The coming pro-life theocracy?
My observation is that the GOP field is more concerned with the social conservative determination to use government to deny equality to gays and lesbians and pregnancy choice rights to women.
However, neither of those issues threatens the economy or the republic.
I think the Left is correct in asserting that the social conservative agenda is identical to a promise to impose theocracy.
~ Cynthia Yockey, A Conservative Lesbian, September 3
[Photo via Western Journalism]
Sep.07, 2011 10:02 am |
Political anti-life bias, Voting |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
heheheh, I think she doesn’t understand the word.
If no abortion and traditional marriage equals theocracy, then the US was living under a theocracy re: abortion until 1973 and is currently living under one (except for 5 or 6 states) regarding gay marriage.
Ms. Yockey is quite mistaken. Those “issues” pose the greatest threat to our nation because they threaten the family, which is the foundation of society. There is nothing more important than the “issues” of Life and marriage and the family.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means…
“pregnancy choice rights” Yep, that’s it. No one really wants to save lives of precious children, naw, we just want to oppress all the pregnant women.
Sigh. They just don’t get it. They fight their straw men with all the passion and wit of Don Quixote.
The mainsprings of social conservative ideology are entirely religious in nature. There’s no debating this. There might be post hoc “secular” justifications for various socially conservative policy positions in the abstract, but it’s impossible to separate the social conservative agenda from its religious motivations. So at least in some sense, yes, the success of the social conservative movement and the implementation of its policy goals would imply a tendency towards theocracy in the institutions of government. I don’t think those institutions are so weak that it would be a total conversion, but it would be a first step towards further erosion.
And the creating of this Republic, under God, was religious in nature. It respected the natural order of things: God as creator, Man as created by the Creator. Natural Law implanted in Man’s heart, and the laws of the nation founded on such.
The only erosion here is the lack of common sense, reasoning and doing things truly for the common good. Now the ‘common thinking’ is that government should do all for everyone, and that is not what the framers of the constitution had in mind.
Man was not made to be helpless creatures – but honest, fair, hard-working creatures – helping those in need, but not to the point of enabling bad behavior, anti-natural law constructs or selfishness.
If we benchmark today’s thinking versus the past thinkers, we lose totally. Philosophy and Reason anyone? What we have traded for logic and integrity is self-service and debauchery. I think we have traded down, for sure.
And the fact that people (reporters and the like) make this election about theocracy is a point that makes the case. Unbelievable.
Gee, those people over there are frightening me. They cannot possibly mean what they say. They must be forming a conspiracy to oppress me. Yep, that’s it. What they are doing is IDENTICAL to what I’m afraid of. It’s all so logical. Yep.
Keep beating up on straw men while your real life passes you by, libertines.
The economy does not exist in a vacuum. Social issues affects the economy, and vice versa.
Really?!?!? Social issues are holding back our economy? So I guess we had no social issues problems while the banks were making money hand over fist before the bubble burst? Sub-prime mortgages would have worked well for everyone if only those gay people were not promoting abortion in our public schools???
Look if you have strong feelings about social issues that is fine but let’s not pretend that they have anything to do with the economy. Greed is not something you can blame on gays or fornicators…
As for politics… Bachman is out. She just doesn’t seem to know it yet but Parry stole all her thunder so stick a fork in her. So, it comes down to Parry and Romney. These two guys will split the Republican Party like what happened to Al Gore back in 2000. The Tea Party acts like children with an “I want my way or I’m going to take my toys and go home” attitude. The Tea Party will push for Parry and if he wins the nomination he will lose the moderate vote due to his far right stances on many issues. Likewise if Romney gets the nomination the Tea Party will never vote for him due to Romney-care and his pro-choice and pro-gay marriage statements he has made in the past. In both cases Obama holds onto the left and continues to hold the moderate vote while the Republican Party fights with itself. Even if they did a joint ticket with Parry as the V.P. it won’t matter because the Tea Party will never accept Mit Romney and the rest of the country will never accept Parry as the President of our country.
