Myths About Liberals And Liberalism

[The Horn]

Here are some misconceptions about liberals and liberalism which conservatives believe :

1 Liberals are socialists, Marxists ad communists . Liberals are not communists and communists are not liberals . Liberalism and communism are polar opposites .
2. Liberals are atheists . Some are, but only some . Some are agnostics .
3. Liberals are anti-christian , hate Christians and want to persecute them . Wrong. Many liberals ARE Christians. The only thing they are opposed to is to is theocracy - theocracy in any religion , not only Christianity . Or allowing religion to get more power in government .
4. Liberals like abortion and want to increase the abortion rate . Nothing could be farther form the truth . Liberals want to PREVENT as many abortions as possible, by preventing unwanted pregnancies .
The only reason they are pro-choice is because they realize that it is absolutely futile to stop abortion by making it illegal, and that this actually causes a higher abortion rate , causes the deaths of many women from botched illegal ones and leaves many children without mothers .
5. Liberals are antibusiness and don't want anyone to be rich, and want to take most money away from the rich .
Wrong. They aren't opposed to people being rich per se - all they want is for rich people to pay their fair share in taxes . If they did this, they would still be able to live in great luxury .
7. Liberals believe in "big government ". They believe government should be as big as it needs to be - no more and no less .
8. Liberals are trying to "promote " homosexuality . Liberals are trying to promote TOLERANCE for gay people and want them to have equal rights . You can't "promote" homosexuality any more than you can "promote " heterosexuality .
9. Liberals are sexually promiscuous and licentious . No more so than conservatives . In many cases, less so !
10 . Liberals support Islamic terrorism and condone violence by Muslims . Not at all . All liberals want is for the peaceful, law-abiding Muslim majority to be treated with tolerance and respect . What they deplore is the stereotyping and scapegoating of Muslims as being inherently fanatical and violent .
11. Liberals have no problem with violent Hispanics coming across the border ,taking jobs from Americans, and sponging off the US government . They support using illegal aliens to vote for Democratic politicians .
Poppycock ! First of all, the overwhelming majority of the illegal aliens who have come across the border are NOT violent criminals and the vast majority can't even afford guns !
They feel that those who have come across the border previously should be allowed a path to citizenship if they have been peaceful,law-abiding and have worked hard, which is true of the vast majority of them .
Stories of the Democratic party using illegal Hispanics to vote are an urban legend .
12. Liberals want to "indoctrinate " kids in public school with Marxism, communism, tolerance of gay people , etc . Again, poppycock . Teaching tolerance of gay people is the MORAL thing to do .
13. Liberals want to crush the free speech of conservatives . Some American universities have ridiculous speech codes which DO crush free speech , but these codes are AUTHORITARIAN, not liberal . Liberals have no problem otherwise with conservatives saying whatever they want .
14. Liberals are crazy , tree hugging environmental wackos . This kind of environmental extremism is not typical of liberals . But what the heck is wrong with being concerned abut pollution , wanting to protect the environment from it , and wanting to prevent greedy, unscrupulous CEOs of oil companies from despoiling the environment with impunity ? Absolutely nothing !
In fact, anyone who DOESN'T want to protect the environment is just plain stupid !

 

[jsanford108]

Allow me, if you will, to address each of these topics. This will be my first time, I believe, replying to a political post. However, you do seem to be intellectual in some capacity, so I would like to enter into a conversation if you please.

I will progress through each point. So, this may be a long reply.

1: False. Most liberals are socialists. Socialism is not Marxism. However, by grouping such ideals together, you are able to claim this as "fact," when reality demonstrates that socialist ideas abound in liberal circles.

2: True. I would say that most liberals are not atheists. I would say that many atheists are liberals, if not a majority, but I have not researched that statistic.

3: This point can go either way. I would say that liberals go against many Christian morals, hence the label as "anti-Christian" is ill-fitting, but in terms of morality, accurate. Liberals do not want the persecution of Christians, but for Christian ideals to be dismissed.

4: Abortion. The big one. I would agree that liberals don't want more abortions. However, the arguments for abortion lack logic and statistics. For example, the statistic you provided is false. "...and that this actually causes a higher abortion rate , causes the deaths of many women from botched illegal ones and leaves many children without mothers." This statistic is claimed based on third world countries, not on first world ones. First world countries, with legal abortion laws, actually have higher abortion rates than third world. Such research and statistics are easily acceptable, but those statistics go against Liberal's ideals.

