Naomi Wolf knows when she has run into a moral issue.
In 1995, Wolf found that her side has “relinquished the moral frame around the issue of abortion” and “has ceded the language of right and wrong to abortion foes.” As a result, the pro-choice side loses political ground because many Americans support abortion but still condemn it as wrong. The immoral aspect of abortion is addressed by the pro-life movement that is willing to admit good and evil exist and describe abortion as immoral. How, she asks, can one “square a recognition of the humanity of the fetus, and the moral gravity of destroying it, with a pro-choice position?” The answer for the left, she says, is embracing ideas such as sin and redemption and even an idea she calls “problematic” in this debate – God.
Yet, oddly, this doesn’t lead Wolf to want to find ways to stop it. She suggests we can square the opinion that abortion as an immoral act with things like Japanese memorial services for the souls of aborted fetuses, using contraception for every sexual act, providing jobs to young mothers, providing money to mothers for prenatal care, and so forth. These are all important but fall short of the kind of behavior you would engage in if you really believe a human life had been killed. Are there any legal ramifications against those who do abortions, for instance? If we applied Wolf’s logic to slavery, we would have at one time affirmed that a slave is a human being, slavery is terrible, but never tried to stop it. Wolf seems to want to have her cake and eat it too, feeding her conscience to keep it quiet.
The reason for this is that liberal philosophy is at fundamental odds with the feelings of guilt felt about actions liberals want people to continue doing. One reason – and possibly the main reason – is that most, if not all, liberals resist doing anything that hints at imposing any kind of objective absolutist morality on others because that strongly suggests a subservience to God. Usually, this subservience keeps liberals from enjoying particular freedoms they want – sexual ones usually at the top of the list.
So, clearly, abortion destroys a life, but destroying a life reaps other dangers along the way. Enter Jewish conservative Don Feder who, writing the same year as Wolf, tells the story of Mel Feit, head of the National Center for Men which challenges court-ordered child support of men who are confronted with unwanted pregnancies. Feit questions why men should be forced to pay for a child they don’t want when keeping the child, or choosing to abort it, is the woman’s decision alone. Feit, Feder says, is morally wrong but, according to feminist logic, is correct. Feder asks “If maximizing personal freedom is the primary goal of our legal system, why should men be held to their traditional obligations . . . while women are liberated from theirs?”
What liberalism does, in this case, is teach people to be irresponsible. It also damages the family structure because neither the mother or father considers the needs of the child. The funny thing about liberalism is that on the one hand Hillary Clinton can opine that it takes a village to raise a child while on the other hand her secular philosophy denies that parents should even care about their children and can kill them if their autonomy is threatened. Apparently, it takes a village assuming the village cares.
If you are someone who suffers emotional damage from choosing abortion, liberalism has nothing to offer you there either. The Elliot Institute Survey – a survey of 260 women who had contact with one of three post-abortion ministries: WEBA, Victims of Choice, or Last Harvest Ministries- detailed their attitudes toward abortion and life in general after an abortion. Interestingly, 54.2 percent of respondents said choosing an abortion was an agonizing one. Only 9 percent said their memory of their abortion had faded with time – a result that makes a lie the suggestion that anything other than an unborn child is being aborted. Fully 61.3 percent said they had feelings of guilt after the abortion and roughly one-third had suicidal feelings. Having the abortion didn’t result in greater sexual freedom either as 4.3 percent felt they had that freedom and only 3 percent felt like they had inner peace. Slightly less than 4 percent felt they had more control of their lives. Overall the surveys did not vindicate the belief that abortion is life-enhancing.
I did a web search on this topic to see if these results were an anomaly and ran into conflicting data. Some reports buttressed the findings of the Elliot Institute while others did not. One particular article I looked at is published by the Guttmacher Institute which advances reproductive and sexual rights in the United States – a mission that would undoubtedly bias them toward finding no harmful effects of abortion. The article did not agree with the findings of the Elliot Institute but did admit that women do occasionally need counseling after an abortion, and this is provided by Exhale, an organization founded in 2000 in Oakland, California. The article noted that Exhale “believe[s] there is no ‘right’ way to feel after an abortion. We also know that feelings of happiness, sadness, empowerment, anxiety, grief, relief or guilt are common.”