One last thing about Parry “Yes I am using the Colbert spelling” His record of “job growth” in Texas is very misleading. He just stole jobs from other states so every job he has brought to a Texas family was stolen from another American family with state tax incentives. This will not work in a global economy and we cannot afford the tax cuts it would take to steal jobs back from other countries like Mexico and China. Parry’s Jobs program is simply to slit the throat of your neighbor to feed your own family and that is not what this country should stand for.
Nothing good comes out of Texas…. Ever.
Joan,
Stereotyping saves a lot of time, doesn’t it?
Biggz,
Ditto what I said to Joan.
Sheesh. I’m disillusioned by the lack of liberal creativity today.
Terri K in still-thriving-during-the-recession Texas
It is interesting to see Mitt Romney as a thumbnail on this quote as being one of those conservative GOP politicians when he in fact supports Pro-choice even though his personal views are pro-life.
Biggz said:
“it won’t matter because the Tea Party will never accept Mit Romney and the rest of the country will never accept Parry as the President of our country.”
In this instance Biggz your analysis about the mood of the American electorate is incorrect. The Tea party would vote for Romney if he won the Republican nomination. And the rest of the country would vote for Perry up against Obama. Cause at this point everybody knows that getting rid of Obama is the single biggest thing they can do to better our country both socially and economically. On this everybody agrees. At least everybody but the abortion lobby and unions.
When our own US Justice Department goes so far as to attack Gibson USA (a non-union company) the way they are doing it today.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/07/does-white-house-want-to-ship-jobs-overseas/
And when the US National Labor Relations Board sues Boeing to try and stop them from opening up a new plant in a North Carolina and the reason they give for not being able to open the plant is that North Carolina cause it is a non-union right-to-work state;
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2011/June/Boeing-Lawsuit-Ignites-Right-to-Work-Debate/
enough is enough.
It is interesting to see Mitt Romney as a thumbnail on this quote as being one of those conservative GOP politicians when he in fact supports Pro-choice even though his personal views are pro-life.
TruthXposed,
I have come to realize that almost all those people who claim to be pro-life personally but they vote pro-life are really just putting on a facade. The abortion mills are full of women who claim to be personally pro-life.
Correction: TruthXposed,
I have come to realize that almost all those people who claim to be pro-life personally but they support pro-choice are really just putting on a facade. The abortion mills are full of women who claim to be personally pro-life.
Why do they call us “religiously motivated” social conservatives, and accuse us of promoting “theocracy”?
It does not take any faith or religion to know that innocent life should be protected, including the unborn.
It does not take any faith or religion to know that they human family is naturally evolved as one man and one woman, joined for a lifetime and open to new life.
Natural reason reveals this, and the pagan philosophers knew this long before Christianity was born.
Yes…. Christianity and the other great religions also teach these things — but that’s because there is only one truth, so we should expect Faith and Reason and all the great teachers to offer the same lesson.
However…. Reason alone does not give us the courage to stand on the sidewalks and try to save lives. Faith gives us courage to do the right thing in the face of evil.
‘conservative lesbian’
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Is that kind of like a ‘square cirlce’!?!?
Or a ‘pro-life abortionist’?!?!
Or a ‘negro white supremicist’.
Do they wear a black bow tie with their flannel shirts?
Do their patent leather workboots have 4″ heels?
the term ‘oxymoron’ comes to mind.
“They fight their straw men with all the passion and wit of Don Quixote.”
Compared to progressives Don Quixote had eagle vision and was an the male equivalent of Annie Oakley.
At least the term ‘theocracy’ implies some sort of majority mob rule.
[Certainly not a ‘constituional republic’ or a ‘republican from of government’.]
But when you start abitrarily picking and choosing which parts of the constitution you will not be governed by, then you have headed down the road to ‘lawlessness’.
These disingenious progressvies keep shouting the alarm about the christians who have been the movers and shakers of this nation since before it’s inception, but the cross shaped beam in their eye prevents them from identifying the single greatest threat to thier liberty: The lunacy of a sharia ‘theocrazy’.
