« BACK | PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

O’Donnell and Lying To Save Lives: Was Castle Right to Withhold His Endorsement?

By: josephusmyer (Diary) | September 19th, 2010 at 06:42 AM |

RESIZE: AAA

In general, it’s wrong for defeated primary candidates to refuse to endorse their opponents. Many “moderates” have been incredibly selfish and sore losers. Murkowski and Crist are the most extreme examples.

Unfortunately, it appears that Delaware could the exception.

O’Donnell’s admission that she dabbled in witchcraft (!) is damaging enough to her credibility, although one could argue that she was young at the time and has since atoned.

No, what is worse is that in the same interview, she claimed that it was morally wrong to lie to a Nazi about where a Jewish child is hiding. I’m sorry, but that is just beyond the pale.

Yes, Lying is generally immoral, sinful and wrong.

But there are worse things. Murder is one of them. Telling a Nazi where a Jewish child is makes you an accessory to murder.

Judaism is the religion with which I have the most familiarity; one of its teachings, called pikuach nefesh, is that when a life is at risk, one can break almost any other commandment (short of murder, rape or idolatry) to save it. I’m sure that most Christians would agree with this. No reasonable person would say that it is better to become complicit in murder than to tell one lie.

There may be gray areas – what if one is unsure that someone will die? But in the scenario given to her, her answer was obviously wrong.

Better to have a moderate without principles than a ‘conservative’ who endorses complicity in murder. O’Donnell should do the honorable thing and stand down as Republican nominee. Castle may, unfortunately, have been right to withhold his endorsement – I could not in good faith support a candidate whose conceptions of morality are so distorted as to be an embarrassment to all people holding conservative views.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES | LOGIN TO COMMENT | REGISTER TODAY

Doc Holliday

I am not saying you are wrong, it could be right. But the facts are we support the Republican and NEVER support the Dem. You are taking claims on the ‘net to be Gospel, so to speak. Why are you doing this, what is your motive. You think the left will support Israel?

renny

We support Reps. after the primaries make their choices, to produce Congressional majorities, take leadership positions, take chairs, and increase staffs, so they can say NO more loudly, gain subpoena power, and change the direction of this administration from anti-American, anti-business, anti-Western civilization, and anti-conservative to positive support for job creation, standard of living improvement, bolster troops in harm’s way at war, and perpetual freedom as Americans understand it.
mom2oneson

Isn’t that next question??? The policy is all females go home if they are pregnant..so can the mother/married female prisoner have marital type of relations with the guard to conceive… .the child will loved an cared for raised by the prisoner/husband at home. That is usually what comes next after the lying to the nazis about the kid hiding question.
I’m sorry no woman is going to turn over a child to someone that wants to harm them..what nonsense this is. I want every person in DC to show their college papers from ethics class if this is ever brought up again. I can’t believe more GOP folks aren’t defending her against this nonsense. In country where the abortifacient drugs and abortion and euthenasia is legal and a president that had an affair with young subordinate they are dragging this out???? She must be a good kid if this is what they have to attack her with..what nonsense.
And my gosh we have REAL ethical situations that need to be answered by Christians for right now, the person that asked her on this talk show should be ashamed of themself. Why don’t they go sit on a hospital ethics committee for a few months and see what people really deal with right now.

http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

See my fuller refutation here in my newest diary

<a href=”http://www.redstate.com/civil_truth/2010/09/19/rescuing-odonnell-from-the-lying-to-save-a-child-from-the-nazis-quagmire/”Rescuing O

mom2oneson

That was so sweet of you

I tried to reply to your last comment to me – to you and aesthete – a few weeks ago but it kept saying I had already posted it. I tried like 5x. I hope you had a good summer.

AceInTX

you’d do well to learn about it.

Mat 6:14
“For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
Mat 6:15
“But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
Tbone

and should shunned by all honest people.

renny

I know dozens of people who were card-carrying Dems. 30-40 years ago, but are now today committed conservatives and card-carrying Republicans. Heaven knows what they said or did in the 60s or 70s, and should that disqualify them from being Republicans today or being tea party members or working to elect candidates from the right?
We need to be united to back Reps., even those impure and non-litmus tested, to fight little o and minions and the Dems. who are bankrupting the country, oppressing the ec. cycle and business, and ruining lives with joblessness and lowered standards of living,
It is always morning in America and we need to make a sunrise in Nov.

Jonbontx

is important. Apparently they were talking about her being a Christian and lying being a sin. Then the question came about her lying to Nazi’s about where Jew’s were hiding. She never said she would tell the Nazi where children were hiding, but instead that God would give her the wisdom on how to not reveal anything without having to lie.
Uma Richie

Setting history aside for a moment, you want to save the life of a hypothetical little girl by helping elect a guy who will support a President who is encouraging Iran to develop nuclear weapons to vaporize 7 million Israelis??????

This diarist cannot be serious.
renny

Let’s leave that to the Dems. who can never be radical enough.

I didn’t work for O’Donnell, altho’ I did for Christie and Brown, and didn’t contribute to her, because I have selected Rubio and Angle for those activities, but now that O’Donnell has been elected by the PEOPLE of DE, I would make phone calls for her and promote her.

And if mentions of witchcraft and some other fringe areas are going to be matters of contention, huge numbers of women poked around in those interests under the urging of feminism in the 70s and 80s, where WICCA and other non-Christian devotions were major topics in the mainstream like the NYTimes.

You people here on Redstate all seem to be about 35-40 years old, mostly altho’ not all male, and living in the constant present (please do not be insulted if my assessment is wrong, as I don’t mean it as a negative, but as a touch stone for reference) and unaware or cognizant of the variety of typical human experience even among the middle class throughout the US over time, especially in the late 20th C.

