Liberal hypocrisy on John Banks' religious beliefs

Liberals often like to tout themselves as compassionate and preach tolerance of diversity. They always go on about how we shouldn't be judgemental about other people or legislate morality. Whenever a controversial issue (such as same sex marriage, terrorism, immigration or abortion etc.) is being discussed, instead of allowing the facts to be presented openly and fairly, we're expected to tiptoe around the issue for fear of being accused of homophobic,islamophobic, racist or sexist or whatever ism or somethingphobia the liberal establishment decides to make up. MMP, in contrast to First Past the Post, is claimed to be a better electoral system because it supposedly makes Parliament more representative of the diversity of New Zealand. Then along comes John Banks who comes out of the closet as an openly conservative Christian who believes in the Biblical account of creation and suddenly they become the intolerant bigots they accuse their political opponents of being. On Monday the ACT Party leader told the Christian radio station, New Zealand's Rhema, "That's what I believe, but I'm not going to impose my beliefs on other people, especially in this post-Christian society that we live in, especially in these lamentable times.'' It seems there's an unwriten footnote in The Official Socialist Handbook that you have to be compassionate and tolerant towards everyone except of course white conservative Christians. Yesterday morning I was listening to Newstalk ZB's Mike Hosking  interview Dr Peter Lineham, the religion and politics specialist from Massey University, about this non-issue and the antichristian media bias was so blatently obvious.  They may not have actually said anything biased but the tone that was used sounded as though they though they were discussing whether John Banks had suddenly lost his mind. Hosking asked Lineham if this has any effect on him as an MP and cabinet minister, to which Lineham replied that it might in the case of issues such as gay marriage (something that is unbiblical). John Banks is the Associate Minister of Education and supports starting up charter schools, some of which would be Christian schools that teach Creationism, so secular liberals claim that this is relevant because he might "impose his beliefs on other people." But when Chris Carter, who is openly gay, was the Minister of Education during the last Labour Government these same secular liberals who don't want christians to "shove their beliefs down people's throats" never raised questions about whether his sexuality had any relevance to his ministerial duties. More recently, lesbian Labour MP Louisa Wall has had her gay marriage bill drawn out of the ballot but, of course, anyone who tries to make her lesbianism a relevant factor in the gay marriage debate is immediately labelled a homophobe. So being gay is completely irrelevant if you support gay marriage but if you're a Bible-believing Christian (like John Banks) you can't be against it without being biased? Even if John Banks does vote against redefining a sacred institution because of his religious beliefs what makes his views any less deserving of tolerance than anyone elses's? There seems to be a politically correct double standard where liberals are tolerant towards and terrified of offending all kinds of sensitive specially-favoured minorities but conservative Christians are fair game for ridicule and mockery. Their complaints towards Christains for wanting to "legislate morality" shows their hypocrisy even further especially when they're quite happy to force New Zealanders to tithe more to the Church of Climate Change through the Emissions Tax Scam despite the fact that New Zealand's carbon emissions are so miniscule (0.11%) that EVEN IF man-made climate change is happening it wouldn't decrease carbon emissions at all but instead decrease our economic growth. I don't hear John Banks demanding taxpayers pay for his religious beliefs. Another example of beliefs that liberals don't have a problem with imposing is Maori mythology.  For example, significant transport projects (like the Auckland rail loop) are often stalled because it might offend the Taniwha and of course you can't offend the Taniwha because that would be culturally insensitive.

Many liberals claim they have no problems with Christians but that's only as long as you're one of those fake politically correct types who caves into secular liberalism. As soon as you declare yourself as a proper Bible-believing Christian who's not afraid to stand up against their secular liberal agenda (like Colin Craig) you make yourselves eligible for persecution. I would like to think that most people, apart from militant atheists, have no problem with politicians believing in God. But, as Leighton Smith (who came after Mike Hosking) rightly pointed out, if it's possible to believe in God then why isn't it possible to believe that He created the world in 6 days and Adam and Eve last? Atheists often go on about how Christians are intolerant judgemental bigots who believe in some "Sky Fairy" as opposed to themselves whom they portray as "rational free-thinkers." But try having an open and informed debate about evolution or man-made climate change and see how rational and free-thinking they really are. John Banks dared to admit that he doesn't subscribe to the belief that there was nothing and then nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything. Yeah, he must be a real crazy nutcase!
DISCLAIMER: I have NEVER been a member of the ACT Party nor have I ever voted for ACT or have any association whatsover with the ACT Party or John Banks or anyone associated with John Banks - just in case you think I'm being biased.