An obvious question arises in my mind. If the fetus is nothing but a nonperson lump of whatever, then why would there be any negative repercussions? Why would Naomi Wolf have to find a way for liberals to massage their sense of morality surrounding abortion if in fact they weren’t killing an unborn child? Clearly, abortion is more than another health advancing surgery but is one that occasionally produces harmful mental effects and a guilty conscience, and liberals are ill-equipped to deal with this because of their ideology. Clearly, if Democrats were truly pro-woman they would be highly concerned about the effects of abortion and possibly suggest some ways for women to avoid them.
Yet, Democrats have been longstanding supporters of abortion, and last year the DNC platform stated it believed “that every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion—regardless of where she lives, how much money she makes, or how she is insured.” In fact, some on the liberal left are so adamant that socialist Bernie Sanders was criticized for wanting pregnant women to know they have a right to view an ultrasound of their baby before they potentially abort it. Anna March, in a piece for Salon, criticizes Sanders as thinking “reproductive rights are negotiable” while claiming that 100 percent pro-choice is the only possible pro-choice position to take. Bryce Covert writing in the New York Times, claims there is no economic justice without reproductive freedom. Apparently, for the left, abortion is the one liberal sacrament one dare not touch.
Killing Babies in and out of the Womb
Secular philosophy doesn’t stop dehumanizing humans at the birth boundary. Recently I ran across William Saletan’s article on salon.com on a phenomenon called “after-birth abortion.” Saletan quotes two philosophers, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, writing in Journal of Medical Ethics, who claim that in some cases if circumstances arise after birth that would have justified abortion then after-birth abortion would be allowed.
There is no reason that, given the assumptions of Giubilini and Minerva, that infanticide (or “after-birth abortion” if you want) should not be expanded to any woman who wants it, for any reason, based on the assumptions the pro-choice make. Saletan lays them out as follows:
The point at which we ascribe a fetal right to life is arbitrary.
Prior to becoming a person, human life doesn’t make any demands on us.
The burden placed on the woman outweighs the value of the child.
Defects in the child are reasons for terminating it.
Although meant to applied narrowly to the fetus and infants, these criteria eliminate the right to life for anyone. I say that because Saletan quotes Giubilini and Minerva as saying “merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life” and saying that some infants are not persons because they don’t have a concept of their own value as a person. If being a human isn’t good enough and having a concept of the value of one’s existence is the last useful barrier that keeps one from being killed, then that barrier can be knocked down too using the same type of metaphysical juggling that liberals consistently bask in simply because it’s too subjective. What guarantees that anyone has a sufficient concept of self to be a person, and how would we measure such a concept objectively? How do we scientifically measure a “concept of self?” Who decides what is necessary for a concept of self anyway?
For instance, if I’m a 10-year-old child, my right to life is arbitrary because I may not have a sufficient concept of self to be considered a person. Furthermore, the mother’s desires and needs outweigh my needs. I can, therefore, be killed even though I’m ten years old under the guise of “after-birth abortion” or whatever we choose to call it at that time. We can do the same analysis with anybody of any age and come up with the same result of a life unworthy of living. I’m sure the authors meant their argument to be applied to only the fetus or infants and don’t realize the scope of the danger their philosophy projects.
This isn’t the only time a philosopher has called infanticide something other than what it is. Back in 1997 Evolutionist Steven Pinker called it “neonaticide” and struggled to find reasons to consider it proper. As a result, Pinker birthed a number of logical fallacies. From Pinker we find out that neonaticide has been practiced in many cultures throughout history, that the practice of neonaticide is built into our biological makeup, and that it is nearly impossible to decide when someone becomes a person or not. Pinker says “To a biologist, birth is as arbitrary a milestone as any other.” This statement doesn’t lay any firm personhood bedrock either – any more than Giubilini and Minerva’s arguments.
