Amy Coney Barrett

[RumTumTugger]

Despite Atwood's involvement the television series unfortunately turned into a mini soap opera judging from what I have seen [and read] concerning the second and third series. The book deliberately ends with no resolution. In the novel the tapes are being discussed two hundred years later at an academic conference.

The novel is, as is Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four, a warning.

Atwood observed the rise of the Moral Majority in the USA in the late 1970s and early 1980s and in her mind compared this phenomenon with the rise of fascism. She wrote this novel imagining what a society might be like if the right wing commentators of that period with their attempts to put women back a 1950s role [Phylis Schaffly] or who regarded AIDs as some sort of divine retribution upon the ever more openly visible male gay community [Pat Robertson] or who called for homosexuals to be executed [Bob Jones] actually gained control of society and turned, at least part of the USA, into an authoritarian regime that suspended constitutional rights, employed a repressive secret police force, practised racial cleansing, tortured and/or executed abortion doctors, gays, and other "undesirables" and, as in Orwell's earlier novel were permanently fighting some sectarian war.

actually she took an extreme view of what some of the moral Majority was saying instead the rank and file and built a screed against a strawman.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

actually she took an extreme view of what some of the moral Majority was saying instead the rank and file and built a screed against a strawman.

Am I mistaken? Did Was Bob Jones not advocate killing gay men? Did Pat Robertson not consider AIDs to be divine retribution? Did Phyllis Schlafly not campaign against the Equal Rights Amendment? Those three individuals were all very prominent on the Christian Right.

[seer]

Am I mistaken? Did Was Bob Jones not advocate killing gay men? Did Pat Robertson not consider AIDs to be divine retribution? Did Phyllis Schlafly not campaign against the Equal Rights Amendment? Those three individuals were all very prominent on the Christian Right.

And these things are wrong why? Aren't you a moral relativist?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Of course the Bible isn't strictly historical.

Well I am glad you recognise that fact.

However, there are many parts of it that are historical such as the Book of Exodus that describes a theocratic nation.

That does not presuppose such a "nation" actually existed. Bear in mind the Hebrew texts were redacted in the sixth century BCE.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

And these things are wrong why? Aren't you a moral relativist?

Am I? That is news to me.

[seer]

Am I? That is news to me.

How can you logically be anything else?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

How can you logically be anything else?

As I recollect logic is not your forte, is it?

[seer]

As I recollect logic is not your forte, is it?

Another personal attack? And where is your evidence for that claim? Be specific. Or admit that you are being untruthful.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Another personal attack? And where is your evidence for that claim? Be specific. Or admit that you are being untruthful.

No an observation premised on evidence from what you have written. Unlike your assumption about me.

[seer]

No an observation premised on evidence from what you have written. Unlike your assumption about me.

Then give me an example.

[RumTumTugger]

Really? When did that happen in the history of the Israelites?

During the time written about in Exodus and Judges. for someone who says they read the bible you sure don't' know much about the history in it.

[Mountain Man]

That does not presuppose such a "nation" actually existed.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the term "presuppose". When a conclusion is based on the evidence, then it is not, by definition, a presupposition.

[Mountain Man]

On topic, liberals are complaining that Barrett on the Supreme Court would essentially turn John Roberts into the leader of the liberal judges (even though he's more moderate than liberal) and would nullify the tremendous power he enjoyed as the holder of the swing vote. Who knows, maybe he'll return to his conservative roots now that cases will no longer hinge on his decision.

[Gondwanaland]

Excuse me asking but would you like to live under a theocracy? Does something akin to Calvin's Geneva appeal? Or something like Daesh?

That is the problem with theocracies one never can tell who will interpret the holy scripture and who will exercise the power.

WHat's truly hilarious is how people like you on the left are suddenly screeching 'theocracy' now that Trump has put forth an able, expert, successful woman who happens to be religious, as if putting her into place as one person of 9, all of whom are religious (some of whom are Catholic just like her), will turn the country into a 'theocracy'. The utter hysteria and hyperbole from y'all is honestly rather entertaining.

[Gondwanaland]

As I recollect logic is not your forte, is it?

Ah, some more of those 'good manners' shining through. Absolutely no 'personal and abusive remarks' to be seen here, nosiree!

. I employ good manners. You have an unfortunate tendency to revert to personal and abusive remarks.