JSobieski

nt

Tbone

your mother in 15.

Problem solved.

AceInTX
JSobieski

Anybody talking about what they would do in a situation like the classic Gestapo/SS at your door is engaging in fantasy. Unless you have been there, you can’t possibly know how you would hold up.

Both my grandfathers fought in the Polish army in WWII. Growing up, I cut grass for a highly decorated Warsaw uprising survivor. Both my parents grew up in a Poland that was occupied by foreign powers (i.e. Nazi Germany and the USSR).

This argument about lying in a political context is elitism at its most snide. A highbrow discussion in the ivory tower is one thing, but in the realm of politics it is silly. The reality of it is that just about everyone breaks. The only person I know who never acquiesced to torture was Jesus. Everybody else sins. Everybody else lies. Everybody else fails.

Nobody knows exacty how they will react in such a situation. Nobody knows how long they could last in such a situation. To judge any candidate by what they say about such a hypothetical is silly, ergo problem solved and its time to move on.

I, like many on this site, take a lot of pot shots for example at the eagerness of the French to surrender in WWII. Ironically, the people I know who actually resisted the Nazis and the Soviets in WWII are far more sympathetic to the passive (note, I am not talking about active) collaborators than the younger armchair quarterback ranks that include me.

One of the great evil attributes of totalitarian regimes is that it essentially makes immorality unavoidable. Someone points a gun at you and your family saying I kill all of you unless you tell me where X and Y are so I can kill them.

Just thank God we aren’t in that situation, and go on to more practical topics.

mom2oneson

Can you explain the last paragraph more? the “variety of typical human experience even among the middle class throughout the US over time”
Your posts is interesting and I want to understand completely what you are saying.

cordpt

I am, as O’Donnell is, a Catholic. Many of her stances, including some controversial ones, reveal she’s loyal to the teaching and doctrine of the Church. She only gets kudos from me for speaking out on these topics and defending the official positions of Roman Catholicism, Many of us, including me, turn coward too often.

However, in this particular case, she clearly diverts from the Catholic theology. Lying isn’t always sinful.

As the Cathecism teaches us:

The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language.The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it

So,

The golden rule helps one discern, in concrete situations, whether or not it would be appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

However, this hasn’t always been the doctrine of Catholicism. St. Augustine hold the position that lying was always unlawful and that naked truth should always be said regardless of the consequences. The scholastics challenged this opinion – St. Raymund of Pennafort wrote a the major-opus on this issue in his Summa – but it remained the official position of the Church from the Middle Ages until the aggiornamento in spite of the declared opposition of many Catholic thinkers.

Anyway, right now her position, for all its pedigree – it’s what not only Augustine but also St. Thomas defended and I’m not going into that but they present extremely strong theological and rational arguments – is not the one taught by the Church of Rome.

Uma Richie

When does discretion=lying?
When does not revealing the truth=lying?

You just proved that the ability to copy and paste does not equal the ability to read and comprehend.

Here’s the question relevant to this election:
How many bearded Marxists have gone door to door looking for Jews to persecute?

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
strategerist

I read the commandment and it tells me not to bear false witness against my neighbor.

Why was it written that way? Why not just “Deceive none”. and be done with it? I am clearly not to bear false witness against my neighbor, but might I be justified in deceiving my enemy in war?

Would someone like to step up and say that employing deception in an active war is, in the eyes of God, the same thing as “bearing false witness against your neighbor”?

So when we tricked the Nazis that we were going to be in one place, and then launched the D-day invasion from another place, were we “bearing false witness against our neighbors”? Collectively, or just the decision makers?

What about camouflage? I mean, we are visually representing ourselves as part of the natural flora, but that is not the truth, is it?

If you want to get really pedantic, what about people who wear clothing or make up to enhance their appearance? If I wear a girdle to hold in my manly paunch while looking for a date, am I telling a lie about my weight? If I order a diet soda and a salad instead of my usually beer and burger, am I deceiving a potential mate about my habits and character?

I think we can look to another commandment – the one about killing – for a little perspective: Is it wrong to kill someone? Of course, it depends.

Now let us think about this with some clarity. Does anyone think that, if you had a loaded .45 automatic pistol in hand, that you would be committing a sin to blow that blankety-youknow-what Nazis head right off?

So… what kind of universe is this where we are in a situation where killing someone is highly justified, but lying to them is a sin?

Help me out here.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

One must love God and your neighbor as yourself, and certainly loving one’s neighbor would not require ratting them out to NAZIS.

The Bible. We have the book!

calgacus

Forget it. The good thing is that Castle is gone. As for witchcraft, how can the Left attack her for this- it’s religious intolerance!

The Democrats have Alvin Greene, we do not need to ashamed.

AceInTX

support the nominee

calgacus

I certainly hope that she wins, although it is doubtful. I am more concerned about races in Nevada, Colorado, Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconisn.

AceInTX
aesthete

O’Donnell’s various statements ensure that college dorm room discussions will become passe in political circles once more. Perhaps we can debate whether God can make a rock so large he can’t move it, as well *facepalm*

I concur with the sentiment behind the Thomas Jefferson quote: “But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” If O’Donnell engaged in some dorm room discussion on morality on national television, what is it to us? Despite my reservations concerning O’Donnell, I highly doubt that she’s itching to outlaw masturbation, witchery, or lying. I know for a fact that Coons would like to make it harder for me and mine to live our lives as we see fit, and that he would make it harder for us to defend ourselves (both nationally and individually) from those who would take away that right. Perhaps that, and not O’Donnell’s wacky views, should be the fringe, and treated as such.

cordpt

I don’t think Coons will bother to put up attack ads, but an add contrasting this statement with the one about winning 2 counties in the elections would probably be fatal to her campaign.