The interesting thing about such arguments is that they are largely proposed by those on the secular left whether Democrats, liberals, atheists, or secular humanists. The reason is clear. Secular beliefs free them from the constraints that religious tenets put on them. Peter Singer expressed this clearly when saying “We can no longer base our ethics on the idea that human beings are a special form of creation, made in the image of God, singled out from all other animals, and alone possessing an immortal soul.” In the case of the topic I’m writing about here, unbelief frees them from the burden of taking care of something or someone they don’t want to care for, someone who puts a damper on sexual lifestyles. One can be a bit more “flexible” under secularism than under theism. Yet what of Wolf’s moral dilemma if the right to life is truly arbitrary?
This liberalized philosophy even undercuts liberalisms’ defenders. One of the core constituent groups Democrats traditionally cater to are homosexuals. However, the San Francisco Chronicle featured an online article about a Chicago lawyer who argued that if a gay gene is ever discovered, then parents should have the right to abort a gay fetus or alter its genetic makeup. He also claimed that heterosexuals have an easier life, they would relate better to a heterosexual child, and would feel they had a better chance of becoming grandparents. These ideas were called frightening, evil, and ludicrous from a scientific point of view by some dissenters.
I find these lawyer’s views objectionable also. Then again, they should be accurate if, in fact, the pro-abortion pro-choice philosophy is correct. Following Saletan above, the place where a gay child becomes a person is totally arbitrary, and parents have no responsibilities to keep their child if his existence presents a burden on them. Clearly, in this instance and others, liberalism is a narcissistic philosophy where the strong do what they want at the expense of the weak and is contrary to traditional liberal freedom.
The Elderly Face the Whip
Wesley Smith has written extensively on the topic of euthanasia in the Netherlands. I’ve covered this in my book The Vast Wastelands of Unbelief so I won’t go too deeply into it here except to mention that in 1993, in the Netherlands, the Dutch Parliament formalized guidelines under which euthanasia could be performed. However, often these guidelines did not offer the sick the protection needed against being euthanized without consent. According to the Remmelink Report, issued in 1991, about ninety thousand in the Netherlands die each year whose deaths involve end-of-life medical decisions. Of those, roughly 8 to 9 percent die as a result of a lethal injection given without a request or an intentional overdose of morphine or something else to make the patient die. What started as kindness toward those who are suffering turned into a desire to kill. The reason for this is partly because the philosophy in the Netherlands is secular.
Dr. van der Sluis, a secularist opponent of his country’s euthanasia policies, raises another point germane to the ongoing debate in the United States. Many Dutch accept euthanasia so as not to be perceived as overly religious. “The proponents of euthanasia have falsely, but successfully, cast the argument as one of religion versus rationality,” Dr. van der Sluis told me. “They assert that only fundamentalist Christians oppose euthanasia and since few Dutch are fundamentalist Christians, they tend to support euthanasia.” Dr. Pieter Admiraal verified that point when he told me, “The only way to deny euthanasia is based on religion. Most Dutch are nonbelievers, and thus, they must support euthanasia.”
One should realize that not only the religious oppose euthanasia, and not all secularists favor it. In fact, Smith features people who base their opposition to it on secular reasoning including Herbert Hendin, psychiatrist and director of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and Nat Hentoff, atheist writer for the Village Voice and The Washington Post. Yet, the arguments for it featured by Smith come directly from a liberal playbook. Smith quotes Dutch ethicist W.C.M. Klijn as saying that even though there are similarities between the Nazi euthanasia program and that of the Dutch, the Dutch assure themselves they have been good people and always will be. Klijn also notes that the Dutch have a “reflexive” response to arguments based on personal autonomy. The Dutch see the “choice” of euthanasia trumping any other concerns even if abuse by doctors may be involved. 
We should note that the assumption that humans are by nature “good” is a liberal secular humanist assumption that ignores innate human sinfulness. Arguments about human depravity and sinfulness, especially ways to limit them, is a common conservative concern. As outlined above, liberals genuinely do reflexively value personal autonomy over any other concerns that might influence their choices.
