Some women might seemingly be addicted to pregnancy while it's really just
a result of their religious values.
Not exact matches
The usual assertions are (1) that this kind
of religion is today on the defensive; (2) that the defensive posture is occasioned by the flourishing
of «conservative churches» (although the alleged liberal enervation is also seen in more autonomous terms); (3) that the growth in
religious conservatism and conservative churches is itself the
result of widespread reaction against «secular humanist»
values and against those who hold such
values; (4) that our society as a whole has been experiencing a breakdown in moral consensus, a loss
of moral coherence somehow connected with a decline in oldline Protestant dominance; and (5) that some or all
of these happenings have been quite sudden, so that the early 1960s can be taken as a kind
of benchmark — as a time before the fall.
Religious functionaries lose some
of their unique claim to power as a
result of competition from secular professionals and in conjunction with a more general rise in education and
values stressing individual discretion.
And the moment we renounce the absurd notion that a thing is exploded away as soon as it is classed with others, or its origin is shown; the moment we agree to stand by experimental
results and inner quality, in judging
of values — who does not see that we are likely to ascertain the distinctive significance
of religious melancholy and happiness, or
of religious trances, far better by comparing them as conscientiously as we can with other varieties
of melancholy, happiness, and trance, than by refusing to consider their place in any more general series, and treating them as if they were outside
of nature's order altogether?
Apparently creating a community
of shared
religious values counts as this sort
of permitted preference, even if it
results in the exclusion
of people on the basis
of their sexual orientation (See in general the FLS Special Advisory Report).