3 of 10
3
When it comes to making stupid comments…Republicans can’t seem to help themselves.
Posted: 27 October 2012 10:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Cloak - 27 October 2012 10:16 PM

Are we talking about two different things?

Maybe.  grin

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?

It depends on what statement you’re talking about.  There’s a great deal of focus on the candidate’s statement that a child born of rape is God’s intent where a pregnancy occurs.  That statement, by itself, is simply a statement about the sovereignty of God that is widely accepted across both Christianity and Judaism.  You can expect any observant Catholic (Pelosi, Sebelius, Kerry) to say something similar, at least when they’re not in front of a microphone where somebody’s looking to take it the wrong way.  So I’m saying Mourdock’s statement about God’s sovereignty shouldn’t be the focus.  The focus should be his specific policy statements such as the one you paraphrased.  That part of his statement is certainly fair game to use in imagining how he would act if elected.

If there’s a clear policy statement in the context, why try to draw an inference toward essentially the same policy position from part of the statement that is far less clear?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 October 2012 11:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  582
Joined  2010-04-19

Bryan,

Okay, I understand you. Sorry, but what I had lost focus of was the original context of the thread. You’re saying that those who might attribute this theological view only to religious right Republicans should know that Mourdoch’s view is much more mainstream than that. With that, I fully agree. At first, I couldn’t understand why you kept mentioning this point because I’m very well acquainted with the view, as I used to hold it myself as a former Christian. It makes sense now.

Having said that, none of it takes away the fact that 1) the view is still, in and of itself, deplorable, and 2) that Mourdoch and most other mainstream Christians are too inconsistent (and perhaps cowardly) to follow the belief to its natural ends (as I mentioned in a previous post). I could care less how many people hold it. I have problems with his political stance (how he would potentially vote, which he does state), as well as his justification for it (his theological explanation). Either way, it’s still a problem. 

Secondly, the difference between Mourdoch and many other politicians is that there are politicians that know how to separate their personal and more controversial religious convictions from their policy decisions. Also, while Mourdoch’s view is indeed a mainstream Christian view (although not popular to discuss), his willingness to enforce it on a woman by the power of law is not. That is what makes him a fundamentalist.

 Signature 

Don’t get set into one form, adapt it and build your own, and let it grow, be like water. Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water. Now you put water in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put water into a bottle it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.

- Bruce Lee -

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2012 12:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21

(glad you understand me on the sovereignty point)

Cloak - 27 October 2012 11:33 PM

Having said that, none of it takes away the fact that 1) the view is still, in and of itself, deplorable, and 2) that Mourdoch and most other mainstream Christians are too inconsistent (and perhaps cowardly) to follow the belief to its natural ends (as I mentioned in a previous post). I could care less how many people hold it. I have problems with his political stance (how he would potentially vote, which he does state), as well as his justification for it (his theological explanation). Either way, it’s still a problem.

That’s politics.  You’re allowed to disagree with his policy positions. 

Secondly, the difference between Mourdoch and many other politicians is that there are politicians that know how to separate their personal and more controversial religious convictions from their policy decisions. Also, while Mourdoch’s view is indeed a mainstream Christian view (although not popular to discuss), his willingness to enforce it on a woman by the power of law is not. That is what makes him a fundamentalist.

Actually, it is the popular view that the state should have the power to restrict access to abortion.  It’s possible that Mourdock’s specific view puts him in a minority, but it’s not a tiny minority. 

All laws are attempts to legislate morality at some level.  Every politician who supports any law is supporting impressing their version of morality on others.

That makes for a whole bunch of fundamentalists.  wink

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2012 12:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  582
Joined  2010-04-19

I’m not talking about the popular view that the state should have the power to restrict access to abortion. That’s ambiguous because it doesn’t speak on the nature or extent of the restriction. I’m talking about the very specific view that the government should force a raped woman to have the baby, and basing it on a controversial application of a mainstream view. There is a difference between applying your views to their logical ends personally, and enforcing your personal view on someone else. Most Libertarian Republicans understand this distinction. It is the (somewhat) consistent application of that view in public policy that makes him a fundamentalist, not morality legislation in general.

 Signature 

Don’t get set into one form, adapt it and build your own, and let it grow, be like water. Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water. Now you put water in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put water into a bottle it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.

- Bruce Lee -

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2012 02:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Cloak - 28 October 2012 12:49 AM

I’m not talking about the popular view that the state should have the power to restrict access to abortion. That’s ambiguous because it doesn’t speak on the nature or extent of the restriction. I’m talking about the very specific view that the government should force a raped woman to have the baby, and basing it on a controversial application of a mainstream view.

“Mourdoch’s view is indeed a mainstream Christian view (although not popular to discuss), his willingness to enforce it on a woman by the power of law is not”

I think I’m less clear now about what you’re trying to say than I was with your previous post.

There is a difference between applying your views to their logical ends personally, and enforcing your personal view on someone else. Most Libertarian Republicans understand this distinction. It is the (somewhat) consistent application of that view in public policy that makes him a fundamentalist, not morality legislation in general.

I’m trying to impress on you the difficulty you’ll have in drawing those types of distinctions consistently.

It’s easy enough to do if one doesn’t spend much time thinking about it, of course!  grin  (that goes for everybody)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2012 07:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
Bryan - 27 October 2012 10:02 PM
Cloak - 27 October 2012 01:21 PM
Bryan - 26 October 2012 11:49 PM
Cloak - 26 October 2012 11:43 PM

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.

—I doubt he supports it then, either.  The usual position of such absolutists is that neither the fetus nor the woman is to be sacrificed for the other no matter what the circumstances.  This is the Catholic position. Their position is that everything should be done to protect both equally.  Too often that means both die—but that is the absolutist position: no intervention if it means one is sacrificed for the other.