While unbelievers have something to say about the euthanasia debate, their assumption that humans have innate dignity and right to life that must be protected runs definitely counter to secular Darwinian assumptions that humans are nothing but highly evolved animals with no uniqueness to them and counter to a secular view that there are no objective ethical absolutes. Their assumptions about human dignity and right to life, in fact, are more at home in a theistic universe than a secular atheist one. For example, Christian scholars Norman Geisler and Frank Turek say “Our common Moral Law teaches us that it is morally wrong to take the life of an innocent human being (whether they request it or not); (2) The dying are innocent human beings (who deserve love, not lethal injection); and (3) Therefore, euthanasia, which takes the life of an innocent human being, is morally wrong and should remain illegal.” You will notice the appeal to a common moral law, but a common moral law is something the left generally revolts against and complains when the conservative right tries to impose its morality on others.
For examples of people who resist imposing limits on this death ethic because of the fear of religious influence on our laws, we can consult the New York Times. Peter Steinfels, writing in 1994, quotes a television spot, sponsored by proponents of Oregon’s Measure 16 which would allow doctors to prescribe lethal drugs or provide other help so that terminally ill patients could end their own lives, as saying: “Are we going to let one church make the rules for all of us?” Barbara Coombs Lee, a leader of the effort to put Measure 16 on the ballot, claimed opponents were trying “to impose their own unique theological perspective on the entire state.” Liberals resist changing their position on euthanasia because of their resistance to religious concepts as much as Wolf is resistant to changing her views on abortion for likewise reasons. Meanwhile more people die.
A 2015 article in Newsweek about euthanasia in the Netherlands buttresses theism’s view of the difference between religious and liberal views regarding euthanasia and assisted-suicide.
The march toward euthanasia mirrors a trend spanning continents today: a growing number of countries are placing more value on individual freedom. This worries religious leaders, ethicists and disability advocates. Assisted suicide may ease suffering, they say, but it threatens our most vulnerable citizens—the elderly and the disabled, who already struggle to justify their lives. “I like autonomy very much,” says Theo Boer, a professor of ethics at the Theological University Kampen in the Netherlands. “But it seems to have overruled other values, like solidarity, patience, making the best of things. The risk now is that people no longer search for a way to endure their suffering. Killing yourself is the end of autonomy.”
The situation has not improved in the Netherlands since Smith criticized the Dutch euthanasia program in 1997. The rest of the Newsweek article adds detail. For this article Ross visited Fione Zonneveld communications director for Right to Die-Netherlands, an organization in that country that helps people with living wills, power-of-attorney papers, and general counseling. Beneath a comic, taped to the dry erase board in her newly refurbished office, is a chart that shows a huge increase in membership, from about 120,000 in 2010 to 160,000 in 2015, and on average between 30 to 50 Dutch citizens sign up daily. Dying is a booming business there.
Assistance in dying is not requested for traditional reasons there. Each year it gets easier for people to qualify for euthanasia; instead of just terminal illness, people can qualify for euthanasia for depression, autism, blindness, or even because they don’t want to be dependent on others. The Netherlands even decriminalized euthanasia on babies in 2005, and now children can even request euthanasia with those ages 12 to 15 able to request it if they get parents’ permission. At age 16 they can request it with only parental involvement. Ross suggests other countries may follow suit in learning from the Netherlands.
Assisted-suicide is a close cousin of euthanasia, and the conservative arguments of Geisler and Turek would lead us to refrain from helping people kill themselves. Because life is precious, we should attempt to persuade people to live rather than die. Tom Flynn, however, writing in the secular journal Free Enquiry, in much the same way as the Dutch, views autonomy as the total trump card.
Not long ago, the right to suicide and the right to assisted suicide seemed a single issue. Do individuals’ lives belong to God, society, or themselves? For most humanists the answer was obvious. People own their lives; self-determination is a primary value. Therefore, society should get out of the way of rational suicides, letting them pursue their urgently held desires even unto death. We might not approve of their reasons, but what of that? It is they, not we, who choose to expend their highest asset. As E. M. Cioran observed, “Taking one’s life is sufficiently impressive to forestall any petty hunt for motives.”
Here’s where the rubber hits the proverbial road. Ross notes that financial considerations may prompt those who are candidates for euthanasia or assisted-suicide to be pushed to want this. In the Netherlands, the elderly population is supposed to increase 30 to 40 percent in the coming decade, and euthanasia may be a way to push them to accept quicker death. In the profit-driven United States, people may be denied care because of economic reasons. Assisted-suicide can be the cheapest kind of treatment. Obviously, if there is no patient, then there is no cost to treat him or her.
