Tag Archives: Totalitarianism

News

MUST-READ: What worldview emerges from serial hook-up sex?

Leave a comment

This blog post was linked from RuthBlog. And I didn’t even write it! (H/T RuthBlog)

The article talks about a hypothetical woman who hooks up with a man for premarital sex, presumably after a night of drunken partying, and then feels shame for what she has done. Should she feel ashamed? It depends.

Excerpt:

If her shame is telling her the truth, a truth that surpasses all social constructs, then she made a mistake.

[…]But what if a moral thinker steps forward and declares that she is wrong to feel shame, that her bad feelings simply show the extent to which she has bought into a social construct. Ethics is relative; it serves the power elite. She ought to reject her shame for lying to her and promoting the accepted social construct.

[…]Consoling words do not really have much of an effect. Better would be a new group of friends, a new social nexus where everyone will hold her in high esteem for having mastered the art of the hook up, or better, for having fully explored and expressed her sexuality.

Is there such a group? And could this group provide her with a new and revised identity? If being a woman, according to society’s standards, makes her feel ashamed of herself, why would she not transform her identity and become… a feminist. Some feminists do not look too kindly on hook ups, but still and all, feminists are not judgmental. They will welcome her into their midst and tell her that she has done nothing wrong.

[…]If society disapproves; if her classmates look down on her; that is their problem. They are committing one of the great sins of the therapy culture: they are being judgmental!

Note also that this perspective has absolved the coed of all responsibility for her own behavior. Those who are at fault are the ones who look down on her. Now, the new moral thinking holds them responsible for making her feel bad.

But what about those who continue to hold to standards that consider sex outside of marriage harmful to men, women, children and society as a whole, who must pay the social costs of irresponsible sex?

…she will proselytize her beliefs. You only ignore other people for so long. Eventually the numbness will start wearing off. Therefore, our coed must work to transform the culture to make it more attuned to her values. She and her group will work to affect a cultural revolution, a transformation of cultural values.

All of this implies that if you can change the way the culture sees certain behaviors then you can transform the value of the behavior. But, how do you go about changing the way everyone values behavior?

You have probably guessed already, that this way of making our coed feel better about herself contains what I would call a totalitarian will to control the minds, hearts, and speech of everyone.

Feminism isn’t an intellectual framework, it’s an emotional-fueled rationalization of sinful behavior. It becomes the problem of taxpayers when it uses government power and social programs to coerce others into celebrating and subsidizing sinful behavior.

(Note: I am not talking about first-wave “equal opportunity” equity feminism, I am talking about gender feminism – I’m drawing from Christina Hoff Sommers‘ book “Who Stole Feminism?” and “The War Against Boys” for my definitions of feminism)

Commentary

Does environmentalism kill millions of innocent people?

2 Comments

Check out this post on Hot Air. (H/T Muddling Towards Maturity)

Excerpt:

Who is the worst killer in the long, ugly history of war and extermination? Hitler? Stalin? Pol Pot? Not even close. A single book called Silent Spring killed far more people than all those fiends put together.

Published in 1962, Silent Spring used manipulated data and wildly exaggerated claims (sound familiar?) to push for a worldwide ban on the pesticide known as DDT – which is, to this day, the most effective weapon against malarial mosquitoes. The Environmental Protection Agency held extensive hearings after the uproar produced by this book… and these hearings concluded that DDT should not be banned. A few months after the hearings ended, EPA administrator William Ruckleshaus over-ruled his own agency and banned DDT anyway, in what he later admitted was a “political” decision. Threats to withhold American foreign aid swiftly spread the ban across the world.

The resulting explosion of mosquito-borne malaria in Africa has claimed over sixty million lives.

What causes environmentalists to want to murder millions of innocent people?

As quoted by Walter Williams, the founder of the Malthusian Club of Rome, Alexander King, wrote in 1990: “My own doubts came when DDT was introduced. In Guayana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria. So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem.” Another charming quote comes from Dr. Charles Wurster, a leading opponent of DDT, who said of malaria deaths: “People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them, and this is as good a way as any.”

Abortion killed 50 million people in the United States alone, while atheistic communism killed 100 million people in the 20th century. And remember: Obama’s science czar is a radical environmentalist who advocates coerced abortions.

News

Focus on the Family Canada edits radio show to adapt to hate crime law

1 Comment

In case you hadn’t heard, Obama signed a hate crime bill into law.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council responds in this Christian Post article.

Opponents of the bill, dubbed by some as the “thought crimes” legislation, argue that it is unnecessary because gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people are already protected under existing state laws. They also say the bill could be used to prosecute Christian broadcasters and pastors who preach homosexuality as sin because they could be accused of inciting violence.

“This hates crimes provision is part of a radical social agenda that could ultimately silence Christians and use the force of government to marginalize anyone whose faith is at odds with homosexuality,” said Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council, following the bill’s passage.

I thought that I would remind my readers where these laws lead by looking north to Canada. In Canada, Dr. Laura was effectively banned from radio stations for being critical of homosexuality, and Focus on the Family has to edit programs in order to comply with federal hate crime laws.

Consider this post from LifeSiteNews.

Excerpt:

A statement from a director at Focus on the Family confirms that the major Christian organization has been editing its radio programs in order to accord with Canadian “hate crime” laws.

“In particular, our content producers are careful not to make generalized statements nor comments that may be perceived as ascribing malicious intent to a ‘group’ of people and are always careful to treat even those who might disagree with us with respect,” Gary Booker, director of global content creation for Focus, told WorldNetDaily.com.

“Occasionally, albeit very rarely, some content is identified that, while acceptable for airing in the U.S. would not be acceptable under Canadian law and is therefore edited or omitted in Canada.”

A representative from Focus told LifeSiteNews.com that the organization is not prepared at this time to expand upon the statement sent to WorldNetDaily.com.

In April 2004, Canada enacted Bill C-250, a bill that added “sexual orientation” to “identifiable groups” protected from communication that would incite hatred towards them. In the months leading up to its passage, many conservative thinkers and activists prophesied that adding “sexual orientation” to the hate crime laws would give homosexual activists the leverage needed to persecute those opposed to their lifestyle for nothing more than expressing disagreement.

According to the Criminal Code of Canada, a person is not to be convicted of a hate crime if “he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject.”

Despite the nod to religious conviction, however, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has already investigated and punished numerous individuals for promoting opposition to homosexual practices based on traditional Christian teaching.

In November of 2007, the CHRC threatened the Christian Heritage Party of Canada (CHPC) with legal penalties for material on their website. Printer Scott Brockie has also been found guilty by the Commission and fined for refusing to print pro-homosexual materials, as was Christian pastor Steve Boissoin, who wrote a letter to the editor outlining Christian teachings on homosexuality. Bishop Fred Henry was hauled before the Commission for speaking out against homosexuality, and recently a complaint was made against the Catholic magazine, Catholic Insight for similar reasons.

Advocating for the traditional family is a criminal activity in Canada, because it may incite violence and then you would be charged with a hate crime.

You can hear more about Obama’s hate crime bill in this current events podcast from William Lane Craig.

The silencing of Christians in the public square is now quite common in Canada and the UK.

Here are some stories from the UK:

Here are some stories from Canada:

And bad things are already happening the United States.

Something to think about, especially since a lot of “Christians” voted Obama because they supported wealth redistribution and the appeasement of terrorists abroad. I am sure that in time those same “Christians” will learn to redefine Christianity so that it complies with Obama’s hate crime bill, and then they will turn to demonizing authentic Christians who still think the Bible is authoritative on moral questions.