Nothing really screws a politician over than being caught on tape saying what they really think ab out something. Whatever spin or damage control actions Todd Akin takes now are pretty transparent half-assed explanations to mitigate the hits he took for admitting his own crushing ignorance on what should really be a very pressing human issue. I’m not going to go on and on about his bullshit opinions, but focus on what really allowed him to think this way to begin with. It’s called “Just World Hypothesis” and it’s one of the scariest things out there.
The idea really boils down to the notion that legitimately bad things don’t happen to legitimately good people. If they do, it’s either a ‘blessing in disguise’ or maybe they weren’t such good people after all. In this context, old King Combover probably feels very justified in his opinions. After all, god, or whoever is in charge of enforcing this just world policy would never let a virtuous woman suffer the after effects of a horrendously violent crime by sticking her with an offspring who shares half his DNA, right? A well designed woman would have a handy override switch to keep something like that from happening, and if it failed for some reason, well, she probably really wanted it to begin with.
There are a lot of reasons that such a philosophy is scary. Sure, in a just world the asshole rapist still has free will, but the victim would clearly suffer no more than a few minutes of uncomfortable intrusion in an area she probably would have enjoyed in slightly different circumstances. Child sex abuse survivors are probably not nearly as prevalent as the liberal media reports, and those few who are real likely learned a valuable lesson and will go on to live happy productive lives. Ethnic cleansing and genocide only happen to populations who willfully rejected the right god. Crime never pays. The good guys always win (generally the guys who did choose the right god or course). Oh, and women are never born with penises, so clearly the whole trans thing is nothing more than a grab for attention or a skeevy scheme to gain access to watch real women pee.
I know, it seems like it should be really, really easy to knock this whole notion clear into orbit, because seriously, every single human out there thinks of themselves as a good person, and who hasn’t had tremendously shitty things happen to them? Some days all you need to do is wake up. The problem is that it has a faith based fail safe that appears so much more effective than the Todd Akin version of the female body. In the faith based paradigm it’s very simple. Bad people who willingly choose to do bad go to hell, and those who are good and chose the right god, go to heaven, which makes the crap they suffered seem like nothing at all. They even get the added bonus of watching those who harmed them be tortured for all eternity. I mean what good person wouldn’t want access to trillions and trillions of years of unspeakable suffering? It’s not such a great reward unless you get some agonized wailing to go with it. Makes perfect sense, even though most people can’t endure the pure joyous laughter of small children without breaking after two hours.
It’s fine in and of itself if that’s what people really believe. That is never going to change given the panoply of stuff out there that seems positively goofy to all non-believers who likely believe in something equally wacky, only different. It’s not so fine when people tasked with the responsibility of leadership attempt to set policy on the basis of their beliefs even when they conflict with the readily apparent common good, not to mention common sense. If global climate change seems firmly pegged to our industrial habits, it is incumbent upon them to attempt remedy rather than fall back on a biblical promise to Noah that the earth would never be made uninhabitable again. Leading by one’s conscience is only admirable when that conscience is urging one to consider that their belief paradigm might actually be way wrong.
I know, people like elect the faithful because they feel they are getting a guarantee of morality. After all, such individuals have never before betrayed either personal or public trust, right? Too few stop to consider that more faithfully stalwart a person is, the more likely they are to trump any empirically validated concept with the word, direct or indirectly conveyed, from their own highly specific deity. This seems like a dicey gamble to me since there isn’t a whole lot of agreement out there. Christians alone have hundreds of different sects, so if was at all clear what Jesus really wanted, I would think there would only be one.
The point of this little rant is to urge some caution when voting whether you are liberal, conservative, democrat, republican, or allegedly independent. The horse you might be backing just may view the world as a magical place where fairies swoop in and somehow tweak a woman’s physiology to retroactively withdraw ovulation in the event of rape. I can’t see where that can be good for anyone.