The Left Then and Now – Liberals Consistent Hatred of Christianity, WHY they hate it, and  evidence to prove it.

Liberals hate Christians plain and simple. I think this hatred flows from the fact that they associate Christians with rules of conduct. 

 

In the 1960’s when the first generation of liberals were growing up, their parents said things like:

 

• Don’t have premarital sex

 

• Don’t do drugs

 

• Don’t drink or smoke

 

However, liberals wanted to have sex with whoever they desired whenever they desired, they wanted to do drugs, and they wanted to drink, smoke, and break other rules too.

 

Their parents sounded like the Church with all the rules. In fact their parents got the rules from the Church, and that’s the root cause as to why the liberals hated it when they were kids, and that’s also why they still have an issue with and hate the Church even today. 

 

Let me be very clear, they only hate churches that believe in the concept of sin and that hell is the consequence of sin

 

They love churches that believe no matter what you do, God loves you and it is impossible not to go to heaven because hell and sin don’t exist. Those kind of churches allow you to do whatever you want, sex, drugs, and whatever else because God always forgives and the church doesn’t judge or teach that hell or sin exist. Liberals love that new type of Christian church. In fact liberals were the ones who started that type of Christian church. 

 

They don’t hate Islam even though Islam has just as strict rules and concepts.

 

The reason they don’t hate Islam is because Islam didn’t cause their parents to tell them that having sex and doing drugs is evil. The Christian church, specifically the Roman Catholic Church, told their parents that, not Islam

 

And that is why they hate it, attack it, and insult it. The Catholic Church told them no. if it was Islam that told them no, they would have hated it instead but the Catholic church gets the brunt of their hatred because the Christian or catholic church is the church that said no since over 80% of the USA was Christian back in the 1960’s when their issues started.

 

Islam may say no, but Islam was not the specific church that told their parents no. And since Islam never told them no personally, and it didn’t tell their parents to tell them no, that is why they give it a pass, but continue to hate Christianity.

 

The 60’s kids made sure to teach their kids to have the same hatred for Christianity so they could ensure their hatred and assault on rules and morality would continue after their death.  

 

In the examples below, we see three Anti-Christian Art Exhibits followed by an Anti-Islam Art Exhibit. 

 

The people alive at the time, remember all too well the way the liberals reacted to the anti-Christian art

 

• Liberals said the Catholics need to relax and understand that this artwork is designed to force them to engage in tolerance and learn from the artistic value of the work. 

 

• Liberals constantly talked about freedom of speech and how it cannot be restricted. 

• A culture war ensued where Conservatives said that taxpayers should not be asked to pay for artwork that insults or supports a particular religion. However, freedom of speech shall not be restricted or prevented in any way.  Artwork of this nature will continue to be created and will be permitted to exist and be publically displayed. 

 

• Liberals on the other hand demanded taxpayer money continue to be used to fund anti-Christian artwork because the artwork promotes tolerance and forces close minded religious people to be respectful of different and offensive views. 



The most recent Anti-Islam Art Exhibit paints a different set of rules when the Art isn’t insulting Christians. 

 

• Liberals said the Muslims are right, and this artwork is disrespectful and the government should not allow such offensive and disrespectful artwork to be displayed. 

 

• Liberals constantly talked about how displaying this artwork is hate speech and must be restricted. 

 

• A culture war ensued where Liberals are fighting to have a new concept called “hate speech” outrank “free speech” and they argue that the government should be the force that decides what speech is hate speech and what speech is not hate speech and anything not hate speech is protected by the Constitution. 

 

• Conservatives are fighting to make sure free speech remains protected regardless of how offensive because freedom of speech is enshrined in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. 

 

Here is the data on each of the art situations. 

 

Anti-Christian Artwork Name(s):  “Piss Christ”

 

• What is it?: Photograph that depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist’s urine. The piece was a winner of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art’s “Awards in the Visual Arts” competition, which was sponsored in part by the National Endowment for the Arts, a United States Government agency that offers support and funding for artistic projects, without controlling content.

 

Artist Name(s): Andres Serrano

 

Creation Date(s): 1987

 

Display Date(s): 1987–1989

 

Display Location(s): New York, Melbourne

 

• How Was It Funded?The creation of the work was paid for using tax payer dollars by the National Endowment for the Arts, a United States Government agency. The display of the work in New York was paid for and financed using public taxpayer dollars.

 

Reaction: 

 

• Catholics took offence and requested that the artwork not be promoted or displayed. 

 

• Liberals said the Catholics need to relax and understand that this artwork is designed to foster tolerance and learn from the artistic value of the work. 

 

• Liberals constantly talked about freedom of speech and how it cannot be restricted. 

 

• A culture war ensued. 

 

Conservatives said that taxpayers should not be asked to pay for artwork that insults or supports a particular religion. However, freedom of speech shall not be restricted or prevented in any way.  Artwork of this nature will continue to be created and will be permitted to exist and be publically displayed. 

 

Liberals demanded taxpayer money continue to be used to fund anti-Christian artwork because the artwork promotes tolerance and forces close minded religious people to be respectful of different and offensive views. 

