I'm going to need some stuff explaining to me, not being an American, but here goes.
* You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.
If it was a choice, I'd stick to opposing capital punishment. I can roughly get my head around some people's reasons for opposing abortion, even if I think they're wrong, but I can't comprehend support for capital punishment. Especially from people who claim life is God's gift.
* You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
The words you're missing are "have the potential to". What happens in each individual case depends on the people, but businesses should have an eye kept on them, and governments encouraged to help the people.
* You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.
Why is this an "either/or" issue? Personally I don't think either is a good idea. Nuclear weapons shouldn't be "in the hands" of anybody, really. After learning about their effects I spent the entirety of my teenage years having nightmares about World War III.
And guns are OK in the hands of police, safari park wardens, and the President/Prime Minister's bodyguards. If they're freely available to everyone, people are going to buy them who don't know how to use them, and are going to hurt themselves or loved ones while chasing burglars.
* You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.
I don't know what "Federal funding" is exactly, but I'm taking it to mean some sort of government grant. In which case, what the--? This makes no sense.
* You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical documented changes in the Earth’s climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUVs.
Isn't that most of the scientific community, not just liberals? And if sure evidence ever comes out to refute it, I'll change my mind accordingly.
* You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being homosexual is natural.
I can imagine a community with different gender roles to ours-- they exist and have existed across the world. I can't imagine a community of human beings where romantic attraction is entirely a matter of personal choice. Humans can't choose (not 100%) to whom they're attracted.
* You have to believe that AIDS virus is spread by a lack of Federal funding.
Well, WITHOUT knowing how this "Federal funding" business works, I can deduce that some of the government's money in any country will probably go to schools, doctors and hospitals. Schools teach children about good health, doctors give advice about illnesses their patients have contracted, and hospitals take care of the sick. In that sense, you could say that ANY virus would be promoted if funding for those institutions was taken away. So... yes.
* You have to believe that the same teacher who can’t teach 4 th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
Which teacher is this, and where? On the one hand, a teacher who is no good at improving reading skills (I assume this is what the OP actually means; correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't fourth-graders about nine years old? If they're still unable to read, perhaps they should be having remedial classes while the other kids are having sex ed) isn't exactly the ideal. On the other hand, since sex ed can be done with videos, visual aids, and-- most importantly-- discussion, I don't see what bearing literacy or the lack thereof has on it. Part of sex ed is learning that no-one else should control your physical freedom by force or peer pressure, and that you're a normal human being with nothing to be ashamed of. If I ever have a daughter, I think I'll consider those things more important than perfect literacy.
* You have to believe that hunters don’t care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.
No to the first bit, actually, because I don't generalise. Yes to the second. The fact that they're "activists" suggests that they do care; it's pretty much a job requirement. If they didn't care, they'd be "apathetic people who'd never been outside San Francisco".
* You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
...This is messed up. Everyone has a right to self-esteem. You shouldn't have to "earn" it. That kind of logic will leave people trapped in feelings of worthlessness. "I'm no good, so I can't ever do anything that'll boost my self-esteem and stop me being no good." I suspect that what you're talking about is overconfidence, which is a different thing altogether. Overconfidence is "Look at me; my opinions override everyone else's, and I'm a superstar." Self-esteem is "I'm here; my opinions are worth listening to just as much as anyone else's, and I have a right to be happy."
* You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make “The Passion Of The Christ” for financial gain only.
Don't know the facts, so I'll skip this one.
* You have to believe the National Rifle Association (NRA) is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
At a guess, I would probably think the NRA is bad because it promotes the use of guns. I don't see where the constitution has to come into it, since I'm a Brit and don't know the thing.
* You have to believe that taxes are low, but ATM fees are too high.
Yes. ATM fees go to the bank. It isn't my bank. It isn't a small fledgling bank that needs my help to get on its feet. It isn't somehow intrinsically better than other banks. It's going to use that money in ways that won't affect me, or customers of other banks, and I have no way to complain about that. Taxes go to the government. Let's assume for the sake of the argument that it's my government. I can reasonably believe it's going to use that money in ways that will benefit me, other people in my country, or other countries that need our help to get on their feet. If the government doesn't fulfil that responsibility, I can vote against them for that reason. See the difference?
* You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem (feminists) are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee, Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell.
Not being American, I don't know the relative importance of these people. However, I'm not sure why feminism would be ranked as less important than the invention of the telephone. Both changed society considerably and still have ramifications today. As such, I think both should be included in history books and lessons.
* You have to believe that standardized tests are racists, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.
Don't know the facts, stepping back until I do. (This is one thing that differentiates me from the OP, apparently.)
* You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice person.
Anyone with the persistence, drive and leadership qualities to run for President, whatever his or her policies, is not an average person, so no to the first point. I don't see what the second has to do with the price of fish. I personally don't like Hillary as a person, but I imagine that as President, her policies would be better than those of, say, John McCain. Isn't THAT the definition of "Democrat", not this peculiar non sequitur?
* You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn’t worked anywhere it’s been tried because the right people haven’t been in charge.
* You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and sex offender belonged in the White House.
Oh dear, is this really about Bill Clinton? For goodness' sake. I'm sure there have been presidents in the White House who have done far worse things than having an affair with one of the staff-- making bad war decisions, cutting back healthcare, or compromising human rights. What someone does or doesn't do with another consenting adult doesn't affect the average citizen in any way that goes beyond watching the scandal on TV. The decisions that person makes, on the other hand, affect us all. Having grown up in the 21st century, I realise I have no idea of what Bill Clinton stood for. All I've ever been told is that he had an affair with one of his staff. Is that not something for the media at large to be ashamed of?
As for the conservatives, I can only assume that they told the truth in a way that compromised someone else's freedom, or that the assertion that they "told the truth" is a deliberate distraction from the actual reason they're in jail.
You have to believe that homosexual parades display drag, transvestites and beastiality should be Constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
Actually, I don't believe either. If a homosexual parade displayed bestiality in public I'd be as outraged as anyone, and call for them to be charged with decency laws. Drag and transvestites I have no problem with as long as they don't try to force others to join them. And manger scenes at Christmas are fine. Really. As are displays of anyone's religion during their festivals. I'm not going to complain about those.
* You have to believe that illegal Democrat Party funding by the communist Chinese Government is somehow in the best interests of the United States.
Don't know the facts; stepping back, but I'd just like to ask the OP if he is 100% sure that his political party of choice gets and/or got no underhand support from anyone, ever.
* You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right-wing conspiracy.
I don't believe there's a vast right-wing conspiracy. I believe that a fairly large proportion of society, including the media, has a slight right-wing bias, and that that will change as the Internet opens people to new points of view.
So, do I pass the test? Am I a liberal?