5: Does anyone think liberals are "anti-business?" Such a claim is just silly, regardless of liberal or conservative source.

(You skipped 6)

7: Liberals do ascribe to "big government." They tend to like "small business," but in terms of laws, they prefer "big government." For example, the abortion laws, gay marriage, etc. Liberals want them implemented in all states, not "state's choice." That is "big government."

8: Liberals do promote homosexuality. Promotion of tolerance would not include homosexuality, nor heterosexuality. Such practices are sexual in nature, thus, there should not be a promotion of any sort. Simple research of Hollywood and Liberal Lobbies shows staggering statistics, where movies receive higher funds if they promote homosexuality, and other liberal ideals. Shoving it into every realm of entertainment and advertising is promotion. That is the basic definition of promotion. Sexuality is not something to be "tolerated," but something that should be left for puberty education classes.

9: Liberals do tend statistically to be more promiscuous. And liberals tend to be more outspoken about such behavior, versus conservatives (except Trump and the like) who try to keep such things hidden (hypocrites).

10: Ah, the Islam debate. "the peaceful, law-abiding Muslim majority to be treated with tolerance and respect . What they deplore is the stereotyping and scapegoating of Muslims as being inherently fanatical and violent." Once again, a false statistic. A majority of muslims adhere to, believe, or support radical ideals. Pew Poll research shows this. Combined with unbiased research of the Qu'ran, one easily sees a culture and religion bent on conquest and destruction.

I agree with Bill Maher on Islam. Islam goes against liberal ideas of tolerance.

11: True. Most conservatives place this false application on liberals. However, "They feel that those who have come across the border previously should be allowed a path to citizenship if they have been peaceful,law-abiding and have worked hard, which is true of the vast majority of them .
Stories of the Democratic party using illegal Hispanics to vote are an urban legend," this is false. There is evidence of the Democratic party utilizing illegal immigrants, not just Hispanic, to gain votes. And those who have come across the border previously should become legal citizens, but by the same way that everyone else does it. Not via asylum, or naturalization. That is unfair, and not tolerant.

12: Indoctrination is a tactic by liberals, and conservatives both. Liberals do want to indoctrinate their ideals onto children. As do conservatives. I think this is wrong on both accounts. As stated before, homosexuality is not something we should be teaching children, as it is a sexual act. We wouldn't want to teach them about BDSM, would we? Naturally not.

13: There is considerable evidence that demonstrates Liberals trying to limit the free speech of conservatives. For example, the use of slurs relating to homosexuals (which I do not condone). If a homosexual utilizes it, it is considered emphasis, comedy, etc. If a conservative utilizes it, it is classified as "hate speech." This is a blatant attempt at limiting free speech. The same examples could be made using Trump rallies vs Clinton rallies. To diss on Clinton is "hate speech," yet to diss on Trump is "free speech." It is hypocritical, and a perversion of terminology. (I do not like Trump, nor Clinton, for the record)

14: I agree completely. Making environmentalism a political issue was genius on the Democrat's side. It was the only time they had actual statistics to back up an ideal (I am generalizing when I say "only time.") Environmentalism should not be a political thing. It is a human concern. It is a human issue. To ignore facts about climate change and carbon footprints is ignorance, and preferring falsehoods to truth. Also, "conservative" bears the same roots as "conservation." I do not understand the illogical nature and approach most conservatives have with the environment.

I assume there will be some debate with my analysis, and I honestly welcome discussion on the topics. I assure you, I will only utilize logic and actual statistics for all my points.

 

[Town Heretic]

We largely agree. A couple of points of difference and a little help on a point in clarifcation.

I would say that most liberals are not atheists. I would say that many atheists are liberals, if not a majority, but I have not researched that statistic.

According to Pew research from 2016, 69% of atheists aligned or leaned Democrat, and 56% consider themselves political liberals. So it's not a big majority, but fair to say a statistically significant portion are liberally aligned. Link. 10 Facts About Atheists

3: This point can go either way. I would say that liberals go against many Christian morals, hence the label as "anti-Christian" is ill-fitting, but in terms of morality, accurate. Liberals do not want the persecution of Christians, but for Christian ideals to be dismissed.

Some, surely. Most would be more likely to say, as Horn does, that they simply don't want those ideas to have the force of law absent secular justification/parallel, in which case it's really about the justification.