AceInTX

Coons has plenty of Republicans working on his behalf
josephusmyer

To summarize my response:

1. Yes, she’s a million times better than the Democrat
2. She is certainly more conservative than Castle
3. I don’t know why Castle didn’t endorse – he might well just be a bad loser (and that certainly seems to play a part anyway)

BUT

She did say some unbelievably stupid things, and even at that age should have known better. They provide fodder for the Left to paint everyone even slightly of the right as crazy.

She should make it clear that these statements were the folly of youth and misrepresent her position, and should clarify and move on. If she doesn’t, she is abusing the sacred trust Delaware voters have put in her by nominating her by making it such that there is no sensible option for conservatives on the ballot.

I hope I’m wrong about her, and it goes without saying that she’s far better than the Democrat. But if I were in the position to be endorsing candidates, I’d say that I still have serious concerns that would need to be met before I could back her officially.

izoneguy

That is the real mystery?

Everyone who is anyone has said some stupid things.

When you say stupid things and 10 years later you win a Senate primary….you should learn to not say anymore stupid things.

At least she never admitted to being a Bearded Marxist.

SteveLA

izoneguy

Ms. O’Donnell is an attractive lady and was even more so in her younger appearances. Throw in that she was the “conservative” and one that would make statements which appealed to Liberals trying to paint conservatives in a specific non flattering way on many of these shows, well that’s how you get from here to there. I’m sure she made a few dollars too, which is not a bad thing ether.

JSobieski

Bill isn’t exactly courageous, so he tried to pick someone that he thought he could beat. In other words he picker her because she wasn’t guarded in what she said. If she would have been more guarded, she wouldn’t have been asked back.

She actually did pretty well, all things considered but the Stockholm syndrome often results in media dynamics.

izoneguy

Memo to the Right: “The Lombardi Rule” Is In Effect

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/09/memo-to-right-lombardi-rule-is-in.html

To those on the right playing into the Think Progress and Media Matters playbook because they think it makes them look wise, don’t you see the game?

The left is doing to O’Donnell exactly what they did to Sharron Angle — swamp her with accusations and nonsense in the days after the primary to keep her from organizing her campaign. The Nevada primary was months ago, so Angle had a chance to recover. O’Donnell doesn’t have that luxury of time given the late primary. She needs to integrate millions of dollars in new cash, gear up with staff, and plan her attack.

With each of your self-righteous columns and snide blog posts, you become part of the problem not part of the solution.

Long Don Johnson

and it was a bloody TV show….eons ago

everybody swab my deck and get over it

cwilson

and the autobiographical book/movie about her family’s work as part of the Dutch underground during WWII, named The Hiding Place.

One of the points of the book was that the Ten Booms refused to lie when their house was raided (as it was, multiple times) — trusting God that He would provide a way of escape. According to the book, the Nazis never actually asked “Are you harboring Jews in your home” — and thus, although they had decided not to lie, they never had to.

While Corrie attributes this to supernatural protection for the Jews and Resistance fighters hidden in her bedroom, that protection did not extend to the family itself. Eventually, the entire family was taken into custody and Corrie herself was, I think, the sole survivor.

I don’t know if I’d have enough faith to make the same decisions they did…

I just have two criticisms of Ms. O’Donnell on this point: (1) without the background (The Hiding Place and its themes were common currency for evangelicals of her — and my — age) those statements sound REALLY bad — instead of an expression of faith in God’s sovereignty and protection. So…she shoulda known better than to say it without LOTS of explanation in a hostile forum like Bill Meyer’s HBO show. And (2), it takes a LOT of hubris to assert that she WOULD act as Corrie Ten Boom did. She might HOPE to — but without actually having faced the choice, that’s a really arrogant statement to make.

cwilson

1 Cor 10:13 “No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.”

Would I have the faith to trust God, that when tempted under such drastic circumstances to commit a sin — such as lying to protect innocents — that I would choose to avoid the lie? And yet have faith that God himself would do what I didn’t, and provide protection by some other means than my own sin?

I don’t know. There is even a strong case to be made that such a lie is not, in itself, a sin…

But this is not the cut and dried issue that amdg, with his bromides about “Amateur Theologians”, seems to think. And…not everyone faced with such choices will BE seminary trained theologians; these are questions that ALL of us may be faced with, and should consider.

greeneyeshade

But this is not the cut and dried issue that amdg, with his bromides about

cwilson

that lying in this situation was not sinful.

morstar150

O’Donnell may have issues that will make her hard to elect. But how many people here voted for John McCain for president. Whether you stayed at home or voted for the libertarian candidate, of course you didn’t vote for “Change,” but most people here were not happy with the Republican choice.

It is the same in Delaware. The stronger candidate won. The winning candidate never voted to impeach President Bush. The winning candidate would never vote for cap and tax. The winning candidate would not vote for a stimulus plan that destroyed the budget or a Health Care Plan that will bankrupt the country.

People seem to miss the message here. We the people are not going to support the big government, big spending, high taxing policies of the pelosi, reed crowd, Castle was part of that crowd.

Long Don Johnson

well said

http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

But your attacking O’Donnell here on the Nazis statement is reflects lack of clear thinking on your part.

It was too long for a comment, but here’s my diary response

Rescuing O
dvdmsr

She was young and fully consumed in ideals she clearly was not used to defending from those bent derriding her faith. She did her best to defend her principles in that situation,

That said she did not necessarily say she would give up the child to the Nazis. She side stepped the question by suggesting she had faith God would give her a way out without having to resort to deception.

