| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
14 Sep 2007 02:25:32 PM |
| Object: |
Liberals Love The Sin And Hate The Sinner |
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1893834/posts
Liberals love the sin and hate the sinner
By Star Parker
Monday, September 10, 2007
Coverage by the mainstream media of the Larry Craig scandal confirms
again that liberals love the sin and hate the sinner. They've got both
the Idaho senator and the conservative values that he has supported in
their crosshairs.
Perhaps it's relevant to take a moment and recall that the need for
biblical guidance comes from the proclivity to sin. You don't need a
map if you're hardwired to know where you're going.
But, for those on the left, a map isn't necessary because it doesn't
matter where we are going. For them, a man going astray is proof that
having a destination, and rules for getting there, is hypocrisy. The
problem is not the fallen man but having rules to begin with.
Typical is Newsweek's Jonathan Alter, who writes with ironic
sanctimony about GOP claims to moral superiority. Alter can hardly
contain his glee at the prospect that the Craig scandal will undermine
the family-values agenda of conservative Republicans. He goes on, with
great haste, to write its obituary.
"In the long term, though, the end of the family-values agenda may be
a blessing in disguise for the GOP. It has tied its fortunes too
closely to evangelical Christians ..."
But what does Craig's personal behavior have to do with the validity
and relevance of traditional values?
Might we recall a basic rule of logic that points to the fallacy of
the ad hominem argument? The issue is the substance and truth of the
argument and not the person making it.
Let's consider the relevance of traditional values as a practical
matter and see where the most damaging hypocrisy lies.
Democratic politicians, who now are quietly luxuriating in the Craig
scandal and Republican Party woes, will tell us that what they're
about is fairness, income gaps, two Americas and the poor.
Now suppose that the family values that they are so anxious to usher
out the door are key to addressing these very issues that Democrats
claim to be their concern.
In fact, they are.
The Census Bureau has just released its latest data on poverty in
America. The intimate connection between family structure and poverty
is undeniable.
Five percent of homes headed by married couples are poor. Over 35
percent of homes, seven times as many, headed by single mothers are
poor.
Data, as reported by Douglas Besharov of the American Enterprise
Institute, show that, in 2005, the average income for all American
families with children under age 18 was $56,793. For those households
headed by a married couple, the average income was $71,010. For those
households headed by single women, the average income was $26,705.
The most healthy and prosperous American families are those in which
traditional values are intact.
In an article in the latest issue of Commentary Magazine, Lawrence
Mead, a professor of politics at New York University and author of
seven books on poverty and welfare reform, surveys thinking over the
last 50 years about the causes of poverty and concludes:
"Although impediments to working may still affect some people, poverty
is overwhelmingly a result of dysfunctional patterns of life. Families
are poor in America in 2007 typically because unmarried parents have
children and then do not work regularly to support them. ... It has
become difficult to avoid the conclusion that serious poverty in
America is rooted in the culture of the poor."
It's not news that poverty is disproportionately high among blacks. At
25 percent, the incidence of black poverty is double the national
average.
Corresponding with this are disproportionately high black out-of-
wedlock births and homes headed by single women.
When Daniel Moynihan wrote his famous report in 1965 identifying the
warning signs of the breakdown of the black family, black out-of-
wedlock births were a third of what they are today.
Do family values matter? You bet they do.
They may be a matter of principle for conservative Republicans. But
they are a matter of life and death to America's poor and particularly
to America's poor blacks.
Whatever Larry Craig was doing in a men's room in the Minneapolis
airport has little to do with the relevance of these truths and their
importance in our country today.
Democrats and the left may enjoy exploiting Craig's misfortunes and
using this incident to try and undermine the traditional-values agenda
that he supported for 20 years in the U.S. Senate.
But by so doing, they hurt this country and the very communities that
they claim to want to help. So, then, where does the most damaging
hypocrisy really lie?
Star Parker is a regular commentator on CNN, MSNBC, and FOX News as
well as author of White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects
Inner City Decay.
