5 Examples Showing the Differences Between Liberals and Conservatives on “Religious Freedom”

religious-freedomI’ll give conservatives this much – when they latch onto a piece of propaganda, they sure as heck dedicate themselves to it.  For years they’ve been trying to violate our First Amendment by interjecting religion into our laws.  And on some levels they’ve been successful.

But generally they’ve been defeated because our First Amendment is pretty clear that laws cannot be based on religion.

Though the newest “trick” Republicans have tried to employ is the argument they call “religious freedom.”  Essentially it’s their way to try to discriminate against people, or deny others their rights, based on the argument that not allowing them to discriminate against certain individuals based on their religious beliefs is somehow a violation of their “religious freedom.”

Though I find it amazing how these people have convinced themselves that attempting to restrict the freedoms of others is somehow “defending liberty and freedom.”

So I thought I’d give 5 examples showing the differences between how liberals and conservatives view “religious freedom.”

1. Abortion

Liberals: Tend to support the right for a woman to decide for herself whether or not she will have an abortion.  Even many Christian liberals are pro-choice.  Though I’ve rarely met anyone who’s “pro-abortion.”  There’s a difference between supporting someone’s right to have control over their own body and liking the decision they make.  I’m pro-choice yet anti-abortion.  Being pro-choice means that every single American woman has the right to decide for herself what she should do with her own body.  If you want to have an abortion, go for it.  If you don’t, then you don’t have to.  But the point is, liberals support the right for every woman to have the freedom to choose for themselves.  If a woman objected to abortions based on her religion she wouldn’t have to have one.  But that would be her choice, someone else wouldn’t be making that choice for her.

ConservativesUnder their system of beliefs, abortion would be completely banned.  No woman would have the right to have control over her own body.  The moment she became pregnant she would lose almost all control she has over what happens to her body over the following 9 months.  Under their belief system, every single American woman would be forced to adhere to the religious beliefs of a certain percentage of the population whether they shared those views or not.  A woman who didn’t believe in any kind of god whatsoever would be forced to abide by laws restricting the control she has over her body based on a God in which she didn’t believe.  Where under the liberal pro-choice banner every woman has the right to choose for herself, if conservatives had their way every woman in the United States would lose the freedom to choose for themselves.

2. Same-sex Marriage

LiberalsMost liberals support same-sex marriage.  Under liberal beliefs every American (gay or straight) would have the freedom to marry whomever they love, as long as it was another consenting adult.  Americans would have the freedom to choose for themselves who to marry.  It’s pretty simple: If you don’t support gay marriage, that’s great, nobody is forcing you to marry someone of the same-sex.  But at the end of the day, nobody’s right to marry another consenting adult is restricted – and no church’s right to perform those marriages is restricted either.

ConservativesMost conservatives believe same-sex marriage is against what the Bible defines marriage as.  If conservatives had their way, millions of gay Americans would lose their right to marry whomever they love based on the religious views of other people.  Under this situation (as we still see in many states right now) rights of Americans are restricted based on the views of others.  So even if a Christian church wants to marry a gay couple, if the state still doesn’t allow gay marriage, that church’s “religious freedom” is restricted because a few other churches don’t believe that they should have that right.  Under conservative beliefs on marriage, millions of gay Americans would be denied their rights to marry the person they loved.

3. Birth Control

LiberalsThis kind of ties in with the abortion issue.  See, most liberals (as I said earlier) aren’t pro-abortion.  And the best way to lower abortion rates is to increase the accessibility and availability of birth control.  Even if some liberals might oppose some methods of birth control, they don’t mandate that other people must be restricted from using them.  Again, liberals support the right for Americans to choose for themselves.  And being that for many women birth control is an actual health issue, not just a way to help prevent unplanned pregnancies, it’s vital that health care plans offer access to these contraceptives.  For liberals it’s about people having the choice to choose for themselves.  If people want to use them, great, they have the freedom to do so.  If some people object to contraceptives, that’s fine too, they don’t have to use them.

— Continue to Page 2 —

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

Pages: 1 2

  • Altreg01

    There are approximately 4 churches for every school in America, do we really need religion IN schools too? I still would love to see what would have happened if Hobby Lobby was a muslim owned business and they were trying to force Sharia Law on their employees…

    • Curtis Scarbrough

      Somebody would have blamed Obama.

      • Stephen Barlow

        They have!!!

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      tax churches…… all religious businesses

      • Stephen Barlow

        Only if they spend more than a half penny on politics.

      • alphadeus

        or make statements of a political support..like recommending their people go vote for one person or one side and not to ‘let their judgment prevail’

      • Stephen Barlow

        I can accept them asking people to PRAY FOR god’s GUIDANCE on who to choose…

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        If they don’t add any real-world guidelines beyond ‘pray’, then maybe.

        but the second they start discussing ‘godly’ candidates, or political positions, tax the living f**k out of them.

      • alphadeus

        just break this cone of silence for political donations and find out who is paying who for what..then fire the people who are supposed to represent their constituents yet only represent themselves and their paymasters….left or right, center or ‘independent’.

      • Stephen Barlow

        A worthy and lofty aspiration. How many ‘good Christian republicans’ attend services on Sundays? FEW, because they are all watching the propaganda media blitz starring john mcCain on Sunday mornings!!!

      • Qwertywitter

        I wonder who it was that decided that we should take responsibilities away from the government and place it in the hands of non-profit organizations that are not taxed.

    • disqus_3T0GaFQeyV

      What would happen if a company was owned by a Muslim and they were trying to force Sharia Law on their employees? Generally most people I know understand that they have a choice and they could choose to work for that company or not. Then the other part of your hyperbole is that a company would not be able to have their religious law involved in civil litigation among their employees.

      • Bigdog

        But what if you don’t know what religion the owner practices? They don’t have to tell you. Then, if you need, say, a blood transfusion and the owner is a Jehovah’s Witness, it won’t be covered, and you won’t find out until it’s too late. The SCOTUS made an epic fail on this call!

      • Stephen Barlow

        They succeeded in their agenda. Failed the American people, their oaths and the constitution, but they succeeded in furthering the EVILgelical Agenda.

        Bush helped, but his father did the most damage. he didn’t get Barbra on the pill!!!

      • alphadeus

        It wont be long before conservative companies will be able to ask and get the religion of their prospective employees and able to fire them for not being ‘Christian’…where religious freedom will become null and void.

      • BkDodge42

        Since the Supreme Court decision included that the fix is already in place for non profit religious groups, what would happen is that the business owner would have a policy that he or she is not paying to include the coverage but the insurance company would have to provide the coverage. What happens between you and your doctor still is not involving your employer. When you are in the hospital, blood transfusions would still be part of hospitalization coverage. So much for trying to have an original thought, instead you just have to repeat what others have told you.

