How Moral Relativism Ushers in Moral Repression
by
Pro-abortion feminists who vote militant Muslims into power shoot themselves in the foot.
The most striking ramification of the recent U.S. midterm elections has little to do with who gained power and more to do with why the amoral chose to hand the reins of political control to those whose religious and political ideology is committed to moral absolutes — so much so that, if given the chance, they’d be willing to kill to prove it.
During the 2026 midterm elections, religious extremists were placed into positions of power by those who believe that Christians — who believe in free will — are responsible for denying the right to kill their offspring. Somehow, in their usual subjective mentality, some voters were deluded into believing that religious extremists who are not of the Jewish and Christian traditions would somehow tolerate whatever lifestyle or murderous choice they promote.
I don’t think so.
Issues like “reproductive rights” benefit those who adhere to an extreme spiritual authority when it comes to getting elected, but that’s where the coalition ends.
History is littered with the corpses of those who mistook enemies for allies; likewise, clueless American advocates of subjective morality placed a scimitar in the hands of those willing to wield it, and, while expecting collegiality and mercy, knelt and lowered their heads in submission to those whose worldview censures their choices.
As I documented in my recent article in The Federalist, Michigan’s newly elected senator supported decisions Mohamed Morsi made during his brief stint as Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood president from 2012 to 2013. Speaking of political beginnings, didn’t Barack Obama, whose administration supported engagement with Morsi’s government, also start his political career as a state senator?
Under Morsi, the promise of democratic freedom gave way to expanding presidential authority, religious persecution, and violence against dissenters and minorities. To date, this newly elected senator has not publicly condemned the atrocities committed in Egypt during Morsi’s tenure. Nor has he said he disagreed with Morsi’s decision to shield himself from legal accountability and place his presidential decisions beyond judicial review.
Now, that’s a red flag right there. Do American voters think it’s a good idea to elect politicians who believe that the Quran’s law is morally supreme and that the government must enforce it even when it conflicts with the U.S. Constitution? Is that the kind of political ideology the right-to-choose contingent elects to ensure that its rights are upheld?
Unable to see beyond the huge dunce caps balanced on their heads, liberal women and moral relativists, in the name of tolerance, diversity, and religious freedom, have chosen to catapult Islamist politicians into seats of power. Someone, please make it make sense.