Pandagon points out that the Southern baptist answer is apparently gay school kids:

The means specified in the resolution include “officially sanctioned homosexual clubs” (such as Gay-Straight Alliances), such deceptive labels as safe sex, diversity training, multicultural education, anti-bullying and safe schools.”…

Whereas, many public schools are promoting acceptance of homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle through programs that use such deceptive labels as “Safe Sex,” “Diversity Training”, “Multicultural Education” , “Anti-Bullying”, and “Safe Schools”;

Read that again: the Southern Baptist want to prevent anti-Bullying programs from gaining acceptance because they might teach kids that it is not appropriate to bully gay kids. How sick is that? How far down in hatred and fear and bigotry do you have to be to think that preventing gay kids form being bullied is acting in the tradition of Jesus Christ?

Certain flavors of literalists insist that the word “wine” in the Bible doesn’t always mean wine — sometimes it means ,a href=”http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2005/05/lb_holy_spirits.html”>grape juice. Perhaps this fondness for bullying is like that: “do unto others” sometimes means “do unto others — unless they are gay. Then you can beat the crap out of them.”

Jesus would be so proud.

UPDATE: John Cole shows us what a decent conservative looks like, and what an indecent conservative — Hugh Hewitt — looks like:

Apparently in the myopic worldview of Mr. Hewitt, reading and reporting the just-released documents the Army itself created is both ‘anti-military’ and ‘re-hashing’ an old story. Let’s not focus on the fact that few, if any, have been punished for these transgressions. Let’s not focus on credible reports that these incidents continue to occur. Instead, if Hewitt is to have his way, we should all focus on the ‘anti-military’ stance of the media.

What is particularly disturbing is how he and others have artificially conflated the Newsweek error and the NY Times story. This is no accident, but an act of intentional and outright propaganda. The Newsweek story may have been inaccurate, but the NY Times story was not. To read Hugh, you would think both were inconsequential and simply the result of a media hostile to the military. “Nothing here- just the military-hating mainstream media.”
And that is what is most disturbing about the short-sighted and indefensible position of the ‘uber-patriots.’ Put aside the demagoguery, the denial, and the smears. Put aside the wishful thinking, the demonization of the media, and the claims that anyone who is outraged by this abuse is un-American, anti-military, or out to get the President (which I am decidedly not). Instead, spend 1/10th of the energy you spend defending the status quo and urge the Republicans to use our majority status and the trappings of power we now enjoy with the control of Congress and the Presidency, and stop the torture and abuse. Do that, and your critics won’t have anything to complain abo