      • angie497

        You realize that your exact same logic *should* have applied in the Hobby Lobby case, don’t you? SCOTUS essentially said that your employer *can* get involved in decisions that *should* have been between you and your doctor by virtue of refusing to offer insurance that covers something based on *their* religious beliefs.

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        Nope. Hobby Lobby was able to opt out of contraception. By that ruling, a JW employer may opt out of transfusions, or a christian scientist may opt out of any care besides prayer.

      • Eg Kbbs

        Of course you know that many places have used various measures to try to or actually forbid the use of Sharia Law.

      • Sue Roediger

        well this ruling is the beginning of Sharia — under another name

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        heyyyyy sue! that’s good: may I steal it to annoy regressives I find on these threads??

      • Sue Roediger

        once something it “out there” …. it is no longer mine. I have long said these people are trying to build a theocracy. and I have called them “Christo-fascists” .
        Let’s start a group “Annoy Regressives Inc.”

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        yeah baybeeee,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        best way to annoy them??


      • Not really. I have tried that and they simply to seem to comprehend.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        that– as written—– makes no sense

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        muslim sharia…not xtian sharia…

      • Sue Roediger

        What certain “christians” are longj g for is a theocracy that would be very such like Sharia……but would be Biblical, rather than Quaranic.

      • motherunit

        There aren’t exactly millions of jobs out there for workers to choose from. Even if there were, who looks in to the religion of the company they are applying to? To my knowledge, companies couldn’t even HAVE religions until 2014. The details of insurance benefits aren’t usually something that comes up during a job interview, either.

      • Stephen Barlow

        A corporation is a DOCUMENT, not a person. It’s a choice, not a child.

      • Julie Wickstrom

        I agree. We need to get rid of the personhood/corporation thing. If I can’t execute it or put it away for life, it doesn’t have the same rights as a person.

      • alphadeus

        I know of a company owner who is an Indian Hindu and has a Pakistani Islamic employee and is forcing him to learn Indian even though they need to speak English for customer…there are almost zero Indian/Pakistani customers in that area….isn’t that abuse? especially as they both speak English so they have a common language….what’s the odds the employer is a conservative.

      • Stephen Barlow

        I worked for an Israeli family business and chose to learn hebrew. just because they all chattered in it and loaded the truck counting in Hebrew. I learned Spanish from a landscape crew one year, although every time I use it in a club or grocery, I either get My face slapped of My junk palmed.

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        A company is not a living entity, regardless of legal fictions.

        As such, it can’t have any ‘strongly held religious beliefs’

        And this is a question of *rights*, which aren’t majority or even employer ruled.

    • akynos

      Come to my neighborhood and it’s 20 to 1

      • Selah Taylor

        No thank you, I find that frightening.

    • Stephen Barlow


      The case would have been dismissed in local court.

  • gbrbr

    I can’t wait until the Supreme Court has to hear a case on blood transfusions, vaccinations, forced berkas, forced to work on Christmas due to some religions not celebrating Christmas, forced prayer, not promoting women due to their inferiority to men, firing a woman for getting an abortion and I won’t even get into the LGBT issues….. all because of their employer’s religious beliefs.

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      and,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, all those OLD male justices voting on,,,,, VIAGRA??

      • Stephen Barlow

        We need a suit against Viagra being covered. (even though it is NOT covered under Medicaid, but it IS under Medicare).

        Is BC available under Medicare? This will be a fight!!!

    • Stephen Barlow

      Religious holiday scheduling is a Corporate ‘RIGHT’ already. Most comply, but even the Army fights on Easter, Ramadan and Yom Kippur.

      • gbrbr

        There are laws that state that an employer must respect individual religions. They must not force you to work on your religious holidays. Obviously, the Army and the other branches are different. War never stops.

      • Carl

        Neither does business, in a capitalistic society; there is always money to be made!

    • BkDodge42

      If you knew how to look up Supreme Court cases, you’d find that many of your examples have already been argued before the court.

      • gbrbr

        How pretentious of you to believe that you can state what I know and don’t know without even knowing what I look like. Please, almighty know-it-all, cite cases regarding blood transfusions, vaccinations, etc… and the employer mandate! How about berkas? Did the Supreme Court rule on an employers right to require forced compliance with their religious clothing?

        This article made reference to the “Hobby Lobby” decision (which I read) and my comment was directed at that decision and an employers right to make decisions for their employees. Although the court did specifically state that the aforementioned ruling did not apply to vaccinations and blood transfusions, there is nothing in the ruling that states that an employer must cover those procedures, even if it is against their religion.

        I am sure, however, that you knew what I was referring to and you read the entire decision, since you are so damn condescending, and you just chose to try to insult me.

        Cite the Supreme Court cases that deal with an employer not allowing a blood transfusion or vaccinations to be covered. Cite it or leave me alone.

  • sherry06053

    Conservatives sound like the Taliban to me…ALL religions, as far as I know, require their members to “spread the word”. That’s why I’m glad I live here. I don’t want to hear it. I am also in favor of removing their tax exempt status. Their endowments and property is immense. How can they feel they have the right to dictate how we should live our lives if they don’t even pay taxes?

  • disqus_3T0GaFQeyV

    “Our First Amendment is pretty clear that laws cannot be based on religion.”
    it appears that you have gone and rewrote the First Amendment to spread your propaganda to the uninformed masses that read your blogs. You know that they won’t actually take the time to look it up for themselves.
    Let’s actually look at the first amendment and what it says about religion. It does not say that laws cannot be based on religion. It does say that Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
    It says nothing about a separation of Church and State, just that there shall be no law establishing a religion, similar to the condition in England where the Anglican Church was the official religion of England.
    The separation of Church and State comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Baptist Ministers at Danbury Ct in 1801. You have even included this statement in your blogs in the past when it suited your needs.

    The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was signed by Bill Clinton, this is the law that the Supreme Court used. Want to blame liberals for passing the law that Clinton signed?

    • Mrs_oatmeal

      I think your interpretation is a bit skewed.

      • disqus_3T0GaFQeyV

        So what is your interpretation of “Free exercise thereof” Where in the First Amendment did it say “laws cannot be based on religion” Can you actually elaborate your own views Mrs Oatmeal?

      • Aloanstar

        Why should laws ever be based on religion?? Not all of us are followers or believers in the guy in the sky. It is bad enough that, as kids, we pretend there is a Santa, a Tooth Fairy, an Easter Bunny….as an adult we should realize all these invisible characters were just a way to get kids to behave all year long. We threatened them with no Christmas presents, no money under their pillow for a tooth and no hidden eggs left by a bunny. Religion is the same…behave and believe, then when you die you can come live with me for eternity, but if you don’t, you can spend eternity burning in a flaming pit. Good grief, it constantly amazes me how rational thinking adults want proof of everything in life…”no it’s not, prove it!’ “I will believe it when more research is done and there is proof” BUT when it comes to the bible, no proof is needed, no rational thought, just blind following.