.
|
|
| User: "Bob Eld" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals Love The Sin And Hate The Sinner |
14 Sep 2007 04:33:50 PM |
|
|
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@mailcan.com> wrote in message
news:1189797932.278831.130540@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1893834/posts
Liberals love the sin and hate the sinner
By Star Parker
Monday, September 10, 2007
Coverage by the mainstream media of the Larry Craig scandal confirms
again that liberals love the sin and hate the sinner. They've got both
the Idaho senator and the conservative values that he has supported in
their crosshairs.
cut......
Yep....We LIBERALS hate hypocrisy and the hypocrites who do it claiming to
be one thing while practicing another. That is especially true when thay
have the power to make laws.
We don't have any problem with homosexuality and could care less what a
persons personal choices are or who is sucking who's *****.
Most of us think it is wrong for cops to stake out public rest rooms trying
to ensnare queers especially when no actual sexual activity took place.
Posting signs and patrolling the area should be sufficient without actually
arresting anybody.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Freedom Fighter" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals Love The Sin And Hate The Sinner |
14 Sep 2007 05:03:42 PM |
|
|
CONSERVATIVES VS. LIBERALS: THE NATURE OF THE BEAST
It all began a hundred thousand years ago on a ledge in front of a
cave. A female homo sapiens walked by, attracting the attention of
a male. The male stepped forward and smacked her over the head with
his club. WHACK! He then dragged the unconscious female into his
cave for sex.
One day there were two males standing in front of a cave when a
female walked by. The first raised his arm to club the female, but
the second male communicated to him that clubbing females over the
head to have sex was not nice. WHACK! WHACK! The first male stepped
over the unconscious second male and proceeded to rape the female.
On that day the first liberal paid the price for expressing a new
idea.
Things didn't change much for thousands of years until the advent
of projectile weapons. This was first symbolized by the David and
Goliath story in the Bible, where the big strong brute was laid
flat by the small but smarter boy. Once brute strength was no
longer the controlling factor in social interaction, liberal ideas
slowly gained a foothold in human culture, and civilization began.
Throughout human history, the price for advocating tolerance and
progressive change has been paid in threats, beatings,
excommunication, incarceration, torture, murder, assassination, and
execution. Countless liberals have paid the ultimate price for
their humanity. Though Jesus Christ is the most famous, names in
recent history that come to mind are Gandhi, Martin Luther King
Jr., John Lennon, and Robert Kennedy.
Today there are many conservatives - individuals, groups, and
nations - who use threats and violence to silence the voices of
reason, tolerance, and progress. Here in America it is seen in
racists and homophobes beating blacks and gays, sometimes to death,
not for money or out of anger generated by interactive cause, but
because of religious or racial intolerance and secular bigotry.
Alan Berg on talk radio was a strong voice against a conservative
organization called the Aryan Nation. For thus exercising his
freedom of speech, he was shot dead while walking his dog in front
of his house.
David Rice is a man on death row in Washington State who has no
remorse whatsoever for entering the home of a family of four and
carving out their living hearts only because he heard they were
"liberals." He got their names from a Democratic Party membership
list.
Right-wingers Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols killed 168 men,
women, and children as an act of protest. What liberals have ever
committed such an abominable atrocity?
The most abominable atrocity in several decades is the 9/11
terrorist attacks in which thousands of innocent civilians were
murdered. The alleged perpetrators, Osama Bin Laden and the al
Qaeda-Taliban terrorists, epitomize the right-wing religious
fundamentalist mentality.
Some believe that the 9/11 attacks were deliberately allowed to happen,
exacerbated, or even perpetrated by radical right-wing elements within
our own government to further their fascistic agenda. Two buildings
were hit by planes, but THREE collapsed. The evidence that the three
collapsed buildings were brought down with demolition explosives put in
place BEFORE the attacks is very strong.
Arguing that such horrendous crimes are not political in nature or
that they are not done primarily by conservatives is utter
nonsense. Look back:
Who nailed who to a cross?
Who were the Loyalists to the totalitarian monarchy of King George?
Who started our Civil War to defend slavery?
Who fought to keep women as property, and now fights their
sovereignty over their own bodies in the freedom to choose
abortion?
Who fought against child labor statutes?
Who fought against the concept of free public education?
Who fought against the right of women to vote?
Who fought against anti-trust and anti-monopoly legislation?
Who fought against workers organizing?
