[quoteThere’s a long tradition is Judaism and Christianity in recognizing the existence of soething called God’s “sovereign will.” Those groups recognize that everything that happens, good or evil, is permitted by God but that God works things out for the good in the end. Mourdock’s statement was probably his attempt to express that idea. People in the press are largely ignorant of religion, so they make a big deal about it (it just makes the press look biased to religious Jews and Christians).
Taking Mourdock’s statement and trying to get it to mean something about policy change with respect to women’s position in society or even to abortion is silly. Use Mourdock’s position on those issues to judge him, not a statement about God’s sovereignty (unless, of course, the desire to paint Mourdock as a crank for the sake of the election is more important than the truth).
]
Ok, Mourdock’s statement reflects a fundamentalist attitude concerning god’s sovereign will. I get that. He can worship the sacred porkchop for all I care. The point here is that he’s running for a seat of power in Congress not a deacon’s position in his church, and that means he is running to represent the religious and nonreligious alike. I would rather a politician quote the Constitutiution than his “holy book”, or base his decisions on law not the capricious will of a nonexistant entity. And how should the media spin his comments? He stuck his chin out and the media took a whack at it. As a politician he should know that both sides are looking for issues to create stories. That’s what they do; they sell the news. But I agree that as informed voters we should examine a candidate’s position and make a determination based on the facts. Personally I view him not as a crank but as an individual intending to limit the right of a person to control her own body by passing a religiously based law.
What if the rapist was demon possessed? Would the resulting baby be a 1/2 demon baby gift from the god? He or she or it (the resulting child) might have superpowers. Wow, thanks to Mourdock, I just thought up a new comic book character. I guess Republican idealogues are not completely useless, after all. Episode one: Spawn of Mourdock, Genesis.
There’s a long tradition is Judaism and Christianity in recognizing the existence of soething called God’s “sovereign will.” Those groups recognize that everything that happens, good or evil, is permitted by God but that God works things out for the good in the end. Mourdock’s statement was probably his attempt to express that idea. People in the press are largely ignorant of religion, so they make a big deal about it (it just makes the press look biased to religious Jews and Christians).
Taking Mourdock’s statement and trying to get it to mean something about policy change with respect to women’s position in society or even to abortion is silly. Use Mourdock’s position on those issues to judge him, not a statement about God’s sovereignty (unless, of course, the desire to paint Mourdock as a crank for the sake of the election is more important than the truth).
How could you claim it has nothing to do with policy change. Mourdock’s sentiments are pretty clear . Were he to have the chance he would outlaw abortion or limit it in any way he legally could.
Basically he believes that god does not encourage rape but if it happens he sometimes blesses the victim with a lovely parting gift from the rapist
By Romney’s own campaign commercial, Mourdock’s victory in his run for Senate could represent the deciding vote for Republican’s to have control of the Senate. He could also be the deciding vote in a confirmation of the next right wing Supreme Court Justice (all that is needed to overturn Roe v. Wade).
Ok, Mourdock’s statement reflects a fundamentalist attitude concerning god’s sovereign will. I get that.
It’s not fundamentalist. It’s mainstream in Judaism and Christianity. People (journalists in particular) know so little of religion these days they don’t have a clue about it.
There’s a long tradition is Judaism and Christianity in recognizing the existence of soething called God’s “sovereign will.” Those groups recognize that everything that happens, good or evil, is permitted by God but that God works things out for the good in the end. Mourdock’s statement was probably his attempt to express that idea. People in the press are largely ignorant of religion, so they make a big deal about it (it just makes the press look biased to religious Jews and Christians).
Taking Mourdock’s statement and trying to get it to mean something about policy change with respect to women’s position in society or even to abortion is silly. Use Mourdock’s position on those issues to judge him, not a statement about God’s sovereignty (unless, of course, the desire to paint Mourdock as a crank for the sake of the election is more important than the truth).
How could you claim it has nothing to do with policy change.
See above. It was pretty easy.
Mourdock’s sentiments are pretty clear . Were he to have the chance he would outlaw abortion or limit it in any way he legally could.
And how do you know that? Because of statements Mourdock has made concerning that policy preference? Congratulations. You’re taking my advice (“Use Mourdock’s position on those issues to judge him”). If you figured all that out based on Mourdock’s statement about God’s will then you’re being silly, just like I said. But that’s not what you did, is it?