Again, the primary is over, or is there somthing from her high school diary you want to share.
reddog53

The source of the quote is a blog with a pretty obvious viewpoint — which isn’t bad, per se. However, the extracted quote hangs there without little support.

Her point about the truth is valid.

Your point about the righteousness of those that did lie to the Nazis to protect Jewish refugees is a pretty extreme example, worthy of some additional thought and discussion, which I believe as a Senator, she would be capable of navigating quite well.

I agree with dvdmsr: just give it a rest.
Doc Holliday

I doubt many here voted for her. But if this is wrong, people will not forget those that were first to jump on any negativity. I will not say the diarist is wrong because I do not know. If he is right, we are in trouble. But even then, I would not support a leftist.
Doc Holliday

so I am guessing you are right. She looked and sounded like a Valley Girl in those clips. What possessed (pun intended) her to do this I have no idea. It seems like she was very young and wanted to be on tv.

If you are asking me to say: “well I never!” you will have a long wait. We can either vote for a conservative with a really weird PUBLIC past or a leftist who will help Obama destroy the nation. I will support the conservative because I am not worried about her family values. I want her to REDUCE the size of government, so the peccadilloes of congresscritters will not harm my pursuit of happiness.

What is she going to do here, turn in Ann Frank? Is she going to make witchcraft the national religion? this is my problem with some “values voters” they have no perspective. I want Christine to be one more conservative vote, one more vote for Republican leadership, and that is all. I really don’t care if she is a muppet I want the Republican to win. I will support her as long as she stays in the race. No one is looking at Coons, the reason is they don’t want to find anything.
jstjoan

“The woman (at the time, a young woman) went on MTV and Maher and who knows where else, and said somethings that she would not say now. For that sin you are ready to toss her overboard so that you can declare yourselves to have been wiser than the unwashed voters who elected her in the primary?”

Read the whole thing.
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/09/memo-to-right-lombardi-rule-is-in.html
JadedByPolitics

who will have been either on a reality show or Facebook or Twitter and ALL the things they will have said or done as young adults and you pretty much have the X generation of today and their MTV etc., things. These are NOT dis-qualifiers no more then a cocaine snorting, Black Liberation Theology, Marxist parents President were!
aesthete

I honestly have no idea whether she will be a DeMint, a Ron Paul, or a Hayworth in the Senate (though if pressed, I’d guess she’d be closer to a Hayworth). What I do know is what Coons will be: a Karl Marx. While I don’t plan on sending any funds, that alone should make rhetorically supporting Christine O’Donnell over Coons a no-brainer.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

Biden’s Office of the President of the Senate in the US Senate half of the Capitol!
JadedByPolitics

she said that God would give her the RIGHT answer and WE ALL KNOW that God would NEVER allow the Jew to be turned over to the Nazi’s!
Doc Holliday

I am supporting her. But if a Nazi asked me to tell them where Jew was, I would shoot him or stab him or punch him. Different strokes I guess.

In the end, I have perspective. I can be honest and say this candidate has a lot of baggage. I can also admit the MSM will trash her up ’til the election. We can’t be like Daily Kos and pretend it is not happening, like they do with their candidates. Nor should we freak out every time something comes out.

I think I have been clear what I expect of this lady, I want a R as the Senator from Delaware. I won’t back down because there is no plan b.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

and also sentenced us all to death for sin, with the way to salvation and eternal life being to choose his Son as Lord. God came down to earth to suffer and die as well to make this possible. The suffering and process of life is part of the necessary process thru which God makes sons of God that can live forever with him.

An early aprt of that process was to take one people, the Jews, and work with them for centuries to show mankind that we cannot earn our sonship thru the law or works.

These are not easy truths and that a younger O’Donnell was less than a CS Lewis at dealing with the dilema of whether it is OK to lie to save lives is understandable. Older folks don’t like to face the many dilemas of why God allows suffering.

I have been meaning to write a column on this subject for a long time and may well do so. The texts I will refer to are

Mere Christianity by CS Lewis
The Bible
A Travel Guide to Heaven by DeStefano

more later
JadedByPolitics

those being asked those questions by the Nazi’s would NOT have had the ability to shoot or stab them and punching them would have been certain death. Let us not fantasize about how we would like history to be and stick with the FACTS.

I too recognize the woman has issue’s but she is also a vote AGAINST Cap & Trade and Lisa Murkowski is a vote FOR since she has been let go by the people in the lame duck session!
AceInTX

and almost anything she said would be wrong.

Sin is anything that violates GODs standard of righteousness.

Lying is a sin.

Murder or Complicity in a murder is a sin.

Both statements are true.

If you tell a lie you are committing a sin…it doesn’t matter why you told the lie. Lying to protect a Jewish child would be a sin because you would be violating GOD’s standard of righteousness.

I didn’t hear the statement but from what info I have, what O’Donnell said here is true and correct from a biblical stand point whether it be the Bible, or the Torah as I understand it’s teachings since it is the Old Testament Christians rely on.

That’s different than asking me if I’d lie about the whereabouts of a Jewish child.

There are to things one could do in this situation that would protect the Jewish child.

1) Lie about the whereabouts of the child. Yes I would be sinning and willfully so…But GOD has made a way of redemption for me precisely BECAUSE of quandaries like this. Christ paid my sin debt 2000+ years ago as such…this sin has already been atoned for.

