Meet Christine O’Donnell: Tea Party Candidate For Delaware’s Next Senator

If you have not previously encountered Christine O’Donnell (who is running for the Republican nomination in Delaware), she is becoming the new face of the Tea Party and what some hope is the new Republican party. One issue that makes her stand out is her rather expansive definition of what constitutes adultery.

She is running against Rep. Mike Castle, a former governor. However, she seems more inclined to debate subjects like masturbation than most politicians, including her position that masturbation is an act of adultery. This could make for an interesting debate.

O’Donnell told an MTV interviewer in 1998 that masturbation is the same as adultery because “the Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery. So you can’t masturbate without lust.” She has also written that “[w]hen a married person uses pornography, or is unfaithful, it compromises not just his (or her) purity, but also compromises the spouse’s purity.”

You have to admit this makes for a much more interesting debate than the usual fare of debating tax rates and federal jurisdiction.

Source: Rawstory

112 thoughts on “Meet Christine O’Donnell: Tea Party Candidate For Delaware’s Next Senator”

  1. Slarti,

    See my above post except for the barbs directed at the troll.

    She has the marks of a theocrat.

  2. Legislating morality? Morales are a religious standard of behavior when being spoken of by a Fundamentalist Christian. There is a secular framework for discussing what constitutes right and wrong in human behavior and they are called ethics.

    She’s already proven that she’s irrational by saying masturbation is the equivalent of adultery when masturbation is self-pleasuring and adultery is something that requires at least three people (again) by defintion.

    adultery \ə-ˈdəl-t(ə-)rē\, n.,

    : voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband; also : an act of adultery

    Compare to masturbation (something you’re well versed in)


    : erotic stimulation especially of one’s own genital organs commonly resulting in orgasm and achieved by manual or other bodily contact exclusive of sexual intercourse, by instrumental manipulation, occasionally by sexual fantasies, or by various combinations of these agencies

    Her “reasoning” is based in Biblical scripture. Probably in the Genesis tale of Onan which says “7 And Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him. 8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother’s [Er’s] wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. 9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. 10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.” 38 Genesis, which is often misstated (also something which you know a lot about – misstating, which is a form of lie) as the shorter misquote “It is better to cast your seed in the belly of a whore than to spill it on the ground.” So not only is she irrational, she’s a Biblical illiterate (like all Fundamentalists).

    There is nothing in her statements to make anyone think that her attempts to legislate morality will be any less faith based than this specious “reasoning”.

  3. Buddha,

    While there is a whole lot of very disturbing crazy in the short quote you posted (the Palin is strong in that one…), it doesn’t seem to violate the 1st amendment, in my opinion.

  4. there you go again, I ask you where she said she wanted to implement a national religion and you quote constitutional law which is the law of the land. Change it up and whirl it around.

    Show me where she says she wants a national religion.

  5. I saw your unfounded assertion and raised you one Constitutional article, one Constitutional Amendment and one valid Supreme Court case.

    I even threw in a news article on the subject of a Christian nation.

    What you got, smart guy?

    Facts got your tongue?

  6. your entire shtick is based on your personal opinion, logic has nothing to do with it.

  7. what part of her quote says she is going to have a national religion?

    There are plenty of books written on both sides of that subject. There you go again. Rhubarb was right about you and your “logic” books.

  8. Yep. Jefferson would be upset with morons on this site. Morons like you and your troll buddies, Theocrat.

    The there are legal standards for what is permissible for involving state and religion and vice-versa.

    Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) has refined the Establishment Clause to be applied using the following test, known as the Lemon test (as in you can suck a Lemon if you think religion in government is permissible).

    In order for governmental action to not violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution it must meet the following criteria:

    1. The government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose;
    2. The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
    3. The government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.

    The net effect of this test not only prohibits government from undue interference in religion, but prohibits religion from influencing government. Any proposed law, like some of the ones I’m certain Wacky O’Donnell is thinking of when she claims she can legislate morality, will not pass this test because even if it meets the first prong of the test (the easiest prong of the test to meet by the way), it has the effect of advancing her particular religion (violating the second prong of the test) and creating excessive government entanglement in religion by trying to force religious based rules upon people who have the first amendment right to have their religion of choice or no religion at all (thus violating the third prong of the test). The United States was formed as a secular nation, not a Christian theocracy, not matter what you delusional wishful thinking tells you.