Basically he believes that god does not encourage rape but if it happens he sometimes blesses the victim with a lovely parting gift from the rapist
He may believe that. But you can’t reasonably draw that specific inference from the traditional view of God’s sovereignty that Mourdock expressed. You need other statements to fill in that inference.
Sorry Bryan but try as you might, you can’t separate fundamentalism from what you refer to as mainstream xtianity. It is a child of the original belief system and they use the same play book even though the fundamentalist movement began here in the 20’s. And by people I assume you mean everyone including those who practice your belief as well? In that respect you would be correct as the vast majority of self professed xtians have never parsed the bible in any scholarly fashion. But back on topic, candidate Mourdock seems to follow fundamentalism and considers them his base. If it walks like a duck… . Remember his visit to the fundie church that believes in spanking and child humiliation as a method of control? Does he refer to himself as a mainstream xtian who believes in the infallibility of the bible? And that god is the head of the church? And that Jesus is actually god who’s maxims must be obeyed or hell awaits? And that all life is given by god hence a blastocyst has human rights? If so, fundie!
Sorry Bryan but try as you might, you can’t separate fundamentalism from what you refer to as mainstream xtianity.
You do a pretty good job of it yourself by noting that the fundamentalist movement began fairly recently. The idea of God’s sovereignty that we’re talking about goes back millenia.
It is a child of the original belief system and they use the same play book even though the fundamentalist movement began here in the 20’s.
Yes, and?
If fundamentalism is the child of the original belief system then you should call the original belief system “fundamentalist”?
That doesn’t make sense. Please clarify your point if you’re able.
And by people I assume you mean everyone including those who practice your belief as well? In that respect you would be correct as the vast majority of self professed xtians have never parsed the bible in any scholarly fashion. But back on topic, candidate Mourdock seems to follow fundamentalism and considers them his base. If it walks like a duck… . Remember his visit to the fundie church that believes in spanking and child humiliation as a method of control?
No, I don’t remember any such visit. I don’t know much about Mourdock. I’m criticizing the leap I see from the supposedly fundamentalist notion of the sovereignty of God to a whole list of particular policy positions.
Does he refer to himself as a mainstream xtian who believes in the infallibility of the bible? And that god is the head of the church? And that Jesus is actually god who’s maxims must be obeyed or hell awaits? And that all life is given by god hence a blastocyst has human rights? If so, fundie!
It’s great to see another skeptic picking up on my advice!
Judge Mourdock by his statements on policy, not based on his statement about God’s sovereignty.
I’m a bit confused Bryan. Are you saying that what Mourdoch stated was not stated within the context of the legalization/outlawing of abortion?
Are you serious?
No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’ll repeat (in slightly different words): If he makes his statement in the context of legalization/outlawing of abortion then judge him according to the policy positions he takes, not according to a traditional mainstream view of God’s sovereignty that ultimately doesn’t determine his policy positions.
No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’ll repeat (in slightly different words): If he makes his statement in the context of legalization/outlawing of abortion then judge him according to the policy positions he takes, not according to a traditional mainstream view of God’s sovereignty that ultimately doesn’t determine his policy positions.
It’s easy. Try it.
I think you are bending over backwards to be deferential to this candidate for no good reason that I can see. We rarely get concrete declarations from candidates about how they will vote on every issue they will potentially face. Lacking that sort of specific information its reasonable and even necessary to extrapolate from their belief system to conclude how they will vote on these issues. I think its a huge stretch to believe that Mourdoch would do anything but take an extremist pro-life position when given the opportunity to and voters should vote accordingly.
I’m a bit confused Bryan. Are you saying that what Mourdoch stated was not stated within the context of the legalization/outlawing of abortion?
Are you serious?
No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’ll repeat (in slightly different words): If he makes his statement in the context of legalization/outlawing of abortion then judge him according to the policy positions he takes, not according to a traditional mainstream view of God’s sovereignty that ultimately doesn’t determine his policy positions.
It’s easy. Try it.
If my understanding is correct, the statement was made in response to a debate question regarding his position on the legalization/outlawing of abortion in the case of a rape-induced pregnancy. His response was that he only supports abortion in the case of a life-threatening pregnancy. He justified this by saying that God may have intended the rape-induced pregnancy to happen. Now I’m not going to get into the apparent inconsistency of this position (if you believe God is completely sovereign, then you have to conclude that the life-threatening pregnancy was “intended by God as well”. So the woman should just accept God’s will, have the baby, and die “as God intended”), but at what point do we make the connection between what his position is and how he may potentially vote?
