Wikipedia page, Ms. O'Donnell has never been married.
Such a pretty girl too. Astonishing that a
flaming prudelady of suchbatsh|t crazypurity hasn't found the right guy.Maybe she'll meet someone nice in the Tea Party.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | September 8, 2010 4:44 PM
RB
Yes, that sounds very plausible.
Posted by: heddle | September 8, 2010 5:03 PM
Someone should come right out and ask her if she is a virgin.
Posted by: Chilidog | September 8, 2010 5:16 PM
Ah yes,
Get the government off my back and into the bedroom where it belongs.
Sounds like Ronnie.
Posted by: MrEphemeris | September 8, 2010 6:46 PM
With all due respect* to the commenters who essentially repeated the old joke regarding masturbation (98% of people masturbate, 2% are liars), this is simply untrue. A fairly recent study by some wankers at the U of Chicago showed that only 38 percent of women had masturbated in the last year, and only 61 percent of men.
I have no doubts that some of those people were lying, especially considering that the interviews were conducted face-to-face and included subjects ranging in age from 18 to 60. I don't know if this is actually true, but I would bet cash that older people tend to be shyer about sexuality.
Some people are simply not interested in sex of any kind. It's relatively rare, but it does happen. Some people find that their partner's sexual appetites match up with their own to such a degree as to render masturbation unnecessary. Some people simply don't, for religious reasons, social reasons and probably some other stuff that hasn't occurred to me yet.
I'm a highly sexual person, but I often go months at a time without masturbating. I simply don't have the time and/or semen to both satisfy my partners and jerk off. Which is kind of a shame, because I really like masturbating. It's just me, enjoying my own body entirely on my own terms.
Another example: I know a woman who has never masturbated for more than about five seconds. She's open about sex, enjoys sex and is fully capable of orgasm with a partner. However, she feels silly when she tries to masturbate and collapses into fits of giggling. People are funny creatures.
@WBPNYC @60: With all due respect**, shut the fuck up. Heddle was asked a question about a topic he knows more about than most of the commenters here. He then answered it. He is clearly some sort of Christofascist.
@ Molly, NYC: I suspect she falls into one of three categories:
1. She has no interest in sex, and doesn't think you should either.
2. She has an incredibly high interest in sex, but has been raised to believe it's evil and dirty.
3. She's queer, using a definition some commenter (Marilove?) provided some time ago; her sexuality differs from average in some way, and that scares the hell out of her.
* Quite a lot. I love you guys, man. You're all awesome and stuff.***
** None, in this case.
***Yes, I have been drinking.
Posted by: Captain Mike | September 8, 2010 7:45 PM
Captain Mike:
"It's just me, enjoying my own body entirely on my own terms."
What, you don't got no video camera?
Posted by: democommie | September 8, 2010 9:33 PM
Captain Mike, I have to agree with you about WBPNYC, and all the others whose knee-jerk reaction is to belittle anything heddle says. And, no, I have not been drinking, so no disclaimer.
Posted by: momkt | September 8, 2010 9:42 PM
Cpt. Mike and Momkt,
Yes. I'll jump an that bandwagon. The uncontrollable desire to insult xtians at every opportunity (even made-up ones) is pretty boring.
Posted by: LickMyToad | September 8, 2010 10:04 PM
May as well chip in and say that I don't approve of that random, unprovoked snap at Heddle either. When we insult people for no good reason, we risk seeming like a circle of jerks, or even a circle-jerk.
Posted by: Emily | September 8, 2010 10:24 PM
@4: "The line about lusting in the heart refers to adultery when the target of lust is another man's wife."
Really? It's certainly legitimate to view lusting after another man's wife as wrong, but to characterize such a thing as "adultery" is overkill. "Wow, Howard's wife is hot!" is NOT adultery.
Posted by: daniel rotter | September 8, 2010 10:48 PM
OK, I'll stop masturbating as soon as the government starts supplying me with acceptable sex partners.
Posted by: wrpd | September 8, 2010 11:47 PM
While searching for pix of Ms. O'Donnell (yes, I live under a wet tree in Oregon and haven't seen anything of the NJ candidate) I found that she is indeed attractive. I also discovered a tee shirt bearing the slogan "My Ovaries Hurt". I have no idea what this means.
Posted by: John | September 8, 2010 11:49 PM
I will jump off the bandwagon. heddle is not criticized for his christianity. He's criticized for his durable intransigence and virtuostic "skills" at ignoring reality/bending same to fit his worldview. I am, and will remain, a critic unless and until he stops framing his arguments in ways that are, deliberately, unfalsifiable and criticizing others when they point that out. He's a scientist, for fuck sake, he should act like one--not some wild eyed Babbleinspired loon.
Posted by: democommie | September 9, 2010 7:30 AM
@democommie:
Not this time. He was criticised for pointing out an oddity in the biblical story of Onan; any one of us here, xtians, pagans, atheist (as am I) or "other" could have said precisely the same thing and not have been criticised for it.