4: Abortion. The big one. I would agree that liberals don't want more abortions. However, the arguments for abortion lack logic and statistics. For example, the statistic you provided is false. "...and that this actually causes a higher abortion rate , causes the deaths of many women from botched illegal ones and leaves many children without mothers." This statistic is claimed based on third world countries, not on first world ones. First world countries, with legal abortion laws, actually have higher abortion rates than third world. Such research and statistics are easily acceptable, but those statistics go against Liberal's ideals.

:thumb: One of the problems is that in those countries you also see laws against contraception, which has a great deal to do with it. It's counter intuitive to suggest a law makes people more inclined to do a thing that isn't inherently enjoyable.

10: Ah, the Islam debate. "the peaceful, law-abiding Muslim majority to be treated with tolerance and respect . What they deplore is the stereotyping and scapegoating of Muslims as being inherently fanatical and violent." Once again, a false statistic. A majority of muslims adhere to, believe, or support radical ideals. Pew Poll research shows this. Combined with unbiased research of the Qu'ran, one easily sees a culture and religion bent on conquest and destruction.

Not unless you're really being "liberal" with your definition of radical.

I agree with Bill Maher on Islam. Islam goes against liberal ideas of tolerance.

Depends on the expression. Historically that's not the case and it's not the case where Islam is Westernized by tradition.

13: There is considerable evidence that demonstrates Liberals trying to limit the free speech of conservatives.

Not meaningfully, if what follows is your complaint on the point. And conservatives who are painting those who don't support them lock step as un-American or un-patriotic are trying a form of social censorship. There's a little of that in every camp.

For example, the use of slurs relating to homosexuals (which I do not condone). If a homosexual utilizes it, it is considered emphasis, comedy, etc. If a conservative utilizes it, it is classified as "hate speech."

It's a variation on the N word usage. It's only racist from the outside in. That may rankle white people, who are accustomed to having the say in what is orthodoxy socially speaking, but that's life for you.

This is a blatant attempt at limiting free speech.

So are slander and libel laws.

I do not like Trump, nor Clinton, for the record

Same here.

 

[Lon]

Myths about Liberals!

All I am seeing is clarification of those accusations in much of your list rebuttal. As such, I don't think you can call them myths, just 'rebuttal' because your statements don't distance from the accusations well. Imho, you substantiate them rather than refute them. -Lon

 

[ok doser]

It's only racist from the outside in.

Sorry - you don't get to redefine language, much as you enjoy trying :chuckle:

 

[Tambora]

4: Abortion. The big one. I would agree that liberals don't want more abortions. However, the arguments for abortion lack logic and statistics. For example, the statistic you provided is false. "...and that this actually causes a higher abortion rate , causes the deaths of many women from botched illegal ones and leaves many children without mothers." This statistic is claimed based on third world countries, not on first world ones. First world countries, with legal abortion laws, actually have higher abortion rates than third world. Such research and statistics are easily acceptable, but those statistics go against Liberal's ideals.

Well said, although I disagree with this part (and it may just be semantics).
But if a group does nothing to hinder or discourage or prevent any woman from having an abortion, then yes they are wanting abortions.
If they were genuinely not wanting more abortions to take place, then they should, at the very least, prohibit the amount of them taking place and proclaim a dislike of the practice.

 

[jsanford108]

Well said, although I disagree with this part (and it may just be semantics).
But if a group does nothing to hinder or discourage or prevent any woman from having an abortion, then yes they are wanting abortions.
If they were genuinely not wanting more abortions to take place, then they should, at the very least, prohibit the amount of them taking place and proclaim a dislike of the practice.

I agree completely.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Nick M]

:chuckle:

 

[Town Heretic]

Sorry - you don't get to redefine language, much as you enjoy trying :chuckle:

I'd suppose that's the sincerest form of flattery, but with you I can't credit the sincerity, so...no, I'm not.

By way of illustration, blacks calling one another the n word aren't evidencing the belief in racial superiority, whereas whites utilizing it should be aware of its use, white to black, in just that sense.

 

[Lon]

1: False. Most liberals are socialists. Socialism is not Marxism. However, by grouping such ideals together, you are able to claim this as "fact," when reality demonstrates that socialist ideas abound in liberal circles.

Agree, and a modified form of communism (not that I'm against such, but it is a liberal agenda by and large.

2: True. I would say that most liberals are not atheists. I would say that many atheists are liberals, if not a majority, but I have not researched that statistic.