2) simply refuse to answer the question which avoids both sins altogether. Obviously this would put me in physical jeopardy and I might well be tortured and die as a result…which has nothing to do with whether it would be a sin to lie in this instant.
Doc Holliday

I did not live in the past, I live now. I know what I would do if a killer asked me to give them a victim, you don’t have to believe it.
JadedByPolitics

would have been given the answer. God did NOT allow 6 million Jews to die, those who killed those Jews REJECT Him and in such they and they alone killed 6 million Jews!
Doc Holliday

but if you give me a specific scenario, I will offer what I believe I would do. I have been Christian much longer than O’donnell and I would have never given the answer she gave. Would I lie to save an innocent life? Hell yes I would and only a coward would do otherwise.

God does allow suffering, but he also gave good men the will to stop it with human force. You know, there are theological “intellectuals” too Mike. The religious saying that rings most true to the human condition is that God helps those who help themselves. For example, I never ask God to fix tough situations for me, I ask Him to give me the strength to fix the situation myself.
JadedByPolitics

Good gracious gentlemen its Sunday, lets not have a theological debate…LOL! Isn’t this supposed to be a day of rest. Let us as well not give this HIT diary anymore attention since WE three are on the same page.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

Everyone dies one day. Bad things happen to good people. God allows all this because of his plan. Those that don’t die at an old age, die younger. God’s answer is Jesus Christ, who came to die for us at age 33. My mother died at age 36. Dad at 65. My son died soon after birth.

All die, all that is different is the AGE one dies and its real bad when older folks not killed by NAZIS die too btw as they are just as dead, and just because O’Donnell would pray for wisdom in a difficult situation (not difficult unless one takes the bear false witness literally in all contexts) doesn’t mean that God’s answer would have saved those particular Ann Frank-like jews from death at the time, and surely not later.

Yes, Jaded, if God could prevent all death and doesn’t, then yes, he allows death. The reasons are explained in the Bible and in CS Lewis’s book Mere Christianity and just because we support (and I do) a wacky airhead in Delaware doesn’t change the facts of life and death.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

my sermon is finished and column will follow eventually. Been working on it for months. But the fact remains that we are all under a sentence of death due to sin, whether we are a NAZI, target of NAZIS or Mother Teresa. All will die separated from God save for Jesus Christ, no matter their age or how well they have lived.
amdg

The day of rest was meant to turn our thoughts to God.

One could make the caset hat being on the internet, compels others (support staff, technicians) to be working today so if you really want to go down that line-well…
AceInTX

and it makes my heart ache for you
mom2oneson

I am so sorry about your son.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

this instance…just saying
AceInTX

Once one is saved…all is forgotten. The Bible says GOD casts our sins away as far as the east is from the west.

GOD knows I’d hate to have any of my sins prior to being saved held against me….or this I have committed and commit every day since because I’m a sinner saved by grace. I didn’t become perfect once I was saved…I was forgive for all my since…past present and future.
amdg

This what drives me nuts about amateur theologians:

If I’m in this situation, I have three choices:

1.) Provide the information requested. Result: Death of the Innocent.

2.) Refuse to provide the information: result, suicide.

3.) Lie: provide no material cooperation with evil, and perhaps cause them to expend resources in a fool’s errand.

Sin requires consent of the will. I have no consent of the will here.

O’Donnell is wrong and so are you. The sin lies with the Nazi seeking to compel me to materially cooperate with him. This is the problem with the sons of Luther, who called reason a “whore”.
jimmyg

How much in scarce resources do we allocate to her given her past statements? We can excuse many of her statements because of her youth, yet 3 years ago on O’Reilly she said that U.S. Corporations are producing mice with human brains. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311946,00.html
rbdwiggins

They will, in fact, be absolute dis-qualifiers for all potential conservative candidates.

A waiver will, in fact, be granted for all potential left-leaning candidates and those seeking to make electoral “history” or fundamentally transform America.

Unless… The Department of Education is repealed, the university system is reformed, absolute control over our failed government schools is returned to the States and J-Schools are no longer Marxist propaganda and indoctrination centers.
Tbone

they would do or say with a gun, or worse, pointed at their head is a liar or fool. The Bible gives us this context in the story of Peter denying Christ 3 times AFTER he assured Christ he wouldn’t. Yet, I think he turned out OK.

Second, if we disqualify people for things said before they are 30, we are in denial of our own personal histories.

Third, this diary is a worthless pile of crap and the person who wrote is wasting bandwidth and oxygen.
zornorph

Yea, I know and believe that as well. I also know how we’d react if a clip of a Dem candidate showed up with them saying the exact same thing.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

a boy and a girl, that I raised from ages 5 and 6, to ages 13 and 14, respectively until the inevitable divorce….I did turn the grandma and mother-raised kids from wild animals running wild and running those of women and a weak grandpa, into civilized human beings that behaved when the King of the castle, i.e ME, spoke!
JadedByPolitics

you were hell bent and determined to rake someone over the coals on the way to YOUR opinion. In the future do not mock my typing it is really a nasty snide way the lefties and ignoramuses use to give the impression they are smarter then me. I tried to lighten the mood with my comment and you are full bore on a mission so go write your diary and lift it off of your brain.
JSobieski

A death resulting from a refusal to cooperate with evil is not the same thing as a suicide, it is rather, the death of an innocent–yourself.

Self-sacrfice in this context is not only not a sin, it is actually following the example of Jesus being sacrificed.
cordpt

That was exactly the position of St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas and, btw, Kant (in fact, the way O’Donnell explains her position is eminently Kantian, more than Augustinian). You may disagree with their view (I do), but they surely weren’t amateur theologians/moralist.
AceInTX

I don’t recall ever speaking to you on Red State amdg so how would you know whether I am an armature or a professional theologian? Do I hold any degrees in theology? Am I an ordained minister of the gospel? Assuming I am or have neither….would that determining whether what I say is right or wrong in this instance? would it make any difference is I had read all the writings of CS Lewis, Wesley, Whitfild, Calvin, St. Francis, Mugeridge, Moody or any countless number of saint’s and theologians throughout histoty?

