Does "Debauchery" define Liberal politics?

[AlAyeti]

Why are people that self-identify as "Christian," supporting Liberal politics?

Liberals have ignored or broken laws to corrupt children, redefine marriage and family and stand in opposition to parental rights.

In the last week Liberals continued to promote laws in a California state-wide vote, that children can engage in sex and have abortions without any rights of the parents being important to the issues that involve their own children.

Abortion is a means to unfettered sexual intercourse as well as eliminating any consequences that arise from sexual promiscuity. Supporting the loss of chastity and and virtue is inherent in Liberal politics and indeed its ideology. Why do Christians still support Liberals?

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that schools can teach children sexuality and parents have no rights to what is being taught to their children in schools.

Debauchery is to corrupt anothers virtue or chastity.

Why would Christians want to be part of an political movement that targets children in schools?

Clearly this word "debauched" defines the sexual licentiousness and unfettered promiscuity that is the "core values" in the Liberal political movement across America today.

Are not Christians "called" to purity and virtue?

Why do Christians that have read the words of Christ Jesus, "especially on corrupting children," continue to support Liberal politics?

[AlAyeti]

BTW, your continued tendancy to talk in stilted terms ("debauchery") is a sign that the real problem lies within your personal sexuality. The two issues you get most angry about, abortion and homosexuality, are both sexual issues. In each case we can see your resistance to what you seem to percieve as a sexual freedom of others than you cannot share. I suggest that you could be happier if you reexamine you views on these issues.

Seriuosly, this is a pathetic ad hom. I view what is happening in terms of Biblical prophecy. Read Ezekiel.

Why is the fact that TV is now about sexual acts in so many shows? They just mentioned this this morning on CNN.

BOO! Doesn't work on me. I have a thousand-plus posts and haven't fainted yet from charges like yours. Typically what I point out doesn't want to be seen anymore. Even moidern day people know what is truly wrong.

Maybe you should go down to a local group home or juvenile hall and see if I'm off base?

Abortion is used to further unchecked sexual licentiousness. Do words hurt you?

That children and women suffer most from what is embraced today is absolutely Prophetic. Read some more of the Bible.

Or just turn on the TV.

Debauchery, hedonism, whoredom, all words that mean the same today as they did at any other time in history.

Your use of the Bible to support abortion as birth control is sad at best. Twisting scripture with the best of them for sure. If you claim to be right about your position, then you have just agreed that homosexuality is an abomination and you should be looking for some large smooth stones.

And those women that get abortions? Also become the targets of your fundamentalist theological wrath.

Now, if only the Israelites would have seen things your way in following what they were told . . ..

[Jose]

This may be silly on my part, but I'll actually give some answers here:

Why are people that self-identify as "Christian," supporting Liberal politics?

Thre is more to politics than sex. A Christian who supports conservative politics is also supporting non-Christian policies of giving as much money as possible to the already-rich, ignoring our request to be good stewards of the earth, relegating most of the population to horrendous living conditions, and virtually ensuring that our grandchildren live in a far less safe and comfortable world than we have now. I would ask how any self-identified Christian can support anything but liberal politics.

Liberals have ignored or broken laws to corrupt children, redefine marriage and family and stand in opposition to parental rights.

No, the laws on corrupting children are quite clear, and nearly everyone is in favor of them. You are confusing "information and learning" with corruption. In my view, it is corrupt to withold information that will help children how to live the most safely and, yes, morally in the current world. As for redefining marriage and the family, this is your opinion, which you base solely on one anatomical feature that often correlates with gender, but we know does not in many other cases. By your rules, you would require two women to marry, based solely on the fact that one of them has a little tag of flesh that god saddled them with.

Opposition to parental rights? I guess the contrast is opposition to individual rights. You seem to be in favor of some parental rights, but not others. Why do you allow such relativism? Now, it used to be that adulthood was defined as sexual maturity. Now, we define it as age 16 (being allowed to drive), age 18 (being allowed to quit school, or to be killed for your country, regardless of what your parents say), age 21 (being allowed to buy alcohol; beore that, your parents ave no right to introduce you to alcohol calmly, thus saving you from binge drinking later), or age 25 (being allowed to rent a car). How many of the laws specifying these different ages of "adulthood" are the result of "liberal" policies?

