Worst. Con. EVER.

There's a decent, overly frightening, article over at alternet, about Christian Reconstructionists and a nice little convention they just had. These are the kooks that want to rewrite the Constitution and make their little strict Bible theocracy. Same scary crazy, different verse, quite similar to the first.

"We need a new American vision," said Cass, former head of TV preacher D. James Kennedy's now-defunct Center for Reclaiming America for Christ, "because we've lost our biblical heritage, our Christian birthright, which has been given to us by our founders, we have squandered for a poisonous bowl of atheistic humanism and political correctness.

Oh, how the revisionism hurts. As we all know, the Founders were fuzzy Deists by all appearances. Basically, they more or less believed that God touched Earth, got it started, and walked away. God was not involved in human life, and the supernatural and divine revelation was bullocks to them. These were not religious men for the most part.

Not to mention that they missed the point of the separation of Church and State. It was written in to prevent the abuses the Founders had seen when there is a state religion, the flat persecution and over-control. Granted, this is what they want, so I suppose they just make faces at that part of the Bill of Rights and are working with Liberty University to see how best to rewrite it.

And, yes, they mention rewriting history when they make their theocracy. As that is already happening in Williamsburg and at Mount Vernon, I'm not sure what they wish to really change, other than just insert "God," "Jesus," and "homosexuality is an abomination" a bunch of times in Founders' speeches.

Their blatant hypocrisy is always so striking to me, even when they complain about the hypocrisy of others. For example:

"Genocide being the ultimate expression," Cass declared, "the deliberate, systematic extermination of a group of people." Kind of like what is happening in Sudan's Darfur region, he added.

This quote is mainly a slippery-slope scare tactic. Maintaining a secular government doesn't mean that religion will be persecuted. We have a nice little document called the Bill of Rights that has this bit called the First Amendment which protects their right to practice their religion without the state stepping in and saying otherwise.

But, this claim is scary to the religious. So very scary, and it cultivates a wonderous feeling of an in-group that wants to protect. Yeah, we're struggling, but we have each other and we're going to hang in there! We're better than all those infidels, we're so strong and not tempted! They are truly masters of mob psychology and fear tactics. I'm not going to even touch the sickening comparison to Darfur.

But, earlier in the text, you see that these same people support forms of genocide:

Reconstructionists seek to impose the criminal code of the Old Testament, applying the death penalty for homosexuals, adulterers, fornicators, witches, incorrigible juvenile delinquents and those who spread false religions.

This alone would put homosexuals, pagans, and most other religions at risk for the death penalty... which sounds a lot like they would like some systematic genocide themselves. So, genocide is okay, as long as it is people they do not like, as long as it is their genocide. Not exactly the highest form of morality, I would think.

Of course, looking at this screed, anyone who has ever had premarital sex, or couldn't prove that they hadn't when their friend slept over that one time, could be killed. Any teenager that has a bit more attitude than normal that day. I'm sure they'd even swing it to kill those who hold unpopular opinions or like Harry Potter. A nice little purge to get rid of anyone with even the smallest disagreements. A fundie paradise, if I properly understand their tantrums and claims of oppression whenever they are confronted with people with different opinions and life choices. Finally, they will be free! And it will only be at the cost of millions of lives. Sounds a lot like the Old Testament, if I'm allowed my one cheap shot for the day.

I wonder if they would just cut their losses and nuke San Francisco? I mean, I'm sure there's enough fundies in North Dakota to get access to our nuclear weapon stores up there. I also wonder where the stoning line is. When do they just send them to fundie reprogramming camp?

[North] has argued that stoning is the preferred means of capital punishment, noting that it is a communal activity and "the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost."

Well, it would save valuable dollars in the prison system. Though, I think the image of a man encouraging a bunch of people to get together and gleefully murder someone in cold blood (communal activity, indeed) speaks for itself.

If we are to maintain a death penalty, debate about it aside, it needs to be done with as little emotion as possible, with as few participants as possible, by people who are psychologically able to handle taking someone's life.

I don't think a Church congregation with a bunch of rocks fits that bill. Though, I suppose that the potluck afterward would be rather nice.

Folger said gays want to use hate-crimes legislation to "do away" with terms applied to homosexuality such as "abomination," which she noted is a word from Leviticus. The gays want to ban the Bible, according to Folger.

Their lack of empathy is saddening to me. Personally, I do not think anyone likes to be called an "abomination," especially for an inborn trait. Certainly if Christians faced that everyday, they would be raising hell.

What about not judging others? While I hate to hear that old patronizing line of "hate the sin, love the sinner," it's certainly preferable to constant reminders of being an affront to God and being told how horrible you are for accepting a part of yourself. It's not like coming out as gay is difficult for many people, or anything.

Of course, as has been pointed out many times before, this isn't going to ban the Bible or other hate speech, it just puts a harsher penalty on violent crimes motivated by hate. Now, you would think that they would be all for preventing violence. And, hey, they could even be protected if someone attacks a fundie for being a fundie. While it would suck for a minister to be tried for giving a speech that encouraged a mob, maybe they should also talk a lot more about loving the sinner, and that murder and assault are always sins, no matter the target.

Granted, they will never really admit it, but I'm sure the most vocal opponents of this bill don't really care about violence against gays. I'm sure there are some that feel smug and satisfied when they hear about a hate crime. They would never hurt a gay person, but those sinners finally got what they deserved.

And, again, to trot out the tired argument, just replace "gay" with "black" and see just how wonderful it all sounds. Same thing goes for "gay marriage" and "interracial marriage." Granted, there are plenty of racist fundies, so I suppose it only goes so far.

Ventrella bemoaned the secularization of society, claimed Christian children from coast to coast face harassment from public school teachers and officials and that the legal system must be used to fight back.

This is such utter tripe. Most teachers, being part of a Christian majority, are likely Christian. While they cannot generally talk about their faith in school or be very obvious about it, they certainly aren't going to persecute members of their own religion. My high school had a Fellowship of Christian Athletes, which sounds pretty religious to me, though students could not start a pagan group. I have heard of a girl who wrote an essay, and was taken aside and told that "she couldn't be an atheist because her 'ability to care for others feelings isn't an atheist trait.' and that her 'attitude was very Christian.'" In a society where Christian is the status quo, and people believe you to be so unless you say otherwise, I severely doubt these children face much true persecution. Not being allowed to run amuck and force your beliefs on others isn't persecution.

But then, picking out their inconsistencies is like shooting fish in a barrel. Which we've all done many a time. They talk large, and frighteningly, but it's not going to go that far. And, if it does, I expect some migration and a nice brain drain to Canada and other English-speaking nations.