On what basis do you make such an assumption?

What’s at issue here is that I can see and understand the possibility…or even the probability that what you’ve written is true and correct…but I choose to believe otherwise because of my knowledge of and faith in other writings specifically the Bible.

I can see a case can be made that a coerced lie isn’t a sin…I just come down on the side that it’s still a lie….That God condemns lying…therefore, the lie in this instance is still a sin. but I’d lie….

That’s where begin….But it’s only the beginning….Do I think GOD has a special dispensation where such a sin is committed? Is this an instance where HE would compromise HIS righteousness in declaring this LIE to not be a sin? I believe HE could….I just don’t believe he does.

Then I get to this…HE knows these types of dilemmas exist…and he made provision for this eventuality….He sent his son do die on the cross to pay for my sins….be they well intentioned sins or not…

So…we come to…do I believe I will be condemned for what I believe HE still considers to be a sin….No I do not…I won’t be condemned for this sin….because I have a redeemer who has paid the penalty for this sin.

You may see it otherwise…and you may well be right…Assuming you are a child of the King…I look forward to discussing it with you some day in eternity…when it will all be made clear.

WHICH BRINGS ME MACK TO MY POINT!

Try compressing everything I just wrote into 30 seconds….And do it without making it look like I’m condemning the act of lying in order to save the life of a Jewish child.
amdg

It is the death of an innocent, needlessly and without benefit.

It wasn’t like the Nazis needed yet another pretext to sate their bloodlust. Not exactly like running in a burning building.

BTW, I very much like your pseudonym.
AceInTX

I’m not saying I wouldn’t lie….but it is a sin….regardless of the well intentioned motive…

Would GOD see it differently? I don’t know…I think his standards are pretty black and white….either or….pure and simple.

There is a difference. I’m not sure I’m making sense here but there is a difference….there is the way GOD sees it…and his standard which is absolute….then there is our standard and how we apply his in every day life….

but all of that is besides the point…the point is…It took me a couple paragraphs to lay it out….30 seconds doesn’t allow for that….

in thirty seconds you get “AceInTX thinks it would be wrong to lie in order to protect a Jewish child from the NAZIs when I never said any such thing….I said it’s still a sin IMHO….I didn’t say it would be wrong to commit the sin!
AceInTX
AceInTX

you also did it in such a way that brings glory upon GOD….THAT is the benefit….

And to further your above point…you wouldn’t be committing suicide….you would be KILLED by the NAZI soldier….so the sin would be HIS!

Amature theologian?

Bah!
JSobieski

is a benefit, and it is supported by the example of Jesus himself, both in word and in deed. No greater gift can a man give than to die for another.

Did the crucification of Jesus need to sate the bloodlust of the Romans, Pharisees, and/or Sadducees to be a “benefit”?
AceInTX

Try compressing that all down to thirty seconds with Bill Meahr and 3 other commie/libs cat calling and throwing fecal matter at you from the peanut gallery.

I haven’t seen the clip…but I don’t doubt she came off looking bad…which is another reason I think Republicans/Conserbvatives should stop playing the media game of going on opinion shows where the moderator and 2 3 or 4 left of center professional motor mouths play monkey in the middle with you.

Bill Safire did it for years on MTP, George Will did it for years on This week…and Bob Novack did it for years on CNN and PBS….it drives me nuts….

stop playing ball with these scum who insist on rigging the game from the opening kick off to the final gun.
amdg

On what basis do you make such an assumption?

Your imputation of sin to a person acting under extreme duress.

Res Ipsa Loquitor
cwilson

That’s the first time I’ve ever heard THAT charge made. Foolhardy, maybe. Faithful to the point of irrationality — and death, for most of them, possibly. But cowardly?

I don’t think so.

(See my post below about Corrie Ten Boom and The Hiding Place).
aesthete

Than malevolent, IMO. The context was the Clinton impeachment, and O’Donnell was arguing that moral standards are necessary for our political leaders, etc. Mostly, the sort of idealistic, unimportant fluff that consumed that entire argument, but nothing horrific.
amdg

I don’t know what “exactly” the position of Aquinas or Augustine was here, because I’m fairly certain they never addressed lying to Nazis.

As for Kant, as I recall he was a philosopher who touched, not a theologian at all.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

contains a Golden love they neighbor Rule that allows bearing false witness under circumstances in which the lie would be the way to love a neighbor, as in the case of NAZI demands for their lives.
AceInTX
amdg

As for Kant, as I recall he was a philosopher who touched on metaphysical issues as philosophical constructs so not an amateur theologian, in fact not a theologian at all.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
AceInTX
amdg

I would rather lie to a tyrant than to provide them with a flimsy excuse to kill me.
cwilson

Sidestepping the argument about whether lying to protect innocent life is a sin or not, and going directly to the argument that acting under “extreme duress” excuses what would otherwise be sin under God’s law, 1 Cor 10:13 says:

And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.

So, in this hypothetical situation, either God provided a way out and you refused to take it (which is sin)…or God’s Word is false.

The duress argument provides an explanation for sin, but not an excuse.

That sets an impossible standard, I know. If even sin committed under duress is not excused — who then can avoid it? But…that’s kind of the theme of the gospel, is it not? That all have sinned; it is impossible to achieve sinlessness in our own power — and we must throw ourselves on the mercy and forgiveness of God, which He has freely provided through His Son Jesus Christ.
http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

theologian. Duress is not a “hall pass” when standing before the White Throne.
AceInTX

There is what the Bible says…there are writings from theologians from the last 2 Melania that would support what I have said…and finally I closed with the statement that I know both sides of this argument and have taken the position I have based on faith…

Yet you make assumptions and continue with your silliness based on nothing and give no facts to back up any of it.