You seem to say that parents should have rights, and that anyone who opposes parental rights cannot be a real Christian. How, then, do you justify saying that a newly-pregnant mother--a parent--has no right to terminate a pregnancy? Rather, you think it is moral to tell her what to do, while knowing absolutely nothing about the circumstances in which she finds herself, and into which the child would be born. You are in clear opposition to her rights, and she is the parent, while you are a mere bystander.

In the last week Liberals continued to promote laws in a California state-wide vote, that children can engage in sex and have abortions without any rights of the parents being important to the issues that involve their own children.

Is this not a step forward relative to death by stoning of the woman who becomes pregnant, but no penalty for the man? A strict adherence to certain religious fundamentals calls for killing both the child and the mother. Now, at what age would you say the parents no longer should have this right to oversee their children's reproduction? When the parents are 50? When the parents are 65? After the parents contract Alzheimers? Or is the right continuous as long as the parent lives? When does this right start? As soon as you are pregnant? As soon as you give birth? Only when your child becomes a physiological adult? There are always issues that people and their parents see differently. Would you have the parents dictate what happens in every case?

Abortion is a means to unfettered sexual intercourse as well as eliminating any consequences that arise from sexual promiscuity. Supporting the loss of chastity and and virtue is inherent in Liberal politics and indeed its ideology. Why do Christians still support Liberals?

Remember, my son learned about sex and hedonism from his Christian school. Fortunately, he had learned some sex ed from the public schools, so he was able to fight off the imposed hedonism for a while. Also note that you will see (at least, I have seen) far more freeway billboards advertising Adult Entertainment when I drive through the bible belt than anywhere else. Also note that the actual data show that there are more teen pregnancies where so-called Christian morals are exclusively taught than in places that teach all of sex education. These facts argue that the loss of chastity and virtue is not solely attributable to liberal politics, but that it is a fact of life in conservative Christian communities as well. Oddly, abortion is not seen by abortion-providers or by those who seek their services as a device to promote sexual promiscuity. Abortions are not sought with pleasure, nor are they undertaken guilt-free. I think everyone, including liberals and abortion-providers and seekers, would prefer to see the abortion rate go to zero. The difference between liberal and conservative politics is that the liberals seek to allow those who are currently living to better their lives--if they can--before bringing another child into the world. The better the life of the parents, the better the life of the child. Needless to say, no one is required to abort. The conservative view, however, seems to be that betterment of life is not allowed, mistakes should be punished, and people should be required to have for children they cannot care for. The conservative view seems to be that a child's quality of life is meaningless. Rather, we should have as many children as possible, until our resources run out.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that schools can teach children sexuality and parents have no rights to what is being taught to their children in schools.

Is there a problem here? if parents are afraid to talk about "dirty things," who is going to give the unfortunate kids accurate information? You'd prefer that they learn it on the street? That's what's happening in all too many places. Needless to say, the kids are not learning even simple basics. You call this hedonism. You call teaching the truth "opposition to parents' rights." Why isn't it called "education"? Why isn't it called "health"? Why isn't it called "how to protect yourself"?

Why would Christians want to be part of an political movement that targets children in schools?

I should imagine that Christians would want their children to learn what is necessary to be successful in today's world. Unfortunately, that means learning a lot about sexually-transmitted diseases, what causes them, and how to avoid them. It means learning what behaviors transmit these diseases, and what behaviors do not. It also means learning a lot about mathematics and science, even if the science doesn't match the preconceived and non-scientific notions of the parents. Of course, parents may have the highest goal for their children of being a greeter at WalMart, in which case they don't need to know much science or math. But the economic base (certainly of our state) is rapidly changing from manufacturing to Life Sciences; the problems facing the world are no longer solvable by planting more corn. There are difficult issues that need sophisticated solutions. If parents don't understand them, shouldn't we have schools that can teach the kids anyway?

