Christine O’Donnell Question For Readers

Posted: 11/06/2008 by that's Elbert in christine o'donnell, Delaware, election, opinions, Politics

This inquiring mind wants to know. It would seem that candidate Christine O’Donnell invoked strong passions of love or hate for her candidacy. These passions even come from those on the right who would normally support her stands against a large intrusive government and higher taxes (Hube being one of them, at least I would think). Can anyone provide their opinions on this? I will be generous on the comment moderation (no profanity though).

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Any candidate that invokes religion in a manner as severe as she had in this election scares me. It is too extreme.

    Elbert, would you, as a conservative christian, vote for a devout athiest, even though he is a very moral and upstanding person?

    What about a race with a strong christian vs an athiest with strong morality and perfect history?

  2. Very good question Brian. I did face a similar dilemma with Mitt Romney. I liked the guy and his views. Most Christians have issues with the Mormon faith, classifying it as a cult. I would agree. However, I did come around and felt confident that he could govern regardless. I would suppose I would have to wrestle with an athiest candidate, but I couldn’t give you an up or down on it without examining the issues of the race.

  3. OK, I just looked over my response and realized that I gave you a political answer. If that person were Christine w/o Christianity, I would say yes, I’d vote for him/her. I doubt I would have campaigned for him/her though. Do we know any pro-life athiests?

    Brian, I would ask, if you believe that she was “too extreme”, what would you fear if she won the election?

  4. That’s fair. Although O’Donnell’s… let’s say “willingness to offer her religion as an issue” was an issue for some, it didn’t turn off many voters. Of all the statewide republicans, she fared the best over a candidate with insane voter turnout and national press coverage on his side.

    I voted for her. Her religion turned me off, but not enough to switch my vote. I am more offended that she made religion an issue than the fact that she was religious. I personally think religious beliefs should be left out of politics, within reason. Basic morality is an exception. The problem is when you stretch your religions morality over another’s.

  5. I would be afraid of her spouting off on issues based on what a Bible scholar she believes interprets the Bible to say on an issue, and being blind to logic about an issue.

    ..because at the core of it, the Bible was manipulated over the centuries to regulate public behavior. To believe in it, lock, stock, and barrel, in blind faith, without personal interpretation scares me.

    Not many things in Washington is as simple as black and white. Many issues are varying shades of gray. If she is closed minded about a topic, blaming religion as the cause… that scares me.

    That’s the core of it.

  6. Jack Stone says:

    I think that your comments about Christine O’Donnell’s religion and talking about religion are just pure fantasy on your part. I saw nothing of what you complain about. I think this shows nothing about Christine, but rather shows your extreme sensitivity to religion, like a vampire’s aversion to sunlight. Seriously. Yes, I am joking. Oh, okay, no, I’m not. Christine’s mentions of religion have been so mainstream, so mild, so bland, and so inoffensive that our Founding Fathers might have doubted whether she was as serious about religion as they were. The people who are flipping out about the most mild honesty about religion and its pivotal role in American history and American life show themselves to be hypersensitive themselves. You have to wake up and realize that 80% of Americans agree with Christine on religion — even if perhaps not on politics — and disagree with you. THey might not vote for her or with her. But when it comes to religion’s role in life, you are the oddball.

  7. Jack Stone says:

    In other words, if a person flips out when exposed to sunlight — which does not bother other, normal people — does this say tehre is something wrong with the sunlgiht? Or is ther esomething wrong with you? Why does a vampire recoil in horror at sunlight?

  8. laurel says:

    Jack Stone-

    Just curious, where did you get that 80% figure?

    Maybe in Sussex County.

  9. Mr. Stone, your comment went through automatically so I didn’t get to edit prior to posting. You wrote:

    But when it comes to religion’s role in life, you are the oddball.

    During this discussion I would rather refrain from personal attacks. It would have been better said, “your ideas are oddball” or something like that.

    Please continue.

  10. It would be good if I state my motives with this post. I would like to know if in fact O’Donnell’s faith played a role in the strong feelings against her. Having some insight there would be helpful.

    Did her openness about her faith turn off some voters? How should a strongly Christian person approach running for an elected office? Should the person’s religion even be mentioned?

  11. I know I am odd. Don’t care, everyone else has to deal with the idea of my nonconformity, it’s not my problem.

    You have to remember that this state, she was running for a statewide position, she wants to represent everyone in this state. Not just the 80% who may be Christians. Many people are private about their religion. Some aren’t regular church people, but still believe…

    She has to represent all Delawarians, not the “kingdom of God.” That might get her votes from her base, but it won’t get you votes in Delaware. It is insensitive to the 20% who believe otherwise. if she wants to represent the kingdom of God, she should have joined the semenary.

    Nothing wrong with being religious, I just prefer that candidates not make it an issue, because I believe your belief should be private.

  12. Hube says:

    I have NO difficulty with someone being overtly religious. I just don’t wanna see it injected into that person’s political stances. Take a gander at that O’Donnell flyer Mike Matthews posted. In addition, I’ve seen O’Donnell on various pundit shows (national, at that) and she comes across as vacuous as the rumors (emphasis b/c they are still just rumors) surrounding Sarah Palin.

  13. Hube, the O’Donnell flyer, I can’t find it on Down With Absolutes. Was it the black and white colored card that compared her and Biden’s moral views? I didn’t see that one until about a week before the election. If it is that one, I would assume that this was the card they were trying to target at Christians not necessarily at the population as a whole. Of course, that doesn’t remove it from scrutiny but it should clarify it’s purpose.

    Vacuous? Really? Maybe we were watching different shows.

    Hube, I appreciate your point of view. Thanks for helping me understand your line of thought.

  14. Jack Stone says:

    BRIAN SHIELDS WROTE: “You have to remember that this state, she was running for a statewide position, she wants to represent everyone in this state. Not just the 80% who may be Christians.”

    This is a nonsensical argument. Compared to whom? Every
    office-holder represents, in some sense, the entire State or district. And yet NEVER will every voter in that district agree with the candidate about everything.

    Why don’t you apply the same standard to liberals who do not represent the views of conservatives in Delaware?

    You are raising a ridiculous standard that does not apply to any one else on any other issue. Biden is the most stridenly pro-abortion Senator in the Congress, and Obama is not far behind. As many as half of Delaware voters disagree, including Catholics who are registered Democrats, and many African-American church-goers who are Pro-Life.

    How then can Biden represent all of Delaware?

    Why do you invent a standard that you selectively apply only to religion, and not to any other issue, and not to liberal candidates?

    Your argument is not sincere.

  15. Jack Stone says:

    HUBE WROTE: “I have NO difficulty with someone being overtly religious. I just don’t wanna see it injected into that person’s political stances.”

    It is horrifying to suggest you can dictate what other people’s political stances can be or how they arrive at their political views. That is the fascism typical of the Left.

    You have no right to tell other people what their political views can or cannot be, or how they arrive at their views. It is fascist to seek to restrict what political views another person is permitted to have or to express in the political sphere.

    Again, the problem is yours, not Christine’s. You are not able to handle people with different views from yours.