    Also see Art. VI, cl. 3 of the U.S. Constitution which says “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” [emphasis added]

    That would include any and all religions. Including any flavor of Christianity.

    For further reading on this topic:

    The Myth Of A ‘Christian Nation’

  9. yep, no establishment of a national religion. religion per se is acceptable. Considering how our country was founded by people who were fairly religious and wanted to be left alone to pursue their religious beliefs unencumbered by government, her comments seem perfectly in line with the Constitution.

    Jefferson is furious all right, with most of the morons on this site.

  10. Wow. She’s totally nuts.

    Check this quote out:

    “O’DONNELL: And the Constitution is making a comeback. It’s simply unprecedented in my lifetime. I think it’s a little like the chosen people of Israel and the Hebrew scriptures, who cycle through periods of blessing and suffering and then return to the divine principles in their darker days. It’s almost as if we’re in a season of constitutional repentance. When our country’s on the wrong track, we search back to our first covenant, our founding documents, and the bold and inspired values on which they were based. Those American values enshrined in the Declaration provide the real answer.” [emphasis added]

    She apparently has never read the Declaration or the Constitution and if she has, she clearly doesn’t understand the English language. In particular I direct her to read until she comprehends the part of the Constitution that says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” That little thing called the 1st Amendment that prohibits her from trying to enforce Christianity or any other religion as the standard by which our government operates.

    Thomas Jefferson would be furious with this moron.

  11. This is going to play well with her fundie base:

    O’Donnell admitted in 1999 that she “dabbled into witchcraft. I hung around people who were doing these things. I’m not making this stuff up. I know what they told me they do. One of my first dates with a witch was on a satanic altar and I didn’t know it. I mean, there was a little blood there and stuff like that.

    We went to a movie and then had a little picnic on a satanic altar.” She said this on “Politically Incorrect”.

    After the clip was released, she canceled her scheduled Sunday appearance on CBS’ “Face the Nation” and FAUXNews this Sunday.

    If masturbation is adultery, I’m pretty sure the Jesus crowd considers witchcraft even worse.

  12. Swarthmore mom,

    If that’s true, I guess that I’m volunteering for President Obama in 2012… I’ve repeatedly told people that if Caribou Barbie becomes President I’m going to do my best to expatriate.

    Incidentally Jon Stewart just announced a ‘Rally to Restore Sanity’ in DC on October 30 (Colbert is having a ‘March to Keep Fear Alive’ at the same time). My favorite of the signs (which will be provided to rally goers who have better things to do than to make signs) he showed was ‘9/11 was an OUTSIDE job’. This just goes to show why he’s the most trusted (fake) newsman in America…

  13. Elaine M.
    1, September 15, 2010 at 10:06 pm
    Don’t some Independents typically declare themselves as R or D for a primary and then re-register as Independents? Could some Democrats in Delaware possibly have changed their party just for the primary? Just wondering.


    Ssshhh … I’ll never tell ………..

  14. Don’t some Independents typically declare themselves as R or D for a primary and then re-register as Independents? Could some Democrats in Delaware possibly have changed their party just for the primary? Just wondering.

    Rove is catching heat from Conservatives for criticizing O’Donnell. It looks like they’re starting to eat their own. Wonder if they’ll have a right-wing cannibal party before the elections in November?

  15. Slarti,

    I think they are a far more democratic process than closed primaries. It’s one of the few things Louisiana got right. However, they only apply to state elections because national party rules “forbid it” – just another reason that both the GOP and the DNC need to be dismantled IMO. Party rules governing electoral processes is manifestly undemocratic. It’s just too bad that the underlying issues of corruption in Louisiana negate the rest of the nation readily seeing the value of a system open to any party/candidate that can get the voters to the booths instead of the false dilemma presented in the GOP/DNC package. I think other states (CA comes to mind) have tried to institute the practice, but have failed under partisan pressure.

Comments are closed.