I'd say true as well, however, there is an accusation behind the greater numbers: the accusation is that their Christian sentiments do not follow their actions, especially regarding anti-Christian sentiment and desire for 'secular' government. A 'secular' government can have no morals unless they are common to all. In that, a secular government didn't serve Rome, by example. I do not believe a government exists where we do not question agenda. A government 'by and for the people' must represent it well. It does not 'require' secular, just a pursuit to God-given unalienable rights and a guarantee of no obstruction to such under the laws.

3: This point can go either way. I would say that liberals go against many Christian morals, hence the label as "anti-Christian" is ill-fitting, but in terms of morality, accurate. Liberals do not want the persecution of Christians, but for Christian ideals to be dismissed.

To them? Sure, because they are politically interested. They've been called anti-Christian, pro-secular. I disagree with my esteemed lawyer and brother, the separation clause was never meant to have us all equally having a right to fight in the arena.

4: Abortion. The big one. I would agree that liberals don't want more abortions. However, the arguments for abortion lack logic and statistics. For example, the statistic you provided is false. "...and that this actually causes a higher abortion rate , causes the deaths of many women from botched illegal ones and leaves many children without mothers." This statistic is claimed based on third world countries, not on first world ones. First world countries, with legal abortion laws, actually have higher abortion rates than third world. Such research and statistics are easily acceptable, but those statistics go against Liberal's ideals.

Absolutely, but a secular push also allows this, as well as the underage child demanding rights to do whatever he/she wants. We do not give equal rights and a secular government would be against this UNLESS it serves the values and rights of all its citizens. In whatever obtrusive way government interferes with faith, it interferes with rights, the exact thing the separation clause that said "Congress shall make no law...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." We realize that 'free exercise' has to do with harming another but selling roses and cakes is by no means a 'right.' Free enterprise should exist. I do not 'expect' a muslim bakery to make a cake of the trinity. My 'expectation' is a desire, not a right. This is NOT an unalienable right.

5: Does anyone think liberals are "anti-business?" Such a claim is just silly, regardless of liberal or conservative source.

Well, sort of. One is more concerned with the workers, the other with the owners. This used to be the classic difference between Democrat and Republican. Almost all of us Christians would have remained Democrat hadn't it changed drastically after Kennedy and Carter. Liberal was socially concerned with all, but not for or toward vice or wants, but genuine needs and rights. We are fast approaching/arrived where Christian values are not represented well by any party, and this partly 'because' of secular SCOTUS concerns. Secular is not desirable. Some Christians could carry it, but it merely appeals to people of like mind. The Republican take-over is by and large part of Christian messages 20 years ago asking Christians to step in and get involved again in politics that was becoming increasingly secular, nonChristian, unchristian, anti-Christian by way of deferment. It reduces the nation 'from' the high and beneficial standards of Christianity.
Some of this, I think natural, given a switch from rural to urban life, such goes hand in hand, but oppression against Christians, even trying to 'level' the playing field, does in fact, reduce us to the poorer common denominator of values. It is crystal clear when media no longer censors itself regarding offense. There is no longer a desire because we've lost that higher standard par 'secular.'

7: Liberals do ascribe to "big government." They tend to like "small business," but in terms of laws, they prefer "big government." For example, the abortion laws, gay marriage, etc. Liberals want them implemented in all states, not "state's choice." That is "big government."

Absolutely, and it has to do so in order to insure its agenda as well. The public school behemoth, that must sustain, loses sight often of 'who' the object of their system is supposed to serve. Many teachers are into it for the right reason BUT they could be helped enormously to do better. Each state spends billions, taxes go up yet teachers are not given raises, it gets sucked up in their pensions already paid for etc. No teacher will ever get a raise. They all start at about $30k and end around $65k. It will never go up. It never has, but it used to be simpler and more rewarding than the political machine it is now. I still appreciate my public school education, but it is worse today and private schools still cost much less. It cost about $3-10k to send a child to private school per year. It costs 10X's that amount for public school and no where near the success. Bigger government, I think, starts out well, but then they become less effective as time goes on. I'd love to see competition with a voucher system.

8: Liberals do promote homosexuality. Promotion of tolerance would not include homosexuality, nor heterosexuality. Such practices are sexual in nature, thus, there should not be a promotion of any sort. Simple research of Hollywood and Liberal Lobbies shows staggering statistics, where movies receive higher funds if they promote homosexuality, and other liberal ideals. Shoving it into every realm of entertainment and advertising is promotion. That is the basic definition of promotion. Sexuality is not something to be "tolerated," but something that should be left for puberty education classes.