Some of you are just woefully ignorant, some, maybe most, are malignantly perverse.
joan says: September 7, 2011 at 1:31 pm
Do you rely on your ‘cognitive functions’ to notify you when your pants are on fire or does the intense heat, flames, smoke and the smell of scorched flesh and singed hair have a short cut to your evolutionary instinct for survival?
‘Conservative’ by it’s very roots is indicative of being against change.
History shows us that societies change and evolve. Some things we like, some we don’t.
Legal abortion is here, abortion always was.
Gay marriage is underway, gay relationships were always with us.
Families ‘traditionally’ meant the woman staying at home, not working. Shall we return to that? How about a bit further back when women couldn’t vote? Or have their own bank accounts? When gays were bashed (they still are) or were imprisoned?
I don’t find the resistance to matters such as gay marriage and abortion to be ‘theocratic’. But I do find the attempts to infuse education and such with religious beliefs and incantations to be elements of theocratic behavior.
“There might be post hoc “secular” justifications for various socially conservative policy positions in the abstract, but it’s impossible to separate the social conservative agenda from its religious motivations.”
If we couldn’t impose any rule or policy that is tied up with religion then we would have no laws at all. You can’t outlaw murder! Those religious zealots think they can impose their commandments on me. Who cares that they claim to argue from reason, they’re belief really stems from the commandments. You can’t enact immigration reform! The Church supports it and Nancy Pelosi quoted the bible to make her case – ZEALOT!!!
It makes no sense. And you know it too. You’re just using it as a cover instead of saying what you really mean which is: “I disagree w/ the non-religious arguments.” And that’s the debate. But you don’t want to have to make actual arguments so you try to stop it before it begins with nonsensical babbling about how if a religious person believes it, then we have to reject it.
“Families ‘traditionally’ meant the woman staying at home, not working. Shall we return to that? How about a bit further back when women couldn’t vote? Or have their own bank accounts? When gays were bashed (they still are) or were imprisoned?”
Tradition for tradition’s sake is not what anyone is arguing for. Conservative doesn’t mean stagnant. It just means they recognize that not all change is beneficial. Some things do not need to change.
Ah, but for what ‘sake’ and for whose ‘sake’ are they arguing for ‘tradition’ CT?
And which parts of ‘tradition’ and why? And why not other parts?
Under whose paradigms do we decide which changes are beneficial and which aren’t?
Some people are just intrinsically ‘conservative’ because it’s their mindset. It could be based on fear of change or dislike of new ways of society functioning.
Then there are those whose conservatism is based on biblical or similar beliefs. Yet those same people appear comfortable with the fact that biblical adherence is not really all that much adhered to apart from the bits which suit them.
“Ah, but for what ‘sake’ and for whose ‘sake’ are they arguing for ‘tradition’ CT?
And which parts of ‘tradition’ and why? And why not other parts?”
That’s the debate isn’t it – there will be people who will say, we should enact policy X and those who oppose it will give the reasons for their opposition. But anyone who merely says, ‘b/c it’s tradition’ isn’t going to be any more persuasive than the person saying ‘b/c it’s progress’.
“Under whose paradigms do we decide which changes are beneficial and which aren’t?”
A society has to decide what it values and why. The only person for whom this is an insurmountable problem is the relativist who thinks nothing can be right or wrong. The rest of us will argue for our paradigms through the democratic process.
“Some people are just intrinsically ‘conservative’ because it’s their mindset. It could be based on fear of change or dislike of new ways of society functioning.”
Sure but the same is true of liberals. There are plenty of them who couldn’t give a coherent explanation beyond talking points for anything they believe. If all you’re saying is some people don’t think through their positions …then so stipulated.
“Then there are those whose conservatism is based on biblical or similar beliefs. Yet those same people appear comfortable with the fact that biblical adherence is not really all that much adhered to apart from the bits which suit them.”
Again I will point out the social justice liberals – their liberalism is tied up in their spiritualism and religion. And lots of them are hypocrites. But again – so what?
Beautiful CT, well said. You’ve demonstrated what a circular argument all this is.
Mind you, I find your derogatory remarks regarding ‘liberals’ to be quite telling. Smacks rather of your own conservatism.