        I don’t want laws based on any religion governing my life. If I did, I would go live under Shia Law. One invisible deity is just as good as any…and as believable.

      • Cemetery Girl

        This is also neglecting that Christianity covers a lot of different denominations. If we were to go so far as requiring that everything in the nation be Christian based, what denomination is everything based on? The requirements can vary greatly, so which views does everyone follow? This is a detail that people forget about when pushing that Christianity should be a base for our government. They always believe that their version will be the basis, but so does every other Christian that pushes for it also. If they all agreed on how life should be lived in order to live a morally fit life there wouldn’t be various denominations. This is why even though I have my own religious leanings I completely disagree with religion being a basis in our government. I respect the right for people to follow a religion or not (their choice), but don’t force a religion that people may or may not agree with on others. Even if it is a religious view that a person happens to agree with, it is not freedom if they’d be forced to follow that view even if they didn’t believe in the religion it was based upon.

      • disqus_3T0GaFQeyV

        So you have no problem with someone killing another person? You have no problem with someone stealing your belongings?

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        Go ahead and find me a society in the world that doesn’t forbid those….and MOST of the world isn’t xtian.

        You’re trying to move the goalposts. What there is of your religion that is good is NOT original, and what is original is NOT good.

        You can’t attempt to steal basic evolutionary social survival rules and claim your religion originated them. Your religion stole most of it’s good stuff from the Sumerians, anyway.

      • wendy

        You took the thoughts right outta my head. To add, at least Santa is tangible and makes kids behave. Y is he any less real than god which is TAUGHT, not inborn?

      • wendy

        And the denial of scientific facts is just sad

      • TruthBtold

        It’s simple. SCOTUS’ decision establishes that a religious belief is more important than an individuals right to choose. That is in direct opposition to the spirit and intent of the amendment. Concerning “free exercise thereof”- it’s your right to exercise your religion. And mine as the employee to exercise mine. You can’t impose your religion on me. We both have the right to exercise our religion. This ruling chooses one over another. Does your cognitive dissonance keep you up at night? Because it’s keeping me up…

      • disqus_3T0GaFQeyV

        You keeping up with your own cognitive dissonance if you only look at what you wrote. How do you relate that a religious belief is more important than an individuals right to choose? What if the individuals right to choose is to choose a religious belief?

        And as for “free exercise thereof” remember it said that congress shall make no law prohibiting a free exercise of religion. A law that requires some one to go against their religion restricts an individual’s right to exercise their religious beliefs.

      • TruthBtold

        That’s just it. Please read. Exactly what you wrote. THEY are t being asked to to go against their religious beliefs. They aren’t being asked to take birth control! The employee is making their own decision. That’s freedom. Not “My employer doesn’t believe in birth control so the insurance plan I buy with my own compensation doesn’t cover it” it’s astounding to me that you would think paying someone and then saying what they do with that money infringes on your belief is reasonable. It’s in direct opposition to the spirit of “religious freedom”

      • BkDodge42

        If Hobby Lobby was not providing insurance coverage, then your point would have merit. As it is, they are providing coverage as a benefit as many companies do. With the ACA, companies now have to provide employees with insurance so a company deciding not to provide coverage will be fined (taxed) for not providing coverage, or have you already forgotten that part of the ACA?
        In fact while everyone has been complaining about Hobby Lobby not providing 4 kinds of birth control most have been saying that women still have access to birth control by purchasing it themselves. If Hobby Lobby was not required to provide all of the 20 types of birth control but instead just had their employees buy it on their own, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

      • TruthBtold

        When your employer provides healthcare, like the ACA says they must now, it’s part of your compensation, MY COMPENSATION. Not hobby lobby’s choice what I do with it.

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        Hobby Lobby USED to provide BC to women, and only did this because they thought they could get away with it.

        You ARE aware that Hobby Lobby, both the company and the owners, are heavily invested in companies that provide chemical/hormonal birth control, right?

        Hobby Lobby are a bunch of flaming pharisiacal hypocrites, just like the rest of you xtofundyfascists.

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        That’s exactly what the Hobby Lobby case ruled…that the owner of a SECULAR company can inject his/her religious beliefs into commerce in the treatment of his/her employees.

        Are you dense, or just in denial?

      • Brian

        Just because reading comprehension isn’t your strongsuit doesn’t mean others are so thick.

      • disqus_3T0GaFQeyV

        Responding with only a short sentence instead of providing your interpretation of the first amendment. Did you actually comprehend my posting at all? If you had then maybe you could have responded with more than one sentence.

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        ^^^That’s because you’re egregiously pushing nonsense. We’re not here to play pigeon chess ( http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pigeon_chess )

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        hey crybaby— where does it say they CAN?

      • disqus_3T0GaFQeyV

        Gian, would you like to try to come up with any law that has been written based on religion?

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        federal laws or state laws?

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        How about the ‘bathroom by DNA gender’ bills getting passed all over the place. Or the ‘religious freedom’ laws?

        Are you purposely dense, or just uninformed?

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        so what is your interpretation of ‘respect an establishment’, if we’re bandying semantics?

        ‘respect’ in this case obviously means, in context, “grant privilege to”

        YOU want to grant privilege to xtianity.

        The black letter text so beloved of you ‘constitutionalist’-s flatly forbids privileging any religion, xtianity included, in SECULAR matters.

    • Cemetery Girl

      How can you still abide by the First Amendment if you base your laws on one religion? It doesn’t matter if a majority follows a certain religion, making laws based on their religion establishes that as the religion of the land. Let’s say a county was prodominately Amish, and as such the county made laws based on their religion. Any area that has Amish communities has some English among them, so those people would be subject to laws based on a religion they don’t follow. What if it was illegal to have electricity in your home, even if you had a family member that relied on items that require electricity to live (such as a ventilator)? If the county made laws that supported the requirements for following the Amish religion that must be followed by all, then it would establish the religion in that county. If we ignore attempts to make laws that force everyone to live based on one religion, regardless of their personal beliefs, it is saying that the constitution only meant that a law could not be made stating a specific religion is the religion of the land.

    • Danielle

      “no laws respecting an establishment of religion” is not the same as “no law establishing a religion” You’ve got a little misinterpretation there. One means no laws in regards to a particular religion, the other is no law setting up a religion.
      BIG difference.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      . Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

      Where exactly do you see wiggle room for introducing religious laws there?