Posted by: Robin Levett | September 9, 2010 9:06 AM
Re democommie
Mr. democommie might be interested in a comment posted by Prof. Heddle on Jason Rosenhouses' blog that contained the following statement:
I am in rare agreement with my YEC brothers on one point regarding Genesis--it must be historic, especially when talking about Adam. Given the multiple and theologically important NT references to Adam it becomes impossible not to do extreme violence to the NT text if you try to support the argument that Adam was not an actual person. If you could just dismiss Genesis in vacou that would be one thing--but you can't.
http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2010/09/reading_genesis.php#comments
Posted by: SLC | September 9, 2010 9:49 AM
"Castle should roll out an explicitly pro masturbation campaign"
I can see it now - in these hard times you need to vote for a safe pair of hands
Posted by: Matty | September 9, 2010 10:17 AM
I forget how it works, does God kill two kittens for whacking off and one for pulling out, or is it the other way around?
Posted by: st.ace | September 9, 2010 10:57 AM
Robin Levett:
One person said this:
"Without sounding TOO snarky; I just LOVE how heddle trots out all these smart sounding words strung together to look like an intellectual endeavor; in service of arguing that the earth is ACTUALLY flat. It boggles the mind.
Posted by: WBPNYC | September 8, 2010 3:20 PM"
to which Captain Mike said:
"@WBPNYC @60: With all due respect**, shut the fuck up. Heddle was asked a question about a topic he knows more about than most of the commenters here. He then answered it. He is clearly some sort of Christofascist."
after which comment others agreed with Captain Mike (although I can't tell if they agreed with the "christofascist" part of it).
You may have noticed I did not take issue with heddle's statement. That is because I don't give a rat's ass what the Basbble says about sex, drugs, rock'n'roll, bad murder, good "ethnic cleansing", food or much of anything else. It's as factual in most ways as Mother Goose or other childish fictions. The difference, unfortunately, is that folks actually use that fiction (on a cherry picked basis) to support their hatred of the other and justify their decidedly unchristian acts.
SLC's noting of heddle's comment about Adama @142, unless I'm misreading it is heddle saying that "yeah, the bible's not literal, except for the bits that have to be to support MY beliefs". It's horseshit.
Posted by: democommie | September 9, 2010 10:59 AM
D. C. Sessions "Oh, I don't know about that. I can see the Democratic opponent saying that if she wants to make this the defining plank of her campaign, then the will of the electorate should prevail: those who want the Federal Government enforcing laws against masturbation really should vote for her, and those who don't should vote against her."
Now you're just being ridiculous. That's a State issue.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | September 9, 2010 11:11 AM
Based on the Story of Onan It clearly shows that God favors women who swallow rather than spit..
Posted by: Bahbel Mahn | September 9, 2010 5:12 PM
@ Chris (comment 20): In this case, I'd say hate the sinner but love the sin.
Posted by: Darren | September 10, 2010 8:33 AM
Does this mean no more jerk-offs from the Tea Party?
Posted by: Gary Swing | September 16, 2010 1:19 PM
=======================
It is very humorous, when O'Donnell speaks on a biblical principal of sexuality taught by Jesus, that the morally bankrupt culture can't even comprehend it, never mind supporting the notion of taking the moral high-ground instead perversity.
=======================
No, if someone pursues the moral high road, this Sodom and Gomorrah culture will do their best to drag her into the cesspool. The reaction is more a reflection on how our culture has gotten so comfortable wading in the cesspool.
=======================
The response to O'Donnell is a great demonstration of self-justified anti-tolerance. If she espoused some form of perversity, everyone would be cool with that. But, if she talking about sexual purity - the smear machine goes into hyper-drive.
=======================
We try so hard to accept Islam while being experts at Christian-bashing.
Posted by: N Waff | September 17, 2010 1:02 AM
I'm a complete atheist. I don't need religious zealots telling me what morality is. I can name a few religious types who rape little boys, others who want to decapitate your children in the name of god. And I know plenty of atheists who are balanced, kind, and certainly moral. You idiots have been denying the pleasures of the flesh for quite some time, maybe since the 8th century. It is a question of balance...isn't it, which you obviously lack. You project that lack onto the rest of us. You can take your religion and stick it you know where. On the other side of things, in defense of Christians, does Bill Maher have the gulliones to attack Muslims or Jews, or is it only those who don't fight back. Snivelling, wimpmy b-----d!
Posted by: Tomas | September 19, 2010 1:47 PM
Thanks for the blog. A spiritual awakening must be a reality for the Tea Party's influence to be lasting. It is not enough to change politicians, it is not enough to change our financial direction as a nation, we must return to the one who gave us the responsibility to experience freedom and that person is God.
Posted by: Arizona Life Insurance | September 20, 2010 12:18 PM