Agree, even to teaching kindergarteners.

9: Liberals do tend statistically to be more promiscuous. And liberals tend to be more outspoken about such behavior, versus conservatives (except Trump and the like) who try to keep such things hidden (hypocrites).

We are all hypocrites in that sense, that we 'sin.' The Conservative publically and prayerfully privately, is against even his/her own. Policy will follow our values where we are 'for' or 'against' something. Such reveals our values, whether we are personally successful or not. I'm not meaning to excuse, just say that it isn't necessarily a purposeful hypocrisy and lately I'm seeing studies done that show we aren't as big of hypocrites as we Conservatives are accused.

10: Ah, the Islam debate. "the peaceful, law-abiding Muslim majority to be treated with tolerance and respect . What they deplore is the stereotyping and scapegoating of Muslims as being inherently fanatical and violent." Once again, a false statistic. A majority of muslims adhere to, believe, or support radical ideals. Pew Poll research shows this. Combined with unbiased research of the Qu'ran, one easily sees a culture and religion bent on conquest and destruction.

It isn't an easy discussion. I tend to leave this in political hands but I'd like to see us vetting Christians under persecution.

I agree with Bill Maher on Islam. Islam goes against liberal ideas of tolerance.

I wonder if 70% of us Americans weren't Christians, if Christians would be desired here :think:

11: True. Most conservatives place this false application on liberals. However, "They feel that those who have come across the border previously should be allowed a path to citizenship if they have been peaceful,law-abiding and have worked hard, which is true of the vast majority of them .
Stories of the Democratic party using illegal Hispanics to vote are an urban legend," this is false. There is evidence of the Democratic party utilizing illegal immigrants, not just Hispanic, to gain votes. And those who have come across the border previously should become legal citizens, but by the same way that everyone else does it. Not via asylum, or naturalization. That is unfair, and not tolerant.

Not exactly. Liberals lined up when a mother, illegal alien was deported. It was seen as 'not-so-bad' lawbreaking, coming illegally, paying for and forging documents, etc. "They want to live here" was sufficient and enough.

12: Indoctrination is a tactic by liberals, and conservatives both. Liberals do want to indoctrinate their ideals onto children. As do conservatives. I think this is wrong on both accounts. As stated before, homosexuality is not something we should be teaching children, as it is a sexual act. We wouldn't want to teach them about BDSM, would we? Naturally not.

BUT secularism and liberalism is indoctrination as well. Proverbs 22:6 Deuteronomy 11:18-20 A removal of Christianity from public schools should have phased the church into separation mode. It took us a long time to figure out how to homeschool and private school feasibly. We are still trying to figure it out. Today, we feasibly have to figure it out. There is no way a 'secular' public school is not also "anti-Christian" now. No? Ask your child how many times they hear God's name in vain. It is anti-Christian getting more so, not less. Secular government does not, by its own admissions, stimulate Christian values and in some and more and more occasions, just the opposite. No? I've sad there under a few. In my state, 'secular' isn't supposed to be what the school system is, rather they are to embrace and try to teach AND MENTION any and all shared values as well as those religious teachings that back them, however, there is an increasingly dramatic ignorance of this law and so a void is purported in its wake. There is no way I'd could allow a child to go through secular education today, at least in this area. It is very harmful and the antithesis of unequally yoked. Your kids cannot help but be 'more secular' as a result of attending a 'secular' school, today. They may hold onto Christianity, but it WILL affect them adversely.

13: There is considerable evidence that demonstrates Liberals trying to limit the free speech of conservatives. For example, the use of slurs relating to homosexuals (which I do not condone). If a homosexual utilizes it, it is considered emphasis, comedy, etc. If a conservative utilizes it, it is classified as "hate speech." This is a blatant attempt at limiting free speech. The same examples could be made using Trump rallies vs Clinton rallies. To diss on Clinton is "hate speech," yet to diss on Trump is "free speech." It is hypocritical, and a perversion of terminology. (I do not like Trump, nor Clinton, for the record)

That, and the study done in Colorado of gay bakers refusing to bake a cake with Romans 1 scriptures. We Christians aren't very good about pressing the issue. I think such will happen, but the group that started this, didn't take it to court.