To my understanding, we don’t have any voting records for Richard Mourdock regarding this specific issue. So do we just blindly elect him in first and then wait to determine his policy positions by what he actually does or does not vote for?
No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’ll repeat (in slightly different words): If he makes his statement in the context of legalization/outlawing of abortion then judge him according to the policy positions he takes, not according to a traditional mainstream view of God’s sovereignty that ultimately doesn’t determine his policy positions.
It’s easy. Try it.
I think you are bending over backwards to be deferential to this candidate for no good reason that I can see.
I think you should have a good reason for saying I’m bending over backwards to defend Mourdock before you say it.
We rarely get concrete declarations from candidates about how they will vote on every issue they will potentially face.
Huh. So why did the person to whom I just responded imply that Mourdock was speaking in the context of banning abortion? Are you accusing him of making it up?
“Are you saying that what Mourdoch stated was not stated within the context of the legalization/outlawing of abortion?”
Lacking that sort of specific information its reasonable and even necessary to extrapolate from their belief system to conclude how they will vote on these issues. I think its a huge stretch to believe that Mourdoch would do anything but take an extremist pro-life position when given the opportunity to and voters should vote accordingly.
The key phrase from your post is “for no good reason that I can see.” You’re not offering a reason for anything you say. Why don’t you tell us what policy decisions you think you can extrapolate from the view that everything that happens is subject to God’s sovereign will. Let’s see how far you get. And I’ll be asking you what view of God’s sovereign will (Roman Catholics) Nancy Pelosi and Kathleen Sebelius hold, IYO.
I’m a bit confused Bryan. Are you saying that what Mourdoch stated was not stated within the context of the legalization/outlawing of abortion?
Are you serious?
No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’ll repeat (in slightly different words): If he makes his statement in the context of legalization/outlawing of abortion then judge him according to the policy positions he takes, not according to a traditional mainstream view of God’s sovereignty that ultimately doesn’t determine his policy positions.
It’s easy. Try it.
His response was that he only supports abortion in the case of a life-threatening pregnancy. He justified this by saying that God may have intended the rape-induced pregnancy to happen. Now I’m not going to get into the apparent inconsistency of this position (if you believe God is completely sovereign, then you have to conclude that the life-threatening pregnancy was “intended by God as well”. So the woman should just accept God’s will, have the baby, and die “as God intended”), but at what point do we make the connection between what his position is and how he may potentially vote?
To my understanding, we don’t have any voting records for Richard Mourdock regarding this specific issue. So do we just blindly elect him in first and then wait to determine his policy positions by what he actually does or does not vote for?
“His response was that he only supports abortion in the case of a life-threatening pregnancy.”
There you have it. If that’s what he said then there’s no need to try to extrapolate anything from a statement about the sovereign will of God, is there?
I’m a bit confused Bryan. Are you saying that what Mourdoch stated was not stated within the context of the legalization/outlawing of abortion?
Are you serious?
No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’ll repeat (in slightly different words): If he makes his statement in the context of legalization/outlawing of abortion then judge him according to the policy positions he takes, not according to a traditional mainstream view of God’s sovereignty that ultimately doesn’t determine his policy positions.
It’s easy. Try it.
His response was that he only supports abortion in the case of a life-threatening pregnancy. He justified this by saying that God may have intended the rape-induced pregnancy to happen. Now I’m not going to get into the apparent inconsistency of this position (if you believe God is completely sovereign, then you have to conclude that the life-threatening pregnancy was “intended by God as well”. So the woman should just accept God’s will, have the baby, and die “as God intended”), but at what point do we make the connection between what his position is and how he may potentially vote?
To my understanding, we don’t have any voting records for Richard Mourdock regarding this specific issue. So do we just blindly elect him in first and then wait to determine his policy positions by what he actually does or does not vote for?
“His response was that he only supports abortion in the case of a life-threatening pregnancy.”
There you have it. If that’s what he said then there’s no need to try to extrapolate anything from a statement about the sovereign will of God, is there?
Why is this so difficult?
Are we talking about two different things? My understanding is that you are saying that nothing about his statement can be used to infer how he may vote on policy issues. Is that correct?