Who fought against government controls on manufacturers of cars
"unsafe at any speed?"
Who killed several thousand innocent civilians in the 9/11
terrorist attacks?
Who started WW2, murdered 13 million and caused the death of 40
million more?
Who defended Jim Crow for a hundred years?
Who fought against voting rights, civil rights, social security,
health care for the elderly, and minimum wages?
Who fights against environmental protection statutes?
Who opposes equal rights for gays and other free-lifestyle
minorities?
Who cruelly opposes physician-assisted dying for suffering,
terminally ill patients soon to die anyway?
Who is sabotaging the separation of Church and State, and all our
other Constitutional rights, freedoms, and protections?
Who are the moralizing hypocrites forcing their puritanical
inhibitions and prohibitions on ALL Americans via legislation and
draconian, police-state enforcement practices?
Who always puts personal gain and corporate wealth and power above
the common good?
CONSERVATIVES OR LIBERALS?
The historic, undeniable truth is that these evils are THE NATURE
OF THE CONSERVATIVE BEAST!
Conservatives have distorted and demonized the word "liberal,"
whose true political meaning is favoring progressive change,
humanistic values, and opposition to authoritarianism. They
identify it with governmental waste and tolerance of criminality,
when in fact they themselves are guilty of abuses such as corporate
welfare bail-outs and tax evasion, fraud against investors, and
other white-collar crime. Conservatives fear and oppose all change
and progress beyond "what's in it for me?"
At the core of conservatism is the Machiavellian bully - the
despotic practitioner of "might makes right," craving wealth and
power, and willing to use any and all means to get them.
Conservatism is the philosophy of the caveman wearing a business
suit.
AND THE CAVEMENS' CLUBS CAN NOW DESTROY OUR EARTH!
.
|
|
|
| User: "RLM" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals Love The Sin And Hate The Sinner |
14 Sep 2007 05:53:03 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 22:03:42 +0000, Freedom Fighter wrote:
CONSERVATIVES VS. LIBERALS: THE NATURE OF THE BEAST
It all began a hundred thousand years ago on a ledge in front of a
cave. A female homo sapiens walked by, attracting the attention of
a male. The male stepped forward and smacked her over the head with
his club. WHACK! He then dragged the unconscious female into his
cave for sex.
One day there were two males standing in front of a cave when a
female walked by. The first raised his arm to club the female, but
the second male communicated to him that clubbing females over the
head to have sex was not nice. WHACK! WHACK! The first male stepped
over the unconscious second male and proceeded to rape the female.
On that day the first liberal paid the price for expressing a new
idea.
Things didn't change much for thousands of years until the advent
of projectile weapons. This was first symbolized by the David and
Goliath story in the Bible, where the big strong brute was laid
flat by the small but smarter boy. Once brute strength was no
longer the controlling factor in social interaction, liberal ideas
slowly gained a foothold in human culture, and civilization began.
Throughout human history, the price for advocating tolerance and
progressive change has been paid in threats, beatings,
excommunication, incarceration, torture, murder, assassination, and
execution. Countless liberals have paid the ultimate price for
their humanity. Though Jesus Christ is the most famous, names in
recent history that come to mind are Gandhi, Martin Luther King
Jr., John Lennon, and Robert Kennedy.
Today there are many conservatives - individuals, groups, and
nations - who use threats and violence to silence the voices of
reason, tolerance, and progress. Here in America it is seen in
racists and homophobes beating blacks and gays, sometimes to death,
not for money or out of anger generated by interactive cause, but
because of religious or racial intolerance and secular bigotry.
Alan Berg on talk radio was a strong voice against a conservative
organization called the Aryan Nation. For thus exercising his
freedom of speech, he was shot dead while walking his dog in front
of his house.
David Rice is a man on death row in Washington State who has no
remorse whatsoever for entering the home of a family of four and
carving out their living hearts only because he heard they were
"liberals." He got their names from a Democratic Party membership
list.
Right-wingers Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols killed 168 men,
women, and children as an act of protest. What liberals have ever
committed such an abominable atrocity?
The most abominable atrocity in several decades is the 9/11
terrorist attacks in which thousands of innocent civilians were
murdered. The alleged perpetrators, Osama Bin Laden and the al
Qaeda-Taliban terrorists, epitomize the right-wing religious
fundamentalist mentality.