I just read an article about how much it would cost the state of California to adopt single-payer health care, a move they are considering. Let’s suppose not just California but America embraces single-payer health care and embraces the kind of death ethic the Netherlands is enjoying now. The push to get some people to accept euthanasia and assisted-suicide instead of help will be tremendous. The increased death rate, compared to our modern system still dominated by the Hippocratic oath, will seem like genocide by comparison.
Perhaps, I thought, efforts to limit or reduce human population had pervaded other areas of liberal involvement. In lieu of that, I checked out an ancient text sitting on my shelf – Jacqueline Kasun’s The War Against Population. Kasun, I think, marshals a decent history lesson of the intellectual journey from evolution-inspired racism and sterilization to the population-control movement closer to today. Darwinist movers-and-shakers of the early 1900s included Social Darwinists who applied evolution theory to how humans interact with each other.
Crucial to the Social Darwinists’ theory was their view of individual human beings – not as creatures of innate worth and dignity, regardless of their earthly condition, but as factors on a scale of social value. Without hesitation or embarrassment, the Social Darwinists determined the scale itself and undertook to measure other men by it. Not surprisingly, those who shared the social and economic attributes of the movement’s leaders rated highest.
The idea of natural selection encouraged the study of heredity and the statistical laws of probability that governed it. The statistician Sir Francis Galton . . . was the founder of the study of eugenics, or “good birth”. As [Allan] Chase recounts in his monumental history of scientific racism, Galton hoped by his research to give the “more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable”. He believed that blacks were genetically inferior, that Jews were “parasitical”, and that poverty was transmitted in the genes.
Part of the reason for adopting Social Darwinism was to eliminate runaway population growth. This ideology bloomed in the Nazi movement and was soon branded rotten fruit. However, as Kasun notes, the population control movement gained strength again when Hugh Moore was persuaded of the threat of overpopulation in a 1948 book by William Vogt, a former official of Planned Parenthood. Moore worked to commit the federal government to population control.
In 1960, Moore began the World Population Emergency Campaign which raised a lot of money and merged with the International Planned Parenthood Federation in 1961 to form Planned Parenthood-World Population. He was tireless in creating other committees and movements including serving as president of the Association for Voluntary Sterilization. His ideas about runaway population were promoted in 1970 during Earth Day when 300,000 flyers were distributed.
In 1970, President Richard Nixon fought for the population-control banner by appointing the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future. This commission threw its weight behind a host of population control programs including free abortion on demand, sex education, easier voluntary sterilization, and solicitation of teenagers to use contraceptives. Nixon was opposed to abortion and its provisions giving contraceptives to minors and ignored the commission’s other recommendations. However, without waiting on the commission’s report, Congress passed the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act that became “the vehicle for the largest continuing federal funding of birth control.”
What is instructive is how similar the early Social Darwinist ideology is to the modern left. Just as Social Darwinists demeaned people by placing them in categories (ones we don’t use now), today we do the same thing but with different categories thus sparking conflict (men vs. women, rich vs. poor, white vs. black). The left also places not just the unborn but some infants and some elderly in disposable categories as well.
Environmentalism is another movement that places limits on humans – this time because it puts the good of nature above our good. One reason for this is because some humans, mostly secular ones, look to some replacement for divinely inspired moral codes of conduct once they have abandoned any pretense of believing in traditional religions. Lance Morrow’s 1991 essay in Time magazine about the concept of evil suggests such a thing. Religions traditionally had their rules, but our secular culture has redone those rules using other precepts – whether nature or something else – as the basis for them.
With the emergence of a new world will come a recodification of evils. Obviously offenses against the earth are coming to be thought of as evils in ways we would not have suspected a few years ago. The developed world, at least, is forming a consensus that will regard violence to the planet to be evil in the way we used to think of unorthodox sexual practices and partnerships as being outside the realm of accepted conduct.
James Lovelock, British physical and atmospheric chemist and author of the Gaia hypothesis that supposes the Earth is alive, says “Being on the Earth brings that same special feeling of comfort that attaches to the celebration of any religion” and says he is “too committed to the scientific way of thinking to feel comfortable when enunciating the Creed or the Lord’s Prayer in a Christian Church.” Thinking that the Earth is alive, he says, makes it seems as everyone were celebrating a sacred ceremony.
