God Distances Self From Christian Right - Edit 2
Before modification by Joel at 26/10/2012 01:59:40 PM
OCTOBER 24, 2012 | ISSUE 48•43
THE HEAVENS—Responding to inflammatory remarks made by Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock during a debate Tuesday night, Our Lord God the Almighty Father sought today to distance Himself from both Mourdock and the entire right-wing fundamentalist Christian movement, sources confirmed.
“I want to make one thing absolutely clear: Mr. Mourdock’s comments from last night in no way reflect my position on this or any other issue,” said the Divine Creator, speaking at a press conference this afternoon to address Mourdock’s remarks that rape-induced pregnancies were God’s intent. “And furthermore, I would like to take this opportunity to say definitively that I, God, do not officially sanction or condone the words or actions of anyone involved in the fanatical, conservative Christian faction that Mr. Mourdock represents.”
“Many people hear my name in connection with the Christian Right and start to assume we are aligned in some capacity, and I’m here to say, for the record, that we are not,” God continued. “So let me just be clear: I don’t want women to get raped—not ever. I don’t think their resulting pregnancies are my divine will. And if a woman is raped, then she has the right to get an abortion, period. I do not agree with Mourdock. I do not agree with the Christian Right. End of story.”
Calling Mourdock’s comments “the last straw,” the Lord Our Maker explained that while in the past there have been a few areas where He and the religious Right have been in agreement, more often than not, in recent years, He and Christian conservatives have grown “actually quite far apart” on a wide range of issues.
This handy site: http://www.dayswithoutagoprapemention.com/ now tracks which Republicans want a federal abortion ban even for rape victims. For those scoring at home, that is the Republican Vice Presidential nominee, 3 US Senate nominees and 3 US House members (including VP nominee Paul Ryan.) A fourth GOP Senate nominee, Linda McMahon (CT,) says hospitals should be required to provide "morning after" pills ONLY in cases of "emergency rape" (and taxpayer funded Catholic hospitals should not be required to provide them at all.) That is just among Republicans who publicly commented in the last six months.
During the GOP primary debates, Mitt Romney said he "would be delighted to sign" a federal abortion ban but lamented that Congress will not pass one: FOUR new US GOP Senators plus a GOP House majority committed to passing a federal abortion ban would pass it for him to sign. It would go to the Supreme Court, but the next president will appoint 2-3 new SCOTUS judges, so the ban would certainly be upheld. It would be far easier to believe the GOP is not committed to banning abortion even for rape victims if so many of their Congressional, Vice Presidential and Presidential candidates did not endorse that ban.
For those expecting Moderate Mitt to prevent his party (and Conservative Mitt) banning US abortions, consider that LDS Bishop Romney tried to browbeat a mother of four out of an abortion NEEDED TO SAVE HER LIFE! http://jezebel.com/5851050/the-curious-case-of-mitt-romney-an-abortion-and-eliza-dushkus-mom
This is not the '90s GOP that banned late-term abortion; it has moved on—as a group—from that victory to banning ALL abortions.
On this as so many other issues, it is implausible to believe Republicans are simply pandering when they disagree with you but NOT when they agree. Doing BOTH on every issue (Romneys hallmark) reduces you to hoping the lie was disagreeing rather than agreeing: One of them MUST be a lie. "Trusting he is lying" is a dangerous way to pick a leader, and the smart money says when they abandon their decades old position mere months before the election, THAT is insincere pandering.
THE HEAVENS—Responding to inflammatory remarks made by Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock during a debate Tuesday night, Our Lord God the Almighty Father sought today to distance Himself from both Mourdock and the entire right-wing fundamentalist Christian movement, sources confirmed.
“I want to make one thing absolutely clear: Mr. Mourdock’s comments from last night in no way reflect my position on this or any other issue,” said the Divine Creator, speaking at a press conference this afternoon to address Mourdock’s remarks that rape-induced pregnancies were God’s intent. “And furthermore, I would like to take this opportunity to say definitively that I, God, do not officially sanction or condone the words or actions of anyone involved in the fanatical, conservative Christian faction that Mr. Mourdock represents.”
“Many people hear my name in connection with the Christian Right and start to assume we are aligned in some capacity, and I’m here to say, for the record, that we are not,” God continued. “So let me just be clear: I don’t want women to get raped—not ever. I don’t think their resulting pregnancies are my divine will. And if a woman is raped, then she has the right to get an abortion, period. I do not agree with Mourdock. I do not agree with the Christian Right. End of story.”
Calling Mourdock’s comments “the last straw,” the Lord Our Maker explained that while in the past there have been a few areas where He and the religious Right have been in agreement, more often than not, in recent years, He and Christian conservatives have grown “actually quite far apart” on a wide range of issues.
This handy site: http://www.dayswithoutagoprapemention.com/ now tracks which Republicans want a federal abortion ban even for rape victims. For those scoring at home, that is the Republican Vice Presidential nominee, 3 US Senate nominees and 3 US House members (including VP nominee Paul Ryan.) A fourth GOP Senate nominee, Linda McMahon (CT,) says hospitals should be required to provide "morning after" pills ONLY in cases of "emergency rape" (and taxpayer funded Catholic hospitals should not be required to provide them at all.) That is just among Republicans who publicly commented in the last six months.
During the GOP primary debates, Mitt Romney said he "would be delighted to sign" a federal abortion ban but lamented that Congress will not pass one: FOUR new US GOP Senators plus a GOP House majority committed to passing a federal abortion ban would pass it for him to sign. It would go to the Supreme Court, but the next president will appoint 2-3 new SCOTUS judges, so the ban would certainly be upheld. It would be far easier to believe the GOP is not committed to banning abortion even for rape victims if so many of their Congressional, Vice Presidential and Presidential candidates did not endorse that ban.
For those expecting Moderate Mitt to prevent his party (and Conservative Mitt) banning US abortions, consider that LDS Bishop Romney tried to browbeat a mother of four out of an abortion NEEDED TO SAVE HER LIFE! http://jezebel.com/5851050/the-curious-case-of-mitt-romney-an-abortion-and-eliza-dushkus-mom
This is not the '90s GOP that banned late-term abortion; it has moved on—as a group—from that victory to banning ALL abortions.
On this as so many other issues, it is implausible to believe Republicans are simply pandering when they disagree with you but NOT when they agree. Doing BOTH on every issue (Romneys hallmark) reduces you to hoping the lie was disagreeing rather than agreeing: One of them MUST be a lie. "Trusting he is lying" is a dangerous way to pick a leader, and the smart money says when they abandon their decades old position mere months before the election, THAT is insincere pandering.