Only people can be condemned for their actions regardless of their parents' or their own religion.

Liberalism is about equality for all and when any group is being denied respect because they are a minority, Liberalism will champion them. Naturally, Liberalism whill condemn any group which espouses persecution of a minority because of their race, creed, sexual identity, and so forth.

What's in a name?

Well within living memory there was no negative attribution to the word nigger. In 1945 a movie was produced in England called Ten Little Niggers based on the Agatha Christie novel of the same name. It had no racist connotation there.

It was the Americans who attached racism to the word because whites used what was essentially neutral with a hateful overtone.

It is not a word which matters but the intention behind it.

It is the belief of some whites that they must get used to all climates.

I never even heard of anyone who doubted the existence of the Bible.

No; homeopathy is about as scientific as Christian Science.

Mister Spock would say that it is illogical to speak of "unstable logic". Sorry.

I am sure you are mistaken to characterize the Liberal position is to provide guns only to "evil cops". I cannot speak for all Liberals but I believe it would be more accurate to say that they believe cops who are evil, racist bigots, should be weeded out of police forces.

Bear in mind that there are two types of science; Naturwissenschaften (Natural Science) and Geisteswissenschaften (Human Science). It requires some hubris to say that one is better than the other as a foundation for a successful life although I am prone to propose that an understanding of the humanities provides a person with a broad mind.

You also mention 'Math' and I am pleased to remind you that statistics forms an essential element in the study of psychology which is not a hard science but a human one.

Both degrees are good and my experience, I confess, is limited to Geisteswissenschaften.

Since this debate has confused 'logic' with being consistent, I do not mind seeming a little off-topic when I say that beating children is barbaric.

I take it you have a STEM degree and are successful in your endeavors. You will not be surprised to know that I do not even know what a STEM degree is. Sounds like something in horticulture which is good. All education is good.

I believe you are mistaken to criticize a college education in the liberal arts. Education can be a foundation for a successful life.

You are correct; the shorthand of Liberal/Conservative can be confusing and the terms mean different things to different people. I find it best to clarify the debate using my own mind and then stick with that unless my mind is changed by the argument. It is similar to Left/Right. We all probably have a good idea which is which once we see it.

As for the Opening Post, I cannot see it as I write and I forget the examples. There was something about Liberals in favor of gun reform whereby civilians could not legally own firearms and allow only the police to be armed (and the military of course) but Liberals are also supposed to be critical of the police while Conservatives always support the police. The question is not one of 'logic' but of consistency. How consistent is it to criticize armed police and to propose that only the police be armed? The response to this is that a well-trained police, free of racist bigotry could be armed but wherever the police do wrong they should be criticized and prosecuted.