Oct09
Lawrence O’Donnell Rewrite: Paul Broun, Todd Akin: Bible Thumpers, Selective Readers!
on October 9, 2012 at 5:00 amPosted In: Election 2012
” The Bible Teaches Us How To Run Our Lives & All Of Public Policy & Everything In Society” claims Rep Paul Broun.
The truly sobering thing is that this pair of anti-Science morons sit on the nation’s House Science, Space and Technology Committee.
When Lawrence O’Donnell gets down to brass tacks, it seems that this pair of numbnuts know as little of the Bible as they do of Science, Health or Technology.
Emailed 8am each morning
The Fifties
TheSixties
The Seventies
The Eighties
Rack Jite Quotes
Don’t be too hard on Dr. Watson. He, no doubt, received the conventional medical wisdom of his time, the later 19th Century, and did his best with the knowledge available.
Though, to be fair, about the same 150 years ago, the Emancipation Proclamation was being issued & in-ter-net was what the fish swam into.
Ms. ‘Cat,
I suspect you’re right both the Lt. & LOD can froth at the mouth when the issue of religion comes up. Rationality tends to get lost in the volume.
On the issue of rape; I don’t have answers.
One one hand rape is, and ought to be, a crime.
On the other hand false claims can be made.
We want to punish the one & protect (men) from the other. So there is the requirement for evidence beyond a simple claim. I read the Bible sections to require that the woman has to object at the time of the offense, when that objection has the possibility of bringing assistance. As I said, it makes perfect sense to me.
The “legitimate rape” issue goes back to a medical theory of about 150 years ago stating that a woman couldn’t get pregnant unless she experienced an orgasm. If a woman was “legitimately” raped she wouldn’t enjoy it & thus wouldn’t have an orgasm & thus couldn’t get pregnant. If she enjoyed the experience; i.e. had an orgasm; she wasn’t raped & thus could get pregnant. The question is how Aiken got a hold of one of the medical textbooks used by Dr. John H. Watson?
The Bible also made adultery a crime by women, men were exempt. You know women being weak and slutty and all…
It also says one will miss the kingdom of god if one eats a ham sandwich or a shrimp cocktail.
It also says snakes talk, men live inside of fish and my favorite; in war, GOD SAYS kill every living thing, old woman, babies, donkeys, turnips but save the young virgins for your fking pleasure. I like that! It’s so… Religious.
No that’s not my favorite. My favorite is GOD TELLS the people to go stone TO DEATH an old man who had THE AUDACITY to start a fire (to cook a chicken) on Sunday. Or back then I guess that was Saturday. You see, GOD is an nasty vengeful asshole with more blood on his hands than Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Po Pot and Lady Macbeth combined, squared.
Belief comes from NEED, and the billion or so of us who are doing just fine without it resent and FROTH AT THE MOUTH when such silliness is shoved down our throats. ESPECIALLY when the government does it. And even more ESPECIALLY when the government does it to our children. Which is the WHOLE POINT of school vouchers. If they manage that it will be time to move to a more liberal nation, like Iran. Where more people NOW except evolution than they do here in Jesusland.
Thanks db, that’s an interesting bit of medical history, it begs the question of how ol’ Doc Watson stumbled across that medical revelation. As for Akin, maybe he borrowed a copy from his fellow committee member Dr. Broun, who is apparently using it as current reference material! I believe you’ve solved the mystery; and I’m intrigued, I’ve got to look Dr. Watson up! ; )
O’Donnell confuses me with his “legitimate rape” argument.
The penalty for adultery is death to both parties. I’ve got that part. Don’t necessarily agree, but I understand.
A woman being taken against her will, where assistance is
at hand, must call out for assistance to establish the “against her will” part.
A woman being taken against her will, where no assistance is at hand, does not have to call out to establish the “against her will” part.
I really don’t see why O’Donnell is so upset. It makes perfect sense to me.
I don’t claim to know db, but that’s never stopped me from speculating. I suspect that L O D was making the point that neither of those two clowns seemed to know the Biblical definitions although they claim to base their prospective laws on the book. One of them thinks a woman can prevent pregnancy during a rape. The other says the road to hellfire is through the science of evolution. The definition of rape seems to be a bit nebulous with this pair. I don’t think O’Donnell would have been so worked up had they not claimed that their wacky theories were based upon the Bible, when clearly they’re not. Ya think maybe that’s it?