 

• No Roman Catholic person attempted to shoot or kill the artists or any of the participants. 

 

Anti-Christian Artwork Name(s):  “Holy Virgin Mary”

 

• What is it?: Portrait of Virgin Mary smeared with elephant dung and including cut-out photos of female genitalia.

 

Artist Name(s): Chris Ofili

 

Creation Date(s): 1996

 

Display Date(s): 1997–2000

 

Display Location(s): London, Berlin, and New York

 

• How Was It Funded?: Displaying the work in New York was paid for and financed using public taxpayer dollars.

 

Reaction:

 

• Catholics took offence and requested that the artwork not be promoted or displayed. 

 

• Liberals said the Catholics need to relax and understand that this artwork is designed to foster tolerance and learn from the artistic value of the work. 

 

• Liberals constantly talked about freedom of speech and how it cannot be restricted. 

 

• A culture war ensued. 

 

Conservatives said that taxpayers should not be asked to pay for artwork that insults or supports a particular religion. However, freedom of speech shall not be restricted or prevented in any way.  Artwork of this nature will continue to be created and will be permitted to exist and be publically displayed. 

 

Liberals demanded taxpayer money continue to be used to fund anti-Christian artwork because the artwork promotes tolerance and forces close minded religious people to be respectful of different and offensive views. 

 

• No Roman Catholic person attempted to shoot or kill the artists or any of the participants. 

 

 

Anti-Christian Artwork Name(s):  “Yo Mama’s Last Supper” 

 

• What is it?: Portrait that depicts Christ as a nude woman standing with her arms outstretched and 11 black men disciples sitting or standing on either side of her and one white man as Judas.

 

Artist Name(s): Jamaican-American artist Renée Cox

 

Creation Date(s): 1999

 

Display Date(s): 2001 

 

Display Location(s): New York, Brooklyn Museum of Art

 

• How Was It Funded?: Displaying the work in New York was paid for and financed using public taxpayer dollars.

 

Reaction: 

 

• Catholics took offence and requested that the artwork not be promoted or displayed. 

 

• Liberals said the Catholics need to relax and understand that this artwork is designed to foster tolerance and learn from the artistic value of the work. 

 

• Liberals constantly talked about freedom of speech and how it cannot be restricted. 

 

• A culture war ensued. 

 

Conservatives said that taxpayers should not be asked to pay for artwork that insults or supports a particular religion. However, freedom of speech shall not be restricted or prevented in any way.  Artwork of this nature will continue to be created and will be permitted to exist and be publically displayed. 

 

Liberals demanded taxpayer money continue to be used to fund anti-Christian artwork because the artwork promotes tolerance and forces close minded religious people to be respectful of different and offensive views. 

 

• The government did not use taxpayer money to fund the creation of the work, but they did use taxpayer dollars to display the work in New York. 

 

• Mayor Rudi Giuliani worked with the City to make some changes to policy that taxpayer dollars not be used to finance the display of artwork that is considered to be offensive. However if the dollars used to fund the display are solely provided by private donors, then the work shall be funded for display with those private non-taxpayer contributions. 

 

• National consensus was that that freedom of speech shall not be restricted or prevented in any way.  Artwork of this nature will continue to be created and will be permitted to exist and be publically displayed. 

 

• No Roman Catholic person attempted to shoot or kill the artists or any of the participants. 

 

 

Anti-Islamic Artwork Name(s):  Art Depicting the Prophet Muhammad

 

• What is it?: Art Contest consisting of various artwork depicting the Prophet Muhammad. 

 

Artist Name(s): Numerous amateur and professional artists. 

 

Creation Date(s): Varying depending on Artist.

 

Display Date(s): 2015

 

Display Location(s): Curtis Culwell Center, Garland Texas

 

• How Was It Funded?The Venue, Artwork,  Display, Security Service, Marketing, and all related Costs, Expenses, and Fees were financed solely with private money. The police often invoice organizations for costs of protection when they are involved, and in this case, even the Police bill was paid in full with private money. No taxpayer funding was used for anything. 

 

Reaction: 

 

• Muslims took offence and requested that the artwork not be promoted or displayed. 

 

• Liberals said the Muslims are right, and this artwork is disrespectful and the government should not allow such offensive and disrespectful artwork to be displayed. 

 

• Liberals constantly talked about how displaying this artwork is hate speech and must be restricted. 

 

• The government did not use taxpayer money for any of this. 

 

• A culture war ensued. 

 

Liberals are fighting to have a new concept called “hate speech” outrank “free speech” and they argue that the government should be the force that decides what speech is hate speech and what speech is not hate speech and anything not hate speech is protected by the Constitution. 

 

Conservatives are fighting to make sure free speech remains protected regardless of how offensive because freedom of speech is enshrined in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. 

 

• Two Muslim men who claim to be associated with ISIS showed up and opened fire on the participants. Security forces shot and killed the two Islamic gunman while those gunman were shooting at the people.

 

Why are liberals inconsistent with free speech and religion?

Simple, they hate Christians and the rules their parents imposed on their behavior which were based on Christianity.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s