Bush and Ralph Reed court Southern Baptist "I Vote Values" campaign

[solarbird]

The Southern Baptist Convention seems to be trying to rally the troops towards more than just the amendment. (Which should surprise no one.) Stolen from Andrew Sullivan's website:

---

PARTY OF GOD, CTD: The fusion of the Republican party with evangelical Christian churches is now well-entrenched, as this latest NYT story reveals. Ralph Reed, of course, was unrepentant in his courting of the Southern Baptists for the Republican party last month. And the president addressed the SBC conference by satellite, while Richard Land launched the voter registration drive called "I Vote Values." "I, for one, believe people of faith have the same rights to participate in the political process as any other citizens," Reed said. "Christians should not be treated as second-class citizens." Of course they shouldn't. Still, it's worth checking out the IVoteValues.com website to see exactly which values the president is endorsing. In the section on homosexuality, the Southern Baptists remind us of what the founding fathers thought of gays:

During the American Revolution, when the Continental Army Lieutenant Enslin was found "attempting to commit sodomy," Commander George Washington issued an order "with abhorrence and detestation." Enslin was to be "drummed out of the camp ... never to return." Thomas Jefferson authorized legislation to penalize sodomy with castration. At the time the Constitution was ratified, the states of New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Connecticut, Virginia, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New Jersey each implemented the death penalty for those who committed sodomy."

Why is the SBC reporting this? There are other sections on the dreaded homos, entitled: "Targeting You ... And Your Children." And: 'Homosexuality Costs You Plenty!" This is what Bush Republicanism is now about - beneath the surface. Worth considering in this campaign. (Hat tip: Roger Abramson).

Comments

[solarbird]

Kerry and the Democrats have shown they intend to lose it as quickly as possible if Kerry gets elected.
Kerry has made a long and big point about how we need to stay the course in Iraq. He's said that we shouldn't have gotten into it - quite a lot - but also has been, to his credit, consistant on the point that dropping and running is not the right answer. Many of his supporters on the left go LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU on that one when reminded that Kerry is, functionally, pro-Iraq-war.

Of course, the difference between me and most of the modern Conservative movement is that I do not think that the Other Party is a collection of traitors who want to destroy the country and are working to do so the best they can. So my view of the current situation on this kind of issue is:

1) I've got someone trying to punch me me in the face right now, and who has friends with him who very specifically want to kill me. I know this because some of them say it outright, and others, while not quite saying that, like to spend a lot of time talking wistfully and fondly about the days when they could kill me, and pointing out law examples. This would be Bush and his social/religious conservative allies.

2) On the next block over, there's a gang of people who also want to kill me. Very much want to kill me. They want to kill other people, too - everybody in the building I live in, in fact. They're quite evil.

They're both bad. But I'm more concerned with Nr. 1 right now, because he's the one with the fist in my face right now, and he wants to do a lot more. And so do his friends. Nr. 1 is the more immediate threat, and has the same long-term goal for me personally. So there you go.

[wrog]

I may be wrong in terms of the practical consequences, but I like to think there's a difference between

• being pro-Iraq-war in the sense of believing in the PNAC fantasies of an American empire in the Middle East to the point where one needs to disregard any intelligence to the contrary, and believing in GWBush's doctrine of pre-emptive/our-allies-can-go-fuck-themselves war, and
• being pro-Iraq-war in the sense of "We broke it; we bought it."

if for no other reason than those of the latter view, being less wedded to a particular ideology, are likely to be more flexible and realistic in how they respond to shit continuing to get blown up,
and, perhaps equally importantly, somewhat less likely to commit us to other such messes in the future.

[wrog]

(2) On the next block over, there's a gang of people who also want to kill me. Very much want to kill me. They want to kill other people, too - everybody in the building I live in, in fact. They're quite evil.

is it really that they want to kill you or is it just that they're afraid that if they don't make sufficiently aggressive noises in your direction that their own house is going to get blown up.

Which I'll agree isn't the most morally defensible position....

... but it's still a rather important distinction, especially if de-clawing the (1) crowd makes the (2) crowd less threaten(ed/ing).

[banner.livejournal.com]

Excuse me, but when has Bush or any of his friends killed American's?

While the guys on the 'Next Block' just killed 3000 of us. (And are trying to get all sorts of interesting chemicals and nuclear materials to kill more).

Sorry, I'm more worried about number 2 right now. Number 1 still has to get past a very liberal Supreme Court to do anything, and I doubt they ever will.

[solarbird]

Excuse me, but when has Bush or any of his friends killed Americans?
You'll note I said "punched in the face." They're only talking about having the state kill me. And to be fair, most are only talking about the state punishing me.

I have been handed a copy of "The Death Penalty for Homosexuality." I've read - hell, at one point, I collected the blood libel they put out. You don't shout "these people want to KILL YOUR CHILDREN" about a group you intend to exist peacefully with! I have listened to fundamentalist religious leaders argue for the death penalty - or often, to be fair, just for recriminalisation. Half the point of this so-called Marriage Amendment is to provide a legal basis for government-mandated discrimination against GBLT people - not just on marriage and domestic partnerships, but on other levels as well, like in employment (I helped fight two ballot initiatives that would have severely restricted the fields in which I could work in the 90s), child custody, and more.

So yeah. I didn't say killed. I said punched in the face. And I stand by that allegory. I think it's more than warranted.

[avram]

Bush presided over the execution of 152 Americans while governor of Texas, and he's the first US president in about 40 years to preside over federal executions. Yeah, I know, this isn't what you meant, but you did ask.

And if I lived in Baghdad I'd probably be just as pissed at Bush as I really am at bin Laden. As it is, Bush has made it more likely, not less, that those "guys on the next block" will get their hands on nukes or radioactive material.