Santorum: Children of Rape Victims Are "Gifts of God"

Let's see.  A woman is taken against her will and does not want to have a stranger/nephew/brother's baby and Santorum says the baby is "a gift from God."  It is unbelievable that he does not see the lack of logic in this conclusion.  It would make babies of rape victims the price a woman has to pay just for being a sex object to a goon.  If Santorum worships a good God, that deity would not allow the woman to be raped in the first place.  And before Santorum can argue that the rapist was given freedom of will by this God, the question arises, why didn't the all powerful good God make sure that when a man exercises that freedom of will, he does the right thing.

Views: 448

Attachments:

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

That just proves his god is a sadistic asshole.

Well, I’m hardly qualified to speculate what ideas hibernate in the crevices of the Christian mind, but let’s pursue this further nonetheless….  A lesbian/gay child would also be a “Gift from God”, for two reasons: for the child, the “gift” consists of the challenge of overcoming his/her biology to lead a “normal and decent” life.  And for the parents, the “gift” is the challenge of reeducating their child to lead the “normal and decent” life.  Everyone is gifted with a fine opportunity to overcome adversity, which of course is a miracle, for only a miracle-working God would only be so unflappably generous in giving people the opportunity to excel!

They point your attention to the Book of Job.  Poor old Job suffered every kind of humiliation and loss: his whole family was taken from him, but he never, ever, disavowed God.  I would have started bombing churches, synagogues, and other religious shrines (only when people were not present).  Job was simply stupid.  It is an interesting fact that, at least in the order of the books' placement, Job was the last time in the O.T. that God spoke directly to man.  It was like he was saying, "STFU and endure misfortune.  I work in mysterious ways."

"Unlogical" (or illogical) is right, booklover, but you beg a certain philosophical question.  If God is omniscient, as they say he is, then he knows the future and can, with such knowledge, coupled with his omnipotence, alter the future or allow us the luxury of thinking nothing we can do can be altered, that we are going to do what we are going to do, anyway.  (Yes, the Islamists make this a cardinal point in their theology: that is why Omar Sharif keeps telling Peter O'Toole (in Lawrence of Arabia) that "It is written."  At one point, having enough of it, Lawrence defiantly says, "It is NOT written," which is a sacrilege.)  Now, doesn't this make Allah a bit better than Yod Hey Vow Hey, since Yahweh doesn't stress fatalism, a logical conclusion or cognate to a God's omniscience.  Well, not better, but maybe a little bit more honest.  Just speculating on such things could lead to insanity.  It's why I keep saying that the God meme must be destroyed.  We need to create an antiviral medication that will make God go away.  If not, humanity is doomed.

Santorum has a daughter with a chromosomal disease, trisomy-18.  Most children with that disorder die a few days from birth, 90% in their first year, 99% are dead before the age of 10. He also had a stillborn son.  I'm sure he has stated that both were gifts from god, probably many times.  Having had both, I'm sure, has reinforced his faith.  Getting past "why me" and "why my child" is one of the hardest existential dilemmas there is.  One can either say, it's hard, but it is what it is (I would have to do that), curse god (the job story - and as I recall, his wife did say to curse god), or find a way to commit auto-psychological subterfuge and thank god.  He has done the last.  And he wants all of the rest of us to do it with him.

*

Actually, I think he's one of the most honest fundamentalist catholics (if there is such a thing) when it comes to abortion.  If the reason abortion is wrong, is that it murders a child - which is what they state - then it doesn't matter how the child got there. Rape and incest are not that child's fault, and the child should not be given the death penalty because of the horrible crime of its father.  If the child threatens the life of the mother, that's a more difficult dilemma.   I disagree with this argument, and I don't consider a fetus to have the rights of a sentient person, but the argument seems internally consistent from the "every conception is a full human being" point of view.  

why the picture? looks like highschool all over again up in here.. hrrmmmm

You make the point.

