The Rise of Intolerant Liberals

[Debra K]

I don't approve of abortion and I don't think I would have ever chosen one for myself during my "child bearing years". I'm much older now, but one of my most painful memories was being a young woman who just learned she was pregnant. My boyfriend was upset and demanded that I get an abortion and I said "No!" He screamed and begged for hours demanding that I do as he commanded. I still said "No!" The abuse and turmoil was too much for my body, I miscarried that night, and I was sad and angry. I felt like my choice was ripped away from me.

The most important aspect of the Roe v. Wade decision is that it puts the power to decide in the hands of the pregnant woman. The justices made it clear, if the individual does not have the power to determine her own procreative destiny ... if that power resides with the government, then the pendulum may swing both ways. If I don't have the right to choose my own procreative destiny and the government has the power to prohibit abortions, then it also has the power to require abortions. I don't want the government to have the power over procreation and, under our constitution, the government doesn't have that power.

I understand that some people don't appreciate a woman's right to make her own choice, but the power over procreation cannot be surrendered to the government. You might think it's immoral to have an abortion, but others might think it's immoral for a woman to give birth to a child that will be a drain on societal resources. Again, who gets to be in charge of the morality police? Be careful what you wish for ...

Ultimately, all the excuses that you cite notwithstanding, the fact remains that you defend a “right” to kill Innocent, defenseless children, in cold blood, for no better reason than that their existence is inconvenient to their mother. One who takes such an overtly evil and murderous position really is let in no place to speak credibly about morality. You've evaded discussion of other evils that you support and defend, but really, they pale compared to this one.

You obviously have no respect for people who don't want your morals imposed upon them. I understand that you want to be in control of women's bodies and reproductive organs. But, you're not their master and the Constitution does not protect embryos. Here's what Justice Scalia said on the issue:

"What is the connection between your Catholicism, your Jesuit education, and your judicial philosophy?" Stahl asks.

"It has nothing to do with how I decide cases," Scalia replies. "My job is to interpret the Constitution accurately. And indeed, there are anti-abortion people who think that the constitution requires a state to prohibit abortion. They say that the Equal Protection Clause requires that you treat a helpless human being that's still in the womb the way you treat other human beings. I think that's wrong. I think when the Constitution says that persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws, I think it clearly means walking-around persons,"

Source: Justice Scalia on the record

You should apply your morals to yourself and your own life ... and keep your nose out of other people's private lives. The government is not in charge of procreation.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Here's where I find Chrisitanity [sic] confusing. What happened to the loving Christ? How can you express such ill will toward perfect strangers?

I don't claim to be a perfect follower of Christ's example. I have to admit that in many ways, I fall short, as do we all.

Disapproving of sin is not the same thing as expressing ill will toward a person. One who perfectly followed Christ's example would not tell someone else that his sins were OK, and to continue committing them. The truly Christlike, loving act would be to encourage one to repent and turn away from sin. After Jesus saved the woman who was caught in adultery, from those who wanted to put her to death, he didn't tell her to go ahead and continue to sleep with men who were not her husband. He told her to sin no more.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You obviously have no respect for people who don't want your morals imposed upon them. I understand that you want to be in control of women's bodies and reproductive organs.

·
·
·​

You should apply your morals to yourself and your own life ... and keep your nose out of other people's private lives. The government is not in charge of procreation.

You have so little respect for a significant portion of humanity that you will not defend their very most basic and essential right, which is the right not to have their lives summarily taken without just cause.

Of course it should be no surprise that one who wishes for innocents to be slaughtered in cold blood will also wish that decent people will “keep their nose out of it”, rather than stand up in behalf of these innocents. All criminals, all tyrants, all doers of violence, destruction, and evil, wish for the good people to leave them be. As Einstein observed, the greater threat is not from those who actively do evil, but from those who just sit by and allow it to happen unopposed.

