When Akin was
asked what he thought about abortion being legal in cases of rape and incest,
he said that "First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that's
really rare, if it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut
that whole thing down, but let's assume that maybe that didn't work or
something. You know I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment
ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.” What?!
There’s two incredibly offensive points just in that short
statement—first the suggestion that only certain rapes are “legitimate,” and
second the complete medical falsehood that a female can “shut it down” when
necessary. Akin says he misspoke, but
more likely it was a “Freudian slip.” Last year, Akin co-sponsored a bill with
Paul Ryan that would have denied the use of federal funds for abortions only in
cases of “forcible
rape.” Heck, the GOP platform seeks to deny abortion
in ALL instances. Akin’s views are hardly
fringe.
That the GOP is distancing themselves from Akin’s comments
and demanding he abandon his run for Senate in Missouri has little to do with
their disagreement with his views but rather with the realization that his continued
presence in election may cost the Republicans the election. Tonight
on Hannity, Sean pretended that he
wanted Akin to quit out of principle, but Hannity’s guests revealed the truth; Akin is/was the Republican’s best shot at
beating a Democratic incumbent and taking control over the Senate. Missouri is also a crucial swing state in
the upcoming presidential election, and if a few more vote Obama in response to
Akin, there goes the state and therefore the election.
Akin’s comments represent a continued problem with
conservative Christianity in general. Whenever science disagrees with the
theological or political views of conservative Christians, they simply deny the
legitimacy of science. This idea that
women can “shut it down,” is hardly new—I heard the same thing when I was in
junior high while in Christian school.
It’s just another example of Christians either denying science or simply
making up their own to fit their own views.
This tactic of denying science or simply making up their own
has been done again and again. Global warming? Scientists the world over all assured us the
global warming was a coming reality, something that will require drastic action
to stop or at least slow down. Yet
thanks to a smear campaign and their own “science,” most doubt the existence of
global warming. Evolution? Again, having discarded and denied science,
conservative Christians have made up their own “creation science” in order to
prove the “veracity” of the Genesis account(s). Of course, those who actually claim to be
Christians and accept modern science are “denying the truth of the Word of God.”
Christianity denying science goes back hundreds of years.
Copernicus, the man who discovered that the earth actually revolved around the
sun, held back publishing his findings until he was on his death bed in fear of
the backdraft he would face from the Church.
Galileo actually had to recant his acceptance of this same view under
threat of excommunication. What was the
big deal with this new science by Copernicus? It contradicted the Bible—Joshua 10:13
says that the sun stood still, which obviously meant that the sun revolved
around the earth. Copernicus then was “contradicting
the Bible.” Sound familiar?
Thankfully, all “Christians” don’t think that way (me for
one), but for those who do, it’s time for a change—stop twisting or simply
denying facts when they don’t fit with your point of view.
Nice, but in my opinion - no cigar. Science and the pious practice two mutually exclusive ways of knowing. They hold little in common except some scientists are religious. Further, only one has a built in self correcting mechanism to weed out errors - science. Because of the scientific method the scope of science is limited. Religion requires only a claim of truth so there exists as many religious beliefs as populations hence religion can claim universality. A belief in Zeus is today is as valid as a belief Jehovah - maybe out of fashion but perfectly valid.
ReplyDelete"A prominent element of belief, therefore, or a least of the suspension of disbelief, is always presupposed, even when the system in question repudiates belief and purports to base itself solely on scientific procedures--and perhaps especially then! - John Douglas Hall
Delete