Some believe that the 9/11 attacks were deliberately allowed to happen,
exacerbated, or even perpetrated by radical right-wing elements within
our own government to further their fascistic agenda. Two buildings
were hit by planes, but THREE collapsed. The evidence that the three
collapsed buildings were brought down with demolition explosives put in
place BEFORE the attacks is very strong.
Arguing that such horrendous crimes are not political in nature or
that they are not done primarily by conservatives is utter
nonsense. Look back:
Who nailed who to a cross?
Who were the Loyalists to the totalitarian monarchy of King George?
Who started our Civil War to defend slavery?
Who fought to keep women as property, and now fights their
sovereignty over their own bodies in the freedom to choose
abortion?
Who fought against child labor statutes?
Who fought against the concept of free public education?
Who fought against the right of women to vote?
Who fought against anti-trust and anti-monopoly legislation?
Who fought against workers organizing?
Who fought against government controls on manufacturers of cars
"unsafe at any speed?"
Who killed several thousand innocent civilians in the 9/11
terrorist attacks?
Who started WW2, murdered 13 million and caused the death of 40
million more?
Who defended Jim Crow for a hundred years?
Who fought against voting rights, civil rights, social security,
health care for the elderly, and minimum wages?
Who fights against environmental protection statutes?
Who opposes equal rights for gays and other free-lifestyle
minorities?
Who cruelly opposes physician-assisted dying for suffering,
terminally ill patients soon to die anyway?
Who is sabotaging the separation of Church and State, and all our
other Constitutional rights, freedoms, and protections?
Who are the moralizing hypocrites forcing their puritanical
inhibitions and prohibitions on ALL Americans via legislation and
draconian, police-state enforcement practices?
Who always puts personal gain and corporate wealth and power above
the common good?
CONSERVATIVES OR LIBERALS?
The historic, undeniable truth is that these evils are THE NATURE
OF THE CONSERVATIVE BEAST!
Conservatives have distorted and demonized the word "liberal,"
whose true political meaning is favoring progressive change,
humanistic values, and opposition to authoritarianism. They
identify it with governmental waste and tolerance of criminality,
when in fact they themselves are guilty of abuses such as corporate
welfare bail-outs and tax evasion, fraud against investors, and
other white-collar crime. Conservatives fear and oppose all change
and progress beyond "what's in it for me?"
At the core of conservatism is the Machiavellian bully - the
despotic practitioner of "might makes right," craving wealth and
power, and willing to use any and all means to get them.
Conservatism is the philosophy of the caveman wearing a business
suit.
AND THE CAVEMENS' CLUBS CAN NOW DESTROY OUR EARTH!
Applause!
Polite bow to express thanks.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals Love The Sin And Hate The Sinner |
15 Sep 2007 12:23:41 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 22:03:42 GMT, "Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net>
wrote:
Two buildings
were hit by planes, but THREE collapsed. The evidence that the three
collapsed buildings were brought down with demolition explosives put in
place BEFORE the attacks is very strong.
Such evidence is non-existent.
There are reasonable people on both sides of the political spectrum.
There are also a bunch of total nutjobs on both sides. 9/11 Conspiracy
Theorists fall on both sides of the fence politically, but they all
share the common characteristic of being gullible enough to believe
any claim, no matter how far-fetched, as long as it is in direct
opposition to the mainstream explanation of things.
---
"Faith may not move mountains, but you should see what it does to skyscrapers..."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals Love The Sin And Hate The Sinner |
18 Sep 2007 12:59:34 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 13:23:41 -0400, raven1
<quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 22:03:42 GMT, "Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net>
wrote:
Two buildings
were hit by planes, but THREE collapsed. The evidence that the three
collapsed buildings were brought down with demolition explosives put in
place BEFORE the attacks is very strong.
Such evidence is non-existent.