Well, I have a trisomy myself, but it only gave me quasi-treatable leukemia, the kind that lets you reach 70 or so.  Believe me, it was no gift of any god.  It was DNA.  I had to get past that "Why me?" stage, too, and as a non-believer, I did not have Job's luxurious means of coping with misfortune.  You are correct that Job's wife begged him to curse God and be done with it.  It might be the same as the theme, sacred to Luis Bunuel, of: "No good deed shall go unpunished," as it seems to Job that no matter what he does for God, God shits on him. 

Santorum has lousy semen.  Being unable to produce "normal" chidren himself, he is jealous of gay peoples' ability to either have child if they wish (through surrogate mothers and fathers) or not.  Not having children at all is an abomination unto Santorum.  After all, doesn't Genesis say "Go forth and multiply"?

Not having children at all is an abomination unto Santorum.


Makes you wonder if he has heard of asexuals.  Do you think it would make his head explode?

If that will make his head explode then by all means, inform him.

I've had some hard situations where I've just had to say, "It is what it is".  To be honest, when those things happen, at some point I say that with good things too, and am grateful (generally speaking, not grateful to some deity) when good things happen.  For the god believer, if the god is regarded as all-good and all-powerful, and the religion is marketed as a narcissist's dream, where the god gives his followers all-love, the dilemma is how to Orwell-ize it into something positive.

*

I would rather not think about Santorum's semen, thank you very much.

            The commandment to reproduce seems to be common amongst nearly all religions, and certainly amongst the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam).  I don’t have the statistics at my fingertips, but anecdotally it is likely that there’s a high correlation between level of devoutness and number of children per couple.  It has less to do with doctrinal differences such as whether Jesus was “Lord” or merely a prophet, and more to do with whether producing more humans glorifies God with more worshippers.  Religion does not hate sex or sexuality per se; but what it absolutely abhors is sex devoid of reproductive intent.  In other words, God wants us to enjoy the act of making babies, but He certainly doesn’t want us to indulge in the act without the consequence of the babies!  So young people should marry early, have lots of kids, and keep having kids all the way through reaching an age where birth defects become overwhelmingly likely (example: Sarah Palin’s final child).  So from the mainstream theistic viewpoint, curtailing reproduction through abortion or birth control, or even delaying marriage in favor of pursuing one’s education or career, is a sly and sinful effrontery against divine prescription.  This is tremendously useful because it keeps the peasants under control, in stultifying tasks of tending to their huge brood, instead of having leisure to think unorthodox thoughts. 

 

            Now regarding the episode of Job in the Bible.  From what I gather, this was written after the Babylonian captivity of the Hebrews, when the Hebrews became acquainted with the Zoroastrian concept of duality between the “good diety” (God) and the “evil deity” (Satan).  God visits all sorts of evils on Job not to teach Job a lesson or to make an uplifting example for all of humanity, but essentially to carry out a bet with Satan.  God is telling Satan that he’s a bigger dude, and Job is the unfortunate pawn.  So much for treating every soul with respect.  But at least Job got his stuff back after being despoiled.  His children fared far worse.  They were all murdered by God.  But after Job’s rehabilitation, he got a new family, evidently with a new harem and new kids.  Well, that’s fine to a point, but it’s no consolation to his original family which was murdered.  In effect, the Bible is considering Job’s children to be mere chattel, mere stuff of which one set can be replaced with another. 

 

            Job’s children were living, sentient humans – not embryos or fetuses.  Presumably some were school-age, some teens, some young adults – all murdered.  But what’s the lesson here?  It appears that the taking of the lives of Job’s children was OK because it was for a glorious divine purpose (God’s bet with Satan), whereas a mother aborting the embryo growing inside of her because of the crime of a rapist – well, that’s not OK.  How to reconcile this dilemma?  Ah, but here comes the standard religionist trick: what’s evil to us, or good to us, is only an illusion.  Real good and evil are only for God to determine.  We have no moral standing apart from aping explicitly the directives of God.  So if God says that chain-smoking is good for your health, you better light up those Marlboros, damn it!  Anything else would be sinful.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Supporting Membership

Nexus on Social Media:

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service