|
|
The
views expressed
on this page are soley those of the author and do not
necessarily
represent the views of County News Online
|
 |
Same
question-different answers
By Jim Surber
The 2012 Presidential election came and went, though it seemed like an
eternity before it was finally over. The residents of battleground Ohio
were subjected to countless nasty media ads, repeated irritating phone
calls, and enough political junk mail to burn a tobacco bed.
The two candidates spent nearly $2 billion, much of it coming from a
few very large donors. Ultimately, we ended up with the same
GOP-controlled House, the same Democratic-controlled Senate, and the
same President. If Churchill were alive, he might say, “Never have so
few, spent so much, to influence so little.”
That said, one of the more interesting sideshows of the election had
nothing to do with the Presidency, but with the U.S. Senate races in
the Midwestern states of Missouri and Indiana. In both races, the
candidates were questioned on their views to allow abortion if a
conception resulted from rape.
Missouri candidate Todd Akin, a longtime anti-abortion advocate, made
the claim that women victims of what he described as “legitimate rape”
rarely experience pregnancy from rape.
His comments immediately led to uproar. The statement was biologically
indefensible, unless you believe 13th century British medical
texts. More damning was that the term “legitimate rape” was
properly interpreted to imply belief in a view that some kinds of rape
are “legitimate,” or alternatively that the victims who do become
pregnant from rape are likely to be lying about their claim.
A national poll found that 84% of Americans disagreed with Akin’s
comments, and that 63% wanted him to drop out of the Senate race.
Besides being totally ignorant, his statement was an outrageous attempt
to neuter one tragic potential outcome of a violent crime against a
woman.
Indiana Senate candidate, Richard Mourdock, when asked the same
question replied, “I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I
came to realize life is that gift from God. And I think even when life
begins in that horrible situation of rape, that is something that God
intended to happen.”
Both Akin and Mourdock were derided in the media and both lost the
election, but their two answers had no similarities.
In contrast to the 2300 year-old Riddle of Epicurus (not repeated here,
but an interesting exercise in thought and logic), the Christian faith
does hold that God is both all-powerful and all-knowing, in spite of
the existence of evil in the world.
While Akin’s answer was a cheap, self-serving, attempt at deception,
Mourdock’s could have been a very honest expression of his religious
beliefs, which are also held by many Americans. (I say “could” because
I have no personal knowledge of Mourdock’s sincerity of belief)
Mourdock did not say rape is a “gift from God,” as some media pundits
so crudely summarized, but that God either passively allowed or
actively caused that rape from which life was conceived.
If this last idea offends you, you are certainly not alone. Mourdock
tried to explain himself, only drawing further scrutiny from the media.
There were outcries from many women’s rights groups. On Jay Leno’s
Show, the President referred to the statement as an example of why
politicians, mostly male, should not be legislating women’s health care
decisions. Even Governor Romney’s camp quickly distanced itself from
Mourdock, a Republican, despite Romney’s endorsement of him a day
earlier.
Sadly, all of this criticism centered on a presumption that Mourdock
was “justifying” rape when he could have merely been explaining how he
understands life in the eyes of his Creator. Many people who derided
the statement also claim to be Christian. Have they taken a turn
towards Deism?
But perhaps the most crucial point was never addressed. Mourdock was
seeking a position to play a part in making laws for all of the people
of a nation guaranteeing religious freedom in the initial amendment to
its constitution. This is also a guarantee of freedom from all religion
or any specific religion. Even though he could have been expressing a
tenet of his personal faith in all sincerity, it is not the faith of
all Americans, and possibly not the faith of the majority. Changing
demographics are not limited to race and heritage.
Many people today share the beliefs of the founders. Religion should
stay out of government, and the government should stay out of religion.
Today, many Americans may be demonstrating that they are not voting for
candidates who imagine they are conduits for God’s decisions, and who
claim to work under his authority, imposing it upon us by law.
Will we someday decide to stick with “freedom of religion,” a concept
that the writers of the U.S. Constitution thought was such a nifty idea?
|
|
|
|