7 WTC was pulled.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals Love The Sin And Hate The Sinner |
14 Sep 2007 05:05:42 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 22:03:42 GMT, in alt.atheism
"Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net> wrote in
<2zDGi.545000$p47.15707@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:
CONSERVATIVES VS. LIBERALS: THE NATURE OF THE BEAST
[snip collection of lies that show that "Freedom Fighter" is fighting
freedom with all of his ability -- luckily for us "Freedom Fighter" has
very little ability to think clearly]
What a fool.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals Love The Sin And Hate The Sinner |
14 Sep 2007 04:25:15 PM |
|
|
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Parker
Parker, an African American woman, spent her formative years as an
unemployed mother receiving welfare; she had a criminal record and has
disclosed that she had four abortions.
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@mailcan.com> wrote in message
news:1189797932.278831.130540@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1893834/posts
Liberals love the sin and hate the sinner
By Star Parker
Monday, September 10, 2007
Coverage by the mainstream media of the Larry Craig scandal confirms
again that liberals love the sin and hate the sinner. They've got both
the Idaho senator and the conservative values that he has supported in
their crosshairs.
Perhaps it's relevant to take a moment and recall that the need for
biblical guidance comes from the proclivity to sin. You don't need a
map if you're hardwired to know where you're going.
But, for those on the left, a map isn't necessary because it doesn't
matter where we are going. For them, a man going astray is proof that
having a destination, and rules for getting there, is hypocrisy. The
problem is not the fallen man but having rules to begin with.
Typical is Newsweek's Jonathan Alter, who writes with ironic
sanctimony about GOP claims to moral superiority. Alter can hardly
contain his glee at the prospect that the Craig scandal will undermine
the family-values agenda of conservative Republicans. He goes on, with
great haste, to write its obituary.
"In the long term, though, the end of the family-values agenda may be
a blessing in disguise for the GOP. It has tied its fortunes too
closely to evangelical Christians ..."
But what does Craig's personal behavior have to do with the validity
and relevance of traditional values?
Might we recall a basic rule of logic that points to the fallacy of
the ad hominem argument? The issue is the substance and truth of the
argument and not the person making it.
Let's consider the relevance of traditional values as a practical
matter and see where the most damaging hypocrisy lies.
Democratic politicians, who now are quietly luxuriating in the Craig
scandal and Republican Party woes, will tell us that what they're
about is fairness, income gaps, two Americas and the poor.
Now suppose that the family values that they are so anxious to usher
out the door are key to addressing these very issues that Democrats
claim to be their concern.
In fact, they are.
The Census Bureau has just released its latest data on poverty in
America. The intimate connection between family structure and poverty
is undeniable.
Five percent of homes headed by married couples are poor. Over 35
percent of homes, seven times as many, headed by single mothers are
poor.
Data, as reported by Douglas Besharov of the American Enterprise
Institute, show that, in 2005, the average income for all American
families with children under age 18 was $56,793. For those households
headed by a married couple, the average income was $71,010. For those
households headed by single women, the average income was $26,705.
The most healthy and prosperous American families are those in which
traditional values are intact.
In an article in the latest issue of Commentary Magazine, Lawrence
Mead, a professor of politics at New York University and author of
seven books on poverty and welfare reform, surveys thinking over the
last 50 years about the causes of poverty and concludes:
"Although impediments to working may still affect some people, poverty
is overwhelmingly a result of dysfunctional patterns of life. Families
are poor in America in 2007 typically because unmarried parents have
children and then do not work regularly to support them. ... It has
become difficult to avoid the conclusion that serious poverty in
America is rooted in the culture of the poor."
It's not news that poverty is disproportionately high among blacks. At
25 percent, the incidence of black poverty is double the national
average.
Corresponding with this are disproportionately high black out-of-
wedlock births and homes headed by single women.
When Daniel Moynihan wrote his famous report in 1965 identifying the
warning signs of the breakdown of the black family, black out-of-
wedlock births were a third of what they are today.
Do family values matter? You bet they do.
They may be a matter of principle for conservative Republicans. But
they are a matter of life and death to America's poor and particularly
to America's poor blacks.
Whatever Larry Craig was doing in a men's room in the Minneapolis
airport has little to do with the relevance of these truths and their
importance in our country today.
Democrats and the left may enjoy exploiting Craig's misfortunes and
using this incident to try and undermine the traditional-values agenda
that he supported for 20 years in the U.S. Senate.
But by so doing, they hurt this country and the very communities that
they claim to want to help. So, then, where does the most damaging
hypocrisy really lie?