14: I agree completely. Making environmentalism a political issue was genius on the Democrat's side. It was the only time they had actual statistics to back up an ideal (I am generalizing when I say "only time.") Environmentalism should not be a political thing. It is a human concern. It is a human issue. To ignore facts about climate change and carbon footprints is ignorance, and preferring falsehoods to truth. Also, "conservative" bears the same roots as "conservation." I do not understand the illogical nature and approach most conservatives have with the environment.

I think he meant it is typical of liberals. To me, it is rather the difference between Democrats and Republicans, not necessarily Liberal vs. Conservative. Some of these were associated by their extreme behavior and perhaps NicolasCagean, as Town quipped, a coincidence. Peta is probably liberal, but I don't think all pet-lovers are. I don't give to animal causes, simply because human lives are on Maslow's Heirarchy list.

I assume there will be some debate with my analysis, and I honestly welcome discussion on the topics. I assure you, I will only utilize logic and actual statistics for all my points.

For me, there can be no secularization without losing these two directives as well as an indoctrination agenda. Because we are born in sin, we necessarily must be trained away from it and steered back to God. Proverbs 22:6 Deuteronomy 11:18-20
Our kids spend 35 hours a day around secular interests and bombarded with values against their faith, most of it from other kids and whatever their parents value and say. They spend about the same amount of time with media. A proactive parent can do a lot to diminish effects, but it is a good idea for a parent to think about home-schooling or even using the internet schools available now as well as looking into private Christian schools. We have to walk that line between being in the world, but not of it and we are going to have to be more proactive and creative in finding that balance. MANY Christians I went to school with are no longer walking with the Lord. I am sure part of this has to do with a secular nonChristian influence. Admittedly, I grew up in pretty tough schools, nearly intercity by standard, violence, teen drugs and sex, etc. In these areas, the proactive need is greater because the influence against Christian living is greater. Such isn't really Liberal/Conservative discussion, but is proactive concern regarding such as it pertains to living Christian lives among Liberal/secular agenda, well-meaning or not. Public schools are getting worse and dwindling to the lower common denominators regarding values. Even teachers curse and use profanity, and teach from their own liberal and often non-Christian values. While that has always been true, it is more rampant and saturated in schools in my area than even when I was a kid, and that's a scary thought :noway:

 

[Ktoyou]

"If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain" WC

"Most people choose the side that supports themselves best' Kat

 

[Ktoyou]

I'd suppose that's the sincerest form of flattery, but with you I can't credit the sincerity, so...no, I'm not.

By way of illustration, blacks calling one another the n word aren't evidencing the belief in racial superiority, whereas whites utilizing it should be aware of its use, white to black, in just that sense.

Not if one appears white, BUT DEEP DOWN, IN ONE'S HEART OF HEARTS, ONE BELIEVES ONE IS BLACK.........

Then not allowing one to so believe and act on one's belief is being transracialphobic.:mmph:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

3. Liberals are anti-christian , hate Christians and want to persecute them . Wrong. Many liberals ARE Christians..

Yet they go against the teachings of Jesus Christ. How is it possible to embrace things that God abhors and still be His follower?

Allow me to use 3 of TOL's Liberaltarians as examples: (i.e. Larry, Curly and Moe)

Quote Originally Posted by ok doser
ironically, most people don't care what people do in their bedrooms

if homos were willing to keep their disgusting perversions in their bedrooms, nobody would care
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...utlaw-sodomy&p=4634285&viewfull=1#post4634285


Quote: Originally posted by musterion
Yep. Can't stop what people do privately, whether we know about it or not. ACW equated that with "not caring what they do" but that's not true. Anyway, it is precisely the in-your-face part that is the problem.
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...utlaw-sodomy&p=4634297&viewfull=1#post4634297

Quote: Originally posted by patrick jane
As long as the gayness is not in my face I'm satisfied
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ized!-Part-4&p=4489796&viewfull=1#post4489796

Do you think Jesus was impartial to sin, i.e. He didn't care about it as long as He didn't have to see it?

 

[jsanford108]

Agree, and a modified form of communism (not that I'm against such, but it is a liberal agenda by and large.