Clearly this word "debauched" defines the sexual licentiousness and unfettered promiscuity that is the "core values" in the Liberal political movement across America today.

Well, you've got the definition of the word right, but if this is what you think liberals spend all their time thinking about, and trying to legislate, you have a very limited understanding of politics and of the issues facing the world.

Are not Christians "called" to purity and virtue?

Why do Christians that have read the words of Christ Jesus, "especially on corrupting children," continue to support Liberal politics?

Well, I'd guess it's as I said at the beginning of this: they know that most of liberal politics is far more Christian than is almost all of conservative politics. They know that the conservatives hornswoggled the Christian Conservatives into thinking that they'd produce laws and judges who would make this into a Christian Taliban nation, and that their real priorities are entirely focussed on profit-making, at the expense of normal citizens, Christians included. If neither party embodies the entire message of Jesus, we've got to choose which of the parties is less bad. Why not choose on the basis of which one does the most good for the most people, as opposed to doing a lot of good for a few people, and a lot of harm to everyone else?

[AlAyeti]

This may be silly on my part, but I'll actually give some answers here:

AlAyeti wrote:
Why are people that self-identify as "Christian," supporting Liberal politics?

Thre is more to politics than sex. A Christian who supports conservative politics is also supporting non-Christian policies of giving as much money as possible to the already-rich, ignoring our request to be good stewards of the earth, relegating most of the population to horrendous living conditions, and virtually ensuring that our grandchildren live in a far less safe and comfortable world than we have now. I would ask how any self-identified Christian can support anything but liberal politics.

Liberals want Christians to change Jesus into a "politically correct version," that is not good. Actually it is "adversarial." You cannot use correct Gospel perspective on the rich and the poor and then discard whatever opposes your liberalism. The population relegated to to horrendous living conditions is being helped by Christian missionaries from conservative Bible-believing Churches and many time being shot to death by Muslims. Liberal Christian churhces are trying to get men married to men.

AlAyeti wrote:
Liberals have ignored or broken laws to corrupt children, redefine marriage and family and stand in opposition to parental rights.

No, the laws on corrupting children are quite clear, and nearly everyone is in favor of them.

Legislating laws for children to get abortion is not only pedophilia but also Satanic.

You are confusing "information and learning" with corruption.

You are not seeing facts. Legislating laws for children to have unfettered sexual intercourse with "whoever" is corruption 100%.

In my view, it is corrupt to withold information that will help children how to live the most safely and, yes, morally in the current world.

And what morally modern is that? Condoms at will or men marrying men?

As for redefining marriage and the family, this is your opinion, which you base solely on one anatomical feature that often correlates with gender, but we know does not in many other cases.

Wrong. I base it on the words of Christ and what has been common to civilization since history was written down.

By your rules, you would require two women to marry, based solely on the fact that one of them has a little tag of flesh that god saddled them with.

Wrong again. This would allow for my use of science to weigh in. If the chromosomes say "it" is a man or woman, than allow the science its place to define facts. So much for same-sex marriage.

Opposition to parental rights? I guess the contrast is opposition to individual rights. You seem to be in favor of some parental rights, but not others. Why do you allow such relativism?

To keep pedophiles from passing laws that young girls can do away with evidence to a crime.

Now, it used to be that adulthood was defined as sexual maturity. Now, we define it as age 16 (being allowed to drive), age 18 (being allowed to quit school, or to be killed for your country, regardless of what your parents say), age 21 (being allowed to buy alcohol; beore that, your parents ave no right to introduce you to alcohol calmly, thus saving you from binge drinking later), or age 25 (being allowed to rent a car). How many of the laws specifying these different ages of "adulthood" are the result of "liberal" policies?

Fair enough. Children living with and being supported and raised by their parents. But, that is what is sought after by Liberal laws to sexualize children "these days." In your case then logic would say that parents are never parents of their children at any age.

You seem to say that parents should have rights, and that anyone who opposes parental rights cannot be a real Christian

.

