The fear of foreign subversion and the memory of colonial rule has meant that many organic social movements are perceived as foreign backed attempts to compromise sovereignty, or as distractions from national liberation.
How do you know it hasn’t?
To answer your last question, I believe that it’s a bunch of things. Specifically a secularisation of society and the pushing of Moralist Therapeutic Deism - the idea that God is merely a cosmic butler who just wants people to be happy. The Christian values of non-violence, tolerance, equality, and forgiveness still remain. So does that of charitable giving and respect. But as people abandon scripture- instead turning to themselves to be god, which started a slippery slope as the guardrails were removed. - they then start to actually engage in “follow your heart”, a product of very western philosophy. So if it feels good, it’s right. Such a thing, many other cultures do scoff at. While it did have many good aspects such as lower suppression of women, more personal freedom, it got more and more out of hand. Homosexuality was legalised (I don’t agree with criminalising homosexuality, I’m just giving a timeline), then treated equal to marriage legally (again, not opposing it. I don’t oppose any secular rights granted to people who practice homosexuality, provided it literally doesn’t affect anyone else) and then people appear to start trying to go after the Church and Christian belief on the matter- that which hasn’t changed. As well as going after other cultures. The acceptance of it and legal equality is a product of it’s culture, but that doesn’t mean that such unions should be recognised as sacramentally the same by Christian Churches. And then there are the bigger issues - general sexual immorality, such as “hook-up” culture and the prevalence of premarital sex, drugs, and then without the guardrails, human life was redefined. Since there was no longer scripture and people felt it hampered their ability to engage in sexual immorality, society changed it’s view. A foetus was no longer seen as human and instead as a “clump of cells” so society permitted the killing of these children. Now we’re getting into Euthanasia, and apparently older people may lose that right to live soon - Canada has already offered Euthanasia instead of treatment.
Now, am I saying that society is going downhill compared to the past? Definitely not. In the past we may have had better sexual ethic, but people engaged in greed, war, oppression, suppression, lovers of money, cruelty, violent homophobia, etc. We’re just in a cultural phase where thankfully charity is more common but personal morality and value for life isn’t. The poor used to be treated like non human, than other races, now the foetus. Humanity cannot be perfect. That’s why Jesus is required. That’s why He died for us. Even if we had a strictly Christian society, we’ll probably end up trying to sell indulgences again, as churches are corruptible and always have been, it’s even documented in the New Testament and the Old Testament (presuming the predecessor is Israel)
but that doesn’t mean that such unions should be recognised as sacramentally the same by Christian Churches.
Personally, that’s fine my me - provided that sacremental unions have absolutely zero relevance to the law. If marriage did not affect things like taxes, or being with one’s significant other in the hospital, or anything like that, then I don’t care if you want to have some special exclusive ritual. There’s not really anything stopping you from doing that, as far as I’m aware, like, don’t even tell the state about it, you’ll be fine.
The problem is that Christians simultaneously want to have these sorts of rituals be formalized, legal institutions that everyone is bound by, and they want them to be exclusionary. That’s where we run into problems because it violated the legal principle of equal protection under the law. It’s not really about any of this theological stuff about whether “God just wants you to be happy.” It’s that the law is supposed to treat everyone equally and your side insists that your religious traditions must have a legal basis.
Since there was no longer scripture and people felt it hampered their ability to engage in sexual immorality, society changed it’s view. A foetus was no longer seen as human and instead as a “clump of cells” so society permitted the killing of these children
In reality, the opposite has happened. Society used to view a foetus more as a clump of cells, and abortion in no way equivalent to murder. It was pretty much exclusively a Catholic issue. This only changed when forces on the right recognized how it could be used as a wedge issue to take away women’s rights and to keep people divided.
This whole nonsense goes back to Augustine trying desperately to paper over the inherent contradictions in Christian theology. The question being whether exposure to the teachings of Jesus was necessary to avoid eternal damnation and get into heaven. If the answer is yes, then it leads to the absurd conclusion that God is maliciously torturing countless souls without ever giving them a chance to avoid it, including both fetuses that were aborted or miscarried, as well as “virtuous pagans.” On the other hand, if the answer is no, then it would undermine the Church’s authority by suggesting that there are alternate paths to salvation, as well as calling into question why Jesus’ sacrifice was even necessary, if people don’t even need to hear about it to get into heaven. The Catholic Church itself has moved away from the Augustinian position in favor of the idea that it is possible for fetuses to get into heaven and that there may be other paths to salvation.