What derogatory remarks – I’m just pointing out that none of your objections about conservatives are unique to conservatives. Both sides have their mindless followers, both sides have their issues that are tied in very closely with religious belief, and both sides have their hypocrites on those beliefs. I didn’t say all liberals.
Families ‘traditionally’ meant the woman staying at home, not working.
Women that ‘traditionally’ stayed at home were working just as hard, if not more than, their spouses. In addition, their finished products were of much higher quality and standards than they are these days.
Biggz: Nothing good comes out of Texas…. Ever.
Now just hold on a dang minute! Lockhart, Texas, barbecue Capital of the world!
BBQ… (talk about a real religion…) :)
Reality: Families ‘traditionally’ meant the woman staying at home, not working. Shall we return to that? How about a bit further back when women couldn’t vote? Or have their own bank accounts? When gays were bashed (they still are) or were imprisoned?
Right – there is no stuffing the genie back in the bottle. There is no “going back to past times” just because something is different now that one does not like.
____
I don’t find the resistance to matters such as gay marriage and abortion to be ‘theocratic’. But I do find the attempts to infuse education and such with religious beliefs and incantations to be elements of theocratic behavior.
Very well said.
Someone needs to tell this lady that abortion is a human rights issue, not a religious issue. Apparently she didn’t get the memo…
http://secularprolife.org
That’s right JoAnna, this is not just a religious issue it is also a human rights issue. You don’t need to be religious to be pro-life you just need to understand that humans have rights, the most important being the right to life. You also don’t need to be religious to believe the unborn are human, you just have to have a basic grasp of biology.
Often times Chrisitan beliefs are going to coincide with secular beliefs because for one, when this nation was created it was inspired by religious principles (One Nation under God) and two God gave us all a conscience. So when secularists see atrocities happen they are going to speak out against them the same way the religious do because it’s the right thing to do.
Secularists would not complain about religious people speaking out against slavery, unjust wars or genocide because they would agree it’s wrong. They wouldn’t accept any slave owner or war monger saying ‘don’t force your views on me’
It’s only when they dont agree with religious people will they say they are forcing a theocracy. Thus this argument becomes a cop out, something the non-religious say when they want to get away with something, you could justify doing any horrible act by saying ‘don’t force your views on me’
“I don’t find the resistance to matters such as gay marriage and abortion to be ‘theocratic’. But I do find the attempts to infuse education and such with religious beliefs and incantations to be elements of theocratic behavior”
I actually agree with this to an extent. I’m sure there’s some disagreement on what constitutes a religious belief or incantation (though maybe less than you think). But I do object to taking issues like sex education that are viewed by the majority of American’s as moral issues (whichever way you come down on the morality) and stripping them of that element, or worse, imbuing them with neutrality or positiveness. As far as sex-ed goes, if you’re going to go beyond the nuts and bolts biology basics, then you need present the moral component accurately (ie there is disagreement about it) rather than saying things like “there is nothing wrong w/ behavior x” or “if you’re going to have sex, you should use birth control”. That’s my pet peeve in that area.
Strong family is good for the environment. Splitting up tends to duplicate shelter and transportation. This burns extra resources and creates a large carbon footprint.
Interestingly, leaders of the movement for gay marriage in Massachusetts broke up and got divorces very quickly. With revolving door marriages the consumption of resources increases at a faster pace.
Any environmentally conscious person should support a strong, stable family unit.
“Right – there is no stuffing the genie back in the bottle. There is no “going back to past times” just because something is different now that one does not like.”
This is a real problem. When we discover we have made a mistake and then say, well, we can’t go back.
This is functionally equivalent to saying we can’t change something that is wrong because we have always done it that way.
We need a paradigm that allows us to make good decisions and act on them rather than giving irrational excuses for continuing in failure.
If you are lost in the woods, sometimes the best way out is to turn back. Going BACK is not failure.
Abortion advocates think that abortion isn’t such a big deal, but it is at the very heart of what has broken down our own culture. Once you step away from the responsibility of caring for the child you created, then you can justify stepping away from any and all responsibility, and then you can rationalize that you are not really responsible for anyone or anything at all. Why are so many people lonely and without support? Because we walk away from each other at the slightest sign of trouble.