      And the original RFRA was signed because fundy xtians like you were denying OTHER people their religious traditions out of bigotry, and using laws against drugs (that Haldeman ADMITTED were put into place to criminalize being black and/or a liberal hippie) to do so.

      Deal with it. YOUR KIND is dying out, and it can’t happen fast enough in my opinion, although I’m willing to stay out of the process.

  • Mr. Timm

    Two easy fixes:

    1. Don’t shop at Hobby Lobby
    2. Don’t work for Hobby Lobby

    • Steven McCray

      So you think this whole situation begins and ends at Hobby Lobby Mr. Timm? This can only get worse…and actually has already started….

    • Brian

      Too late now. The ruling already has a lot of people citing it to exempt themselves from various laws.

    • Julie Wickstrom

      They are building one in my area now. As a crafty person, I will never go. I have better sources and even if it was built within walking distance, it looks like cheap crap based on the web site. Politically it is banned as well.

  • PeachTree55555553

    Another article written by a gung-ho liberal that makes it seem like conservatives are an off-shoot of the taliban. Of course this article makes conservatives sound bad, that’s the way it was written! I sure hope not too many people out there take this as gospel…

    • Mikey O’Garbage

      Don’t worry, there are plenty of idiots who won’t believe it until they are jailed for some made up morality crime. Denied basic human rights under the cover of faith, or forced to surrender control of their lives to the neo-con facists.

      • poppaDavid

        “Morality crimes”? I am old enough to remember when that was reality. Miscegenation prohibition laws, Sunday blue laws, abortion prohibition laws, divorce prohibition laws, segregation laws, etc. There are conservatives who wish to return to that era.

    • Ellen H.

      Then why does that fit my experience with my right leaning friends. Each one of those comparisons illustrates what I have seen in my every day life. Some right wing religious neocons are exactly as this article described them.

      • Conservative in the Lions Den

        Maybe you’re friends with the extreme side?
        I don’t lump together all liberals and assume you’re all the same talking head with the exact thought processes and motives. What I assume is that you generally agree on a lot of topics after you’ve researched said topic, which is why you label yourselves liberals.

        My side is supposed to believe that liberals and the Democratic party want to sit on their asses and receive free things rather than work for it. That you ultimately want a Hitler-esque type government. Or that you’re positive each white person in the south is racist and can’t leave home without their AR-15. Do I think you’re all like that? ABSOLUTELY not.

        The whole reason I come to this website is to research what “the other side” has to say. I don’t want to form an opinion until I know BOTH sides of an issue. I don’t watch Fox, nor do I watch MSNBC — both are too biased.

        I agree with more conservative values, hence my label. However, there are plenty of liberal values I agree with, as well. I’m a conservative liberal. Quite an oxymoron, isn’t it? 🙂

      • Ellen H.

        That’s why I said in MY experience and SOME. I realize that not every conservative or liberal fits the exact label both sides assign to the other. However, this has been my experience. Also, I don’t watch any of the “news” networks. I’m not a democrat. I’m a registered republican.

      • Conservative in the Lions Den

        Please don’t get me wrong, Ellen. I didn’t assume you, specifically, thought that way. I was just suggesting that your friends were possibly extreme.

        The rest of my comment was to put in my two cents regarding the topic of most people thinking all conservatives are a certain way. I’m a conservative-ish voice on a super-liberal page. I like to comment every now and then to remind others that we’re not all as evil as they may think. That’s all. 🙂

      • wendy

        I hear ya. There are usually different sides to a story to agree or disagree with. No an all or none world. Wish the party system would be history

    • Luke

      “take this as gospel”

      What does that mean in this context?

      For something to be taken as Gospel, it usually refers for something not observable to be taken on faith because the source (the bible) is obviously correct.

      In this case, the author is simply making statements based on observations we’ve all seen.

      In the end, there are two ideological groups. One wants me to be free to make my own decisions, while the other wants to make my decisions for me.

  • BikinBuddha the Chistian

    Come see us at ‘the Christian Left /FB’… And Celebrate the separation …

    • Patty Green

      Any true Christian that reads and studies the bible KNOWS that they can NOT be a leftist liberal Democrat. The many polices that the liberal stands for go against what God himself stands for.

  • Romantic Heretic

    In my opinion, the badly misnamed ‘conservatives’ are not talking about religious freedom. They are talking about religious power.

    This is why they get so exercised about the things listed in this article. To the rest of us these things are freedom, the freedom for people to make their own choices. We do not find these things threatening because other people’s freedom is not a threat to our freedom.

    To the ‘conservatives’ these things are a threat to their power. They no longer have the ability to tell others what to think, how to act, what choices they have. Like all power mongers they loathe this idea.

    Oh, and why do I say ‘badly misnamed conservatives’? Because since their basic goal is to burn the United States to the roots and rebuild along line they would prefer they are revolutionaries in my mind.

  • Kyle

    In Dallas I applied for an advertising job for commercial media, non-religious affiliated. The application had a question asking whether I accepted Jesus as the one true savior and if I found inspiration for my work through God. As an atheist I was highly offended that a business that wasn’t directly related to a Church could discriminate so blatantly. I replied on the application no, because I wasn’t going to bend to their will, and as expected I received a reply stating that they couldn’t hire me because my beliefs didn’t align with their company policy. They were also larger than 15 people, which means that they aren’t legally allowed to discriminate for religious reasons.

    • flair

      That did not happen.

  • Stephen Barlow

    Birth control is PROTECTED FREE SPEECH. More so than money because money can BUY more money, ovaries have a limit, a schedule and an expiration date.

  • alphadeus

    This is right..but I boil it down to this…as a Liberal, I fight for ‘everyone’s rights’, as a conservative they fight to take everyone’s rights away but theirs.

  • alphadeus

    The best way to find a liberal is take 100 people into a religious education class and then pick the top 20 in the exam after…sorted..they will be almost certainly all liberals.

    Liberals see religion as it should be, historical documents from the beliefs of their time up to today, not as a law we must follow..we have a moral compass for that job.

  • Michael Siever

    I remember there being a public high school in Arizona with a far-right PTA that passed a new ordinance, saying that all graduating seniors were required to take an oath that had the word “God” in it just to force the atheist students to say “God” just so they could graduate. I never followed up on this to see if it got struck down…

  • I’m waiting for an employee of Hobby Lobby to sue them for not covering bc that they have covered in the past. It should be an interesting lawsuit.

  • Conservative Iowan Mom

    I appreciate that this is a liberal site, with a majority of liberal readers, so
    my perspective may not be well received. I wanted to give you all these issues as conservatives actually see them, rather than just how they appear through a liberal perspective. I don’t expect any support of my positions, yet I hope some of you see we’re not as far apart as you may think.