PS.  I use the word fetus because my position is that it is not a baby until it is born alive. I use the word woman because, until a baby is born, she is not a mother unless she has other children.  Semantics, I realize, but semantics are important when arging a point. 

PPS.  I am new to this group and haven’t figured out how this system of replying works.  I belong to other forums and none are quite like this.  I am used to making comments within the quoted material, but that doesn’t seem to work here.  I may be going down for the third time. 

....

,,,,,,,


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?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2012 08:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Lois - 28 October 2012 07:32 AM

—I doubt he supports it then, either.  The usual position of such absolutists is that neither the fetus nor the woman is to be sacrificed for the other no matter what the circumstances.  This is the Catholic position. Their position is that everything should be done to protect both equally.  Too often that means both die—but that is the absolutist position: no intervention if it means one is sacrificed for the other.

Mourdock isn’t a Roman Catholic and says he supports an exception to save the life of the mother.  Will you disbelieve him because of what the RCC teaches?  That seems like a thin evidence.

PS.  I use the word fetus because my position is that it is not a baby until it is born alive. I use the word woman because, until a baby is born, she is not a mother unless she has other children.  Semantics, I realize, but semantics are important when arging a point.

You can use what words you like.  grin

You do end up with the interesting position that the difference between a child (protected life) and a fetus (non-protected life) is only its location.  That position seems somewhat religious to me.

PPS.  I am new to this group and haven’t figured out how this system of replying works.  I belong to other forums and none are quite like this.  I am used to making comments within the quoted material, but that doesn’t seem to work here.  I may be going down for the third time.

It’s all a matter of putting the bracketed quote tags in the right spots.  Good luck figuring it out!  grin

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2012 01:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2209
Joined  2007-04-26
Bryan - 27 October 2012 09:58 PM

I think you should have a good reason for saying I’m bending over backwards to defend Mourdock before you say it. 

I do have a good reason. Politicians frequently comment about their beliefs and we often extrapolate from those comments to gauge how they might vote on issues, yet for some reason you think its not appropriate to do it in the case of this politician. That’s my “good reason” for claiming that you are bending over backwards to be deferential in this case

Bryan - 27 October 2012 09:58 PM

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?”

YOU are the one who is implying that we can not infer how this politician would vote based on this comment not me.

Bryan - 27 October 2012 09:58 PM

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. 

I made no statement of fact. I only made an observation about how the political process usually proceeds. We often make our decisions based on extrapolations. My reasoning is self evident in the statement

Bryan - 27 October 2012 09:58 PM

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.

First of all this is a much more vague position than the one Mourdoch made, but you illustrate my point. Often voters are asked to make a decision based on less than ideal information about a candidates views on particular issues. Guessing how your theoretical candidate might vote on specific issues might be difficult but sometimes that’s all you get and you have t make your best guess even if that guess is flawed.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2012 07:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  438
Joined  2012-02-02

As a public service, here’s a handy dandy GOP Rape Chart with cites for the quotes. Its even more appalling than you think.

ETA: Newt has a message to women about Mourdock, “Get over it!”

GINGRICH: And he also immediately issued a clarification saying that he was referring to the act of conception and he condemned rape. Romney has condemned rape. One part of this is nonsense. Every candidate I know, every decent american i know condemns rape. Okay so, why can’t people like Stephanie Cutter get over it? We all condemn rape…

(bolding in original)

I wonder if I can get a kickstarter project to bring the asteroid to wipe us all out?

 Signature 

“There will come a time when it isn’t ‘They’re spying on me through my phone’ anymore. Eventually, it will be ‘My phone is spying on me’.” ― Philip K. Dick

The Atheist in the Trailer Park

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2012 09:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3183
Joined  2011-11-04

Yeah, you know something’s wrong when someone (or in this case many members of the same political group) has to repeatedly assert that they condemn something that is pretty much a given as being abhorrent to everyone.

Let me just pre-emptively say that I condemn the rape of old white men who seek to control what women who are pregnant from rape can do with their own bodies. 

Although… if they had experienced being raped themselves…they could also experience what is like for lots of people to think that they were probably being slutty and asking for it.

And I guess it wouldn’t be fair as old white men can’t become pregnant and know the joy of carrying the “god’s gift of life”, from being raped, to term.

Again, I condemn the rape of such old white men.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2012 05:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2209
Joined  2007-04-26

Uggg.. Just got this picture of Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich acting slutty. Now there is an nauseating image burned into my brain for the day.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2012 08:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3183
Joined  2011-11-04
macgyver - 29 October 2012 05:32 AM

Uggg.. Just got this picture of Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich acting slutty. Now there is an nauseating image burned into my brain for the day.

I condemn the rape of Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich, even if they are obviously asking for it… 

Even if they are prancing around wearing nothing but high heels, miniskirts and lacy bras… And then they turn to face away, bending slightly forward, protrduding their buttocks back toward you… and they look back over their shoulders, wiggling their posteriors seductively, and say “Look at us, you science and evolution lover from the pit of hell!  Do ya think you can handle this?”... and they give themselves a smack on the butt, while also giving you a coy wink, and curling out their tongues…

Even so, rape is rape.  I condemn it.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2012 09:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3183
Joined  2011-11-04

Oh and silk stockings,  They should be wearing silk stockings…  giggity giggity… smile

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2012 10:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2209
Joined  2007-04-26

You had to make it worse didn’t you?

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2012 11:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3183
Joined  2011-11-04
macgyver - 29 October 2012 10:47 AM

You had to make it worse didn’t you?

What can I say?  I’m a victim of my own self-percieved cleverness, sometimes.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 10
3