Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 5:
Line 5: − *Liberal [[nanny state|nanny statists]] argue that some acts are contrary to universally accepted standards and that if they are not prevented, everyone will want to do them.
→Examples: Nanny state example is not readily comprehensible
*[[Liberal Christianity|Liberal Christians]] claim that the [[Bible]], when [[Cafeteria Christianity|"rightly" divided]] and [[allegorical interpretation|"correctly" interpreted]], is the ultimate authority on [[faith]]. However, for that to work, the truly ultimate authority on faith would be the standard used for choosing which Bible verses to follow and for interpreting them, not the Bible itself.
*[[Liberal Christianity|Liberal Christians]] claim that the [[Bible]], when [[Cafeteria Christianity|"rightly" divided]] and [[allegorical interpretation|"correctly" interpreted]], is the ultimate authority on [[faith]]. However, for that to work, the truly ultimate authority on faith would be the standard used for choosing which Bible verses to follow and for interpreting them, not the Bible itself.
*[[Pro-abortion]] activists argue that since there are no such things as [[unalienable rights]], there is no [[right to life]], so that there is an unalienable right to [[abortion]].
*[[Pro-abortion]] activists argue that since there are no such things as [[unalienable rights]], there is no [[right to life]], so that there is an unalienable right to [[abortion]].
*Liberals justify [[special rights]] as furthering [[equality]] and oppose genuine equality as a special right.
*Liberals justify [[special rights]] as furthering [[equality]] and oppose genuine equality as a special right.
*Liberals argue that the [[Equal Protection Clause]] was meant only to protect certain politically favored groups. That interpretation defeats the whole point of that clause.
*Liberals argue that the [[Equal Protection Clause]] was meant only to protect certain politically favored groups. That interpretation defeats the whole point of that clause.