    1. Abortion
    Real Conservatives: Recognize that science proves a separate human
    with unique DNA is created at conception. Since they value ALL human life, destroying this life without cause is unethical. This ethical issue can be avoided in most cases with responsible use of birth control. While they have protested the legality of abortion for the last 40 years, what has them ready to explode is the increased PUBLIC FUNDING of abortion. No one should be forced to subsidize what they abhor.

    2. Same-sex Marriage
    Real Conservatives: Most conservatives believe sexuality belongs in each person’s home, not in public view. They would argue that traditional marriage is a basic pillar of society, honored in some format in most cultures on earth. While traditional marriage did win every referendum, gay marriage won every court case. That implies American voters are more resistant to gay marriage than the courts.

    3. Birth Control
    Real Conservatives: Most conservatives support birth control, as a personal responsibility, but two large denominations of Christians oppose birth control (Catholics and Mormons). Catholics tend not to be conservative in general. Conservatives believe you should not have a family larger than you can support. Due to the close ties between birth control and sexuality, they also believe it is a VERY personal matter, not appropriate for public discussion or funding. A limited number of birth control methods have been termed abortificants because they do not prevent conception (that unique DNA human I mentioned earlier) but instead prevent implantation in the uterine wall. The oral contraceptives taken by millions of American women are NOT abortificants. The Hobby Lobby decision has no impact on the access of women to abortificant birth control methods, but instead merely states they have to pay for it themselves. Since most conservatives are opposed to paying for the birth control of others, they see no merit in requiring employers to provide birth control. Most employers will continue to cover birth control of all forms because retaining current employees is generally more cost efficient than training new employees.

    4. Prayer in School
    Real Conservatives: Most conservatives do not expect or even condone religious teaching or prayers by public schools teachers of diverse
    beliefs, with many choosing to pay tuition to private schools for teacher led
    prayer and education. Conservatives do object to individual prayer being limited and/or punished by some public schools. (While I’ve avoided personal stories, I moved my daughter to private school after she was humiliated and given time-out in KINDERGARTEN for saying a prayer before lunch.) Conservatives believe that high school students should be equally allowed to have Christian, Muslim, or Jewish prayer and study groups on campus. Conservatives break into many groups on the creation/evolution issue, including young earth creationism, old earth creationism, and intelligent design, among others. The younger they believe the earth to be, the more they object to the teaching of evolutionary theory as fact. The teaching of evolution is not necessary prior to high school level science courses, where most students are savvy enough to expect differences between Scripture and science.

    5. Freedom of Religion in General
    Real Conservatives: (as stated in Iowa’s GOP state platform 2014) ‘Our nation is a Constitutional Republic whose Foundation is the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.’ The Declaration clearly labels our rights are from the ‘Creator’ and the Constitution avoids all mention of God, a rather mixed signal… Most conservatives believe the strength of our country is dependent on the moral fortitude of its citizens. While there are nuts out there who think the 1st Amendment was solely for Christians, they are a very small minority. Many conservatives argue from a biblical perspective because it is comfortable for them, without considering that religious reasoning is only convincing with those sharing their convictions. Like many texts, the Bible can often be used to support BOTH sides of any debate, just by knowing which sections to cite. There are a few conservatives who can and do argue conservative values without ever mentioning religion; these few are sometimes even heard by atheist liberals. Most of what is seen as Biblical protest is actually financial protest. The liberal policies that have led to public funding of abortion, birth control, bank bailouts, multi-generational welfare, and the blossoming nanny state offend most conservatives. In their anger, they use religion as a justification, clouding the issues. Our Constitution assigned to our central government limited duties, understanding that government closest to the people governed (city, county, state) had better understanding of the local issues driving the electorate. The runaway growth of the federal government has been accompanied by taxation at levels the founders would have found appalling.

    To those of you who actually read through my lengthy comments, thanks for being willing to listen to the other side.

    • giankeys LOVES shemale porn

      I wish all ” conservatives” were as thoughtful as this———— that being said I am a liberal centrist agnostic; hence: I believe in “god” -the word GOD as a usage for simply the power that is/ ergo- creator doesn’t bother me either. I will toss this in for extrapolatory virtue: 1- marriage is a man made institution between 2 ( sometimes more depending on,,,,,) people who at that time profess enough “LOVE” to undertake marriage. anyone who opposes a joining of such without legal reason has no case TO oppose- because it is MAN MADE it cannot be viewed as an absolute . whats the difference if I oppose my sister in marrying ( a) a jerk (b) a different nationality ( c) a different religion/belief (d) a different socio-economic entrant? To me- there is NO “absolute” opposition here.
      2- freedom OF religion infers freedom FROM religion. PERIOD- I hate all religions as they collectively and individually have such huge flaws historically that they should be held as items which may be terrific for some yet causing allergy in others. Want2 practice anton laveys Satanism? want 2 practice Hinduism? evangelical Christianity? moslem Muhammadism? Judaism? I have NO problem with the flavor or type of music which U enjoy– I have a problem with it being thrust into a legislative spotlight VIS A VIS my (or anyone elses) belief or LACK of. We have – through secular process known as voting ( bolstered by articles such as bill or rights/ constitution ETC) laid the social groundwork for “morals”– and when society FINALLY sees that certain accepted ideas are garbage that society makes changes( womens sufferage/ civil rights/ equal pay/slavery ETC) That which has SLOWED social change and PROGRESS has been a certain -usually racial elite – group which has used ITS “book” as the alpha/omega ‘fallback’ position to erase any change to said social progress- all empires/republics have done this throughout history; AMERICA as much as any other.
      birth control- this is easy! its up to women to pay for the OVERALL physical benefits of BC. It must be noted that women shouldn’t be forced to shoulder this completely as they have this as a situation which we men do NOT have to carry. Imagine the legislation if MEN had this issue also– the grey area here remains: I have no true answer.
      abortion– totally up to women. PERIOD. I don’t want to pay for it; I don’t have the right to legislate control over it— Many seem to make this issue a NON issue by inferring that it is a simple ES+ASY choice to women such as: what to cook 4 dinner…what shoes to buy,,,,what to name my kid,,,, what school to attend. this a BRUTAL (physically/socially/ economically/ spiritually ) choice to make- and many women have to make it based upon whats better for THEM- does ANY “conservative” or RELIGIOUS person THINK that this is simply flipping a coin or getting a pedicure? I KNOW!!!! lets let WOMEN ( only) pass legislation regarding older men using VIAGRA!! after all; isnt it “GOD” who has denied certain MEN the usage of their sex??? Yet the choice to pop a pill for RECREATIONAL sex is seemingly OK to religious aging conservative men !!! ( just food 4 thought here)

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        Mostly agreed. re Abortion..if your position is that you don’t want to pay for it, then you are pretty explicitly agreeing to paying for the pregnant woman’s expenses all throughout her pregnancy and THEN paying to raise the child until at least the age of majority…or forever if the resultant child will never be able to take responsibility for him/her-self.