It’s a matter of opinion…and again I’ll point out that there are men far smarter and qualified than either of us who have debated this over those Melania and the discussion for or against my…and apparently Mr’s O’Donnell’s position doesn’t lend itself to a 30 second sound bite!

Especially when said soundbite is taken from a segment of a show moderated by a far left blowhard and know it all who has surrounded himself with three other left wing kooks who’s sole reason for being on the show is to hurl poop at the token conservative on the panel and make said far left kook look good and brilliant for his juvenile and hateful invective.

That last was my point….and the rest of it is for another thread…SO you can take your personal attacks on my ability to reason and think and stick it where it belongs.
greeneyeshade

Folks, lets be honest here. I’m not going to try to look into her soul or hold her accountable for every youthful indiscretion.

So let examine her NOW. To me, she seems rather indiscreet and injudicious, basically she just doesn’t know when to shut up.

Its one thing to state that you believe self-gratification is wrong. Those agree, will continue to do so-others will resort to the predictable leftist BS. The point is, that’s hardly relevant to the public debate. Then she gets into a how-many-angels -can-dance on the head of a pin argument about lying to Nazis is just DUMB. I’m no theologian, but I know the looser your carry the ball-the more the other team’s linebackers (the MSM) try to put it on the turf.

Now we have this disclosure about witchcraft. Since she’s a Catholic, that sounds like a matter to discuss with her confessor. We all do stupid/wrong things. Most of us know that absolute public candor is self-impeaching and foolish.

A politician needs to know when to shut up. Ms. O’Donnell doesn’t. It doesn’t mean she is evil, or has nothing to offer, but getting attention and being credible are two different things. For those of us outside of Delaware, we need to think about where to allocate our limited-and all the more so since Obamanomics.. Do we spend it on somebody that constantly self-indicts or support the nominee in Alaska? I’m sending money to Alaska.

Sure there’s a lot of energy tied up here. Castle is/was a disaster.
However, there comes point when an investment starts to present a lot of risk and you need to know when to bail.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

mocking your typing? seriously

Sorry that what I said upset you so, but i understand that death and suffering and God’s and prayer’s role in same and in decision making is a serious one, especially given that everyone that meant anything to me up and died on me.

But i’m a lifelong Christian Bible believer in God’s greater plan, and I feel a calling to rebut populist thinking about expected effects of prayer and good living on suffering and death and in our life here and in the hereafter, and one step towards the truth for all is that God certainly does “allow”suffering. Only after we accept that he does, can some people then begin to take God seriously.

I felt like O’Donnell’s vague and amorphous statement and especially the felt need to defend it, required that I speak out.

Sorry that it upset you. But I still love you and Christine…and one of my two ex-wives…probably getting easier to see why I have two exes and why I can make cross-examined witnesses curl up in the fetal position and cry…smile…

more later in another forum…maybe even in the column I have been working on for 40+, and at leas t the last 2 yrs!
JSobieski

Jesus wasn’t crucified in some clean and painless manner—he was made to suffer. Moreover, when he was alive, he tended to the sufferings of others, but he did not end suffering on earth.

Suffering plays a profound role in molding us to be closer to God and closer to our fellow man.

It is hard to identify a profoundly religious and spiritual person who has not been molded by suffering. Job prior to his sufferings did not truly have the faith of an adult. Only after suffering did he reach a deeper relationship with God.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

I had Dad and my grandmother. The more lasting blows were losing them in the late 90s while alone in many ways. Don’t think I’ve ever not felt alone since for more than 16 hours…Life is hard.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

at the DeVine household these past few years!
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
aesthete

and not to put words in his mouth, but I read it as that he sees lying as a sin, no matter the circumstances, and that though he would do it to prevent a worse outcome, it would still be a sin. I don’t really agree with this line of thought, given that a division between murder and killing in the Bible is made clear [the former being a sin as opposed to the latter]. However, Ace wasn’t really saying that he wouldn’t lie in such a scenario, simply that he would see the decision to lie as a lesser sin than the decision to actively abet in a horrific murder.
traversecityconservative

Are we seriously discussing something she said in HIGH SCHOOL that has no relevance to us – and somehow that’s more important than what the Dems want to do to us now? I think some of you need to come back into reality.
aesthete

However, it’s still pretty unimportant in the grand scheme of things.
aesthete
cwilson

Apparently, the Delaware electorate LIKES that quality in their Senators.

Also, you do realize this clip was from 1999, right? ELEVEN years ago — and she was talking about events from 10 or 15 years before THAT.

So, maybe she had verbal diarrhea in 1999…but *this clip* is not evidence of not knowing when to shut up.
amdg

Who said it was posted by a theologian. You don’t need to be a farmer to…

Its funny, you can rely on God’s forgiveness because you start running around calling yourself “saved”, but not because you decided not to toss away the gift of life in a quest to be “truthful”. The Bible I read says to work out your salvation with “trembling and fear”, but some folks seem awful self-assured, quick to see their ticket as punched and others not even in line.

I owe God my life-he get’s to decide when to end it, not some jack-boot. I owe the Jack-boot nothing in his quest to murder.
aesthete

while at once realizing that such forgiveness is the result of his own benevolence, and not your good actions. I.e., one can be both saved and have committed the sin of having lied.
AceInTX

You, nor I can get to heaven based on what we do in this life…The very heart of the Gospel begins with the notion that is is impossible to get to heaven by keeping the law…thus the need for a redeemer who purchased you from the judgment seat by his shed blood in the cross…

James 2:10
For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.

