So Richard (DIck) Mourdock has a big sad ("it has been one of the toughest days of my life") about the very suggestion that just because (he believes, after he "struggled with it myself for a long time") God intends a rapist to get his victim pregnant that he therefore intends for the rapist to actually, you know, rape his victim.

Because, you know, he and his ilk also claim even if the father is a sinner God says his child is completely innocent and just as precious as any other life.

Oh really?

Let's see what his part of the Bible say about God's attitudes towards the offspring of guilty people:

(Exodus 34:6-7) - "Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in loving kindness and truth; who keeps loving kindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations."

Uh oh!

Not that we really expect Mourdock, Aiken, Ryan, or other nominally Christian extremists to be authentic, let alone consistent, about their respect for the Bible -- after all their entire political agenda involves the repeal of the Sermon on the Mount!  But if we take them at their word then they're stuck with only a few very ugly choices:

If God meant what he said in Exodus 34:6-7 (and elsewhere around the Old Testament) then He doesn't think a rapist's baby is all that innocent or worthy of protection after all.  In which case Mourock et. al are seriously misinterpreting what God wants, Or.

If God meant what he said but a rapist's baby doesn't fall under the Exodus 34:6-7 clause then God sort of necessarily really doesnt think a rapist is guilty of iniquity.  In which case Mourdock et. al are seriously misinterpreting what God wants.

If God really didn't mean what he said in Exodus 34:6-7, or, worse from their claimed position, he meant it but it's not that big a deal to ignore Him, then they're throwing open the Biblical-interpretation cafeteria door, in which case they need to explain... well... why we have to listen to them pulling the God card on any number of other issues... where, after all, they're generally far more at odds with the black and white text than are, oh, say, most liberals and progressives.

Personally I think there are plenty of other positive, uplifting, and non-getting-into-other-people's-business versions of Christian theology that don't require literal interpetations of every line of text.  Which considering Jesus' absolute and unambiguous condemnations of hypocrisy and empty piety ought to comfort Mourdock, Akin, Ryan, and their ilk enormously. 

But!

If they're going to keep insisting we adopt their spiteful, narrow, supersticious and suspiciously self-serving interpretations then... one way or another Mourdock is wrong that God both doesn't intend for a rapist to commit his crime but does intend him to impregnate his victim.

Seriously, gang.  If you're going to be a Christian in the first place you've got to see the Bible as more than a magic rattle you can shake any time you want to feel good about being a self-serving dick.

Note: I've been using the words "rape" and "rapist" in these last few posts because that's the language Mourdock, Akin, Ryan, and the rest insist on using.