Dear Secular Humanist: Please Keep Your Religious Views about Abortion out of Politics!

In our country, there is a general feeling that only positions backed by actual fact should drive public policy.  ‘Religion’ is perceived to be the realm of personal opinion.   Even Christians tend to accept the view that people are allowed to have their opinion, but they aren’t allowed to impose that opinion on others.   The result is that many Christians refrain from acting ‘politically’ because they see their own beliefs as nothing more than ‘mere opinion.’

Secularists tend to be people who have dispensed with ‘religion’ altogether, and like to think that they are entirely ‘fact driven.’

When these ideas collide, we observe something very curious:  secular humanists conclude that they can advocate for anything that they want in the public sphere, because nothing they believe is ‘religious, ‘ while distinctly Christian viewpoints are forbidden from entering the public domain, since those will be, by definition, ‘religious.’  And again, even Christians gravitate to that view.

This tends to lead to debates and discussions and policy proposals that take the ‘facts’ of the secularists as the starting points.  We are expected to proceed on their terms.  And why not?  Surely without the ‘religious’ component, those ‘facts’ are as close to actually being real descriptions of the world as one could get, right?

But what if ‘religion’ and ‘fact’ are not opposites? Continue reading

I Can See the Next Holocaust From My House

Anthony Horvath is a contributor at Laigle’s Forum, Christian apologist, pro-life author and speaker, and publisher.  To learn more about his latest project aimed at combating the philosophies discussed in the essay below and how you can help, click here.


Tina Fey, impersonating Sarah Palin, joked, “I can see Russia from my house.”

I can see the next holocaust from my house, and it is no joke.

In the decades leading up to one of the most horrific chapters in human history, the leading lights of the day openly discussed bringing about those horrors.  Eugenics was posited as the rational position of all intelligent, well-meaning individuals.  In journals, newspapers, academic conferences, public health offices and elsewhere, they talked about sterilizing people with or without their consent, segregating them from society, or even exterminating them.  And that was in America.

In a book written in 1920 by two German experts and applauded by American experts, it was argued that it was allowable to destroy the ‘life unworthy of life.’

Who was regarded as ‘life unworthy of life’?  The handicapped, the disabled, the diseased, the mentally ill, the ‘feeble-minded.’  Really, just about anyone the experts decided was ‘unfit’ could be deemed ‘unworthy of life.’  When eugenics morphed into the Holocaust, many of its proponents quietly went to ground.  Some asked ‘What went wrong?’ but few arrived at the right answer.

Fast forward sixty years.  Enter Julian Savulescu.

You probably don’t know who Julian Savulescu is, just as your average American off the street in 1910 wouldn’t have known who Charles Davenport was.  You probably don’t know who Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva are, just as your average American in 1920 wouldn’t have known who Alfred Hoche and Karl Binding were.

But you may recall a few months ago when two ‘ethicists’ quietly submitted an article in an ethics magazine arguing that the logic of abortion does not cease after the child has fully exited the birth canal.  For all the reasons that abortion on demand was justified, so too, the two ‘ethicists’ Giubilini and Minerva argued, was infanticide.  Of course, they preferred to call it ‘after-birth abortion.’

I hope that nobody misunderstands me:  Giubilini and Minerva were correct in their analysis.  If they are to be faulted for anything, it is for stopping at the newborn.

When people heard about this article there was outrage, and not a little of it spilled over onto the journal that printed the article in the first place.  That journal was “The Journal of Medical Ethics.”  Flabbergasted, the editor defended the publication of the article, saying:

“As Editor of the Journal, I would like to defend its publication. The arguments presented, in fact, are largely not new and have been presented repeatedly in the academic literature and public fora by the most eminent philosophers and bioethicists in the world, including Peter Singer, Michael Tooley and John Harris in defence of infanticide, which the authors call after-birth abortion.”

Yes, that is quite right.  The arguments presented were not new, and have been ‘presented repeatedly.’

He continued, “What is disturbing is not the arguments in this paper nor its publication in an ethics journal. It is the hostile, abusive, threatening responses that it has elicited. More than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.”

