Over at Vox Populi, Vox Day notes an event happening in Belgium where a certain region in that country voted to outlaw kosher and halal meats by banning the slaughter of unstunned animals. And in reference to that issue, Vox Day writes:
If a Christian baker doesn’t have the religious freedom to not bake a cake, then an Aztec priest doesn’t have the religious freedom to offer beating hearts to Huitzilopochtli, a Satanist warlock doesn’t have the right to sacrifice a virgin to the Devil, and Jews and Muslims don’t have the religious freedom to eat meat from tortured animals.
And what struck me about this statement was the following: given the Progressive Left’s (1) culture relativism, their (2) claimed love of diversity, their (3) use of ‘consent’ as essentially the only rule by which to determine if something should be allowed or not, their (4) denial of disgust as a metric for guiding behavior, and their (5) embrace of assisted suicide / abortion, then if a consenting individual wanted to be assisted in his suicide by having an Aztec priest cut out his beating heart, is there any principled way that a progressive-leftist could really object to this course of action? I do not see how, at least not if the progressive-leftist wanted to stay true to all the ideals that he routinely espouses.
And that is how you know Leftism is absurd: it restricts Christians from not baking cakes, but it would theoretically have no principled argument against certain types of Aztec sacrifice.