That is 100% accurate. If you're not a Christian then I guess corrupting children is something the non or anti-Christian can decide. So these parental rights violations is Un-Constitutional as it violates the religion clause to the first amandment.

How, then, do you justify saying that a newly-pregnant mother--a parent--has no right to terminate a pregnancy?

Murdering or harming a child is illegal "even" to a Liberal, for now.

Rather, you think it is moral to tell her what to do, while knowing absolutely nothing about the circumstances in which she finds herself, and into which the child would be born. You are in clear opposition to her rights, and she is the parent, while you are a mere bystander.

I was once a fetus. A perfect perspective to not allow a woman to slaughter the independent human being within her. In the anti-life political view; let the child grow up and then if things don't work out allow the abortion just before adulthood is reached.

AlAyeti wrote:
In the last week Liberals continued to promote laws in a California state-wide vote, that children can engage in sex and have abortions without any rights of the parents being important to the issues that involve their own children.

Is this not a step forward relative to death by stoning of the woman who becomes pregnant, but no penalty for the man?

Are you asking me for a Biblical answer? I sense a tad bit of irony.

A strict adherence to certain religious fundamentals calls for killing both the child and the mother.

Watch an abortion and tell the audience if "someone" isn't being sacrificed at an alter? More religious hypocrisy in my opinion.

Now, at what age would you say the parents no longer should have this right to oversee their children's reproduction?

When they are no longer to be held responsible for anything their offspring does. I'm a fundamentalist Christian but as soon as my children are legally adults and not living with me, they can choose things without being challenged about facts abd truth. But under my roof I will not keep facts and truth away from their abilty to "choose."

When my children are old enough, I will show them a tape series on abortions. And I'll remind them that my wife and I could have killed them by abortion if we wanted to and no one would care. I'll hope they choose life for their children. I believe Jesus would agree with my fundamental view of life.

When the parents are 50? When the parents are 65? After the parents contract Alzheimers? Or is the right continuous as long as the parent lives?

The hysteria in this point is not a place I feel comfortable in commenting on.

When does this right start? As soon as you are pregnant?

Life begins at conception accoriding to science. Don't "they" want to use embryos for medicine for this exact reason?

As soon as you give birth?

That's is when the childs name is put on a birth certificate. The state is not given dominion over the right of the child over parents unless the parent is someone that would probably vote liberal. Crack addicts make suspect parents and why? Because they might "harm" "their" child and probably sell them into sexual licentious practices. Make you wonder why the state would take children away from crack addicts.

Only when your child becomes a physiological adult? There are always issues that people and their parents see differently. Would you have the parents dictate what happens in every case?

Every case. Once the children do not want to live under their parents authority then they are outta there . . .

AlAyeti wrote:
Abortion is a means to unfettered sexual intercourse as well as eliminating any consequences that arise from sexual promiscuity. Supporting the loss of chastity and and virtue is inherent in Liberal politics and indeed its ideology. Why do Christians still support Liberals?

Remember, my son learned about sex and hedonism from his Christian school.

From sexually hedonstic avenues I can assure you of that. Even Christian schools have parents that are not Christians.

Fortunately, he had learned some sex ed from the public schools, so he was able to fight off the imposed hedonism for a while.

Until he went to a Democrat fund raiser.

Also note that you will see (at least, I have seen) far more freeway billboards advertising Adult Entertainment when I drive through the bible belt than anywhere else.

Getting the innocent addicted is a successful ploy of most pimps. Last time I looked every Christian in my church was a human being. How many bars want 12-step graduates to come a marchin' in?

It is not surprising that evil is seen next to goodness. Look at infidels.org. They don't bother opposing things that they know are corrupt. This is where I get all Christianny about Satan wanting to take down the true believers. The South will see more testing I can assure you. In fact I would bet my hoiuse on it.

Also note that the actual data show that there are more teen pregnancies where so-called Christian morals are exclusively taught than in places that teach all of sex education.

That is an silly comparison. The godless don't feel remorse for unwanted pregnacies and just slaughter their children. The children inj Christian households do not kiil others for their sins. Simply.

