Sex in the Bible City: Conservative Logic Misfire

I encountered a conservative the other day who was posting a printed rant about how an Obama appointee once approved "sexually explicit" books for school libraries. A companion then pointed out that the Bible also has some rather salacious passages, including rape and incest.

This caught the Con off guard. He was a deer caught in the headlights of the SUV of Logic heading straight his way. After fumbling around for a while, he finally came up with a half answer: "It's the context and intent that makes the difference. The Bible is to teach moral and spiritual lessons, and those sexual stories are part of those lessons."

I then replied, "But isn't it possible that library books you are ranting about also have moral lessons?".

He then stated, "I don't know, I didn't read them".

"Then how do you know they put sex in a poor context or have bad intent?" I asked.

He then mumbled something like, "If they were written by liberals, then they are probably of ill intent."

Thus, the truth comes out: conservatives don't want to necessarily ban sex from library books, but want to ban books written by liberals. This is done in the guise of "protecting the children from sex". It's liberals they want to protect the children from, not sex. Con moral platitudes are often a disguise for something else.