        Simple economics are that safe, legal abortion is both medically safer and FAR less expensive to society.

        So make your choice, religion or economics? And then stand by it. Don’t try to make a choice for others and then weasel out of the consequences of your action.

        And I don’t want to hear any garbage about ‘having sex is accepting a pregnancy’. Having sex is a LOT of fun, but there’s no contract there, and society has been working on ways to keep the sex and avoid pregnancies since just about *forever*.

    • greg

      I appreciate the courteous and informative response to the article. It is refreshing to know some people are still able to disagree respectfully and intelligently. Both you and the author have given ME more to think about on this topic… thank you.

    • kevin

      Why dont conservies think like you, your comment is the reason id rather be solo than conservative or liberal 🙂

      • Conservative Iowan Mom

        I don’t understand your comment. I know many conservatives who think very much like the points I addressed here.

      • kevin

        There are tons of conservatives who don’t think like you and tons that do, I go to alot of both liberal and conservative sites, I seen alot who are the embodiment of conservative stereotype, I have seen a few like you, maybe I haven’t visited every sites where people share their comments but few like you are out there, the same can be said for the other side

      • Conservative Iowan Mom

        I see where you’re coming from now. I tend to verify the ‘labels’ people apply to their political views by noticing their position on various issues. Many people choose a label based on one issue and don’t question the other issues implied by the label they chose. Among my friends: …a ‘libertarian’ who wants pot legalized and marriage equity, yet doesn’t realize libertarians want government out of health care and industry as well. …a ‘democrat’ who is staunchly opposed to Obama’s amnesty and an increase in the minimum wage. …a ‘republican’ who supports common core, amnesty, increases in fuel taxes, and oh yes, he’s pro-choice as well.

        I identify as a conservative because of my opinions on many issues. I do drift libertarian on a few points. The biggest problem conservative activists fight is being perceived to support the racist/sexist/homophobic views espoused the those claiming to be conservative on the internet. Westboro’s leader… he was a lifelong democrat and filled with hate. He was never a conservative. Are there haters online, absolutely, but they aren’t the ones leading conservative thought. They are sometimes tolerated and sometimes asked to leave conservative events.

        I guess what I’m really trying to say is labels are empty. You can claim any label you like, and that won’t make it true. Others can label you as they chose as well, it still won’t be true. We are all individuals.

      • kevin

        Exactly, im the same way, I dont really fit in any because I agree on certain issues with libs, conservs or what ever other labels, and lately each side started to become its own stereotype, thats why I feel more free because I don’t have to be dragged down since i have no allegience to any side

    • MAH

      “No one should be forced to subsidize what they abhor.”

      My taxes subsidize the lack of taxes churches don’t pay.
      My taxes subsidize religiously oriented schools.
      My taxes pay for wars.
      My taxes pay to give rich old republican’s boner pills.

      There, four things my money pays for that I absolutely, without equivocation, abhor. What are you saying again about abhorring?

      • Patty Green

        I would hardly compare the horrendous, torturous, painful MURDER of innocent babies to a church that doesn’t pay taxes or a subsidy to a religious oriented school! Where are your priorities man?! If liberals would just end this atrocity called abortion I would gladly pay with my tax dollars every single other stupid thing they wanted to finance with my tax dollars! I would give anything to save those innocent babies. While you all worry about saving the turtle and eagle eggs, we conservatives care about the human beings growing inside these murderous moms! Oh yeah…..you don’t have to worry about the turtle and eagle eggs. They are protected under federal law! SMH

      • Nicole Hernandez

        As the article states, liberals are not all pro-abortion. It’s about allowing women to at least have the choice about what to do with their own bodies. Also, many Christians circumcise their babies, I’m pretty sure that is a painful experience for a baby to endure. Along with the fact that in abortion, it is only legal up to a certain amount of weeks, mainly up until a fetus is deemed viable outside the womb. They are not having the mother give birth to the baby and then killing it. I believe the fetus is not fully developed enough for it to feel pain when the abortion occurs. As when many Christian circumcise their babies, the baby has no choice in the circumcision, and can feel the pain. It would also be better to fund places with professionals who perform the abortion, rather than back-alley illegal abortions where the mother could easily die.

      • Patty Green

        Circumcisions are done with anesthesia. Science has proven that babies in the womb feel pain during abortions. That’s not the worst of it, after they are aborted they are DEAD forever. Have you thanked your mom for letting you live lately?

    • Jim Foster

      “No one should be forced to subsidize what they abhor.”
      Democracy is about compromise. This is a tough one, but the issues are not as clear cut as “real” conservatives like to believe.
      “…believe sexuality belongs in each person’s home, not in public view.”

      Same sex marriages are no more “in public view” than conventional
      marriages. WHAT are you really talking about??

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      1. it’s a parasite until it can survive on its own, so the heritage of its DNA doesn’t matter. Unless you’re willing to give cancer, tapeworms, guinea worms, tetanus, etc. the same consideration, this is a special-pleading red herring.

      2. So if it belongs in the home, why not let equal marriage thrive? Is your mind so filthy that you can’t help but imagine (and clutch pearls in faux dismay) whenever you see a committed same-sex couple? You pervert, you!

      3. It’s not a pregnancy until it’s implanted in the uterine wall, you ignoramus. If you don’t like it, spend the money to develop a mechanical womb…I haven’t seen YOUR KIND actually spend your own money on a solution. Also, there’s any number of fertilized eggs that simply don’t implant, without any interference…making your Dawg the greatest abortionist of all time.

      4. Amazingly rational (the kindergarten story could just be kids being mean…and who can’t pray silently, anyway?) re teaching Evolution, the earlier the better…it underlies ALL of biology, since all biological processes evolved.

      5. First sentence and you’re already lying. The DoI was a pamphlet, a brochure, and a declaration of war all in one. It does not have ANYTHING to do with the Constitution, on which our gov’t IS based, and which specifically says gov’t can’t prevent or ‘respect’ (as in ‘give privilege to’) any establishment of religion, from xtianity to FSM-ism.

      If you’d bother to read the minutes of the Constitutional Convention of the United States of American, you’d see that there were MANY attempts to insert xtian language into the document, and EVERY ATTEMPT FAILED. If you bothered to read your history, you’d know that the ‘conservatives’ of the time OPPOSED ratifying the Constitution for just that reason.

      Short version: Keep your religion the FUCK out of my SECULAR society, and don’t damage others with it (as the latter is a crime, too) and you can believe whatever you wish.

