Maybe you should read some of the vitriol that mare has spewed towards Christians before you make such a statement. Maybe you shoud go visit a place like democrat underground to see exactly how much hate modern liberalism is capable of before you make such a statement.
Suggesting that a member of the forum would condone and support the systematic annihiliation of a subsection of the populace sounds a little like a personal attack to me, but I've lost count of the number that have passed between you and Mare, so what the hell, right?
I've known plenty of liberals who haven't been fond of Christianity. The only ones who would ever advocate anti-Christian genocide are so far off the deep end that they're not very liberal anymore - after all, an ideology that promotes freedom of religion wouldn't do well to start slaughtering people based on their religion, would it?
All movements have fundamentalists who take things to an extreme. I'm sure you're familiar with the Westboro Baptist Church; obviously, Christianity isn't immune.
Thoreau? He was a classical liberal. Modern conservativisim is one in the same with classical liberalism. The same is true for the underground railroad. All of your examples are of classical liberals.
So? The ideals of modern liberals and classical liberals are much the same; the means may differ, but that's only because there are more of us now. Does modern conservativism promote conscientous objection, like Thoreau did? Does modern conservativism promote racial equality, like the Underground Railroad did? Hmm...wasn't it you that said, "Equality only exists at the lowest common denominator," over and over again?
Define "drastic" public action. Is teaching a thing as one possible action "drastic"?
Making laws based entirely on religious dogma. Of course, my personal support for such things would be subjective; I wouldn't reject such a law directly due to the source, but I would question it and would arrive at my own conclusion.
You're trying to bait me into a conversation on Creationism vs. Darwinisim in schools. Okay, fine: I'd advocate that both sides of things get taught, but not necessarily in the same place. Darwin belongs in science class because he was a scientist; Creationism belongs in theology or philosophy, or perhaps world history if a school does not offer one of the former choices (which they ought to, but nobody is perfect).
Many times, arguments against the teaching of Creationism stem from it being taught in biology classes, where it does not belong. I have no problem with kids learning about Creationism (as a theory, as we learn about evolution), but I do have a problem with it being stuck into a biology class between molecular studies and taxonomy.
Three or four shoud suffice.
In 2003, Lawrence vs. Texas invalidated all laws in America pertaining to private, consensual sexual practices. The decision struck down laws specifically outlawing same-sex acts in the following states: Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/
Sexual freedom is a very liberal idea, is it not? Yet laws restricting consensual sexual activities between adults were on the books in every state in the Union as late as 1960.
So there's fifty for you...need I go on?
So now evidence is strongly suggesting that it is a genetic disorder. Do you believe that special rights should be given and established institutions redefined because of a genetic defect that affects 2 to 3% of the population?
First, your idea of "granting special rights" is a fallacy that, to my knowledge, is only sold by you. Any "classical liberal" would go a little green at the implications such a statement - after all, to say that you are opposed to the government "granting special rights" seems to suggest that the government "grants" all rights, instead of those rights being naturally vested in individuals and recognized by the government.
Shooting past that, I'm assuming that the "established institutions redefined" comment pertains to marriage. I apologize if allowing Steve and Mike to get married redefines your marriage in some way.
And your point is? These are individuals exercising their right to free speech. That is a far cry from imposing the force of government on people to have what they want. People like falwell don't scare me because they have nothing but talk. They will tell people what they should and shouldn't, but they aren't asking for laws (like modern liberals) that demand. There is a clear difference. Can you give an example of someone like falwell demanding law that would literally force people to accept his view of the way things should be?
Hmm...
In 1979, Falwell was a founder of the Moral Majority, a political action umbrella group that fought to enact Bible-based values as American law. The group, like Falwell, was opposed to women's rights, legalized abortion, homosexuals, and pornography (which Falwell defined very broadly), and in favor of thinly-veiled censorship of artwork or organizations that expressed different opinions.
http://www.nndb.com/people/558/000022492/
Perhaps it would be in your best interest to follow the links I post.
Strange. You were perfectly content to compare classical liberals who fought slavery and such with modern liberals.
How is that strange? Many of the "classical liberals" who fought slavery weren't Democrats. In fact, at the time, the Democratic Party represented most of the pro-slavery side of the debate - it was those who newfangled Republicans who opposed it. A new party based on new ideas and a revolutionary outlook on racial relations - not exactly "conservative."
Historically speaking, I'd say the last socially-progressive Republican was Teddy Roosevelt and the first socially-progressive Democrat (of the modern age anyway, discussing the history of the Democratic Party in America is difficult) was FDR, in many ways the first "modern liberal."