Obviously, this is another case where if you don’t subscribe to a specifically Christian perspective, then the whole argument falls apart. I don’t believe in souls at all, and am utterly unconcerned with resolving the theological problems that once led to Christians telling women who suffered miscarriages that their baby was burning in hell. Again, we arrive at the legal question of what vested interest the people or the state have in the matter. Unless banning abortion is defensible from a secular perspective, then this is once again just you insisting that your religious views be legally formalized and imposed on others.
Personally, that’s fine my me - provided that sacremental unions have absolutely zero relevance to the law. If marriage did not affect things like taxes, or being with one’s significant other in the hospital, or anything like that, then I don’t care if you want to have some special exclusive ritual. There’s not really anything stopping you from doing that, as far as I’m aware, like, don’t even tell the state about it, you’ll be fine.
The problem is that Christians simultaneously want to have these sorts of rituals be formalized, legal institutions that everyone is bound by, and they want them to be exclusionary. That’s where we run into problems because it violated the legal principle of equal protection under the law. It’s not really about any of this theological stuff about whether “God just wants you to be happy.” It’s that the law is supposed to treat everyone equally and your side insists that your religious traditions must have a legal basis.
Not all Christians. Originally before it was legalised I was hoping civil partnerships would have the same exact rights as married couples and that was that. Now it’s legalised in the UK since 2020, I don’t want the law to be changed.
Abortion is different as we believe it is affecting an innocent party. That is based from our worldview which is grounded in religion. It’s less about forcing a practice, but from something we believe to be true and essentially equivalent to murder from said worldview. While yes, abortion isn’t permitted to Christians, we believe it is a social negative as it is murder which also should be banned for the same reason - our worldview is that man is made in God’s image.
You aren’t tortured for unbelief. You are tortured for sin. Everyone consciously sins regardless on if they know Jesus or not. If God willed someone to know Jesus and be saved, they would have found out about Him. Some even see Him in dreams, as has been reported in the middle east.
That is based from our worldview which is grounded in religion
If you are intent on both basing your beliefs on faith rather than reason and on taking those beliefs into the political sphere and forcing others to comply with them, then there is nothing left but conflict. Not only with secularists like myself, but also with each other.
Back in the day, Europe was ravaged with religious wars and persecution, if it wasn’t “Bloody” Mary going after Protestants, then it was the various Protestant rulers persecuting Catholics. Every time a ruler of a different sect came to power, they went after anyone they disagreed with.
This is an inevitable consequence of taking your random superstitions and trying to make everyone else abide by them, because there’s lots of different sects, none of whom can agree on anything, and the only thing stopping us from returning to that era is secular governance. Christians may never forgive us for it, but the fact is that you’re much safer than you ever were before.
The belief of “foetus are valuable human life” can also be based on reason and biological fact. A foetus can feel pain, have thoughts, fingerprints, kick, etc. Even Christopher Hitchens was uneasy about abortion. From what I found, the pro-choice lobby is most often using feelings to justify their decisions, not reason, in order to deflect the argument. ie, “my body my choice” ideas of freedom, worries about someone’s life being hindered. It’s all feelings. It’s not about a basic fact over when life becomes objectively valuable and the morality of taking someone’s life.
From what I found, the pro-choice lobby is most often using feelings to justify their decisions, not reason, in order to deflect the argument. ie, “my body my choice” ideas of freedom, worries about someone’s life being hindered.
All of those are objective, rational arguments, not emotional ones.
It’s not about a basic fact over when life becomes objectively valuable and the morality of taking someone’s life.
What constitutes personhood is a philosophical argument that is very debatable. Religious people, unfortunately, are often completely uninterested in engaging with such philosophical questions, because they think their religion provides all the answers, while trying to pass off their myriad superstitions as objectively correct.
Really, the whole argument against abortion is just based on semantics, and not anything practical. Why do you get to decide the definition of personhood?
their religion provides all the answers, while trying to pass off their myriad superstitions as objectively correct.
It provides the answers on this topic
Why do you get to decide the definition of personhood?
Because we are objectively correct. We can live with concessions on people being wrong when it only harms them, but not when it harms others.
To us, from our perspective, this is like a flat-earther telling us “why do you get to objectively decide that the earth is round?” Or a climate change denier saying “why do you get to define that emitting less CO2 is good for the environment?”. I am so thoroughly convinced that Jesus rose from the dead, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, and that He will return in glory to judge both the living and the dead and establish an eternal kingdom which will have no end, that I don’t see any anti-pro-life arguments as rational at all.