      • Patty Green

        Funny how a human being is pronounced DEAD when his heart stops beating, but is not pronounced ALIVE when his hearts starts beating. I don’t get that.

  • Tim

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

    That’s the first part of the first line of the first amendment. Sure looks like there’s some room to interpret that as religious freedom. However, what conservatives dislike about religious freedom is the right not to practice or give a crap about a diety.

  • ojp4president

    There are two points here that are missing the issue pretty significantly, one of which is an outright lie.

    1) People who oppose abortion do so because they believe that abortion is killing a child. In their eyes, they want to prevent women from committing murder. That isn’t really a religious issue as their is no scientific consensus on when life begins, and by suggesting that they have this belief in order to restrict freedom is very shortsighted. It’s no wonder people can’t have an honest debate on the issue.

    That said, the desire to restrict birth control and their argument that medications that prevent conception are skin to abortion, are absolutely hypocritical and counter productive when the goal is to prevent murder of innocents.

    2) The Hobby Lobby decision does nothing to prevent or restrict a woman’s access to birth control or choice of birth control. It simply allows the company to remove itself from that transaction. This actually allows women MORE FREEDOM (though at a higher monetary cost) because they are not tied to their employer in order to stay on whatever birth control they decide to use.

    The solution to the Hobby Lobby decision is universal health care (single payer). Then people won’t be tied to their employer for medical coverage and birth control. Then employers like churches, schools, political activism groups, or ignorant bigots won’t have any say in our medical decision making unless we elect them to Congress.

  • Jason

    Can we please stop calling them conservatives? It is insulting to allow radical regressives to bear the title of deliberate, considerate thinkers.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      howzabout calling them ‘reactionaries’, as it should be?

  • Barry Greene

    You are so full of yourself it is ridiculous. This article is so liberal biased it doesn’t make sense. While you got the general beliefs of conservatives correct, the reasoning is absolutely wrong. You try to make it sound as if conservatives are these simple minded selfish people. Why can’t you reason that we are good people who see things differently. I totally disagree with the liberal philosophy, but I try to see their perspective and not label them. I try to value their opinion and consider them good people albeit misguided. You should really evaluate your motives and take a long look in the mirror.

  • Treva EdieBug Eley

    As people seem to love quoting parts of the bible for all of this stuff for their own good, and it seems to be old testament, I am going to start looking at their clothing tags to make sure they are not wearing mixed woven cloth. I will also make sure they have no shellfish in their diet, no graven images, they had better be sleeping in separate rooms when the wife is on her menses, none of those mixed bred animals in their homes, or fancy crossed fruits like grapples, they had better not be cooking on Sundays, either! ALL of that is in the bible and most of it is in the exact same Leviticus they are using to say being gay is a sin! So if you want to talk about one part, you have to talk about all of it!

    • Patty Green

      Anything that was quoted in the Old Testament under the Old Covenant that was not re-quoted in the New Testament under the new covenant is NOT in force today. So, all those Levitical laws you have mentioned are no longer required to be upheld. Homosexuality is a practice that was clearly taught to be sinful under the new covenant in the new testament.

  • A P Montague

    The question that I would have for the so-called “pro-life” people is this: Are you pro LIFE or pro BIRTH? If you so firmly believe that you are pro LIFE, then answer this: Are you willing to step up and help pay for what that child will need in order to become a productive member of society by helping with food, shelter, education, etc with your tax dollars? Abortions aren’t being used (as some would believe) as “just another means of birth control”. Most are decided upon due to either a)poverty, b)medical needs of the mother, c) gross abnormalities of the fetus which would mean that IF it survived, lifelong care would be needed. SO…are YOU willing to help to provide the help and aid that they need, or are you just saying that all you are in favor of is for the child to be born and whatever happens after that is no longer any of your concern?

    • Patty Green

      Us “pro-lifers” feel that murder is wrong, no matter what the motive behind the choice to do so. Women need to make their choices BEFORE they get pregnant because after they get pregnant it is not just THEIR OWN BODY any longer! Now their are TWO bodies and BOTH are human lives. It is one thing to make a choice to kill your baby cause it’s YOUR body and YOUR choice, but it is quite another thing to force those who believe it is a murderous act to support your dirty deed financially with their tax dollars. Why not compromise? If you want to murder your baby pay for it yourself! You will stand before the Creator of that baby and need to answer to Him for your actions one day, not me. I will have to stand before my Creator and answer as to why I allowed my tax dollars to fund your murders. I don’t want to do that. So, let’s stop funding abortions with tax payer dollars and you liberals can donate to charities to support your murders.

  • SOMEGUY7893 .

    It’s almost as if Conservatives don’t realize America was founded on Liberal Ideals.

  • Barry Weinstein

    Because the conservative agenda is not the work of good nice people, they are selfish and reserve for themselves rights that they want to withhold from others. There is no different view here, discrimination against LGBT is wrong, forcing a woman to keep a pregnancy to term against her wishes is wrong, supporting voter suppression is wrong. Feeding the hungry is right, cutting SNAP is wrong. Proving healthcare is right, removing subsidies that make it affordable is wrong. These are not opinions, these are matters of right and wrong.

    • Patty Green

      The heart of the wise inclines to the right,
      but the heart of the fool to the left.
      Even as fools walk along the road,
      they lack sense
      and show everyone how stupid they are. Ecclesiastes 10:2,3

      Conservatives do NOT discriminate against or hate gay people. They love everyone. They just hate what they do. Homosexuality is a sin, just like lying and stealing and obesity. Murdering babies is a sin. If you are pronounced DEAD when your heart stops beating why aren’t you pronounced ALIVE when it starts beating? …..Honestly?! You can’t understand that? Health care is NOT a right, although in this country it is unlawful for any hospital to turn anyone away regardless of means to pay. We also have low income insurance plans, clinics, free medical insurance for the poor, and charities that help with health care. You are wrong about how conservative feel about food stamps. We want everyone to benefit from them if they are needed, and all deserve a hand every now and then. But, continuous help is NOT the answer. Why would anyone consider working 40 hours a week if they will lose their free benefits, like food stamps, if they do? Jesus said, “Those who will not work shall not eat.” He also said, “help the poor.” Was that a contradiction? No. Help the poor if they CAN’T work and help themselves. You need to reconsider what you think is right and wrong. The bible teaches that in the end times man would call what is right wrong and what is wrong right. You are doing that.