I'd say true as well, however, there is an accusation behind the greater numbers: the accusation is that their Christian sentiments do not follow their actions, especially regarding anti-Christian sentiment and desire for 'secular' government. A 'secular' government can have no morals unless they are common to all. In that, a secular government didn't serve Rome, by example. I do not believe a government exists where we do not question agenda. A government 'by and for the people' must represent it well. It does not 'require' secular, just a pursuit to God-given unalienable rights and a guarantee of no obstruction to such under the laws.


To them? Sure, because they are politically interested. They've been called anti-Christian, pro-secular. I disagree with my esteemed lawyer and brother, the separation clause was never meant to have us all equally having a right to fight in the arena.

Absolutely, but a secular push also allows this, as well as the underage child demanding rights to do whatever he/she wants. We do not give equal rights and a secular government would be against this UNLESS it serves the values and rights of all its citizens. In whatever obtrusive way government interferes with faith, it interferes with rights, the exact thing the separation clause that said "Congress shall make no law...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." We realize that 'free exercise' has to do with harming another but selling roses and cakes is by no means a 'right.' Free enterprise should exist. I do not 'expect' a muslim bakery to make a cake of the trinity. My 'expectation' is a desire, not a right. This is NOT an unalienable right.


Well, sort of. One is more concerned with the workers, the other with the owners. This used to be the classic difference between Democrat and Republican. Almost all of us Christians would have remained Democrat hadn't it changed drastically after Kennedy and Carter. Liberal was socially concerned with all, but not for or toward vice or wants, but genuine needs and rights. We are fast approaching/arrived where Christian values are not represented well by any party, and this partly 'because' of secular SCOTUS concerns. Secular is not desirable. Some Christians could carry it, but it merely appeals to people of like mind. The Republican take-over is by and large part of Christian messages 20 years ago asking Christians to step in and get involved again in politics that was becoming increasingly secular, nonChristian, unchristian, anti-Christian by way of deferment. It reduces the nation 'from' the high and beneficial standards of Christianity.
Some of this, I think natural, given a switch from rural to urban life, such goes hand in hand, but oppression against Christians, even trying to 'level' the playing field, does in fact, reduce us to the poorer common denominator of values. It is crystal clear when media no longer censors itself regarding offense. There is no longer a desire because we've lost that higher standard par 'secular.'



Absolutely, and it has to do so in order to insure its agenda as well. The public school behemoth, that must sustain, loses sight often of 'who' the object of their system is supposed to serve. Many teachers are into it for the right reason BUT they could be helped enormously to do better. Each state spends billions, taxes go up yet teachers are not given raises, it gets sucked up in their pensions already paid for etc. No teacher will ever get a raise. They all start at about $30k and end around $65k. It will never go up. It never has, but it used to be simpler and more rewarding than the political machine it is now. I still appreciate my public school education, but it is worse today and private schools still cost much less. It cost about $3-10k to send a child to private school per year. It costs 10X's that amount for public school and no where near the success. Bigger government, I think, starts out well, but then they become less effective as time goes on. I'd love to see competition with a voucher system.

Agree, even to teaching kindergarteners.


We are all hypocrites in that sense, that we 'sin.' The Conservative publically and prayerfully privately, is against even his/her own. Policy will follow our values where we are 'for' or 'against' something. Such reveals our values, whether we are personally successful or not. I'm not meaning to excuse, just say that it isn't necessarily a purposeful hypocrisy and lately I'm seeing studies done that show we aren't as big of hypocrites as we Conservatives are accused.
It isn't an easy discussion. I tend to leave this in political hands but I'd like to see us vetting Christians under persecution.


I wonder if 70% of us Americans weren't Christians, if Christians would be desired here :think:


Not exactly. Liberals lined up when a mother, illegal alien was deported. It was seen as 'not-so-bad' lawbreaking, coming illegally, paying for and forging documents, etc. "They want to live here" was sufficient and enough.


BUT secularism and liberalism is indoctrination as well. Proverbs 22:6 Deuteronomy 11:18-20 A removal of Christianity from public schools should have phased the church into separation mode. It took us a long time to figure out how to homeschool and private school feasibly. We are still trying to figure it out. Today, we feasibly have to figure it out. There is no way a 'secular' public school is not also "anti-Christian" now. No? Ask your child how many times they hear God's name in vain. It is anti-Christian getting more so, not less. Secular government does not, by its own admissions, stimulate Christian values and in some and more and more occasions, just the opposite. No? I've sad there under a few. In my state, 'secular' isn't supposed to be what the school system is, rather they are to embrace and try to teach AND MENTION any and all shared values as well as those religious teachings that back them, however, there is an increasingly dramatic ignorance of this law and so a void is purported in its wake. There is no way I'd could allow a child to go through secular education today, at least in this area. It is very harmful and the antithesis of unequally yoked. Your kids cannot help but be 'more secular' as a result of attending a 'secular' school, today. They may hold onto Christianity, but it WILL affect them adversely.