There are unhelpful strawmen as well “oh, you only want to control women”. No. We genuinely believe that a foetus is a valuable human life. That’s the sum of the argument, a human life isn’t degraded by circumstance either. The Pro-life reason is so incredibly simple and it’s not exclusive to Christians either. While every Christian should be pro-life (the ones who aren’t are typically lukewarm cultural Christians who don’t really respect the actual faith itself and just like to pick and choose) there are also secular pro life organisations.
No you are not. “Objectively,” is it? Is there something physical you can point to that proves your philosophical position on personhood correct? Of course not. I can point to all kinds of physical evidence to prove to a flat-earther that the earth is round. That is what “objectively” means, which you don’t seem to understand. You are not “objectively” correct if your position relies on a bunch of faith based assumptions.
There are unhelpful strawmen as well “oh, you only want to control women”.
I literally never even said that, you are literally accusing me of strawmanning you by putting words into my mouth.
We genuinely believe that a foetus is a valuable human life.
You can believe whatever you like, doesn’t mean the law should be based around purely religious beliefs.
there are also secular pro life organisations.
But you are unwilling to make any arguments along secular terms, so that’s completely irrelevant.
If you want to participate in modern civilization without trying to take us back into the fucking dark ages, then you have to play by the rules of secular governance that prevent you from being burned at the stake for being the wrong type of Christian. And that is especially true if you expect to get through at all to anyone who is not a Christian, if you expect me to even have a modicum of respect for your beliefs and not see you as fundamentally incompatible with a functioning society. And if it’s actually true that your position is just as defensible from a secular perspective, then why are you constantly bringing religion into it?
You’re literally just adding a bunch of pointless, irrelevant, faith-based assumptions that you know I reject, and making them fundamental to your argument. And according to you, there is no reason to do this, as your position is supposedly equally defensible from a secular perspective.
Being raised around this exact bullshit is exactly why I’m a Marxist. Because I have already seen the future you would bring humanity into and it’s utterly horrifying and must be stopped at all costs.
No you are not. “Objectively,” is it? Is there something physical you can point to that proves your philosophical position on personhood correct?
The resurrected Jesus Christ was physically here on earth, so yes.
I literally never even said that, you are literally accusing me of strawmanning you by putting words into my mouth.
I wasn’t doing this and I wasn’t talking about you. I was talking about other activists I’ve dealt with.
But you are unwilling to make any arguments along secular terms, so that’s completely irrelevant.
I never said that, and Abortion isn’t the primary topic at hand here.
If you want to participate in modern civilization without trying to take us back into the fucking dark ages, then you have to play by the rules of secular governance that prevent you from being burned at the stake for being the wrong type of Christian. And that is especially true if you expect to get through at all to anyone who is not a Christian, if you expect me to even have a modicum of respect for your beliefs and not see you as fundamentally incompatible with a functioning society. And if it’s actually true that your position is just as defensible from a secular perspective, then why are you constantly bringing religion into it?
I can imagine a Nazi saying this to Dietrich Bonhoeffer in the 1940s.
Being raised around this exact bullshit is exactly why I’m a Marxist. Because I have already seen the future you would bring humanity into and it’s utterly horrifying and must be stopped at all costs.
Marxism seems to fully depend on humanity in order to work. The issue with the human condition is that we’re sinful and corrupt. That’s why Marxism is a pointless pursuit. It would never work on corrupted humans. And hence, has never fully worked. Even the UK’s healthcare system which is socialised gets pilfered by corrupt people in charge. We can’t even have marxism working on a healthcare system, nevermind the country. Humans are too evil.
How do you know it hasn’t?
To answer your last question, I believe that it’s a bunch of things. Specifically a secularisation of society and the pushing of Moralist Therapeutic Deism - the idea that God is merely a cosmic butler who just wants people to be happy. The Christian values of non-violence, tolerance, equality, and forgiveness still remain. So does that of charitable giving and respect. But as people abandon scripture- instead turning to themselves to be god, which started a slippery slope as the guardrails were removed. - they then start to actually engage in “follow your heart”, a product of very western philosophy. So if it feels good, it’s right. Such a thing, many other cultures do scoff at. While it did have many good aspects such as lower suppression of women, more personal freedom, it got more and more out of hand. Homosexuality was legalised (I don’t agree with criminalising homosexuality, I’m just giving a timeline), then treated equal to marriage legally (again, not opposing it. I don’t oppose any secular rights granted to people who practice homosexuality, provided it literally doesn’t affect anyone else) and then people appear to start trying to go after the Church and Christian belief on the matter- that which hasn’t changed. As well as going after other cultures. The acceptance of it and legal equality is a product of it’s culture, but that doesn’t mean that such unions should be recognised as sacramentally the same by Christian Churches. And then there are the bigger issues - general sexual immorality, such as “hook-up” culture and the prevalence of premarital sex, drugs, and then without the guardrails, human life was redefined. Since there was no longer scripture and people felt it hampered their ability to engage in sexual immorality, society changed it’s view. A foetus was no longer seen as human and instead as a “clump of cells” so society permitted the killing of these children. Now we’re getting into Euthanasia, and apparently older people may lose that right to live soon - Canada has already offered Euthanasia instead of treatment.
