Putting the Mental Back in Fundamentalist

Even among the wingnuts, there are those nuttier than the rest.

The "Values Voter" organization has come up with a "contract" that they wish to impose upon the US Congress.

On the whole, it's pretty much standard claptrap from the religious reich wing set, but I must admit to finding a certain dark humour in the officious writing used, and the pervasive complaint of being "oppressed" and "persecuted" for being Christian.

Lessee - one is Christian, which I believe is the majority religion in the United States, not only the most practiced, but actually practiced by the vast majority of the population. How in the world can you possibly believe that you are being oppressed, marginalized or persecuted?

10. Judges who legislate from the bench subvert our republican form of government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and threaten all these legislative aims.

THEREFORE, WE URGENTLY CALL FOR Judicial Restraint, and an end to Judicial Activism.

* We call for the passage of the Judicial Conduct Act to hold federal judges accountable to the Constitution.

This would almost be funny, if these people weren't serious. Every time I hear this BS about judges "legislating from the bench", I laugh. 99% of the time, it's got absolutely nothing to do with any such thing (judges don't make the law, they interpret it - not once have I seen a judge write legislation from the bench) These twits need to be honest - they don't like the ruling, and want an excuse to whine about it. No more, no less.

Lurking in the rest of the document is your basic laundry list of whining - ranging from demands for legislation to "protect" their right to slam their religious beliefs down everybody else's throats; calls to prohibit abortion outright; and the usual collection of demands to legislate against "immorality".

Most notable is this line:

TO SECURE our God-granted liberties, we call for the passage of –

* Legislation to reverse the loss of religious liberty for churches concerning their involvement in moral and social issues;
* Legislation to ensure that speech and lawful religious expression are never punished as a “hate crime”;
* An amendment to the Higher Education Act to guarantee First Amendment rights of worship, speech, and association to students and employees as a condition of federal grants and student assistance;
* Legislation to complete the incarceration process through prisoner re-entry training and child mentoring; and
* Legislation or policies that call for continued rejection of the anti-family and deceptively-named “U.N. Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).”

Clearly, these people have never read, or understood that convention, the first two articles of which, I have included here:

Article I

For the purposes of the present Convention, the term "discrimination against women" shall mean any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.

Article 2

States Parties condemn discrimination against women in all its forms, agree to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating discrimination against women and, to this end, undertake:

(a) To embody the principle of the equality of men and women in their national constitutions or other appropriate legislation if not yet incorporated therein and to ensure, through law and other appropriate means, the practical realization of this principle;

(b) To adopt appropriate legislative and other measures, including sanctions where appropriate, prohibiting all discrimination against women;

(c) To establish legal protection of the rights of women on an equal basis with men and to ensure through competent national tribunals and other public institutions the effective protection of women against any act of discrimination;

(d) To refrain from engaging in any act or practice of discrimination against women and to ensure that public authorities and institutions shall act in conformity with this obligation;

(e) To take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women by any person, organization or enterprise;

(f) To take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to modify or abolish existing laws, regulations, customs and practices which constitute discrimination against women;

(g) To repeal all national penal provisions which constitute discrimination against women.

How is it a bad thing to remove gender-based discrimination? How in the world is that "anti-family"?

Of course, these are the same bright wits that still think that it is their moral obligation to convert everyone else to their way of thinking. The sheer audacity of using the term "values voter" is apalling. Do they believe that the rest of the voters have no values? How is second class citizen status for women, or non-christian minorities a positive "value"?