Liberals...Iran targets couples in continued moral crackdown...would you all be in jail?

Question

Liberals are for abortion which is "usually" brought about by casual sex with an unwanted result...you are also for immorality (don't force your morals down my throat). How long would you last in Iran - a country you liberals visit and consort with?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071021141644.chgvhggx&show_article=1
Holding hands has become acceptable in the Islamic republic, so long as the partners are married. Theoretically, unmarried boys and girls should not hang out in public, although this is often flouted.

Roozbehani also said the police would continue to focus on clothing such as the long coats or mantos that women wear to cover their bodily contours in line with Islamic dress rules.

"Using split mantos with open collars and inappropriate make-up are considered examples of that would be confronted," he said.

The police chief said that ski resorts in Iran -- which are often the scene of liberal behaviour and loose dress reviled by conservatives -- would also be targeted.

Some moderates have questioned the need for the moral crackdown but conservatives have applauded police for a drive they say is popular with the public and necessary to improve security in society.

Answer 1

Great question. You know the Libs really puzzle me. Especially the Hollywood loons. They're all for "freedom" and humanity, or so they claim. They hate Bush, compare him to Hitler, but yet, they consort with people like Chavez and Castro.... They think that these mad men are great leaders. I'll never understand them. I'll never understand their hypocrisy on a wide spectrum of issues. They tout their stance for freedom of speech, yet they're dying to silence Rush Limbaugh and others like him.

Answer 2

No. I am liberal and opposed to abortion (but think that the government has no Constitutional authority to violate States Rights by legislating on it).

I hold hands in public with my wife of 10 years. She is my first wife. I've never considered an affair and would never remarry.

It seems the people who are trying to force their morals down peoples throats are people who want the government to legislate on things like homosexuality, abortion and casual sex because they view them as immoral.

I would never move to Iran, and will fight heartily against allowing America to legislate based on the PERCEIVED moral superiority of on group over another.

I am a moral person. Most liberals I know are moral people - people who care more about their fellow man and "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you" than many conservatives I know. Hatred and discrimination are not a part of my belief system, nor should they be a part of any true Christian's. Jesus consorted with sinners and outcasts. Does that make him immoral in your eyes, also?

Answer 3

Don't take the Liberals so seriously.
They are contrarians.
They were asked not to go to Syria or to pander to Ahminadinnahjacket, but, they went anyway.
They have managed, along with the MSM, to portray Saddam Hussein as a more sympathetic figure than their own president.
They will try to figure out what it is that the administration wants and do the opposite regardless of whether it is morally consistent or not.
They just want to be in control. Why they do or what they would do with that power is irrelevant. They don't know themselves but, they are convinced that any indiscretion or irrational conduct is worth it.

Answer 4

I hate to declare it yet I unquestionably have an evidence. There are greater of them. in case you have 5 human beings in a team and a million is going to penal complex that’s one 5th in case you have 5000 human beings and one thousand bypass to penal complex that’s nevertheless one 5th. If this statistic in comparison the form of persons in penal complex to the form of persons in each and every team you’d have a miles better argument. in many cases I’d believe arguments against religious human beings. I’m no longer religious and don’t defend it. you ought to use this to argue that athiests are not to any extent further or much less ethical than chistians in spite of the incontrovertible fact that.

Answer 5

Thankfully, In the US the 1st amendment allows a wall of separation between an adopted state religion.

ie the establishment clause

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It does not preclude freedom of worship(Free exercise thereof) , what is does preclude is the adoption of any particular religion tacetly endorsed by the congress.

Theocracies such as Iran (or Pat Robertson's version of America) would not be conducive to free exercise.

I would be in jail for my views in a theocracy, I am a deist and reverent agnostic.. (as was Franklin and Jefferson).

I've felt 30 years that the likes of neocons such as Robertson, and Falwell adopting the mantle of conservativism and the liberation theologians of the 60s adopting communist ideals would be a detriment to the Republic. We now see liberation theologians adopting the DNC and the Green rhetoric in an effort to bring their "flock" to bear on the political landscape.

For me the mix of politics and religion is a very dangerous place to sit.

My views on things of moral principles differ dramatically from either of the aforementioned cretans. (falwell, robertson on the right or the UCC, UMC on the left)

Government should be simply about fiscal restraint and issues. When government or churches mixes it up in social causes the Republic WILL fail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

[edit] Republics highlighting state religion impact
Some countries or states prefer or preferred to organise themselves as a republic, precisely because it allows them to inscribe a more or less obligatory state religion in their constitution: Islamic republics generally take this approach, but the same is also true (in varying degrees) for example in the Jewish state of Israel, in the Protestant republic that originated in the Netherlands during the Renaissance[17], and in the Catholic Irish Republic, among others. In this case the advantage that is sought is that no broad-thinking monarch could push his citizens towards a less strict application of religious prescriptions (like for instance the Millet system had done in the Ottoman Empire[18]) or change to another religion altogether (like the swapping of religions under the Henry VIII/Edward VI/Mary I/Elizabeth I succession of monarchs in England). Such approach of an ideal republic based on a consolidated religious foundation played an important role for example in the overthrow of the regime of the Shah in Iran, to be replaced by a republic with influential ayatollahs (which is the term for religious leaders in that country), the most influential of which is called "supreme leader".


"A democracy is always temporary"

About the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature ; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years.
During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage "

Answer 6

When I read your question that is not a question, what comes to mind is that YOU wish you lived in Iran and could 'crack down' on things according to your own, decidedly un-American morality.

There is no Liberal on Iran's side. Just because one is not in favor of invading or bombing them is not support or consort. But on the other hand, there are plenty of conservatives that would do exactly what Iran is doing with their morality police if they could.

Answer 7

I'm still laughing at the sentence "Liberals are for abortion which is "usually" brought about by casual sex with an unwanted result...you are also for immorality "

Answer 8

Gee how easy it must be for you to just spew out this nonsense rather than actually have to go through the painful process of thinking out complex problems and sifting through facts, data, and actual science.

If you want to see what life is like in Iran go elect a right-wing Christian president in 2008.

As for your personal freedom, you should kiss a liberal's *** every time you meet one if you ask me. He is not the enemy of your freedom by any stretch.

Who brain-washed you to post this drivel?

At least present a point of view that makes some sense next time.

Answer 9

I have no desire to visit Iran, though were I forced there at gunpoint, I predict I would be just fine.
I'd be mistaken for any chaste, God fearing housewife.

Liberalism doesn not necessarily an immoral hedonist make.

Answer 10

I know plenty of Conservatives that also enjoy casual sex. It's called freedom.

Thank God we live in a free country with Seperation of Church and State.

As for Iran, it is terrible they don't let their people enjoy basic freedoms we take for granted.