Theocratic Leftists

Last weekend, thousands of people gathered for the Women’s March in cities nationwide, including Washington, D.C., New York, and Los Angeles, to protest Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Many of these protestors, obviously left-wing, wore red robes and white bonnets styled after Margaret Atwood’s dystopian novel The Handmaid’s Tale in order to portray Barrett’s nomination as a major cultural setback for women. According to the Seattle Times, some marchers yelled “Keep your laws off my body!” and “My body, my choice.”

One protester told the Times,“Women are threatened in a world where a Christian theocracy is threatening to take over. This is the crisis for our world. The next few weeks are going to decide so many things for women.”

Of course, no one really believes that Barrett would ever push to turn the United States into a Christian theocracy, whatever may be her own personal faith. Yet even if these marchers did believe their talking points, the truth is they have no issue with a faith-based society in principle. They advocate one of their own. The difference is that their faith is not the Judeo-Christian one that happens to be the foundation of the United States. The faith-based society, or theocracy, that the Left wants is one of secular humanism.

Secular humanists believe  humanity is capable of morality and self-fulfillment without belief in God. We can make our own morality and stick to it because, reasons.

Delving into this worldview, however, one encounters the problem that a person can choose what is moral and what is not for himself, and since there is no higher being or natural law of morality, might makes right. For leftists, that means their version of morality is the one that should be imposed upon society because, well because they say so.

For the secular humanist Left, truth is entirely subjective. They can argue all at once that women can be oppressed, their bodily autonomy taken away by the nomination of a conservative woman to the Supreme Court, while gender can be changed at will, making the concept of “woman” irrelevant. 

Confused? Confusion is a feature, not a bug of this thinking. An American can believe that the foundation of the United States, the Declaration of Independence, lays out the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for every human being, but somehow that same person must be inherently racist if he supports a non-leftist candidate for higher office. Conservatives can be called fascists for electing the Bad Orange Man but conservative events can be shouted down and stormed because leftists don’t like what is being said. 

In the end, none if it makes sense, nor does it have to. Without a higher power arbitrating morality, all we are left with is the power we take. Morality does not have to be objective. Morality is what the stronger says it is. It is the whims of their hearts.

The Left’s only guiding principle is power. And they mean to use it to control you.

About Jeremy Frankel

Jeremy Frankel is a political analyst and writer whose work has been featured in numerous publications and by multiple TV and radio shows. Follow him on Twitter @frankeljeremy and Parler @JeremyFrankel.

Photo: Craig F. Walker/The Boston Globe via Getty Images

Support Free & Independent Journalism Your support helps protect our independence so that American Greatness can keep delivering top-quality, independent journalism that's free to everyone. Every contribution, however big or small, helps secure our future. If you can, please consider a recurring monthly donation.

Want news updates?

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

7 responses to “Theocratic Leftists”

  1. Being that “wokeness” is the Leftist religion, then I invoke my 1st Amendment rights in that “…Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”

  2. The claim that we can derive morality from reason is not the same thing as saying morality is personal and subjective. The former comforts with natural law; the latter is simply subjective. The left embraces the latter: they reject reason, truth and objectivity – and hence the idea of objective moral absolutes. That is the problem, not secularism. Too many conservatives refuse to make that distinction and thus play into the hands of the left by equating reason with leftist subjectivity. It is stupid and self-defeating.

    Leftism is a religion because it rejects reason, reality, objectivity, logic and truth. The secular though is not automatically such.

    • It is not merely “subjective”, but rather it is a consistently moving object for the purpose of causing confusion and disruption. Basically, whatever Conservatives promote or even if they are painstakingly content with an idea, the Left then shifts the goalposts so they can label Conservatives with an “…ism…”.

      Case in point, ACB stated during the Supreme Court hearings of “sexual preferences”, and in response certain Senators had a near tantrum of how hateful that phrase is. But turn the clock back one year, the Left fought to protect the idea of “sexual preferences”, but being that Conservatives have now mostly accepted this idea of “preference”, the Left then shifted the goalposts by saying that this is not a “preference” but that a person is born with it.

      Whatever the Conservatives, the Left says the opposite. It’s best to not give in to them, because then they want more.

    • Plato and Aristotle derived the existence of God through reason. They are the “two eyes” of Christian Western Civilization.

      Secularism humanism makes man the measure of all things.* Consequently, reasoning becomes nothing but personal opinion and Aquinas’ proofs of God’s existence,** taken from Aristotle, are downgraded to arguments.

      **Summa Theologica, Saint Thomas Aquinas

    • Reasons two meanings are not all that separate from each other if one thinks deeply and seriously about these issues IMHO . In other words , it seems extremely unlikely to this lay theologian /philosopher that we could have somehow arrived at “reason ” for no “reason ” .

  3. Reasons two meanings are not all that separate from each other if one thinks deeply and seriously about these issues IMHO . In other words , it seems extremely unlikely to this lay theologian /philosopher that we could have somehow arrived at “reason ” for no “reason ” .

  4. As a woman, I’ll sum it up…blah, blah, blah…whiney little wee things…good grief!

    Lord help the children these women raise…if they ever do!