Sharron Angle: Asshat

My home state may have produced some face-palm-worthy politicians over the years, but I don't think even the likes of Jesse Helms would've gone so far as this. Sharron Angle, the Republican running against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada, said in an interview earlier this year (which came to light this week) that she thinks that no one should ever get an abortion, even in cases of rape or incest. Why? Because she's a Christian, that's why.

Well, Sharron, I'm a Christian, too, and I think you're full of it. Shall we settle this with a game of rock-paper-scissors?

Look, I'm not going to tell Angle how she should interpret her beliefs, even if I think her interpretation is deeply flawed, both logically and theologically. (Why does a pregnancy from rape get to be part of God's plan, but a clinic in the pregnant rape victim's hometown doesn't get to be?) But since she's running for public office, I think it's fair to ask how her stated views will affect her votes on legislation.

Angle does not say - at least in this interview - that she believes X is wrong, and therefore the law should also prohibit X. But the fact that she didn't say "My personal beliefs are one thing and the law is another" indicates that she doesn't see a difference between the two. And that's scary. Because we don't elect senators to be our ministers. We elect them to pass laws.

Angle's comments here do nothing to assure voters that she understands her larger responsibilities to the public, aside from her personal feelings. To put this in perspective, the Senate to which Angle wants to be elected has the duty to confirm everyone from Supreme Court justices to ambassadors to Cabinet secretaries, all of whom have to bend over backwards to assure senators, under oath, that their personal feelings will not trump the laws they're being asked to enforce. Why shouldn't a prospective senator have to meet the same standard?

And, on a personal note... I think Angle's comments are ill-informed at best. And that's a phenomenally restrained assessment on my part. Someone who has been sexually assaulted, especially a child (who the stats show was likely victimized by a relative or close family friend), has enough to deal with without hearing a U.S. Senator tell her that she's a sinner. No, Angle didn't use those words. But any religious person will have no trouble drawing the conclusion that, if X is "God's plan," then doing the opposite of X is counter to that plan, a.k.a. sin.

If the people who think as Angle does were truly compassionate toward these victims, they wouldn't be lecturing them from on high about "God's plan." They'd be down on the front lines - the hotlines, the victim services, etc. - and then maybe they'd learn a little humility.