That’s not about who’s ticket is punched…that’s God’s standard as he laid it out…and his definition of sin doesn’t fit into your situational ethics model….

there is a way out of the dilemma…that of not answering the question to begin with…I would hope I were strong enough to keep my mouth shut and take the secret with me to the grave….if not I might well lie….but as far as what GOD says…a lie is a lie…and Satan is the father of lies…if I lie…I do Satan’s bidding….and the law says I am worthy of Death….Christ paid the price for that penalty…if I will but accept him….and that’s it in a nut shell

Amature theologian or not…I could find any number of scholars and theologians to back me up in this…

you may not like it…but that’s the truth as I see it…and again…you continue to prove my point because I have made 3 or four blog length replies to you explaining this and O’Donnell had 30 seconds….
AceInTX

The duress argument provides an explanation for sin, but not an excuse.

That sets an impossible standard, I know. If even sin committed under duress is not excused
Doc Holliday

nominally started after my response, is that I would not be thinking about theology if at the moment a Nazi or other killer asked me to give up an innocent victim. Sometimes you need to have a straight answer to a very grave, stark question, just ask Michael Dukakis.
AceInTX
AceInTX

but yes…you are correct…though there is also the argument that there is no ranking of sin….any sin is worthy of death, (eternal separation from GOD)…thus the need for redemption and a savior.

That being said…I WOULD lie….in all likelihood…to save my own skin if possible…..even though I know GOD would want me to glorify him by refusing to give in to the NAZI trying to get me to give up the information..

I paraphrase but there is a line that says precious in his sight is the blood of a martyr who has died for HIS sake.
AceInTX
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

under a death sentence. Only Christ can save and only if we accept him as Lord. Sermon ended. Play Benediction. smile
AceInTX
aesthete

would be a sin: after all, the Bible clearly differentiates between murder and killing, and both are the taking of a human life. If there is a distinction between the two, it would lie in both intent (i.e., one’s heart being in following God’s will), context (i.e., one’s action actually resulting in a good outcome), and the person in question being lied to being malevolent, or some mixture of those three components. I’d say that under those criterion, lying to Nazis to save a Jew would not be immoral, just as killing an intruder looking to rape your wife would not be immoral. Saying nothing, or telling the truth to said Nazi, would essentially indict said Jew, while lying has the potential to save said Jew.

That said, King David was not allowed to build the Temple precisely because there was too much blood on his hands. As far as I know, said blood wasn’t the result of murder on his part (minus Uriah, of course), so there is obviously some level of unholiness that is involved in killing (even if it doesn’t approach the level of sin). I do highly sympathize with the Kantian view, though, and admit that there is no explicit delineation in the Bible between lying and “lying” altruistically, as there is for murder and killing (and that as a result, you might be right).
JSobieski

When Marlow lied to the widow at the end of the story he lied to placate her. Gertz’s last words were actually “the horror, the horror”, but Marlow made up some fib about Gertz’s last words being about his love for his wife in order to comfort the widow at the news of Gertz’s death.

Marlow describes the lie as having “a touch of mortality, a touch of death.” In each lie is a reminder that that things are not as we wish them to be, ie that we are limited and flawed (an unlimited perfect being has no motivation to lie).

Just something that came to mind as part of this discussion.

The relationship between morality and sin is interesting. Can sin extend to cover things that are not immoral? Is morality an obligation we have to other people and sin something we avoid because of God?

On a deserted island, there are no other people, so is it possible to act immorally? Besides suicide, which is an act against a person, I can’t think of any action that would be immoral (lots of things would be imprudent, and lots of things would still be sinfull).

Interesting topic. although I agree with TBone—everybody talks a brave game until the situation actually happens. Debates about the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin are interesting, but point to line drawing that our behavior is not even close to reaching. Kind of like arguing about relativistic physics in the context of a sprint. Nobody can run fast enough to justify truly factoring in relativity, but pointy headed academics can do so nonetheless.
AceInTX

this is a question of faith and and how one answers it is based on faith…

and again my whole point in engaging in the debate is to illustrate that there is no way O’Donnell could answer that question in 30 seconds with four liberals ridiculing her and come off looking good…

which is why the question was asked in the first place
Doc Holliday

that term and how it is being used here kind of crosses a religious line. Much of break up of the Christian Church into hundreds if not thousands of denomiations (depending on what you consider a denomination) is based on who should be interpreting scripture. Should it be left up to the professionals? Who get to be the professionals? Or should every person study the Bible and try to devine its meaning.

My point is several denominations encourage “amateur theologians” it is part of their beliefs and practices. I think discussing theology is great but we should not get to where we are saying one denomination’s view on this is superior.
Doc Holliday
aesthete

except for your last part. It wasn’t really a cunning strategy to trap O’Donnell or anything, just one of a series of dumb analogies that people on both the left and right are wont to use on talking head segments.
strategerist

AceInTX,

It would seem that the subject of this conversation might have a bit less moral insight than a dirty pagan hooker with penchant for brightly colored rope.

While you might condemn Rahab for lying and turning tricks, it didn’t keep her from seeing the truth, acting on faith and becoming part of the lineage of Christ.

On the other hand, for all his treachery, my recollection of Judas is that he seemed to be a pretty honest guy – unlike that “what do you mean thrice?” / dumb as a rock guy named Peter.

I should probably start going to church again some time.

RS

MEMBER DIARY

O’Donnell and Lying To Save Lives: Was Castle Right to Withhold His Endorsement?

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL