|Stop the cycle of violence! Kill the rapist, not the child. - Politico Monk|
On the first day of research, I noticed that every blog in Indianapolis had written something about it. I think that may be a first. I also noted something else of greater value: I opposed what every one of those bloggers had to say. So there it was, the ground work for my approach was already laid. Following a few words on Mourdock himself, I have collected bits and pieces from some other blogs, a potpourri of Mourdock, and filtered their words through the Christian worldview.
"I've struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."- Richard Mourdock
And that is how it all began.
If I had any apprehensions about voting for Senate candidate Richard Mourdock, those concerns have all disappeared. Come November 6th, Mr. Mourdock has secured my vote, and my families votes. I stand 100% behind Richard Mourdock. If you can logically refute what I am going to offer then you may with a clear conscience not vote for Mourdock. If, however, you are convinced of the truth that I offer, then have the courage to vote for Mourdock.
Now, having said that, I think Mourdock's articulation of his personhood position was awkward; I am sure he does too. But awkward articulation doesn't negate the validity of his intended meaning. It is not his pro-life stance- which by logical necessity demands no exceptions to qualify as pro-life- that is causing all the problems, it is how he expressed it. But, still, can we put our finger on what exactly the problem is in his articulation?
Mourdock, like Todd Akin, (another great pro-lifer with articulation issues) took a bold stance that just a few years ago would never have been expressed by a politician. So many are so "personally" pro-life that cowardice is the only word to describe them. But, instead of cowering, Mr. Mourdock, with boldness and unambiguity, faithfully stood up for defenseless children being bullied by adults. Mourdock publicly refused to allow hateful Molechian adults to bully unborn children, silently any longer. This is a man of substance and courage (as far as the protection of human life goes). He knew the backlash he would receive from phoney conservatives occupying the Republicrat party right now, not to mention the venomous Dumacrats; and he defended all life anyway. So there is nothing wrong with his core belief, nothing at all.
Mourdock's error was a simple one that wasn't caught beforehand; probably because he lacks competent advisers that understand the issue. The manner in which he chose to defend human life involved a very complicated philosophical view about God's interaction with the world. It was a heavy theological defense that cannot be explained with a few sentences. A great body of literature exists on this very subject; still with no unanimous consensus. But, many Christians hold a theological position that posits that God controls everything that happens and nothing comes to pass without Him ordaining those very things. Calvinism is one such body of doctrinal statements along these lines.
His words seem to flow from those theological doctrines that I do not support; mainly Calvinism, or fatalism, or the various other schools of thought on the subject. With years of theological and politically contentious debates under my belt, I understand the depth of thinking required to process the ideas he was appealing to. It was never going to happen. No one, except a few interested, we're even going to grasp the concepts he referred to.
The irony is that many other prominent politicians also believe the same things. According to records, governor Mitch Daniels (the god of many local repubs) is a Presbyterian; one of the most hardcore Calvinistic Christian sects. They too believe and teach others that everything, including rape and conceived children, are directly ordained by God. It is a sick, twisted idea, but one that many, many good Christians believe to be true. It is heavily rooted in early Greek paganism and sadly it has crept into Christianity in some watered down respects.
What about Joe Donnelly? His immediate response was "The God I believe in and the God I know most Hoosiers believe in, does not intend for rape to happen--ever. What Mr. Mourdock said is shocking, and it is stunning that he would be so disrespectful to survivors of rape."
Really? As a Roman Catholic, Donnelly too holds some views or at least passively accepts them by virtue of his affiliation. Consider this from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
every Divine decree by which God, owing to His infallible prescience of the future, has appointed and ordained from eternity all events occurring in time
Do you find much difference between what Richard Mourdock said and what the faith that Joe Donnelly affirms? I guess the real problem is that Mourdock said it. Who is the fool: the one that believes and lives what he believes without cowardice or the one that believes but does what is politically expedient even when it's contrary to their faith? The only thing we can legislate is morality. The man willing to do right and risk the consequences is the better man.
What I find more shocking, stunning and offensive is that Donnelly, who claims to be a Catholic, would disrespect God by thinking he can usurp God by advocating that it is okay to kill some unborn children. And then suggest that those respecting the unborn are disrespectful to victims! Calling evil good and good evil?
Only Richard Mourdock has proven himself to be genuine, courageous and correct on the issue. Now he just needs to work on his articulation.
On to the potpourri of Mourdock.
"a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways." (James 1:8)
Advance Indiana wrote: "Is all I have to say is that if your wife or daughter were raped and you expected her to carry that baby to full term, then you're just sick in my mind. I find the practice of abortion as a means of birth control abhorrent, but I find forced conception even more abhorrent."
