Southern Baptist Leaders Should Move to Moscow

Leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention at their annual gathering overwhelmingly backed a resolution expressing “continued opposition to and disappointment in” the Boy Scouts of America for allowing the participation of openly gay Scouts, and warning that this may be the first step toward “future approval of homosexual leaders” in the BSA.

It would be grand to see protestors at Southern Baptist gatherings holdings signs that say “Move to Russia,” where those assembled would find a regime much more conducive to their worldview. For just as they corrupt the gospel message of God’s unbounded love, so are they blind to the essential character of America as a bastion for liberty.

12 Comments for “Southern Baptist Leaders Should Move to Moscow”

  1. posted by Aubrey Haltom on

    An interesting response from the SBC, given that their own polling firm (LifeWay) released poll results in March 2013 showing widespread acceptance of marriage equality in their own ranks.

    Only the elderly white evangelicals were markedly against equality.
    (And guess who makes up the board of the SBC?)

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      I think Uganda is more the kind of theocracy they imagine for America, but I see your point about Russia. I was raised Southern Baptist and I still interact with Baptists on a daily basis (plus many relatives). They have a persecution complex and believe that any criticism is a form of persecution and think they should be allowed to force everyone else to live the hypocritical lives that they do. No thanks.

  2. posted by TomJeffersonIII on

    Interestingly enough. Russia was deeply homophobic before the Communists came to power and (despite a brief moment of liberalism) the Communist were quick to continue on the prejudice for their own ends.

    I hear that the only reason that Russia got rid of the old anti-gay sodomy law was because the European Union human rights body told them to. Technically, their are other gay rights provisions that Russia is suppose to make, but the EU probably things it would be a waste of time.

    Beyond that, I don’t think any of the political parties in Russia have expressed any public support for gay rights.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      It was terrible for gay people under the Czars. What they did to Tchaikovsky was a disgrace. (Although not any worse than what the Brits did to Alan Turing.) And it hasn’t gotten any better. Regimes come and go. The anti-gay bigotry stays the same.

  3. posted by Kosh III on

    “Only the elderly white evangelicals were markedly against equality.
    (And guess who makes up the board of the SBC?)”

    Not just the board but much of the membership.

  4. posted by Jonathan Kuperberg on

    I take EXTREME offence at this disgraceful post.

    I am a 19-year-old conservative Christian living in (mainly pro-gay) England and I have the absolute RIGHT to stay here. I am a citizen and a resident. You are supposed to be a more moderate alternative to the far-left radical homosexual agenda. The “move with the times or move halfway across the world and don’t come back unless you EVOLVE” view is what I’d expect from an ACT UP SanFrancisco ultra-radical queer. I will opt to do neither and simply live in my home country while holding a different view of homosexuality to the new social norm.

    If you want to live in a country where opponents of homosexuality are exiled to a far-away land to which they have no ties and no cultural affinity, then YOU could always move to… oh wait, thank God no such nation exists.


    • posted by Houndentenor on

      Stephen was referencing an old cultural phenomenon from American in the 1960s and 1970s in which anyone who protested anything was told, “if you don’t like it why don’t you move to Russia.” Another version of this was the slogan “America: Love it or Leave it.”

      It wasn’t a real suggestion but a clever reversal of something that social conservatives used to say to progressives. He wasn’t literally suggesting that people move to another country.

      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        Stephen was referencing an old cultural phenomenon from American in the 1960s and 1970s in which anyone who protested anything was told, “if you don’t like it why don’t you move to Russia.” Another version of this was the slogan “America: Love it or Leave it.”

        Houdentenor, Jonathan is an Englishman born in 1994, from the wrong country and too young to remember or know anything about American culture in the 1960’s or the 1970’s. It isn’t a surprise that he had no idea that Stephen was not being literal.

        I think that most of the rest of us “got it” without any difficulty, but Jonathan’s understandable reaction points to the dangers of using American idiom or American cultural references in posting.

        I relearn that lesson every time I use the phrase “faggot, faggot strategy” when talking about the Republican anti-marriage strategy of a decade ago. Young people and even older people not well versed in American racial history miss the allusion to George Wallace’s observation about the power of racial fear and loathing in the politics of his day (““You know, I tried to talk about good roads and good schools … and nobody listened. And then I began talking about niggers, and they stomped the floor.“), and get offended.

        When I’m mindful, I try to make sure that my comments are mind-numbingly literal-minded.

        Anyway, I’m glad you stepped in to nip this nonsense in the bud before half the hard-core Christians started chanting ““They have vilified me, they have crucified me; yes, they have even criticized me.”.

        (For those of you who missed the cultural reference, that was Chicago’s late Richard J. Daley, responding to criticism about his ham-fisted political tactics. Daley was a hoot. My favorite Daley quote is “‘We will reach greater and greater platitudes of achievement.” Oh, well, enough journeying down memory lane.)

  5. posted by Gregory Smith on

    I hear you, Jonathan. As a gay, right-libertarian, I know exactly how evil political correctness can be and how it seeks to censor those with politically incorrect views.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      Someone needs to explain to Americans the difference between criticism and censorship. I see no shortage of anti-gay and other right-wing and socially conservative views. If they are being censored, the censors are doing a very good job of it.

      • posted by Gregory Smith on

        The left doesn’t just criticize the right, they are out for blood. People like Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and others face death threats, boycotts, etc. The right ignores MSNBC, yet hte left wants Fox News banned, they even sued over the “fair and balance slogan.” By the way, did you hear about George Mason students wanting the NSA to spy Fox News journalists? Here’s a tip, google Media Research Center, visit, if you want to understand how the right feels, visit our websites. I do the same with the left, of course, the left is so insane that if a Christian baker doesn’t want to bake a gay wedding cake, that’s the equivalent of segregation and slavery.

        • posted by Houndentenor on

          First of all, it’s not as if the right doesn’t call for boycotts. they do it all the time. They just suck at it. So that’s not a valid argument because all kinds of people call for boycotts all the time. People have a right to shop wherever they want and if I decide that I’m not going to give my money to a business that funds anti-gay organizations, it’s my money and I’ll spend it how I want to. There were calls to boycott JC Penny, Starbucks and other companies in the last year.

          And it’s hilarious to claim that Limbaugh, O’Reilly and company are being censored when they are still on TV and radio every day. Yes, people object to what they say. People have a right to object to what other people say. That’s a free speech right as well. And using that as an argument just proves my point that what a lot of people want is to say whatever they want AND be free from any criticism for what they said. Sorry, that’s not a right.

          And finally, personally if you told me that you wouldn’t bake my wedding cake, I’d just take my business elsewhere. I’d also make sure everyone knew about it. But I wouldn’t sue. However, that is the same as not wanting to provide services for minorities. What if the provider of baking supplies decided they didn’t want to sell to an anti-gay business? Would you be okay with that?

          What you want is the right to be a bigot and not be called out on it. People got away with being anti-gay bigots for a long time. They were the majority, after all, and even people who were friendly with gay people were often afraid to say anything for fear of being ostracized. I don’t remember anyone being afraid of hurting their feelings in all those years when that was the majority view. Now it’s out of fashion to be an anti-gay bigot and all the bigots are acting butt-hurt about being called out on being bigots. A bunch of crybabies is what they are. They’re getting a dose of their own medicine and they don’t much like it.

Comments are closed.