That, and the study done in Colorado of gay bakers refusing to bake a cake with Romans 1 scriptures. We Christians aren't very good about pressing the issue. I think such will happen, but the group that started this, didn't take it to court.


I think he meant it is typical of liberals. To me, it is rather the difference between Democrats and Republicans, not necessarily Liberal vs. Conservative. Some of these were associated by their extreme behavior and perhaps NicolasCagean, as Town quipped, a coincidence. Peta is probably liberal, but I don't think all pet-lovers are. I don't give to animal causes, simply because human lives are on Maslow's Heirarchy list.

For me, there can be no secularization without losing these two directives as well as an indoctrination agenda. Because we are born in sin, we necessarily must be trained away from it and steered back to God. Proverbs 22:6 Deuteronomy 11:18-20
Our kids spend 35 hours a day around secular interests and bombarded with values against their faith, most of it from other kids and whatever their parents value and say. They spend about the same amount of time with media. A proactive parent can do a lot to diminish effects, but it is a good idea for a parent to think about home-schooling or even using the internet schools available now as well as looking into private Christian schools. We have to walk that line between being in the world, but not of it and we are going to have to be more proactive and creative in finding that balance. MANY Christians I went to school with are no longer walking with the Lord. I am sure part of this has to do with a secular nonChristian influence. Admittedly, I grew up in pretty tough schools, nearly intercity by standard, violence, teen drugs and sex, etc. In these areas, the proactive need is greater because the influence against Christian living is greater. Such isn't really Liberal/Conservative discussion, but is proactive concern regarding such as it pertains to living Christian lives among Liberal/secular agenda, well-meaning or not. Public schools are getting worse and dwindling to the lower common denominators regarding values. Even teachers curse and use profanity, and teach from their own liberal and often non-Christian values. While that has always been true, it is more rampant and saturated in schools in my area than even when I was a kid, and that's a scary thought :noway:

Excellent points, Lon.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Town Heretic]

"If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain" WC

"Most people choose the side that supports themselves best' Kat

Glad you brought that up. I was just about to say, "Said the fellow born with a silver spoon in his mouth and a genuine motivation to preserve his class," for Churchill.

My old response to that quote was, "If you buy bumper sticker philosophy as the basis for your beliefs at 19, you're in need of a college education. If you still buy them at 22, you wasted your parents money and your time."

But then, the only people who would buy it couldn't. lain:

 

[Lighthouse]

No. 5 is a prime example of the stupidity of liberalism: They'd rather the rich pay more in taxes than the poor pay fewer in taxes.:doh:

Kat brought up a good point, too. Liberals are always accusing conservatives of voting against their own interests. This displays their selfishness and greed. They don't care about what's in the best interest of everyone; they only care about their personal interests. And they're very subjective when it comes to that. It's all about what they want, not what they objectively need.

P.S. @The Horn Tolerance of homosexuality is not moral if homosexuality is immoral.

 

[ok doser]

Not if one appears white, BUT DEEP DOWN, IN ONE'S HEART OF HEARTS, ONE BELIEVES ONE IS BLACK.........

Then not allowing one to so believe and act on one's belief is being transracialphobic.:mmph:

"Transracialphobic"


Is that a thing?

 

[Nick M]

You shall not covet.

 

[Ktoyou]

Glad you brought that up. I was just about to say, "Said the fellow born with a silver spoon in his mouth and a genuine motivation to preserve his class," for Churchill.

My old response to that quote was, "If you buy bumper sticker philosophy as the basis for your beliefs at 19, you're in need of a college education. If you still buy them at 22, you wasted your parents money and your time."

But then, the only people who would buy it couldn't. lain:

Reading that this time, it surprised me 'at 35' as for me now, I think the move towards conservative is more in ones 50s than 30s, or am I getting so old? :idunno:

 

[ok doser]

Modern society infantilizes the young, more effectively now than ever before

That's why you had so many "adults" willingly voting for the likes of hillary and bammy

Their intellectual, emotional and psychological development has been stunted

Iow, they're retarded