Posted on 05/28/2019 5:24:50 AM PDT by Kaslin
Has anyone coined a term to describe the irrational fear of the government imposing laws based on religion? If not, I humbly suggest "theocraphobia."
In the United States, Alabama's ban of abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected has resulted in a widespread rash of theocraphobia. It has crept into Canada, which seems especially vulnerable to it in the wake of the election of Jason Kenney and the United Conservative Party in Alberta.
The comparisons to the Puritan tyranny of The Handmaid's Tale (based on the novel by wealthy white Canadian feminist Margaret Atwood) predictably rolled in, and the accusations that women are in danger from regressive religiously inspired legislation are likely going to be with us for a long time. The image Handmaid evokes gives us an indication of what theocracy means to these people: regressive, irrational laws that restrict people's freedom based not on any public interest, but on personal religious beliefs that should remain private. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez summarized this in a tweet accusing pro-life Republicans of secretly wanting to turn America into "a creepy theological order led by a mad king."
The mistake of those panicked commentators isn't that they think the ban on abortion is a theocratic move. That's more or less true. What they've missed, though, is that all politics is theological, including theirs.
The debate between pro-lifers and pro-choicers (and among different pro-choicers) has to do with when a fetus becomes a baby with moral rights. In other words, when does a bundle of cells become a person?
How you answer this depends on how you define human nature. This is a philosophical question — one of the oldest ones — relating to that branch of philosophy dealing with ultimate reality, metaphysics. It also touches on ethics,
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Then came the 60s. The Baby Boomers took whoredom and drug addiction mainstream. They revived both astrology and humanism.
Today, popular American culture elevates the religion of humanism above all else. I would hardly call it a "theology" ("The study of God"), but it's definitely a religion. And it's the driving force behind our politics, entertainment, much of the corporate "church" scene and definitely, public education.
A misuse of the term ‘theocracy’ to a point that includes everything.
Sure, all politics are based on some sort of moral assumptions, but not all politics are directed by those acknowledged as religious leaders.
The assumption is that secular leftism is not a religion with its own culture of murderous fundamentalists and malignant clerics.
The debate between pro-lifers and pro-choicers (and among different pro-choicers) has to do with when a fetus becomes a baby with moral rights.Sorry, no. If that was the case the issue would have been solved long ago.
Pro-abortionists lust for a world with unfettered sex. With no consequences. And they will let nothing stand in the way of reaching their goal.
Especially not an innocent baby.
I think the "person" angle is a bit of a canard.
Clearly the abortion debate revolves around an unborn, living human being. Scientific tests can verify the "living" part and the "human" part, and of course the "unborn" part.
No reasonable person can disagree that these are living human cells in a womb.
Ahhhhhhhhhh, but introduce the philosophical concept of "person" and now we have a little wiggle room, eh? If we just "decide" not it's not a "person", then we can kill it, right?
I think the entire discussion of "personhood" is invented as a tool to help the anti-baby people justify their hatred for life and for God.
There are other ways to prevent babies than just abortion.
No. This is not about unfettered sex. It’s about killing babies.
Killing babies because you have twins and only want one.
Killing babies because now you are getting a divorce and want to get back at your husband.
Killing babies because you don’t want a girl child.
Killing babies just because.
Why is it that the left considers their choices "centrist" and the others are far and extreme?
So now you want to define ‘fundamentalism’ so broadly that it means nothing as well?
What I think odd is that the left considers their "positions" centrist, and all others as politicizing, polarizing, and extreme.
But the article in general is spot-on: all politics is grounded in a radical point of departure. To call yours "neutral" is a false.
</italians>
Anti-truth, anti-freedom, anti-individual, anti-life collectives/collectivists are on the wane. Slaughtering socialists are running for their safe spaces.
I think Bratch is mostly correct. Feminism as a whole (the 1960’s and beyond version at least) is a unscrupulous man’s dream. Women who behave like men and have promiscuous sex with no consequences.
Abortion is (to them) merely getting rid of the consequences and allowing more promiscuous sex. Somewhere over 90% of all abortions are for the convenience of the mother.
Get back to a “sex only within the bounds of (heterosexual) marriage” footing and the whole abortion problem goes away.
Axioms of a rational philosophy are primaries, which come from observations of irreducible facts of reality, which are capable of and must be the foundation of everything else. These require no proof, but are the basis of proofs.
That's a real puzzle, isn't it? To say the come from "irreducible facts" is one thing for Kant another thing for the #scientist.
And if that absolute ground "requires no proof" it finds itself distinct from the "observations of irreducible facts of reality"
bump
Like Bobby said, You Gotta Serve Somebody.
Yes, evolution is religion!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.