 

[IsaacNewton]

You obviously have no respect for people who don't want your morals imposed upon them. I understand that you want to be in control of women's bodies and reproductive organs.

·
·
·​

You should apply your morals to yourself and your own life ... and keep your nose out of other people's private lives. The government is not in charge of procreation.

You have so little respect for a significant portion of humanity that you will not defend their very most basic and essential right, which is the right not to have their lives summarily taken without just cause.

Of course it should be no surprise that one who wishes for innocents to be slaughtered in cold blood will also wish that decent people will “keep their nose out of it”, rather than stand up in behalf of these innocents. All criminals, all tyrants, all doers of violence, destruction,and evil, wish for the good people to leave them be. As Einstein observed, the greater threat is not from those who actively do evil, but from those who just sit by and allow it to happen unopposed.

You let 20,000 children die every day that you could save.

Your only use for children is as a political tool. Just like the GOP uses the bodies of the 4 Americans at Ben Gassy. You could not careless about 'lives'. If they serve your purpose, then they are valuable to you, if not, then you don't know they exist.

 

[Rustic]

You obviously have no respect for people who don't want your morals imposed upon them. I understand that you want to be in control of women's bodies and reproductive organs.

·
·
·​

You should apply your morals to yourself and your own life ... and keep your nose out of other people's private lives. The government is not in charge of procreation.

You have so little respect for a significant portion of humanity that you will not defend their very most basic and essential right, which is the right not to have their lives summarily taken without just cause.

Of course it should be no surprise that one who wishes for innocents to be slaughtered in cold blood will also wish that decent people will “keep their nose out of it”, rather than stand up in behalf of these innocents. All criminals, all tyrants, all doers of violence, destruction,and evil, wish for the good people to leave them be. As Einstein observed, the greater threat is not from those who actively do evil, but from those who just sit by and allow it to happen unopposed.

You let 20,000 children die every day that you could save.

Your only use for children is as a political tool. Just like the GOP uses the bodies of the 4 Americans at Ben Gassy. You could not careless about 'lives'. If they serve your purpose, then they are valuable to you, if not, then you don't know they exist.

What about the baby butchers at PP??

 

[Dhara]

Here's where I find Chrisitanity [sic] confusing. What happened to the loving Christ? How can you express such ill will toward perfect strangers?

I don't claim to be a perfect follower of Christ's example. I have to admit that in many ways, I fall short, as do we all.

Disapproving of sin is not the same thing as expressing ill will toward a person. One who perfectly followed Christ's example would not tell someone else that his sins were OK, and to continue committing them. The truly Christlike, loving act would be to encourage one to repent and turn away from sin. After Jesus saved the woman who was caught in adultery, from those who wanted to put her to death, he didn't tell her to go ahead and continue to sleep with men who were not her husband. He told her to sin no more.

I'm not Christian. You'd like to impose your religion over mine. I don't find that easy to relate to.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You obviously have no respect for people who don't want your morals imposed upon them. I understand that you want to be in control of women's bodies and reproductive organs.

·
·
·​

You should apply your morals to yourself and your own life ... and keep your nose out of other people's private lives. The government is not in charge of procreation.

You have so little respect for a significant portion of humanity that you will not defend their very most basic and essential right, which is the right not to have their lives summarily taken without just cause.

Of course it should be no surprise that one who wishes for innocents to be slaughtered in cold blood will also wish that decent people will “keep their nose out of it”, rather than stand up in behalf of these innocents. All criminals, all tyrants, all doers of violence, destruction, and evil, wish for the good people to leave them be. As Einstein observed, the greater threat is not from those who actively do evil, but from those who just sit by and allow it to happen unopposed.

The problem in the US is that loads of people clamor to save the unborn, but as soon as they are born, then they seem to forget all about them.

Education is unfairly biased towards the rich, even in state education. The US essentially breeds criminals out of those children they "saved".

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I'm not Christian. You'd like to impose your religion over mine. I don't find that easy to relate to.

