Monday, October 29, 2012

Church and State




Indiana GOP U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock declared Tuesday night he opposes aborting pregnancies conceived in rape because "it is something that God intended to happen."

It is people like Richard Mourdock who give Christians in politics a bad name. As someone who is a practicing Catholic, I take serious offense to a candidate throwing the word God around in this context. Who is Richard Mourdock to say what God wanted to happen and what he didn’t?

Using his logic, we can go on to assume that nearly anything was God’s intention. Murdered your wife? Well, it was God’s intention. Got drunk and drove? That too was God’s intention. It is not sound logic to make a political argument on and frankly, I am quite sick of it. It degrades not only the political debate behind the argument, but it also paints a bad picture of Christians.

Not every Christian believes what he does and I would go as far as to say MOST Christians would believe that abortion in the case of rape should be legal. Rape is a horrible, unjustifiable action and any pregnancy conceived from it is simply a result of a biological process, not God. It is one thing to believe that pregnancies are a gift from God and that abortion should be illegal on the grounds that you believe it to be immoral (for whatever reasons, not just religious ones). It is another one to base your thoughts on an argument that makes you and everyone in your religion look bad.

Needless to say, I am very frustrated by how polarizing religion in politics can be. I am totally understanding of politicians basing their beliefs and ideas on their religion. After all, a solid percentage of voters do just that. But trying to blame a horrendous act on God’s intention? That is unjustified and certainly not what the church teaches. So please Mr. Mourdock, keep those views to yourself in order to paint a better picture of the church that you so intensely believe in. 


1 comment:

  1. Let me start by saying that I am pro-choice and believe that in the event of a rape, a woman should have the same choice as she would in any other situation about whether or not she wants to have the baby. With that being said, although I do not agree, I still am able to understand Senate candidate Richard Mourdock's point of view. For people who are pro-life, the killing of any innocent child is a sin. Whether it is in the instance of rape or in the context of a happy marriage, the action of aborting a pregnancy will always be the same. I do not think that Mourdock believes that rape is God's will, but rather that the baby that results has a piece of God and therefore should not be terminated. To me, any pro-life supporters that believe that abortion should never be allowed except in the case of rape have no argument at all. While I think that only the mother can know in her specific circumstance what is best for her, I am able to understand the opponents who think it is their moral responsibility to protect innocent lives.

    ReplyDelete