Response- I have four children and a wife and all of them are girls (just clarifying for the deviants). I raised my daughters to be ladies not bullies and killers of unborn children. They wouldn't even consider killing a child. Are my daughters sick in their mind?
Conception cannot be forced, it is an autonomous process. Once fertilization takes place a third person is brought into the mix. By virtue of God's creation, women are the safe haven for children to develop. Women did not choose this on their own. By design, He didn't give them a choice; He blessed them with this honor; to protect human posterity with a mother's love and commitment. A women does not have to love the father's side but every child conceived in rape is also half of the mother. The child may have been conceived in crime, but the mother can still love the child because he/she bears not only the image of God, but also the image of the mother.
That child, after birth, will reach for mommy without any knowledge of the rape. That child will give mom butterfly kisses, homemade birthday cards, curl up on her lap to watch a movie in the dark, and finally, hold her hand giving her her final kiss before she passes away. That child will love his mom and righteously hate his father. Every mother in return, loves her child naturally. Shame on Advance Indiana for his abhorrent jack-assed statement.
"For many will come in My name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many.(Matthew 24:5)
Indy Democrat wrote:"My first inclination is just to explode about how Mourdock's view of God and mine are entirely different"
I think the Indy Democrat writer is being very intolerant. He wanted to explode because his view of god is different? How is that tolerant? Where is his room for diversity? Many people will claim to be Christians and pledge that Jesus is God but will promote all types of filth in His name.
"Even when a fool walks along the way, He lacks wisdom, And he shows everyone that he is a fool. (Ecclesiastes 10:3)...in other words, even a clock is correct twice a day
Masson wrote: "One of my points was that I think people should take personal responsibility for the moral positions they adopt. It’s not enough to say that you’re against marriage equality because the Bible tells you homosexuality is a sin. I think that’s a cop out; an effort to shove responsibility for your moral positions onto the authors of the Bible instead of standing up, explaining your reasons, and owning them...It’s us, only us."
Response- There is some truth to what he writes. I know a few Christians that discipline their children saying things like "God doesn't like that", "God is going to get you", or "God is disappointed with you" and I cringe when I hear these things. As a father of four, I have always made it known to my children that my family government is based on biblical precepts but it is me that is responsible for it. Likewise, God has given us perfect principles of civil government, but it is us, the citizens, that govern. So I can agree with this principle, but only to point. Notice what Masson concludes with: "it's us, only us." Do you see that? He wants his readers to start their reasoning with his worldview; a worldview that espouses that we evolved over millions of years; that there is no God but only us. I don't accept his presuppositions and therefore reject his worldview.
We can assert our belief, explain it, defend it, AND acknowledge where the belief comes from (the original thinker, God). As an example, my children do things because I tell them to. If questioned, they don't develop logical defenses for why they do what I have told them to do; Dad said so is good enough. Now once they get older, if I am untruthful or illogical they will question me and eventually reject what I transmit to them. But when the truths are reasonably established there is no need to ever buckle under controlling pressures to accept a different presupposition. God said so is good enough. That Masson doesn't accept that presupposition, has no bearing on its authority and influence.
"If both the child and the mother’s lives are on the line, then maybe you have to choose."
Response- Slicing and dicing the fragile body of the unborn child does nothing to save the mother. There is no decision to make. A good doctor will attempt to save both the mother and the child simultaneously. He doesn't put the mother's health concerns on hold long enough to bully the child with unrelenting deadly force. If a baby must come premature, that is alright. The baby will be cared for as long as he/she lives. There is no mother-child dilemma, it is a fabricated scenario used by people who don't want to own their evil.
Indiana Barrister- Okay, that’s fine. You can stop now.)...(Okay, you made your point. Move on.)...(Okay, that was necessary, but I see you point. Close up shop right there.)...(This can’t end well.)...(We are so screwed!!!)
Response- This was the funniest of all the responses. There is no doubt that Abdul is a pro-abortion advocate with exceptions. I exposed the fallacy of his witty offense "if you don't want one, don't get one" a few weeks ago with the counter example "if you don't want to own a negro, don't own one." But his analysis is a good one this time. When Mourdock appealed to a complicated theological concept as justification, he opened the door to major criticism. In other words, he was screwed. There is nothing wrong with identifying one's faith and how you will apply it to public policy. But clear, simple articulation is required and Mourdock didn't meet the anchor this time around.
Eye on Indianapolis- How can the Indiana GOP sleep at night?
Response- Very easy, those of us good guys within the Republican party refuse to out do rape by suggesting that killing unborn children make it all better. We won't stand for adults bullying the defenseless with unrelenting deadly force.