These facts argue that the loss of chastity and virtue is not solely attributable to liberal politics, but that it is a fact of life in conservative Christian communities as well.

It proves that good children embraced the lie of Liberalism. Simple.

Oddly, abortion is not seen by abortion-providers or by those who seek their services as a device to promote sexual promiscuity.

Sorry that is no revelation Jose. The godless liars in abortion clinics are as evil as it gets. Do you think thye are giving morality lessons at the exit door or giving out birth control pills?

Abortions are not sought with pleasure, nor are they undertaken guilt-free. I think everyone, including liberals and abortion-providers and seekers, would prefer to see the abortion rate go to zero.

Which of course would allow for far more debauchery and sexual licentiousness. Simple. Condoms and orgies after the DNC speech!

The difference between liberal and conservative politics is that the liberals seek to allow those who are currently living to better their lives--if they can--before bringing another child into the world.

By murdering their children?

The better the life of the parents, the better the life of the child. Needless to say, no one is required to abort. The conservative view, however, seems to be that betterment of life is not allowed, mistakes should be punished, and people should be required to have for children they cannot care for.

Allow the truth about abortion to be shown to the populace on CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, etc., etc., etc., and let choices be made.

The conservative view seems to be that a child's quality of life is meaningless. Rather, we should have as many children as possible, until our resources run out.

That would be Liberal politics on immigration. You're confusing the two. The child's life is immutable to a Conservative.

AlAyeti wrote:
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that schools can teach children sexuality and parents have no rights to what is being taught to their children in schools.

Is there a problem here? if parents are afraid to talk about "dirty things," who is going to give the unfortunate kids accurate information?

Pedophiles have no problem teaching kids "dirty things."

You'd prefer that they learn it on the street? That's what's happening in all too many places. Needless to say, the kids are not learning even simple basics. You call this hedonism. You call teaching the truth "opposition to parents' rights." Why isn't it called "education"? Why isn't it called "health"? Why isn't it called "how to protect yourself"?

Because the stench of a political agenda of liberalism is smelled for miles that's why. Where is the role models of chastity and virtue? No where Jose. Condoms and sexual diversity (AKA Homosexuality) does not mean teaching children HOW TO perform sexual acts. It should include truth, facts and science. It should also include people other then Planned parenthood and GLSEN activists.

AlAyeti wrote:
Why would Christians want to be part of an political movement that targets children in schools?

I should imagine that Christians would want their children to learn what is necessary to be successful in today's world. Unfortunately, that means learning a lot about sexually-transmitted diseases, what causes them, and how to avoid them.

Wrong. Teaching that is now a hate crime against the LGBT activist organizations. That's a fact.

It means learning what behaviors transmit these diseases, and what behaviors do not. It also means learning a lot about mathematics and science, even if the science doesn't match the preconceived and non-scientific notions of the parents.

Anatomy has changed? When did that happen? I'm sorry I'm still living in the dark ages that the rectum and mouth are not sex organs. I need to get back tooooo, what? Sixth grade? Is that where children are taught about the new sexuality of which you speak?

Of course, parents may have the highest goal for their children of being a greeter at WalMart, in which case they don't need to know much science or math.

Parents should have goals that their children not be recruited into sexual perversion by pedophiles disguised as teachers. I would asume that even greeters at WalMart don't want a fist up their wazzoo. But I don't shop at WalMart in Boston.

But the economic base (certainly of our state) is rapidly changing from manufacturing to Life Sciences; the problems facing the world are no longer solvable by planting more corn. There are difficult issues that need sophisticated solutions. If parents don't understand them, shouldn't we have schools that can teach the kids anyway?

I don't understand the off-topic? I certainly want the sciences of anatomy, physiology and biology taught in sex ed. But by people that no where the parts fit and why.

AlAyeti wrote:
Clearly this word "debauched" defines the sexual licentiousness and unfettered promiscuity that is the "core values" in the Liberal political movement across America today.

Well, you've got the definition of the word right, but if this is what you think liberals spend all their time thinking about, and trying to legislate, you have a very limited understanding of politics and of the issues facing the world.