Back to a point I made earlier. You don't want me to impose my morality on you, but you will gladly impose your immorality on others.

 

[Dhara]

Do these supposed Christian merchants morally vet all their customers for fear of their mortal souls? Do they cater a Mafia princess' wedding? The marriage of an OB/GYN's daughter who has had an abortion?

Or is their precious and jealously guarded bigotry restricted to same sex couples? Is their bigotry really driven by Biblical mandate, or good old fashioned Gay bashing? Is it driven by faith in a loving and forgiving God, or by fears, superstitions and ignorance?

Intentionally, I suppose, you ignore the distinction between merely judging a person, and refusing to participate in that person's misconduct.

If I were in a catering-related profession, what my customers did outside of any interactions with me would have little bearing on my dealing with them.

That a bride may be a “mafia princess” would not be my concern, if I were asked to cater her wedding. If her father asked me to cater an event celebrating the murder of a rival gang leader, I would refuse.

If the bride's father was an abortionist, that's have little bearing on me catering her wedding. I would not, however, cater an event celebrating her father's murderous profession, or any accomplishment therein.

Homosexuality is immoral. “Gay marriage” is a sick mockery of that which I hold to be sacred. Under no circumstances would I willingly participate in a celebration of this evil.


Being loving and forgiving, in perfect accordance with Christian values, does not mean, nor even faintly imply, an obligation to participate in, support, or celebrate that which one knows to be wrong.

As someone who waited 25 years to legally marry, it saddens me that anyone would consider that level of committment to the woman I love a 'sick mockery of what is sacred'. There are many religions practiced in America and we don't all share the same ideas on what is considered to be misconduct.

Here is the teaching that I uphold:

"Aware of the suffering caused by sexual misconduct, I undertake to cultivate responsibility and learn ways to protect the safety and integrity of individuals, couples, families, and society. I am determined not to engage in sexual relations without love and a long- term commitment. To preserve the happiness of myself and others, I am determined to respect my commitments and the commitments of others. I will do everything in my power to protect children from sexual abuse and to prevent couples and families from being broken by sexual misconduct."

Nonetheless, it is not a barrier to me to relate to you as another human being. I trust you mean well. Obviously, I disagree with your position on marriage equality. I am happy to have the right to marry and raise children in the country of my birth.

As for "forcing you" to do something you don't want to do, such as celebrate a family's happiness, most of us aren't in the slightest bit interested in having a wet blanket of close mindedness present for our family celebrations.

What's everyone's hang up with sexuality. It's a private preference and a non political issue....human, but non political....Jeez....Scum that commit perverted sex crimes should be strung up by their balls, but how's that a political issue?

Why is it a political issue? Because they use to lock up gay people and now we can marry. None of those changes would have occurred without political activism.

 

[Dhara]

I'm not Christian. You'd like to impose your religion over mine. I don't find that easy to relate to.

Back to a point I made earlier. You don't want me to impose my morality on you, but you will gladly impose your immorality on others.

No dear. I'm not imposing my life on you. All I'm doing is living it.

 

[Dhara]

Bob, I'm not "imposing" my religion on you. You don't even know what my religion is.

 

[Dhara]

You obviously have no respect for people who don't want your morals imposed upon them. I understand that you want to be in control of women's bodies and reproductive organs.

·
·
·​

You should apply your morals to yourself and your own life ... and keep your nose out of other people's private lives. The government is not in charge of procreation.

You have so little respect for a significant portion of humanity that you will not defend their very most basic and essential right, which is the right not to have their lives summarily taken without just cause.

Of course it should be no surprise that one who wishes for innocents to be slaughtered in cold blood will also wish that decent people will “keep their nose out of it”, rather than stand up in behalf of these innocents. All criminals, all tyrants, all doers of violence, destruction, and evil, wish for the good people to leave them be. As Einstein observed, the greater threat is not from those who actively do evil, but from those who just sit by and allow it to happen unopposed.