Christians stress that we are to use our resources wisely, but that doesn’t change their worldview that humans are God’s paramount important creation – a creation that is not to be casually destroyed via the death-ethic procedures I’ve discussed here. However, Darwinian Ronald Bailey features some environmentalists he calls “deep ecologists” who are not as human-centered as their kin.
Calling for “greater environmental humility,” many deep ecologists are frankly antihuman. [Earth First! Founder Dave] Foreman says, “We are a cancer on nature.” And the highly regarded “ecotheologian” Reverend Thomas Berry doesn’t mince words either: “We are an affliction of the world, its demonic presence. We are the violation of Earth’s most sacred aspects.” Some deep ecologists welcome the AIDS epidemic as a means of population control, while others, like Christopher Manes, shout the slogan “Back to the Pleistocene,” and urge us to tear down modern civilization and become tribal hunter-gatherers as our ancestors were ten thousand years ago. This strong antihuman and anticivilization inclination has caused some friction between “deep ecologists” and environmentalists who stem from the more human-centered social justice tradition.
I’m not insinuating all environmentalists have a hatred of the fellow humans, and neither am I saying that all secularists or Darwinists are obsessive environmentalists. What I’m saying is that once you eliminate believing in God, you open the door for something else acting as God – something by which moral obligations are based. One based on nature might dictate that people are not the most important and exalted (at least in God’s eyes) life form, the Earth is, and human life can be sacrificed if necessary to keep the Earth “pure.” From there it’s only a short hop to worshipping it and hating anything that infests it (humans). Many New Agers go down the path to Gaia worship after they abandon traditional religions altogether, but it’s secular beliefs that begin the process that comes to an anti-human end. The same can be said for other false secular beliefs whether Communism, political correctness, or gender feminism; adherents begin with a secular trek that reaps danger afterwards. Some of these other secular beliefs have blood on their hands while the others just make people hate each other. Either way, they are antihuman and immoral.
Summing It Up
Philosopher J. Budziszewski impressed me with a view of what a morality that is written on our heart can do to us once we fail to acknowledge its importance – a denial that moves us to do worse things.
Things are getting worse very quickly now. The list of what we are required to approve is growing ever longer. Consider just the domain of sexual practice. First we were to approve sex before marriage, then without marriage, now against marriage. First with one, then with a series, now with a crowd. First with the other sex, then with the same. First between adults, then between children, then between adults and children. The last item has not been added yet, but will be soon: you can tell from the change in language, just as you can tell the approach of winter from the change in the color of leaves. As any sin passes through its stages from temptation, to toleration, to approval, its name is first euphemized, then avoided, then forgotten. A colleague tells me that some of his fellow legal scholars call child molestation “intergenerational intimacy”: that’s euphemism. A good-hearted editor tried to talk me out of using the term “sodomy”: that’s avoidance. My students don’t know the word “fornication” at all: that’s forgetfulness.
It’s clear that abortion is a symptom of this philosophy. Naomi Wolf obviously knows what is right and wrong and so do like-minded liberals, but they refuse to curb their behavior. They instead erect euphemisms to mask what they do know but wish they didn’t know, and they do the same with the baby once it’s born. Abortion must be a choice, they say, to end a pregnancy – not a human life, of course. The fetus is not a person yet, they say – despite the fact we have killed it before it can become a person. Killing that child once it’s born is not infanticide either; that word yields such disgusting guilty feelings. Calling it something else makes it much more palatable – that is until we can get morally comfortable killing infants. Then we can rightly call it infanticide with no qualms. Then we can go on killing others – people that don’t have “personhood.” Who is a person is, of course, dictated by those who are persons – us, of course, who can do the killing.
The elderly or severely ill certainly don’t have the same problems as the unborn because they attained “personhood” – in the pro-choice sense of the word – while the unborn never did. However, since unfettered autonomy is the goal of liberalism and dying is a choice some should make or would if they had the chance, then liberalism demands that choice is made for them. This is how murder becomes acceptable. Liberalism, in full bloom in the Netherlands, is pushing the boundaries even further giving non-traditional categories of people permission to kill themselves – almost as if the liberal left has an obsession with spreading the gospel of death to everyone. But it seems that everything the left touches leads to death or misery.