I'm standing firm that Liberals "are doing" what I am claiming: Corrupting our children's sexual innocent minds and corrupting them by relativism based on pederastic and hedonistic goals. I have been downtown once or twice. What used to happen only at night can be seen marching down main street in anytown USA.

AlAyeti wrote:
Are not Christians "called" to purity and virtue?

Why do Christians that have read the words of Christ Jesus, "especially on corrupting children," continue to support Liberal politics?

Well, I'd guess it's as I said at the beginning of this: they know that most of liberal politics is far more Christian than is almost all of conservative politics.

Really? I think the great apostasy is happening right on the Five O'Clock news. Simple.

They know that the conservatives hornswoggled the Christian Conservatives into thinking that they'd produce laws and judges who would make this into a Christian Taliban nation,

Really? Any Christian women dressed from head to toe at any of your local churches. A little more hysteria here?

and that their real priorities are entirely focussed on profit-making, at the expense of normal citizens, Christians included.

Ahh finally you are right. But let's use the Bible on ALL issues and the Liberals will head back to their street corners to peddle their sexual wares.

If neither party embodies the entire message of Jesus, we've got to choose which of the parties is less bad.

That's easy. Think marriage and family.

Why not choose on the basis of which one does the most good for the most people, as opposed to doing a lot of good for a few people, and a lot of harm to everyone else?

Children have few role models in Liberal politics. P Diddy or Snoop Dog? Errr I mean the Reverends Sharpton or Jackson?
_________________

[Cathar1950]

micatala wrote:

This post is so full of false statements, fallacious assumptions, semantic ambiguity, unsubstantiated assertions, over-generalization, and biased framing of questions I don't even know where to start.

You think? Sigh.
McCulloch wrote:

I'm with Micatala on this one.

Me too.
AlAyeti wrote:

Liberal Christians use the Bible correctly on war, but then refuse to use the fundametals of the faith to see the horror and abominations they support.

Pure hypocrisy.

I see your projecting again. "use the bible correctly"? Do you mean they have to believe like you to be correct? Yes you are "using" the bible but it has nothing to do with correct or incorect just poorly.
I am not even going to bother with spell checking.
To Every one else I want to say that it is nice to hear some voices of reason instead of pure dogma and right-winged unreasoned propaganda.

[Excel]

Liberals want Christians to change Jesus into a "politically correct version," that is not good. Actually it is "adversarial." You cannot use correct Gospel perspective on the rich and the poor and then discard whatever opposes your liberalism. The population relegated to to horrendous living conditions is being helped by Christian missionaries from conservative Bible-believing Churches and many time being shot to death by Muslims. Liberal Christian churhces are trying to get men married to men.

Accept for the "Evil Muslims killing the good Christian" part at the end, could be said of conservitives. After all, its conservitive polcy that helps keep the poor man down. And I don't know of any mainstream church that endorses

Legislating laws for children to get abortion is not only pedophilia but also Satanic.

How is allowing teens to safely have an abotion preventing much anguish on the part of the teen and the baby pedophilic or satanic?

You are not seeing facts. Legislating laws for children to have unfettered sexual intercourse with "whoever" is corruption 100%.

So teaching childer about their bodies is corrupting them and causing them to have unfettered sexual intercourse? Could you present some sort of evidence to back this up? Is the teen pregnancy rate not higher in the Bible Belt? Or is that because then teens in the Bible Belt don't know how to have safe sex?

And what morally modern is that? Condoms at will or men marrying men?

In secular terms, the school system is secular after all, what is immoral about either? The former prevents nasty STDs and abortions while the latter, though not in the least related to this issue, is providing a civil liberty to a discriminated against group.

From sexually hedonstic avenues I can assure you of that. Even Christian schools have parents that are not Christians.

It's always the heathens isn't it?

Which of course would allow for far more debauchery and sexual licentiousness. Simple. Condoms and orgies after the DNC speech!

So mutual, safe sex is worse then killing a fetus?

That would be Liberal politics on immigration. You're confusing the two. The child's life is immutable to a Conservative.

