Liberals love to be disgusted by the Canaanite conquests, where God tells the Israelites to wipe out the entire population, including the women and children, as a judgment upon the culture's sins, and to create a safe place for Israel's children who would then be slaughtered by Canaanite children once they grew up and carried out their familial vendetta. Of course, I've pointed out many times before that this is likely hyperbolic language, but even so, the Bible presents God as severe enough in His judgment against this culture as to take it as something consistent with who He is as a Holy God.
But in reality, one must wonder if this is all a big dust up because liberals really just want to undermine the ethical purity of the Bible's presentation of God. In other words, I have to wonder if liberals are really all that outraged by the biblical presentation because it is an act against children or because it is a biblical act that they can use for their agenda. Is it the slaughtering of children (something that happens every time a bomb is dropped on most areas in war), or is it simply that such gives fodder to the liberal who wants to see the Bible undermined so that he can be the god who decides right and wrong, true and falsehood for himself? So he or she can have the freedom to take the lives of children him or herself without being condemned by the Bible for it?
The reason why I question this, of course, is in light of the lack of outrage among liberals when it comes to the horrendous house of horrors that is the abortion clinic run by Gosnell found only here and there on conservative blogs and media outlets on the internet lately. Instead of posting about the massacre of children who were born and then executed by stabbing scissors into their necks and severing their spinal chords while they screamed in pain, liberals are just going to let this one go, since abortion rights are oh so much more precious than these children. If the children were worth crying out for, one would think that liberals would have it everywhere (like they did with the Sandyhook children--but then again, that seemed to be a case of liberals using murdered children to support one of their agendas). Here, these murdered children could be used against their agenda. Hence, let's just let this atrocity slide silently by, since it doesn't serve our purpose to bring it to light and condemn it.
Yet, every gun advocate I've read emphasized the Sandyhook massacre, because they were outraged by it. They didn't like it being used toward a political agenda, but they didn't want to cover it up. They were outraged and condemned it, precisely, because they thought the children were worth more than their political agendas.
I guess, to liberals, children really are just conveniences or inconveniences depending on whether one can use them to bolster gun control, gay rights, etc., or not. If only they were truly outraged, maybe I would take them more seriously, or at least see their attack upon the Bible as a sincere and consistent concern for the well-being of children and human life, but it just ain't so.