Wednesday, November 10, 2004

Extinct Species Watch: Liberal Christians Challenge "Values Vote"

Liberal Christian leaders argued yesterday that the moral values held by most Americans are much broader than the handful of issues emphasized by religious conservatives in the 2004 presidential campaign.

Hear! Hear! Well, let's hear it...

Battling the notion that "values voters" swept President Bush to victory because of opposition to gay marriage and abortion, three liberal groups released a post-election poll in which 33 percent of voters said the nation's most urgent moral problem was "greed and materialism" and 31 percent said it was "poverty and economic justice." Sixteen percent cited abortion, and 12 percent named same-sex marriage.

Glory be to God! Screw you, 12%-ers. I mean, love thy neighbor, lambs.

I do take issue w/ one point:

"One of the things a few of us are talking about is a reassessment of how the Democrats deal with an issue like abortion -- could there be a more moderate ground, where even if they retained their pro-choice stance, they talked about uniting pro-choice people together to actually do something about the abortion rate?" said Jim Wallis, editor of the liberal evangelical journal Sojourners.

If the Democratic Party were to "welcome pro-life Democrats, Catholics and evangelicals and have a serious conversation with them" about ways to reduce teenage pregnancy, facilitate adoptions and improve conditions for low-income women, it would "work wonders" among centrist evangelicals and Catholics, Wallis said.

First of all, stop talking about my womb as if you have any say in the matter. Secondly, "a more moderate ground"? Darling, they're shooting us, hiring religious fanatics to determine FDA policy, reducing our access to birth control AND information, and cutting funding to sex education programs, and you're asking US to be moderate? No, thank you. What does 'moderate' even mean anymore? I am all for conversations about values across party lines and across red/blue state lines, but let's reassess just who needs to crank moderation to 11.

Don't like abortion? Well, join the club; no one does. That's why Democrats promote health policy that works well in the reality-based community, as opposed to (suppressing a morbid chuckle) abstinence policy, which is clearly a figment of fevered imaginations. Oh, and by the way, it doesn't work.

Let's be clear: Pro-choice IS the moderate position. Chinese one-child policy or the cultural privileging of boy children in, say, India such that female fetuses are aborted, that's a pro-abortion policy and denounced as extreme by--guess who? That's right! Women's rights activists. No one here is advocating that, so quit acting like American women making the most basic human rights argument for their physical integrity are flippant baby killers. Life, and it may come as a shock, is more complicated, nuanced even, than that, so let's all quit pretending. That said, my right to reproductive freedom does not impinge on your liberties. You will still be able to go about your business the day after, civil liberties and spiritual goodness intact. No need for you to poke around my underwear drawer, fetishists. On the other hand, your cutting funding, killing my doctor, threatening me and my livelihood, placing crackpots in positions of authority in health policy, teaching my kids that condoms don't work, &c. and &c., that does threaten my life, my health, and my well being, so I'll thank you* to be moderate.

This is still America, motherf*ckers.

(*Dearest genteel reader, you know I don't mean you. You know I love you.)

Now, get thine asses to these fine advocacy groups and give them some love in the form of cash, dammit! Do it for yourself, do it for your mom, do it for some girl in Nicaragua you never met, just do it.