Humans are cooperative mammals. It goes against every molecule of our being to act in a completely selfish manner.
That’s so funny, pharmer.
I read yesterday about a greenie who’s refusing to have children in order to save the environment.
This is a real problem. When we discover we have made a mistake and then say, well, we can’t go back.
This is functionally equivalent to saying we can’t change something that is wrong because we have always done it that way.
Hippie, at times, that could be, yes, but it’s often not that simple. Take the debate about contraception. If there were none, then indeed there would be some people not having sex, or less of it. But would that really outweigh the increase in unwanted pregnancies due to the people that still had sex, just now without contraception? I know some people think so, but I disagree. If anything, I don’t think we can know, now.
Someone needs to tell this lady that abortion is a human rights issue, not a religious issue. Apparently she didn’t get the memo…
JoAnna, don’t you mean “tell this lady that abortion is a religious issue, not a human rights issue”?
No Doug – it’s not a religious issue just b/c religious people are involved in the cause any more than immigration and government programs for the poor are religious issues. Many people on this site argue from a purely scientific/logical perspective against the deliberate taking of human life. This is a human rights issue.
Matters of faith are religious issues. So the day people start campaigning for forced acceptance of the perpetual virginity of Mary, come talk to me. I’ll have your back.
abortion is totally a human rights issue – pro-aborts say it’s the woman’s right to abort – but what happens with an abortion is the intentional ending of a human life. That violates that human’s right to life, which is a more central, more foundational issue than convenience, economics or any such thing.
Any intentional ending of a human life = human abuse = human rights’ violation and therefore this falls under a human rights issue.
This is not if people can have hamburgers vs spaghetti, have brown hair vs blonde or anything like that. This is life, folks, and that puts it squarely in the human rights’ category – and it’s clearly abuse since it involves hurt, sometimes dismemberment and 99.9999999% death for the unborn.
No mention of religion here. If you are human, then your life should not be taken away from you. Clearly a human rights’ issue.
Human rights come down from God too :<}+<
Biggz: “Nothing good comes out of Texas.”
Right. That’s why there’s so much good there. ;-)
So what’s wrong with tax incentives? Any state that can use them DOES use them. Municipalities use them. Liberal mayors and governors use them. You’re merely silly enough to imagine you can impugn Perry for using them without someone calling you out by applying a categorical imperative. D’oh!
A state that can afford to reduce taxes to attract business must be doing something right, Biggz. Imagine if all states could reduce taxes on business and still balance their books. That would be a mark of SUCCESS. But folks like you blame the successful states for the failed state’s relative standing as failures.
Blame the successful. It’s the liberal way.
Reality: “‘Conservative’ by it’s very roots is indicative of being against change.”
But that begs the question. Pro-Choice folk here don’t want Roe v. Wade to change. Does that make them conservative?
“But I do find the attempts to infuse education and such with religious beliefs and incantations to be elements of theocratic behavior.”
Yeah. All that “O-ba-ma, O-ba-ma, O-ba-ma chanting we saw schoolchildren doing back in ’08 was a bit over-reverent, I concede. ;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVi4rUzf-0Q
That’s some seriously funny sh*t.
“Mind you, I find your derogatory remarks regarding ‘liberals’ to be quite telling. Smacks rather of your own conservatism.”
Mutatis mutandis, good grief…
I LOVE (sarcasm here) that video: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA! mmm MMM MMM!!!!
To quote my friend Bryan Kemper, SOCIAL JUSTICE BEGINS IN THE WOMB. So does peace and equality and the pursuit of happiness.
Don’t you liberals all want that too?
CT: No Doug – it’s not a religious issue just b/c religious people are involved in the cause any more than immigration and government programs for the poor are religious issues. Many people on this site argue from a purely scientific/logical perspective against the deliberate taking of human life. This is a human rights issue.
Matters of faith are religious issues. So the day people start campaigning for forced acceptance of the perpetual virginity of Mary, come talk to me. I’ll have your back.
Makes no sense from what was quoted.