Star Parker is a regular commentator on CNN, MSNBC, and FOX News as
well as author of White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects
Inner City Decay.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals Love The Sin And Hate The Sinner |
15 Sep 2007 12:13:18 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:25:32 -0700, Sound of Trumpet
<soundoftrumpet@mailcan.com> wrote:
Coverage by the mainstream media of the Larry Craig scandal confirms
again that liberals love the sin and hate the sinner.
Or that liberals hate hypocrisy, and Republicans live by it.
---
"Faith may not move mountains, but you should see what it does to skyscrapers..."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "bushhelpscorporationsdestroyamerica" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals Love The Sin And Hate The Sinner |
14 Sep 2007 02:27:25 PM |
|
|
On Sep 14, 12:25 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com>
wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1893834/posts
Liberals love the sin and hate the sinner
By Star Parker
Monday, September 10, 2007
Coverage by the mainstream media of the Larry Craig scandal confirms
again that liberals love the sin and hate the sinner. They've got both
the Idaho senator and the conservative values that he has supported in
their crosshairs.
Perhaps it's relevant to take a moment and recall that the need for
biblical guidance comes from the proclivity to sin. You don't need a
map if you're hardwired to know where you're going.
But, for those on the left, a map isn't necessary because it doesn't
matter where we are going. For them, a man going astray is proof that
having a destination, and rules for getting there, is hypocrisy. The
problem is not the fallen man but having rules to begin with.
Typical is Newsweek's Jonathan Alter, who writes with ironic
sanctimony about GOP claims to moral superiority. Alter can hardly
contain his glee at the prospect that the Craig scandal will undermine
the family-values agenda of conservative Republicans. He goes on, with
great haste, to write its obituary.
"In the long term, though, the end of the family-values agenda may be
a blessing in disguise for the GOP. It has tied its fortunes too
closely to evangelical Christians ..."
But what does Craig's personal behavior have to do with the validity
and relevance of traditional values?
Might we recall a basic rule of logic that points to the fallacy of
the ad hominem argument? The issue is the substance and truth of the
argument and not the person making it.
Let's consider the relevance of traditional values as a practical
matter and see where the most damaging hypocrisy lies.
Democratic politicians, who now are quietly luxuriating in the Craig
scandal and Republican Party woes, will tell us that what they're
about is fairness, income gaps, two Americas and the poor.
Now suppose that the family values that they are so anxious to usher
out the door are key to addressing these very issues that Democrats
claim to be their concern.
In fact, they are.
The Census Bureau has just released its latest data on poverty in
America. The intimate connection between family structure and poverty
is undeniable.
Five percent of homes headed by married couples are poor. Over 35
percent of homes, seven times as many, headed by single mothers are
poor.
Data, as reported by Douglas Besharov of the American Enterprise
Institute, show that, in 2005, the average income for all American
families with children under age 18 was $56,793. For those households
headed by a married couple, the average income was $71,010. For those
households headed by single women, the average income was $26,705.
The most healthy and prosperous American families are those in which
traditional values are intact.
In an article in the latest issue of Commentary Magazine, Lawrence
Mead, a professor of politics at New York University and author of
seven books on poverty and welfare reform, surveys thinking over the
last 50 years about the causes of poverty and concludes:
"Although impediments to working may still affect some people, poverty
is overwhelmingly a result of dysfunctional patterns of life. Families
are poor in America in 2007 typically because unmarried parents have
children and then do not work regularly to support them. ... It has
become difficult to avoid the conclusion that serious poverty in
America is rooted in the culture of the poor."
It's not news that poverty is disproportionately high among blacks. At
25 percent, the incidence of black poverty is double the national
average.
Corresponding with this are disproportionately high black out-of-
wedlock births and homes headed by single women.
When Daniel Moynihan wrote his famous report in 1965 identifying the
warning signs of the breakdown of the black family, black out-of-
wedlock births were a third of what they are today.
Do family values matter? You bet they do.
They may be a matter of principle for conservative Republicans. But
they are a matter of life and death to America's poor and particularly
to America's poor blacks.
Whatever Larry Craig was doing in a men's room in the Minneapolis
airport has little to do with the relevance of these truths and their
importance in our country today.