This embattled editor of a renown journal of medical ethics is named Julian Savulescu. Continue reading

Racially integrated mobs (with no white, Asian or Hispanic members)

“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon” — Race Baiter in Chief

by Don Hank

Ever since about the time of the Trayvon Martin incident, I have been receiving regular, roughly daily, forwarded reports of unprovoked attacks by mobs of  “young people” all around the US. A visitor from another planet would certainly infer from these reports that young people are a dangerous mutant subspecies of human and need to be monitored and strictly disciplined.

That’s because the mainstream media almost never identify racially homogeneous mobs by race unless they are white. They pretend the mobs are diverse, thinking, I suppose, that if they don’t identify the problem, it will simply go away.

By this logic, Hitler was an international citizen, not a German. Mussolini was a man without a country. Al Capone was an international business man, not a member of the Italian mafia. Pablo Escobar was a successful American merchant, not a member of the Medellin cartel. Godzilla was a troubled youth who was painfully conscious of his size and was merely overcompensating. And so forth. 

Anyway, the mobs are growing and the racially homogeneous violence is escalating, despite efforts to minimize it and pretend it is diverse and non-specific. (Say, how about we stop looking for specific bacteria that cause disease? Let’s just have a campaign to wipe out all germs? Wouldn’t that be more effective? Oh, that’s right. Some commensal bacteria are needed by the body to digest food. Never mind).

But now for the good news.

Recently, President Obama issued the statement shown below clarifying his “post-racial” position. Did you catch it? Here it is again in case you missed it:

“Shortly after I was elected I proclaimed America to be in its post-racial phase, where race has become totally irrelevant and people are judged on the noble principle set forth by Dr. Martin Luther King, namely, according to the content of their character. I meant exactly what I said.

A growing number of people of my race – and party (guess that goes without saying) – weren’t listening to King or to me and they have attacked white people simply for being white, claiming “your people” hurt “our people.” Let me be clear: There is no “your people” and there is no “our people” in post-racial America. Both blacks and whites need to follow MLK’s guidelines, without exception, if we are to get along. Your asinine presumption that someone’s ancestors harmed your ancestors does not give you the right to practice violence against that person or steal their property. Before the civil war, most northern whites, guided by Christ’s teachings, thought slavery was evil and acted accordingly. They set up the Underground Railroad to help eliminate the practice. William Wilberforce, the British activist who almost single-handedly ended the institution of slavery in his country, was a white Christian. White Christians also helped end slavery here and later helped spearhead the civil rights movement. They were so successful that slavery is virtually non-existent in the West, having survived almost solely in certain Muslim countries (like Sudan) today.

E pluribus unum means out of many one (I had mistranslated that in an earlier speech. My apologies). Throughout my 3.5 years as president I have gradually come to realize we are all one people now and the name of that people is Americans, one of the most beautiful names in the English language.

I was elected by a majority of all Americans, am grateful to each and every one of you, and as long as I am president, I will stand up for the rights of all Americans, regardless of their color. There will be no race baiting, no special rights for minorities, no legal double standards and no coddling of people who violate the law. You violate the law and you hurt me, Barack Obama.

I may take some heat for saying this, but someone had to say it, and the buck stops with me.

BTW, Eric Holder, you’re fired! Get outta here!

Thank you and may God bless America.

Oh, I omitted to say that Obama made this speech in a dream I had. Guess I shouldn’t have eaten those spicy meatballs before retiring last night.

 

Of interest:

The escalation of the violence all started with this speech:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57403200-503544/obama-if-i-had-a-son-hed-look-like-trayvon/

The rest (see below) was 100% predictable. The White House resident got exactly what he wanted.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/racial-violence-explodes-in-3-states/?cat_orig=us

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/black-mobs-terrorize-1-of-whitest-big-cities/

One lady whose own neighborhood had been a victim of the violence objected to the fact that some referred to the black rioters as black. Maybe Hampton is getting what it asked for? 

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/black-mob-in-the-hamptons/?cat_orig=us

“Young people” targeting Jews:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/black-mobs-now-beating-jews-in-new-york/?cat_orig=faith

“Young people” assault pregnant white girl
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500202_162-7159518.html