Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock makes stupid “rape” comment

Last night, Indiana held a debate amongst the Senate candidates for office.  While explaining his position that the only exception to an abortion would be for the life of the mother (a position I agree with), Richard Mourdock said: “I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God, and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something God intended to happen.”  I fervently disagree with the candidate with his statement.  Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney quickly disavowed his statements.  Stating he didn’t agree with Mourdock’s position.

In a statement released after the debate the candidate said: “God creates life, and that was my point. God does not want rape, and by no means was I suggesting that he does. Rape is a horrible thing, and for anyone to twist my words otherwise is absurd and sick.”  No you are absurd and sick for thinking such a thing.  And it isn’t twisting your words if you post the entire quote in verbatim.  I’m sorry Mr. Mourdock but stating that God intended the pregnancy to happen is not the same thing as stating you think life is a gift of God.  I too think life is a gift of God.  However, my religious beliefs are not taken into consideration in my political beliefs.  There is a separation of church and state after all.  I’m not really sure which God you pray to every Sunday, but mine certainly wouldn’t intend for a woman to not only be raped but impregnated. 

Mourdock’s idiotic statement comes months after Congressman Todd Akin made an even worse statement of what he deemed “legitimate rape.”  The only think “legitimate” about Akin’s statement is that he needs to go away.  Far away.  I don’t need idiots running this country.  I don’t need idiots making a mockery of a sensitive issue.  I am so sick of these politicians making crass statements in great abundance.  They think somehow it is okay to say whatever they want.  Sometimes I wonder if they simply want to see who can make the most outrageous statement.

What do you think?

Is the media making too much of a big deal about this?


Twitter: @adrakontaidis & @talkrealdebate


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

About adrakontaidis

A conservative who doesn't pander to the GOP.

8 responses to “Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock makes stupid “rape” comment”

  1. lavz17 says :

    I agree with you this guy is an idot. but the media does have a tendency of blowing things up for their ratings.

  2. William says :

    I think it’s stupid if you think you can separate your political beliefs from your religious beliefs. That is like trying to separate your head from your heart or attempting to agrue that while at math class you believed 1+1=2 but at church on Sunday you confess you dont believe. A politican who tries to divorce his religious thought from his political has no integrity. Its like saying they should separate their personality from their politics.

    The seperation from church and state is more about the state not dictating what religion we shall follow. Freedom is to allow us free thought.

    • realtalkrealdebate says :

      You are certainly entitled to your own opinion. Although I don’t agree with you, I wouldn’t say it’s stupid. One’s religion certainly plays a role in shaping one’s beliefs. I don’t think you lack integrity if you try to separate your religious beliefs from your political opinions. The genius of democracy is that you have the freedom to support whomever you want. Yes the church and state clause dealt with literally separating government’s role in religious expression (I certainly don’t support suppressing it) it also is to ensure politician’s religious beliefs aren’t imposed through legislation.

    • mariampera says :

      Hi William, and thanks for the comment.

      I see the reasoning behind your comments; if you are a religious person and your religion is important to you, it probably has an effect on your morals and your opinions–at least, it probably should. I know my religion has an important role in my life and my morals, and they certainly come into play when I’m making political opinions. However, my belief is that one’s personal religion should not be part of law or government. That doesn’t mean you can’t take your morals/religion into account when you’re voting on a bill. It just means you should recognize those morals as your own and not try to regulate others’ morality. It is interesting to me how willing the GOP is to regulate others’ morality when it comes to health care and women’s issues, but we don’t want to regulate Wall Street where so much immorality occurs. Just a thought…

      So while I understand your reasoning, I find your comments to be a bit contradictory.

      Freedom from religion is, as you point out, intended so that the state cannot dictate one religion or what religions, etc. we as a free people are intended to follow. But if people are using their religion–and only their religion–to dictate how they vote, then they are trying to incorporate religion into the state. While I consider myself religious, my religion is not the only thing that has shaped my opinions, about government or anything else. I’m also a woman, I’m a college graduate, I have immigrant parents, I’m a first-generation American, I’m from a working class background, etc. These things cannot be ignored when I’m voting.

      We have the entire history of Europe to see what happens when religion and government are tied together, and now we see it with partitions in Islam. Freedom from religion is twofold; not only do I not want religion in my state, I don’t want government in my religion. Neither thing holds its integrity when it’s violated by the other. “And Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they were amazed at Him.” – Mark 12:17

      Also, your belief that people who try to separate their religion and politics (I don’t think people do this on an individual level–I think when I talk about separation of church and state, I mean on a larger scale, not for individuals) lack integrity is a bit harsh. As Angelo pointed out, you’re certainly entitled to your opinion on the matter–and I’d argue that you don’t become a successful politician without sacrificing your integrity to some extent or another–but I find that judgment to be quite indicting. Perhaps your opinion is that we should be holding our politicians to higher moral standards; they’ve certainly been lacking in the last several years (read ‘decades’).

      If that thought holds true and we get more people who are really religious–and don’t use religion as a facade for gaining power and trying to control others–then perhaps we’d have less judgment, scapegoating and hostility in Washington. Perhaps the assertion ought to be rather that people who claim to be religious aren’t behaving in a moral way that speaks of respect for one another. I know people can be religiously devout without demonizing one another.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: