Religious Conservative Incestual Rape Apologists

Sharron Angle is making public a textbook psychotic position on the horrible matter of incestual rape that leads to a pregnancy.  Digby Reports:

Sharron Angle has a plan for girls who are raped by their fathers and get pregnant. Force the little girl to have a child and then adopt both of them out to a new family!

Angle: I think that two wrongs don’t make a right. And I have been in the situation of counseling young girls, not 13 but 15, who have had very at risk, difficult pregnancies. And my counsel was to look for some alternatives, which they did. And they found that they had made what was really a lemon situation into lemonade. Well one girl in particular moved in with the adoptive parents of her child, and they both were adopted. Both of them grew up, one graduated from high school, the other had parents that loved her and she also graduated from high school. And I’ll tell you the little girl who was born from that very poor situation came to me when she was 13 and said ‘I know what you did thank you for saving my life.’ So it is meaningful to me to err on the side of life.

No word on what happened to the incest victim, but that’s really not something anyone should waste much time worrying about.

And anyway it just shows that God provides many good alternatives to abortion for for young girls who are raped by their fathers — perhaps we could just bend the rules a little bit and the little girl could marry her daddy so they could make a new family all their own.

That she leaves out the rape victim – aka the baby carrier (you know, the non-woman as per fellow Republican Christianist David Vitter) – is telling.  Nuts like these really don’t give a shit about mothers.  They aren’t anti-choice, they are anti-mother.  And God help you if you become a mother against your will, or if becoming a mother poses serious health risks.  Because they sure as hell won’t.  At that point you cease to be a woman, cease to be a rape victim, and become an incubator.

Let’s put the positions of these religious nuts who advocate forcing raped girls to bear their father’s children into context.  Consider the biblical story of Lot and his daughters.  He offered them up to be raped by strangers, and later had offspring with them.  Is this what religious conservative mean when they suggest using the Bible as a basis for law in our country?


The Bible is Wrong: Part 1: Mercy, Suicide and Homosexuality

Religion is a political beast wherein spirituality plays a varying part.  It is therefore apt to go beyond discussing the role of religion in public life, to discussing the nature of religion itself.  It is essential to balance respect for beliefs and people’s freedom to have and express them, with one’s own freedom to express one’s own beliefs and criticize others.  Aside from a few brave atheists, the discussion in this country thus far has been tilted grossly towards the Conservative Evangelical Christian worldview, with liberal Christians, secularists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, Atheists and others meekly keeping to the Church vs State debate.  Its time to step past that, and the only way to do that is to speak for one’s own beliefs, and use that as a platform to counter the beliefs you find harmful.

We need to be honest with ourselves.  It isn’t simply that we oppose conservative Christians using their religion to oppress homosexuals, it is that we abhore the belief itself that homosexuality is a sin (and all that entails).  So let’s bring that criticism into mainstream discourse.  In its absence we create a society where fear of blasphemy de facto retains its power unweakened by our distance from the dark ages.  The only way to move the frame of discussion back to a place of strength and equality is to make our opinions loud and clear, and no longer shrink back from voicing them.

Which brings me to my first topic in this series.  I was *finally* spurred to write about this after reading this post by Father Joe (and a particular comment in response), but I’d been meaning to write about the concept of suicide and mercy for a while now.  I’ve been hearing Disturbed’s Inside the Fire for a bit on the radio, and understanding the song plays a role in revealing how twisted a psychology the concept of hell and mortal sin raises.  The song is essentially David Draiman fighting the temptation to commit suicide and join his girlfriend.

The problem is with the concept of judgment, which is central to the judeo-christian-muslim tradition (growing up in conservative Judaism, we made a big deal out of the second most important holiday, Yom Kippur, the day of judgment).  In the case of a murderer, judgment, whatever the punishment, appeals to our sense of justice and revenge.  We want people who do bad things to suffer (however unholy that desire itself is).  However that same concept of judgment is extended to people who have not hurt anyone, or who themselves are suffering from a disease.  On this we should be perfectly clear.  Homosexuality hurts no one.  Suicide isn’t the act of a person who in a moment of weakness gave up on life.  Suicide is a fatal expression of clinical depression.  Condemning someone to hell for eternity for having cancer would be just as “just” and “compassionate”.

Father Joe writes:

When the topic of homosexuality is raised, immediately there are those who deny that we can make a moral evaluation. We are told, “It is not for us to judge, only God.”

Yes, it must be admitted that God is the judge of such things, but that verdict is not pending but has already been expressed by his revealed Word:

To those of us who do not buy the idea of “God’s revealed word” (finding the circular argument of “The Bible Says its So” unconvincing), that is a very hollow stance to take.  And it is one that serves a vision of God that is petty, vengeful, mean, flawed, violent, and utterly unholy.  What kind of God would condemn someone to an eternity of torture for loving another human being in a mutual relationship?

This is why I detest seeing the Bible used as a source for how to live one’s life, let alone how all Americans would be forced to live our lives.  The Bible describes a God who judges people for forbidden love, for depression, for believing in the wrong God, and condemns them.  Is that merciful?  Is that loving?  Is it holy?

Such beliefs have no place, no place at all in the running of our country.  And frankly subjecting people to them is a cruelty we seem unfortunately far from recognizing.  Its painful to think of the faithful relatives who think their loved ones are burning in hell, and whose hearts weep, confined by the belief that they will always be imprisoned there.