The Rationwiki website attributes to Michael Crichton an interesting observation regarding the environmentalism Bailey is talking about.
I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can’t be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people—the best people, the most enlightened people—do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.
I’m sure Al Gore would never claim that humans are a plague on this planet, and I would imagine most environmentalists would feel the same. Notice, though, that it’s when the environmentalism becomes a secular religion that it becomes inhumane just as other facets of the left become inhumane as well. They reduce human choice and dignity and even sometimes produce more death. I believe this is because liberalism, and the left in general, is in revolt against Christian theistic tenets that drive them ever further into the death abyss, and this political philosophy does not allow any input from religions to tell them when to stop. These secular philosophies have a tribal us vs. them mentality, are narcissistic in behavior drowning out the interests of all others who aren’t in the favored group to which the secular individual belongs. In this sense, liberalism is not a philosophy of inclusion but of exclusion. If you happen to get in the way, too bad.
The reason for this is that secular philosophies fail to include in them what theism, specifically Christian theism by my vantage point, offers and allows them to follow alternative gods that get them into intellectual and moral trouble particularly in areas where living or dying is pivotal.
One final point. Recently there has been an increasing amount of physical threats either joked about or openly advocated from left-leaning individuals. Secular individuals usually tell us they can be as moral as the religious, but recently the contrast between them and the religious is striking. If it makes no difference whether or not our morals are based on God, then why has the secular left become so destructively immoral recently. Ponder that as you finish reading my essay here.
 The New Republic, Guide to the Issues: The ’96 Campaign (New York: BasicBooks, 1996), 2,13-14.
 Don Feder, Who’s Afraid of the Religious Right? (Washington D.C.: Regnery, 1996), 114-115.
 Theresa Burke, Forbidden Grief: The Unspoken Pain of Abortion (Springfield, IL: Acorn Books, 2002).
 Alexandra Desanctis, “The Unlimited-Abortion-on-Demand Left Excommunicates Bernie Sanders,” National Review, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447084/bernie-sanders-abortion-rights-heath-mello-pro-life-mayor-omaha-pro-choice-democrats-feminists
 William Saletan, “After-Birth Abortion: The Pro-Choice Case for Infanticide,” http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/03/after_birth_abortion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infanticide_.html.
 Steven Pinker, “Why They Kill Their Newborns,” New York Times, (November 2, 1997).
 Peter Singer in Pediatrics (July 1983) in Franky Schaeffer, Bad News for the Modern Man (Westchester, Il: Crossway, 1984), 156.
 San Francisco Chronicle, “Lawyer Suggests Abortion If a Test Could Prove Fetus Has a ‘Gay Gene,’” (August 26, 1998), http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Lawyer-suggests-abortion-if-a-test-could-prove-3073561.php
 Wesley Smith, Forced Exit: The Slippery Slope from Assisted Suicide to Legalized Murder (New York: Random House, 1997), 96-99, 111.
 Ibid, 111.
 Ibid, 201-202, 110-111.
 Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, Legislating Morality (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1998), 205-206.
 Peter Steinfels, “Beliefs,” New York Times, (October 22, 1994), http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/22/us/beliefs-603279.html
 Winston Ross, “Dying Dutch: Euthanasia Spreads Across Europe,” Newsweek, http://www.newsweek.com/2015/02/20/choosing-die-netherlands-euthanasia-debate-306223.html
 Ross, previously cited Newsweek article.
 Jacqueline Kasun, The War Against Population: The Economics and Ideology of Population Control (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), 159.
 Ibid, 162.
 Ibid, 164.
 Lance Morrow, “Evil,” Time (June 10, 1991).
 James Lovelock, “God and Gaia” in James Huchingson, ed., Religion and the Natural Sciences (Orlando: FL, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1993), 383.
 Ronald Bailey, Ecoscam: The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1991), 10.
 J. Budziszewski, “The Revenge of Conscience,” First Things (June 1998), https://www.firstthings.com/article/1998/06/the-revenge-of-conscience