Now, am I saying that society is going downhill compared to the past? Definitely not. In the past we may have had better sexual ethic, but people engaged in greed, war, oppression, suppression, lovers of money, cruelty, violent homophobia, etc. We’re just in a cultural phase where thankfully charity is more common but personal morality and value for life isn’t. The poor used to be treated like non human, than other races, now the foetus. Humanity cannot be perfect. That’s why Jesus is required. That’s why He died for us. Even if we had a strictly Christian society, we’ll probably end up trying to sell indulgences again, as churches are corruptible and always have been, it’s even documented in the New Testament and the Old Testament (presuming the predecessor is Israel)
How do I know what hasn’t?
Personally, that’s fine my me - provided that sacremental unions have absolutely zero relevance to the law. If marriage did not affect things like taxes, or being with one’s significant other in the hospital, or anything like that, then I don’t care if you want to have some special exclusive ritual. There’s not really anything stopping you from doing that, as far as I’m aware, like, don’t even tell the state about it, you’ll be fine.
The problem is that Christians simultaneously want to have these sorts of rituals be formalized, legal institutions that everyone is bound by, and they want them to be exclusionary. That’s where we run into problems because it violated the legal principle of equal protection under the law. It’s not really about any of this theological stuff about whether “God just wants you to be happy.” It’s that the law is supposed to treat everyone equally and your side insists that your religious traditions must have a legal basis.
In reality, the opposite has happened. Society used to view a foetus more as a clump of cells, and abortion in no way equivalent to murder. It was pretty much exclusively a Catholic issue. This only changed when forces on the right recognized how it could be used as a wedge issue to take away women’s rights and to keep people divided.
This whole nonsense goes back to Augustine trying desperately to paper over the inherent contradictions in Christian theology. The question being whether exposure to the teachings of Jesus was necessary to avoid eternal damnation and get into heaven. If the answer is yes, then it leads to the absurd conclusion that God is maliciously torturing countless souls without ever giving them a chance to avoid it, including both fetuses that were aborted or miscarried, as well as “virtuous pagans.” On the other hand, if the answer is no, then it would undermine the Church’s authority by suggesting that there are alternate paths to salvation, as well as calling into question why Jesus’ sacrifice was even necessary, if people don’t even need to hear about it to get into heaven. The Catholic Church itself has moved away from the Augustinian position in favor of the idea that it is possible for fetuses to get into heaven and that there may be other paths to salvation.
Obviously, this is another case where if you don’t subscribe to a specifically Christian perspective, then the whole argument falls apart. I don’t believe in souls at all, and am utterly unconcerned with resolving the theological problems that once led to Christians telling women who suffered miscarriages that their baby was burning in hell. Again, we arrive at the legal question of what vested interest the people or the state have in the matter. Unless banning abortion is defensible from a secular perspective, then this is once again just you insisting that your religious views be legally formalized and imposed on others.
Not all Christians. Originally before it was legalised I was hoping civil partnerships would have the same exact rights as married couples and that was that. Now it’s legalised in the UK since 2020, I don’t want the law to be changed.
Abortion is different as we believe it is affecting an innocent party. That is based from our worldview which is grounded in religion. It’s less about forcing a practice, but from something we believe to be true and essentially equivalent to murder from said worldview. While yes, abortion isn’t permitted to Christians, we believe it is a social negative as it is murder which also should be banned for the same reason - our worldview is that man is made in God’s image.
You aren’t tortured for unbelief. You are tortured for sin. Everyone consciously sins regardless on if they know Jesus or not. If God willed someone to know Jesus and be saved, they would have found out about Him. Some even see Him in dreams, as has been reported in the middle east.
If you are intent on both basing your beliefs on faith rather than reason and on taking those beliefs into the political sphere and forcing others to comply with them, then there is nothing left but conflict. Not only with secularists like myself, but also with each other.