Democrats and the left may enjoy exploiting Craig's misfortunes and
using this incident to try and undermine the traditional-values agenda
that he supported for 20 years in the U.S. Senate.
But by so doing, they hurt this country and the very communities that
they claim to want to help. So, then, where does the most damaging
hypocrisy really lie?
Star Parker is a regular commentator on CNN, MSNBC, and FOX News as
well as author of White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects
Inner City Decay.
CONSERVATIVES LOVE TO MURDER AND LOVE THE MURDERER AS IT IS
THEMSELVES,BUT THEY HATE THEMSELVES FOR BEING GAY AND CREATED BY A
***** JESUS WHO CREATED THEM IN THEIR OWN ***** IMAGE
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "scooter" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals Love The Sin And Hate The Sinner |
22 Sep 2007 12:39:01 PM |
|
|
On Sep 14, 2:25 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com>
wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1893834/posts
Liberals love the sin and hate the sinner
By Star Parker
Monday, September 10, 2007
Coverage by the mainstream media of the Larry Craig scandal confirms
again that liberals love the sin and hate the sinner. They've got both
the Idaho senator and the conservative values that he has supported in
their crosshairs.
Perhaps it's relevant to take a moment and recall that the need for
biblical guidance comes from the proclivity to sin. You don't need a
map if you're hardwired to know where you're going.
But, for those on the left, a map isn't necessary because it doesn't
matter where we are going. For them, a man going astray is proof that
having a destination, and rules for getting there, is hypocrisy. The
problem is not the fallen man but having rules to begin with.
Typical is Newsweek's Jonathan Alter, who writes with ironic
sanctimony about GOP claims to moral superiority. Alter can hardly
contain his glee at the prospect that the Craig scandal will undermine
the family-values agenda of conservative Republicans. He goes on, with
great haste, to write its obituary.
"In the long term, though, the end of the family-values agenda may be
a blessing in disguise for the GOP. It has tied its fortunes too
closely to evangelical Christians ..."
But what does Craig's personal behavior have to do with the validity
and relevance of traditional values?
Might we recall a basic rule of logic that points to the fallacy of
the ad hominem argument? The issue is the substance and truth of the
argument and not the person making it.
Let's consider the relevance of traditional values as a practical
matter and see where the most damaging hypocrisy lies.
Democratic politicians, who now are quietly luxuriating in the Craig
scandal and Republican Party woes, will tell us that what they're
about is fairness, income gaps, two Americas and the poor.
Now suppose that the family values that they are so anxious to usher
out the door are key to addressing these very issues that Democrats
claim to be their concern.
In fact, they are.
The Census Bureau has just released its latest data on poverty in
America. The intimate connection between family structure and poverty
is undeniable.
Five percent of homes headed by married couples are poor. Over 35
percent of homes, seven times as many, headed by single mothers are
poor.
Data, as reported by Douglas Besharov of the American Enterprise
Institute, show that, in 2005, the average income for all American
families with children under age 18 was $56,793. For those households
headed by a married couple, the average income was $71,010. For those
households headed by single women, the average income was $26,705.
The most healthy and prosperous American families are those in which
traditional values are intact.
In an article in the latest issue of Commentary Magazine, Lawrence
Mead, a professor of politics at New York University and author of
seven books on poverty and welfare reform, surveys thinking over the
last 50 years about the causes of poverty and concludes:
"Although impediments to working may still affect some people, poverty
is overwhelmingly a result of dysfunctional patterns of life. Families
are poor in America in 2007 typically because unmarried parents have
children and then do not work regularly to support them. ... It has
become difficult to avoid the conclusion that serious poverty in
America is rooted in the culture of the poor."
It's not news that poverty is disproportionately high among blacks. At
25 percent, the incidence of black poverty is double the national
average.
Corresponding with this are disproportionately high black out-of-
wedlock births and homes headed by single women.
When Daniel Moynihan wrote his famous report in 1965 identifying the
warning signs of the breakdown of the black family, black out-of-
wedlock births were a third of what they are today.
Do family values matter? You bet they do.
They may be a matter of principle for conservative Republicans. But
they are a matter of life and death to America's poor and particularly
to America's poor blacks.