Untill they are born, then its the parent's problem.

Pedophiles have no problem teaching kids "dirty things."

Are you calling sex-ed teachers pedophiles?

Because the stench of a political agenda of liberalism is smelled for miles that's why. Where is the role models of chastity and virtue? No where Jose. Condoms and sexual diversity (AKA Homosexuality) does not mean teaching children HOW TO perform sexual acts. It should include truth, facts and science. It should also include people other then Planned parenthood and GLSEN activists.

So lets teach all the little children that sex is evil and dirty and only done in the missionary position.

Anatomy has changed? When did that happen? I'm sorry I'm still living in the dark ages that the rectum and mouth are not sex organs. I need to get back tooooo, what? Sixth grade? Is that where children are taught about the new sexuality of which you speak?

Teen's are going to have sex. Deal with it. Now should we teach then how do do it safely without the spread of STd's and without the need for abortion, or should we teach then that if the get pregnant or get AIDs that God is punishing them for being evil?

[AlAyeti]

micatala wrote:
Quote:
This post is so full of false statements, fallacious assumptions, semantic ambiguity, unsubstantiated assertions, over-generalization, and biased framing of questions I don't even know where to start.

You think? Sigh.
McCulloch wrote:
Quote:
I'm with Micatala on this one.

Me too.
AlAyeti wrote:
Quote:
Liberal Christians use the Bible correctly on war, but then refuse to use the fundametals of the faith to see the horror and abominations they support.

Pure hypocrisy.

I see your projecting again. "use the bible correctly"? Do you mean they have to believe like you to be correct? Yes you are "using" the bible but it has nothing to do with correct or incorect just poorly.

I am not even going to bother with spell checking.

To Every one else I want to say that it is nice to hear some voices of reason instead of pure dogma and right-winged unreasoned propaganda.

Of course this also validates the correct way I use the neologism of "bobbleheadism."

How many will stop the madness they embrace just long enough to NOT folow the crowd? That is demanded of me without the respect and or abilty of the intolerant lliberal-eftist to think outside of their own cavernous box of one-sided reality, just long enough to give me the rights of a "free" opinion based on empirical reason.

The Five O'Clock news proves the words of the Bible are exact far more than denominational convenience, or "freethinker/atheist/agnostic/progressive/liberal etc., etc.," ideology of licentiousness and hedonism (as its main by-product). The proof of which is well-observed at any college at spring-break.

Debauchery and Liberal politics are glove to hand.

Just watch MTV for just a little empirical proof.

[ENIGMA]

Children have few role models in Liberal politics. P Diddy or Snoop Dog? Errr I mean the Reverends Sharpton or Jackson?

Children have few role models in politics. Period.

Who on the conservative side of the ledger are our children supposed to emulate? The hypocrite and drug addict Rush Limbaugh? Eminem perhaps? Do tell.

[AlAyeti]

Children have few role models in politics. Period.

Who on the conservative side of the ledger are our children supposed to emulate? The hypocrite and drug addict Rush Limbaugh? Eminem perhaps? Do tell.

Hey man, when you're right you're right.

Too bad about revolution being out of the question. Sony and GM won't allow it.

Ask China.

[Cathar1950]

AlAyeti wrote:

Liberals have ignored or broken laws to corrupt children, redefine marriage and family and stand in opposition to parental rights.

You might want to check you facts and pants.
I was reading this article and found some interesting points about the authoritarian personality and sex.

Debunking Some Myths of The 'Sex Monster' Syndrome
by Lloyd Vogelman.