The problem in the US is that loads of people clamor to save the unborn, but as soon as they are born, then they seem to forget all about them.

Education is unfairly biased towards the rich, even in state education. The US essentially breeds criminals out of those children they "saved".

I'm sure if a fetus could be determined in utero to be gay some christians would have no problem with aborting them.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The problem in the US is that loads of people clamor to save the unborn, but as soon as they are born, then they seem to forget all about them.

Education is unfairly biased towards the rich, even in state education. The US essentially breeds criminals out of those children they "saved".

An oft-repeated falsehood.

It is a proven fact that in general, conservatives are far more generous than liberals in giving what is rightfully theirs to give, in support of charitable causes, including those that help the poor and disadvantaged. Liberals seem to think that they can claim credit for being “charitable”, not by giving anything that is theirs to give, but by getting government to take it from someone else.

And it is liberalism, also, that has made a mess of public education, while actively hampering any free-market alternatives.

It's become a defining cliché about wrong-wing ideology, that it will never take responsibility of the consequences of its own policies, seeking instead to blame these consequences on those who opposed those policies and sought to prevent those consequences. I think you've just provided a good practical demonstration of this cliché.

 

[Dhara]

You aren't generous in your attitudes bob.

 

[Dhara]

You live your life with your moral code Bob. I'll live mine.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You obviously have no respect for people who don't want your morals imposed upon them. I understand that you want to be in control of women's bodies and reproductive organs.

·
·
·​

You should apply your morals to yourself and your own life ... and keep your nose out of other people's private lives. The government is not in charge of procreation.

You have so little respect for a significant portion of humanity that you will not defend their very most basic and essential right, which is the right not to have their lives summarily taken without just cause.

Of course it should be no surprise that one who wishes for innocents to be slaughtered in cold blood will also wish that decent people will “keep their nose out of it”, rather than stand up in behalf of these innocents. All criminals, all tyrants, all doers of violence, destruction, and evil, wish for the good people to leave them be. As Einstein observed, the greater threat is not from those who actively do evil, but from those who just sit by and allow it to happen unopposed.

The problem in the US is that loads of people clamor to save the unborn, but as soon as they are born, then they seem to forget all about them.

Education is unfairly biased towards the rich, even in state education. The US essentially breeds criminals out of those children they "saved".

I'm sure if a fetus could be determined in utero to be gay some christians would have no problem with aborting them.

Gay or liberal.....

 

[Dhara]

You obviously have no respect for people who don't want your morals imposed upon them. I understand that you want to be in control of women's bodies and reproductive organs.

·
·
·​

You should apply your morals to yourself and your own life ... and keep your nose out of other people's private lives. The government is not in charge of procreation.

You have so little respect for a significant portion of humanity that you will not defend their very most basic and essential right, which is the right not to have their lives summarily taken without just cause.

Of course it should be no surprise that one who wishes for innocents to be slaughtered in cold blood will also wish that decent people will “keep their nose out of it”, rather than stand up in behalf of these innocents. All criminals, all tyrants, all doers of violence, destruction, and evil, wish for the good people to leave them be. As Einstein observed, the greater threat is not from those who actively do evil, but from those who just sit by and allow it to happen unopposed.

The problem in the US is that loads of people clamor to save the unborn, but as soon as they are born, then they seem to forget all about them.

Education is unfairly biased towards the rich, even in state education. The US essentially breeds criminals out of those children they "saved".

I'm sure if a fetus could be determined in utero to be gay some christians would have no problem with aborting them.

Gay or liberal.....

True.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The problem in the US is that loads of people clamor to save the unborn, but as soon as they are born, then they seem to forget all about them.

Education is unfairly biased towards the rich, even in state education. The US essentially breeds criminals out of those children they "saved".

An oft-repeated falsehood.