Whatever Larry Craig was doing in a men's room in the Minneapolis
airport has little to do with the relevance of these truths and their
importance in our country today.
Democrats and the left may enjoy exploiting Craig's misfortunes and
using this incident to try and undermine the traditional-values agenda
that he supported for 20 years in the U.S. Senate.
But by so doing, they hurt this country and the very communities that
they claim to want to help. So, then, where does the most damaging
hypocrisy really lie?
Star Parker is a regular commentator on CNN, MSNBC, and FOX News as
well as author of White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects
Inner City Decay.
Hey Sound of Stupid, just because your book of fairy tales written by
a bunch of freakin goatherders says you need to be a fuckin bigot,
doesn't mean you have to believe that horseshit. Damn you people are
like a bunch of freakin pre-school children that buy into anything.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals Love The Sin And Hate The Sinner |
14 Sep 2007 04:05:04 PM |
|
|
On Sep 14, 3:25 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com>
wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1893834/posts
Liberals love the sin and hate the sinner
By Star Parker
Monday, September 10, 2007
Coverage by the mainstream media of the Larry Craig scandal confirms
again that liberals love the sin and hate the sinner. They've got both
the Idaho senator and the conservative values that he has supported in
their crosshairs.
Family values is one of those abstract concepts like Southern Heritage
that means different things to different people. I can understand
national health care because that is a more concrete concept that has
implications like lower cost, universal health coverage and is
directly beneficial to my family.
Family values is a vague concept that implies nothing. It suggests the
stereotypical family of a man, a woman and a child, but we know most
families are different. We also learned in the Terri Schaivo incident
that Republicans don't really respect family values and a Republican
House and Senate directly interfered in the family of a man and his
brain disabled wife.
Republicans love to discuss vague concepts like family values because
it sounds nice, but promises nothing. I would like to see truth,
justice and the American way in the White House, but i doubt if
President Bush would have any idea of what I was talking about.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals Love The Sin And Hate The Sinner |
14 Sep 2007 06:02:57 PM |
|
|
On Sep 14, 3:25 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com>
wrote:
That was amusing. The Larry Craig affair has nothing to do with "sin".
I could care less who the man sleeps with.
The left's joy at right-wing scandal is because it exposes the
inherent hypocracy found in the new right. The problem is not that he
sleeps with men. The problem is that he sleeps with men, and then is a
bigot against his own kind. Quite frankly, I think the left is being
quite kind...have you ever seen what the French did to those who
collaborated with the Nazis?
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "GW Chimpzillas Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals Love The Sin And Hate The Sinner |
14 Sep 2007 02:55:15 PM |
|
|
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1893834/posts
Liberals love the sin and hate the sinner
By Star Parker
Monday, September 10, 2007
Coverage by the mainstream media of the Larry Craig
What are you talking about? Craig is NOT GAY. He said so!
--
There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools.
.
|
|
|
| User: "none" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals Love The Sin And Hate The Sinner |
22 Sep 2007 12:30:48 PM |
|
|
"GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia" wrote:
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1893834/posts
Liberals love the sin and hate the sinner
By Star Parker
Monday, September 10, 2007
Coverage by the mainstream media of the Larry Craig
What are you talking about? Craig is NOT GAY. He said so!
He can easily be a closet gay.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Dukenfield" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals Love The Sin And Hate The Sinner |
14 Sep 2007 03:24:10 PM |
|
|
By Star Parker
Monday, September 10, 2007
Coverage by the mainstream media of the Larry Craig
What are you talking about? Craig is NOT GAY. He said so!
--
There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools.
You can't be pro war and be pro life.
JAM
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Salad" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals Love The Sin And Hate The Sinner |
14 Sep 2007 03:30:44 PM |
|
|
GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia wrote:
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1893834/posts
Liberals love the sin and hate the sinner
By Star Parker
Monday, September 10, 2007
Coverage by the mainstream media of the Larry Craig
What are you talking about? Craig is NOT GAY. He said so!
And it's possible. Many homosexuals have married. In prison, many
heteros have sex with others of their gender. There's so many flavors
of sex in the world Craig could be hetero...just likes some anonymous
***** sucking.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
