Amy Sullivan, truly the David Brooks of religion writing, thinks that liberals are misreading Richard Mourdockâ€™s position on abortion.
Take a look again at Mourdockâ€™s words: â€œI 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.â€ The key word here is â€œit.â€ I think itâ€™s pretty clear that Mourdock is referring to a life that is conceived by a rape. He is not arguing that rape is the something that God intended to happen.
I understood him perfectly well and I still think it’s outrageous. This goon is saying that women must be forced to carry a pregnancy to term even in cases of rape. I think that’s barbaric and cruel.
Amy wants this to be about theology —
This is a fairly common theological belief, the understanding of God as an active, interventionist. Itâ€™s also not limited to conservative Christians. There are liberal Christians who also argue that things work out the way theyâ€™re supposed to. Some of them are in my own family, and I think theyâ€™re wrong. But it is one way of grappling with the problem of theodicy, trying to understand why God would allow bad things to happen.
And they can grapple with it all they like; just do the grappling with their own bodies, thanks much.
Sullivan goes on to explain the theological arguments about things being intended by God, as if any of us who were sent to Sunday School at least a dozen times didn’t already know them.
And I say that the next time Richard Mourdock gets pregnant from rape and chooses to carry the baby to term because he thinks it’s god’s will, I’m just peachy with that. Whatever floats his boat. But this theo-idiot is planning to force everyone else to live by his conscience and not our own. And, y’know, to a lot of us that looks like good old-fashion oppression.
Most religion looks ridiculous to outsiders. If Mourdock can somehow reconcile in his own head that God did not intend the rape but did intend the conception, that’s not any of my concern — as long as it stays in his own head.
Despite the assertions of many liberal writers I read and otherwise admire, I donâ€™t think that politicians like Mourdock oppose rape exceptions because they hate women or want to control women. I think theyâ€™re totally oblivious and insensitive and canâ€™t for a moment place themselves in the shoes of a woman who becomes pregnant from a rape. I think most donâ€™t particularly care that their policy decisions can impact what control a woman does or doesnâ€™t have over her own body. But if Mourdock believes that God creates all life and that to end a life created by God is murder, then all abortion is murder, regardless of the circumstances in which a pregnancy came about.
In other words, Sullivan is making a distinction between actively hating women and being “oblivious and insensitive” to our individuality and humanity. I don’t really see the difference. A man who is incapable of perceiving women as human beings in their own right, who cannot empathize with them or respect that their perspectives are just as valid as his, is what we call a “misogynist.” There is a spectrum of misogynist attitudes that goes from garden-variety sexist pigs to psychopathic serial killers, but it’s a difference in degree, not in kind.
And I oppose this creep Mourdock not because I disrespect his religion but because he disrespects mine. He also disrespects my humanity. I find that annoying.
As you can see from an old post, Amy Sullivan has a long-standing pattern of finding distinctions with no differences. Her shtick for years has been that liberals are mean to proper religious folk because we misunderstand them. Well, I doubt one fundamentalist in a million understands a dadblamed thing about my religion, and that doesn’t bother me in the least as long as they leave me alone about it.
The real issue is that from the earliest days of our Republic conservative Christians have tried to use government to impose their beliefs on everyone else, establishment clause notwithstanding, and they must be opposed. Period. What their theological rationalizations are is irrelevant to me.