It is a proven fact that in general, conservatives are far more generous than liberals in giving what is rightfully theirs to give, in support of charitable causes, including those that help the poor and disadvantaged. Liberals seem to think that they can claim credit for being “charitable”, not by giving anything that is theirs to give, but by getting government to take it from someone else.

And it is liberalism, also, that has made a mess of public education, while actively hampering any free-market alternatives.

It's become a defining cliché about wrong-wing ideology, that it will never take responsibility of the consequences of its own policies, seeking instead to blame these consequences on those who opposed those policies and sought to prevent those consequences. I think you've just provided a good practical demonstration of this cliché.

It is proven is it? Go on then, prove it. Someone put a load of links up the other day, and one of these basically said that there was no difference. The difference was between those who were generous and those who weren't, and they could be rich or poor.

But I'm not really sure why you've gone off about being generous or not.

However it isn't liberalism that has made a mess of education in the US, it's the US that has made a mess of education, both right and left, mainly because they spend their whole time playing pathetic partisan games with each other and ignore the real people and their needs.

And you're playing that game with this post which is basically hammering the left without considering what actually needs to be done in life. And the politicians are having a field day because it's so much easier to appeal to people playing the partisan bullshit game than it is to those who actually want things to just work properly.

 

[Debra K]

I believe that is delusional, self-aggrandizing thinking that often leads to atrocities ... considerable evil is committed in God's name.

Yet, from what I can see, you ignore the atrocities committed in the name of Islam. Why do Christians have to bear the brunt of such an accusation? Christianity isn't the only religion on Earth you know.

Please explain. Identify the atrocities that I'm allegedly ignoring.

Okay, you asked for it. I am utterly astounded at the fact you pay no attention to the news. To be truthful I find it hard to believe.

September 11 attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Boston Marathon bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Persecution of Yazidis by ISIL - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
November 2015 Paris attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jordanian pilot's "obscene" burning death by ISIS sparks outrage in Mideast
2015 San Bernardino attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2015 Chattanooga shootings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
ISIS video shows beheading of Steven Sotloff - CNN.com
ISIS beheading U.S. journalist James Foley, posts video - CNN.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISIL_beheading_incident

If you want more, I can give you more. Wait, nevermind.

Terrorism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I asked you to list the atrocities that you accused me of ignoring.

You selectively edited my post and made an unfounded accusation against me. I explicitly stated that I don't want to be ruled by someone's interpretation of biblical verses in the Old Testament the same as I don't want to be ruled by someone's interpretation of the Koran. I don't want Kim Davis as the leader of the morality police, and I don't want ISIS as the leader of the morality police. I stated that we need to be wary of people who believe they are anointed by God to enforce his word because they don't tolerate dissent ... they drag you to the public square and chop off your head. Of the things you listed, what proof do you have that I ignored those things? You're offensive and insulting.

 

[Stephanie]

You obviously have no respect for people who don't want your morals imposed upon them. I understand that you want to be in control of women's bodies and reproductive organs.

·
·
·​

You should apply your morals to yourself and your own life ... and keep your nose out of other people's private lives. The government is not in charge of procreation.

You have so little respect for a significant portion of humanity that you will not defend their very most basic and essential right, which is the right not to have their lives summarily taken without just cause.

Of course it should be no surprise that one who wishes for innocents to be slaughtered in cold blood will also wish that decent people will “keep their nose out of it”, rather than stand up in behalf of these innocents. All criminals, all tyrants, all doers of violence, destruction, and evil, wish for the good people to leave them be. As Einstein observed, the greater threat is not from those who actively do evil, but from those who just sit by and allow it to happen unopposed.

The problem in the US is that loads of people clamor to save the unborn, but as soon as they are born, then they seem to forget all about them.

Education is unfairly biased towards the rich, even in state education. The US essentially breeds criminals out of those children they "saved".

I'm sure if a fetus could be determined in utero to be gay some christians would have no problem with aborting them.

You're sure huh? Just wow and disgusting how you use the unborn human being. the perfect example of the intolerant liberal