Here's the key part of Mourdock's statement: "I think that even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that is something God intended to happen."

You could take that to mean Mourdock believes (a) God intends some rapes to happen, and/or (b) when some rapes happen, God intends the woman to become pregnant from it."

I don't agree with either version of the statement. Do you?

In fact, I find both versions disgusting. Do you?

Because politics is necessarily material, and it political motives are often material in desire. The church embraces these agendas for less-than-noble reasons by politicizing, like what the Catholics did in the runup to the 1500s that led (in part) to the Protestant Revolution. When mixed with politics, religion becomes subservient to politics, not the driving force behind political motives, but the moral authority to back another agenda.

Religion has long abused their moral authority to hold back progress in democratic countries. Hell, the Catholic Church is most of the reason that France killed their own democratic transition in 1848, because the suffrage-granted peasants were told "vote for the monarchists" by their priests, and they did. Or in America in the run-up to the Civil War, the Abolitionists were largely religious, but Southern faith-leaders also used Christianity to justify slavery. One of them was betraying their faith (and that's looking at it objectively. One religion can't hold both of these views simultaneously, removing the morality of slavery from the equation entirely).

THat premise only holds up if only religion has ever embraced agendas for less then noble reasons.

Which... just isn't the case.

Outside which... Religion has also often helped democratic progress... and if religion can hold back things in a democracy... well it should.

If people care about their relgion, and their religion says something shouldn't happen... people have the right to know their religion wouldn't like such a thing.

Trying to infringe on religions freedom of speech is extremely heinous.

You know... and they totally disavowed his position on that subject.  Though i'm sure that part just totally slipped your mind despite being by far a bigger headline then anything you mentioned.

he is talking about life. life is something God intends to happens. and that life wouldnt get to happen if its aborted. its pretty clear what his argument is.

The strongest language the Romney campaign has used is that they "disagree" with Mourdock, but "still support him". They haven't withdrawn their endorsement of Mourdock, or asked him to pull his campaign ad featuring Romney. Paul Ryan hasn't commented at all, which isn't particularly surprising since he opposes a woman's right to choose an abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.

As for what's the bigger headline, here are the top three headlines from Google News' Election section: "Mourdock Rape Comment Puts GOP on Defense", "Will Richard Mourdock's Rape Remarks Hurt Mitt Romney?", and "Will Richard Mourdock's Comments on God and Rape Sink the GOP?" There isn't a single headline on the front page about Romney disagreeing with Mourdock.

Bottom line: Is it too much to ask Romney to withraw his endorsement of Mourdock?

I didn't say "shouldn't be allowed to," i said, "shouldn't." I'm not trying to repress freedom of speech, i'm trying to say that religious figures should avoid becoming invested in particular earthly political causes, for while it can have good benefits sometimes (like the southern churches that helped push Civil Rights in the '60s), ultimately it's distracting from the mission, because as the political class grows aware of religion's usefulness, they will work to twist it to their own ends (sometimes being objectively good ends, yes, but it works dangerously on the matter of faith)