http://www.csvr.org.za/articles/artvoge3.htm

In order to elude the paedophile and sexual abuser, many parents understandably have begun to restrict the movements and behaviour of their children...
Generally, incest occurs within two types of families. The first has been called the "emotionally isolated family", Jean Renvoize, who has extensively researched sexual abuse in England says such families bind themselves together with ropes of mutual dependence and secrecy and when one member tries to break away, the bonds are ruthlessly tightened. The emotionally isolated family is often so intent on keeping the myth of being a "perfect" family that real feelings are not recognised. By disregarding emotions, family members become, in part, objectified. It is easier to abuse a child who supposedly does not hurt than one whose pain and anger is acknowledged...
Abuse in these families also has a tendency to continue for long periods as there is a strong emphasis on privacy. The latter is reinforced by current social codes which emphasise non-interference in the problems of other families...
The second type of family is patriarchal and authoritarian...
Such families are rigid in their interactions and this includes the sphere of sexuality. This contrasts with the popular belief that families where incest takes place are chaotic and sexually unrestricted...
One of the primary factors that accounts for the father's incestuous behaviour is his anxiety in adult social relationships. He thus withdraws and prefers to have relationships with dependent submissive women or cihldren. In both instances he perceives these individuals to be less threatening...
Sexual abusers both within and outside the family seem to have strong feelings of powerlessness. This may stem from their own abuse as children or from their daily experiences at work (if they are lucky enough to have it) and social situations. To compensate for this insecurity and poor self-esteem, the sexual abuser ensures his dominance within the home by asserting his power over children. He maintains his dominance within the home through threats and family secrets...
One tragic irony is that in some families where extreme emotional neglect and deprivation is present, the victim may feel ambivalent about the abuse. Since she receives no attention at all from her parents, her sexual abuse provides her with at least some recognition. The daughter's confusion in these cases is increased because of her guilt about having replaced her mother as her father's sexual partner. Bad parenting, poor sex education in the schools, the maintenance of family privacy and a context which allows men to feel that it is their natural right to assert their power over women and children, are but a few of the factors which ensure that incest and sexual abuse will continue to happen.

I added the bold lettering. It seems it is not liberals after all.

[AlAyeti]

Talk about a great expose on Islam!

Way to go.

Debunking Some Myths of The 'Sex Monster' Syndrome
by Lloyd Vogelman.

http://www.csvr.org.za/articles/artvoge3.htm Quote:

In order to elude the paedophile and sexual abuser, many parents understandably have begun to restrict the movements and behaviour of their children...
Generally, incest occurs within two types of families. The first has been called the "emotionally isolated family", Jean Renvoize, who has extensively researched sexual abuse in England says such families bind themselves together with ropes of mutual dependence and secrecy and when one member tries to break away, the bonds are ruthlessly tightened. The emotionally isolated family is often so intent on keeping the myth of being a "perfect" family that real feelings are not recognised. By disregarding emotions, family members become, in part, objectified. It is easier to abuse a child who supposedly does not hurt than one whose pain and anger is acknowledged...
Abuse in these families also has a tendency to continue for long periods as there is a strong emphasis on privacy. The latter is reinforced by current social codes which emphasise non-interference in the problems of other families...
The second type of family is patriarchal and authoritarian...
Such families are rigid in their interactions and this includes the sphere of sexuality. This contrasts with the popular belief that families where incest takes place are chaotic and sexually unrestricted...
One of the primary factors that accounts for the father's incestuous behaviour is his anxiety in adult social relationships. He thus withdraws and prefers to have relationships with dependent submissive women or cihldren. In both instances he perceives these individuals to be less threatening...
Sexual abusers both within and outside the family seem to have strong feelings of powerlessness. This may stem from their own abuse as children or from their daily experiences at work (if they are lucky enough to have it) and social situations. To compensate for this insecurity and poor self-esteem, the sexual abuser ensures his dominance within the home by asserting his power over children. He maintains his dominance within the home through threats and family secrets...
One tragic irony is that in some families where extreme emotional neglect and deprivation is present, the victim may feel ambivalent about the abuse. Since she receives no attention at all from her parents, her sexual abuse provides her with at least some recognition. The daughter's confusion in these cases is increased because of her guilt about having replaced her mother as her father's sexual partner. Bad parenting, poor sex education in the schools, the maintenance of family privacy and a context which allows men to feel that it is their natural right to assert their power over women and children, are but a few of the factors which ensure that incest and sexual abuse will continue to happen.

I added the bold lettering. It seems it is not liberals after all.

Now we know why the need to drive away the "infidels."