When it comes to family values, god, religion and anti-gay rhetoric, Republicans get away with some of the most outrageous utterances - see here. A few gems from a large collection.
Bailey Smith
"With all due respect to those dear people, my friend, God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew."
Bob Dornan (Rep. R-CA)
"Don't use the word 'gay' unless it's an acronym for 'Got Aids Yet?"
George Bush Sr. (President of the United States)
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
George W. Bush (President of the United States)
"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East.... "
Henry Morris (Institute for Creation Research)
"When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data."
James Watt (Secretary of the Interior)
"We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand."*
*Secretary of the Interior in the Reagan Admin. Responsible for National Policy regarding the Environment
Jerry Falwell
"AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals."
"If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being."
Except for bloggers, hardly anyone in the mainstream media or the political arena takes the time to challenge this nonsense with either humor or outrage. Until now.
If a Youngstown lawmaker's proposal becomes Ohio law, Republicans would be barred from being adoptive parents.
State Sen. Robert Hagan sent out e-mails to fellow lawmakers late Wednesday night, stating that he intends to ``introduce legislation in the near future that would ban households with one or more Republican voters from adopting children or acting as foster parents.'' The e-mail ended with a request for co-sponsorship. On Thursday, the Democrat said he had not yet found a co-sponsor.
Hagan said his ``tongue was planted firmly in cheek'' when he drafted the proposed legislation. However, Hagan said that the point he is trying to make is nonetheless very serious. Hagan said his legislation was written in response to a bill introduced in the Ohio House this month by Rep. Ron Hood, R-Ashville, that is aimed at prohibiting gay adoption.
``We need to see what we are doing,'' said Hagan, who called Hood's proposed bill blatantly discriminatory and extremely divisive. Hagan called Hood and the eight other conservative House Republicans who backed the anti-gay adoption bill ``homophobic.''
Hood's bill, which does not have support of House leadership, seeks to ban children from being placed for adoption or foster care in homes where the prospective parent or a roommate is homosexual, bisexual or transgender.
To further lampoon Hood's bill, Hagan wrote in his mock proposal that ``credible research'' shows that adopted children raised in Republican households are more at risk for developing ``emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, and alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves and an air of overconfidence to mask their insecurities.''
However, Hagan admitted that he has no scientific evidence to support the above claims. Just as "Hood had no scientific evidence to back his assertion that having gay parents was detrimental to children", Hagan said.
Will other sane and sensible people please step forward to debate, challenge and mock the stupidity that passes for family values and public policy in these freakish times?
You have some great material here. The comment by the senior President Bush is purely cynical. I saw a Pew Research poll recently that said 80% of Americans believe you can be a good American without Judeo-Christian values. There were other similar results that suggest that Americans are more tolerant of those who don't share their beliefs than right-wingers would like the rest of us to believe.
Posted by: Craig | February 27, 2006 at 10:41 PM
Ruchira is back! We're all looking forward to hearing about your trip.
Also, it was great reading Joe and Anna's posts. Hopefully they'll continue to post. In fact, perhaps they'll be amenable to moving their blogging over to this site. Power in numbers, you know?
Posted by: Warrington | March 01, 2006 at 03:13 AM
Craig:
I hope that the next Democratic presidential nominee will have the courage to take on the Republicans on their utter hypocrisy on moral and social issues. Exposing the mean hearted and divisive attitude of the right is crucial to the shaping of sensible domestic social policies. But will it happen? I doubt it. Democrats will be running scared about "electablity" and will try to outdo the Republicans in the "god fearing, bible quoting" game in order to win "mainstream" votes. And they will lose because they will play by the Republican rules. I said this in one of my earlier posts at: http://accidentalblogger.typepad.com/accidental_blogger/2006/01/democratic_holy.html . Unfortunately, Howard Dean, the fearless truth teller will not be on the ticket.
Warrington:
Thank you for the warm welcome back! I will try to post something about my visit to Delhi if I can formulate an interesting piece. Too bad I missed Bush's visit to India just by a few days. That would have been a great blogging opportunity.
As for Anna and Joe, you will be happy to know that they are staying on board. Like you, I too have enjoyed reading their posts. In New Delhi, it was a pleasure for me to open my blog every day and read the interesting and thought provoking posts that both of them published. So expect to hear from them - until they tire of blogging. Thanks for your input and suggestions. Now why don't you tell us your real name?
Posted by: Ruchira Paul | March 01, 2006 at 09:39 AM
I too really enjoyed reading their posts. I think the three of you make quite a team. Accidental BloggerS?
Regarding my real name, I guess it's just a matter of preference and I fall into that camp that prefers anonymity, at least online. Most people with preferences similar to mine seem to use a single pseudonym when blogging/posting online, but I seem to just pick whatever name pops into my head at the time. I'm not sure what I was thinking about when I picked Warrington.
Great to have you back.
Posted by: Wilshire 2d | March 02, 2006 at 01:38 AM
Wilshire 2d /Warrington:
Fair enough. I won't pressure you to reveal your identity. In the meanwhile, keep giving us your comments and suggestions, under whatever alias you choose.
Posted by: Ruchira Paul | March 02, 2006 at 09:39 PM