      • Barry Weinstein

        First, please the idea that you base your reply on the rantings of people not knowledgeable enough to know where the sun “goes” at night shows your lack of insight. Your bible is a collection of myths and fables and has no connection to actual facts or to the basis of law in the US. We are not now nor ever were a christian nation. We are a SECULAR nation and have no laws based on or supported by myths or fables.
        Second, a fetus not a human, it has no ability to survive outside the mother. The woman has no obligation to provide for it any more than she has an obligation to donate blood or to be an organ donor.
        Yes, health care is a societial right of humanity, not a perk for the wealthy or fortunate few. This is practiced by all modern nations with the shameful exception of the US. And yes we do have an obligation to house the homeless, feed the poor and care for the sick. Not everyone has had the fortunate breaks that or I have had. Do not fool yourself, your good fortune to have food, clothes, shelter and medical care is as much a result of blind luck as of skill.
        One not need to observe some outdated set of rituals set by fairy tales to be moral. One only needs to have a sense of right and wrong and the ability to see beyond personal wealth as the purpose of life.

      • Patty Green

        You say that because a fetus has no ability to survive outside its mother it is up to the mother to choose its fate? Well, a newly born, 1 month old infant, has no ability of its own to survive outside the womb of the mother either, yet anyone in their right mind would know not to MURDER it! As for the bible being a fairy tale, all I can say to you is you should read it some time. It’s a great book. Jesus loves you and died in your place so you wont have to. Maybe someone who died for you should be given a little more respect, consideration and gratitude.

      • Barry Weinstein

        A newly BORN infant is already (by definition) surviving outside the womb. Jesus is a myth and did not die FOR me or anyone. Again, you are confusing your BELIEFS with actual FACTS. You are free to believe what you wish, but not to confuse belief with reality or expect any thinking person to take your myths seriously.

      • Patty Green

        Go ahead and place a newly born infant on the bed without any interaction from another human being and just SEE if it will survive…….SMH………I believe what I believe about God to be actual facts. You can believe what you want to believe. In this Country no one is making you conform to my faith. But, you must admit that without a moral absolute there would be no law. These moral absolutes that we have come from the bible. Believe me without God’s law you would not know what sin even was. “There is a way that seems right to man but in the end will lead to destruction.”

      • Zoey Diane

        Stop forcing your religious views on everyone and we wouldn’t have this problem. Haha, no. Morals DO NOT come from religion, or your bible. That’s as bad as saying you have no morals if you don’t believe in a god, which is flat out wrong. I’m an atheist, and I have morals. Honestly, rethink what you say to other people when they say they believe different to you.

  • Jerry

    There is no mention of gun control. I don’t understand why liberals allow people to abort but do not want people to have guns.
    About religion, well it’s just a collection of fairy tales and superstition.

  • chrishare

    Rick Lisa how can u put being gay in the same catagory as stealing,murder,drug use what the hell. There not even close to being the same

    • Patty Green

      They are the same according to God who decides right from wrong. Homosexuality is a sin just as stealing is a sin.

  • scarlet phoenix

    While I appreciate the attempt to lay out the differences between liberal and conservative, this is completely condescending, biased, and at times outright lies.

  • Natasha

    I honestly can see why the bible calls the man that says there is no GOD A fool! Some people think they are so smart and have it all figured out, but dont know a thing. It is obvious they have no relationship or wisdom imparted by the Holy Spirit. They only can comment on what their feeble minds think it has managed to grasp. The WORD of GOD is HOLY, and GOD say his thoughts are way higher. He created everything. As long as Heaven and the Earth remain so shall his WORD (The Bible). For many of your sakes I hope you are so right when you die. I really hope it is make believe for your soul’s sake, because just IF by chance there is another place after this one, and I believe it is. Shame on you and your human ignorance. As for me I rather be save than sorry. Eternity is a really long time~

    • Patty Green

      The heart of the wise inclines to the right,
      but the heart of the fool to the left.
      Even as fools walk along the road,
      they lack sense
      and show everyone how stupid they are. Ecclesiastes 10:2,3

  • Nick Civetta

    I’d just like to say one thing. As a conservative, it is seriously hard to take anyone seriously who doesn’t portray their opponent realistically. It also makes conservatives dismiss crap like this because right from the words “they don’t let women control their bodies”, they already know that you completely misunderstand their point of view. It’s like me writing a piece for the internet and saying “liberals oppose gun rights because they believe that people don’t have a right to defend themselves and they want people to be defenseless and die.” You would go hold on a sec, thats not why we oppose your gun legislation. Not to mention it would tick you off completely.

  • Prof. Ray S.

    Why would you spend so much energy debating GOD, and the Bible. Your fighting Your conscience my Brother. By the way I’ve read(study and teach)the
    Bible 25 times and going. Your comments prove you have not read the Bible.
    So if you’ve read and understand your Bible, then you should understand this;
    2:1 And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom.
    2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.
    3 And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling,
    4 and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,
    5 so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. 6 Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age,who are doomed to pass away.
    7 But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory.
    8 None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
    9 But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”— 10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.
    11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
    12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.
    13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. 14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
    15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one.
    16 “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ. 3:1 But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ.
    2 I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready,
    3 for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way?
    I hope you know where this is referenced in the Bible because “you’ve read it a few times”
    Keep reading o foolish one.
    I’ll give you one Biblical reference,
    Just for you Steve!
    Galatians 4:16
    16 Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth?
    17 They make much of you, but for no good purpose. They want to shut you out, that you may make much of them.

  • Patrick McGoff

    Bull! Progressive don’t believe in personal freedom, they believe in government control over every aspect of an individual’s life. Conservatives are the true believers in personal freedom.

    • photocrazy

      Yet conservatives want to push the Christian agenda on everyone, deny people their rights, they are the kings of hypocrites. They want to take away all rights workers have, good luck living on a couple of dollars an hour when the make the whole USA right-to-work which is code for pay as little as possible, no paid vacations, benefits of any kind, work them 16 hours a day 7 days a week, if they want a job they will live with it. That is how it was here before unions and how it will be again if they have their way.

  • Swalihah Ali

    (Regarding a comment I read below) Just a bit of background info for people who think they know Islam when they haven’t researched the religion, read the quran, read hadith’s, and/or understood the religion at all….sharia law is a set of principles a Muslim should follow. One of the most important being, follow the law of the land you live on. Now addressing a few more misconceptions, jihad does not mean holy war, it means struggle. My jihad is trying to give facts to people who are so against Islam, they cherry-pick their evidence, and choose not to listen to facts. If you want to know more about Islam, why don’t you ask a Muslim. There are approximately 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. If we actually believed in killing “””kuffars””” you wouldn’t be alive to comment. Stop blaming the actions of a small sample of the population (ISIS) on the entire population (Muslims).

    And finally, this article is trash.
    As you probably figured, my views are impacted by Islam and are the following: birth control, yes. Abortion, no–but it is no one’s place to judge another for something they do with their body. Gay marriage, no–but once again it is not up to me to decide who will marry who. Do what makes you happy. And freedom of religion, obviously.