The vast majority of the anti-choice movement is a fundamentally religious movement. Backed by a religious conviction that abortion is murder, they are attempting to force their religion into our legal system. So like Creationists hiding behind “Intelligent Design” and men who like to dress in lab coats, they hide behind secular arguments and sonograms to make believe their stance comes from reason rather than its polar opposite: faith.
A more novel strategy is to boldly pretend away the very existence of one’s opposition. By way of example, smithadam’s post about the non-existence of atheism (literally, no joke, because the Bible says so):
Notice how I titled this thing “Why Atheism Does Not Exist,” and not “Why I Believe Atheism Does Not Exist.” I did this because it is not only what I believe, it is also because it is a fact.
The Bible does not acknowledge atheism in any form. The Bible says that all men know that there is a God.
4Simpsons linked to a really interesting post, wherein the author attempts to pull a stunt of a similar vein, but with a twist more applicable to the Minuteman Project claiming they are not at all racist. The Evangelical Outpost as quoted by 4Simpsons (emphasis mine):
If you find these ideas absurd and repugnant, you are most likely a secularist. If you find them to be embarrassing truths, then you may be on the religious left. If you find them so obvious that they hardly need stating, then you are probably a member of the so-called “religious right.”
I embrace them whole-heartedly, which makes me a certified member of the religious right. Although I’ve often been uncomfortable with that term, I find it fits me more and more, as if I’m growing into it. So be it.
Whenever you hear someone say that the religious right is attempting to install a theocracy, simply say “You’re an idiot” and move on. We’ve wasted too much time on this nonsense already. It’s a desperate attempt to create a term that has the affect of “racist” or “sexist” so that when its applied, it automatically paints an opponent as beyond the pale of political discourse. Really, anyone who says that-no matter how much they may try to nuance the word-is an idiot.
The word “theocracy” already carries a very negative connotation, and with well-supported reason. Full blown theocracies are never praised as exemplars of liberty or human rights. Quite the opposite. Its ironic that TEO claims those of us who oppose the religious right’s attempts to install a theocracy want to paint our opponents as “beyond the pale of political discourse”, while simultaneously advising when encountering us true believers ought to “simply say “You’re an idiot” and move on”. One of the biggest problems with arguments based in faith instead of reason, is that by their nature they shut down political discourse by bringing the discussion into the realm of the unspeakable: criticism of religion. A pro-choice politician may criticize the anti-reproductive rights stance of a born again Legislator, but to criticize the religion behind that stance risks severe criticism, whereas criticizing the logic behind a stance born of the same is perfectly acceptable.
I don’t know who this fellow thinks is trying to nuance the word theocracy in the slightest:
1. A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.2. A state so governed.