Back in the day, Europe was ravaged with religious wars and persecution, if it wasn’t “Bloody” Mary going after Protestants, then it was the various Protestant rulers persecuting Catholics. Every time a ruler of a different sect came to power, they went after anyone they disagreed with.
This is an inevitable consequence of taking your random superstitions and trying to make everyone else abide by them, because there’s lots of different sects, none of whom can agree on anything, and the only thing stopping us from returning to that era is secular governance. Christians may never forgive us for it, but the fact is that you’re much safer than you ever were before.
The belief of “foetus are valuable human life” can also be based on reason and biological fact. A foetus can feel pain, have thoughts, fingerprints, kick, etc. Even Christopher Hitchens was uneasy about abortion. From what I found, the pro-choice lobby is most often using feelings to justify their decisions, not reason, in order to deflect the argument. ie, “my body my choice” ideas of freedom, worries about someone’s life being hindered. It’s all feelings. It’s not about a basic fact over when life becomes objectively valuable and the morality of taking someone’s life.
All of those are objective, rational arguments, not emotional ones.
What constitutes personhood is a philosophical argument that is very debatable. Religious people, unfortunately, are often completely uninterested in engaging with such philosophical questions, because they think their religion provides all the answers, while trying to pass off their myriad superstitions as objectively correct.
Really, the whole argument against abortion is just based on semantics, and not anything practical. Why do you get to decide the definition of personhood?
It provides the answers on this topic
Because we are objectively correct. We can live with concessions on people being wrong when it only harms them, but not when it harms others.
To us, from our perspective, this is like a flat-earther telling us “why do you get to objectively decide that the earth is round?” Or a climate change denier saying “why do you get to define that emitting less CO2 is good for the environment?”. I am so thoroughly convinced that Jesus rose from the dead, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, and that He will return in glory to judge both the living and the dead and establish an eternal kingdom which will have no end, that I don’t see any anti-pro-life arguments as rational at all.
There are unhelpful strawmen as well “oh, you only want to control women”. No. We genuinely believe that a foetus is a valuable human life. That’s the sum of the argument, a human life isn’t degraded by circumstance either. The Pro-life reason is so incredibly simple and it’s not exclusive to Christians either. While every Christian should be pro-life (the ones who aren’t are typically lukewarm cultural Christians who don’t really respect the actual faith itself and just like to pick and choose) there are also secular pro life organisations.
No you are not. “Objectively,” is it? Is there something physical you can point to that proves your philosophical position on personhood correct? Of course not. I can point to all kinds of physical evidence to prove to a flat-earther that the earth is round. That is what “objectively” means, which you don’t seem to understand. You are not “objectively” correct if your position relies on a bunch of faith based assumptions.
I literally never even said that, you are literally accusing me of strawmanning you by putting words into my mouth.
You can believe whatever you like, doesn’t mean the law should be based around purely religious beliefs.
But you are unwilling to make any arguments along secular terms, so that’s completely irrelevant.
If you want to participate in modern civilization without trying to take us back into the fucking dark ages, then you have to play by the rules of secular governance that prevent you from being burned at the stake for being the wrong type of Christian. And that is especially true if you expect to get through at all to anyone who is not a Christian, if you expect me to even have a modicum of respect for your beliefs and not see you as fundamentally incompatible with a functioning society. And if it’s actually true that your position is just as defensible from a secular perspective, then why are you constantly bringing religion into it?
You’re literally just adding a bunch of pointless, irrelevant, faith-based assumptions that you know I reject, and making them fundamental to your argument. And according to you, there is no reason to do this, as your position is supposedly equally defensible from a secular perspective.
Being raised around this exact bullshit is exactly why I’m a Marxist. Because I have already seen the future you would bring humanity into and it’s utterly horrifying and must be stopped at all costs.
The resurrected Jesus Christ was physically here on earth, so yes.
I wasn’t doing this and I wasn’t talking about you. I was talking about other activists I’ve dealt with.
I never said that, and Abortion isn’t the primary topic at hand here.
I can imagine a Nazi saying this to Dietrich Bonhoeffer in the 1940s.
Marxism seems to fully depend on humanity in order to work. The issue with the human condition is that we’re sinful and corrupt. That’s why Marxism is a pointless pursuit. It would never work on corrupted humans. And hence, has never fully worked. Even the UK’s healthcare system which is socialised gets pilfered by corrupt people in charge. We can’t even have marxism working on a healthcare system, nevermind the country. Humans are too evil.