Republicans admit mailing campaign literature saying liberal
Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
Republicans admit mailing campaign literature saying liberal
Oh come on now....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Republicans admit mailing campaign literature saying liberals will ban the Bible
By David D. Kirkpatrick, New York Times
The Republican Party acknowledged yesterday sending mass mailings to residents of two states warning that "liberals" seek to ban the Bible. It said the mailings were part of its effort to mobilize religious voters for President Bush.
The mailings include images of the Bible labeled "banned" and of a gay marriage proposal labeled "allowed." A mailing to Arkansas residents warns: "This will be Arkansas if you don't vote." A similar mailing was sent to West Virginians.
A liberal religious group, the Interfaith Alliance, circulated a copy of the Arkansas mailing to reporters yesterday to publicize it. "What they are doing is despicable," said Don Parker, a spokesman for the alliance. "They are playing on people's fears and emotions."
In an e-mail message, Christine Iverson, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, confirmed that the party had sent the mailings.
"When the Massachusetts Supreme Court sanctioned same-sex marriage and people in other states realized they could be compelled to recognize those laws, same-sex marriage became an issue," Ms. Iverson said. "These same activist judges also want to remove the words 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance."
The mailing is the latest evidence of the emphasis Republicans are putting on motivating conservative Christian voters to vote this fall. But as the appeals become public, they also risk alienating moderate and swing voters.
An editorial on Sept. 22 in The Charleston Gazette in West Virginia, for example, asked, "Holy Moley! Who concocts this gibberish?"
"Most Americans see morality more complexly," the editorial said. "Many think a higher morality is found in Christ's command to help the needy, prevent war and pursue other humanitarian goals. Churchgoers of this sort aren't likely to believe childish allegations that Democrats want to ban the Bible."
In statement, Senator John Edwards, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, said President Bush "should condemn the practice immediately and tell everyone associated with the campaign to never use tactics like this again."
Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, called the mailings an ugly contrast to Mr. Bush's public statements. Although the president has called for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, he often emphasizes the need for tolerance as well.
"The president takes more or less the high road and his henchman and allies on the right have been let loose to conduct these ugly, divisive smear campaigns," Mr. Foreman said. "It is wedge politics at its worst."
In any event, the Bush campaign appears confident about its religious appeal.
The mailing seeks to appeal to conservative evangelical Protestant pastors and political leaders who say they worry that legal rights for same-sex couples could lead to hate-crimes laws that could be applied against sermons of Bible passages criticizing homosexuality.
Conservative Christian political commentators often cite the case of Ake Green, a minister in Sweden who was jailed in June for a month for a sermon denouncing gays as sinful.
Mr. Parker, of the Interfaith Alliance, said, "I think it is laughable to think that someone could be arrested for reading out loud from the Bible."
But Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, argued, "We have the First Amendment in this country which should protect churches, but there is no question that this is where some people want to go, that reading from the Bible could be hate speech."
Still, Mr. Land questioned the assertion that Democrats might ban the whole Bible. "I wouldn't say it," he said. "I would think that is probably stretching it a bit far."
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
Reprinted from The New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/24/p...gn/24bible.html
__________________
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Republicans admit mailing campaign literature saying liberals will ban the Bible
By David D. Kirkpatrick, New York Times
The Republican Party acknowledged yesterday sending mass mailings to residents of two states warning that "liberals" seek to ban the Bible. It said the mailings were part of its effort to mobilize religious voters for President Bush.
The mailings include images of the Bible labeled "banned" and of a gay marriage proposal labeled "allowed." A mailing to Arkansas residents warns: "This will be Arkansas if you don't vote." A similar mailing was sent to West Virginians.
A liberal religious group, the Interfaith Alliance, circulated a copy of the Arkansas mailing to reporters yesterday to publicize it. "What they are doing is despicable," said Don Parker, a spokesman for the alliance. "They are playing on people's fears and emotions."
In an e-mail message, Christine Iverson, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, confirmed that the party had sent the mailings.
"When the Massachusetts Supreme Court sanctioned same-sex marriage and people in other states realized they could be compelled to recognize those laws, same-sex marriage became an issue," Ms. Iverson said. "These same activist judges also want to remove the words 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance."
The mailing is the latest evidence of the emphasis Republicans are putting on motivating conservative Christian voters to vote this fall. But as the appeals become public, they also risk alienating moderate and swing voters.
An editorial on Sept. 22 in The Charleston Gazette in West Virginia, for example, asked, "Holy Moley! Who concocts this gibberish?"
"Most Americans see morality more complexly," the editorial said. "Many think a higher morality is found in Christ's command to help the needy, prevent war and pursue other humanitarian goals. Churchgoers of this sort aren't likely to believe childish allegations that Democrats want to ban the Bible."
In statement, Senator John Edwards, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, said President Bush "should condemn the practice immediately and tell everyone associated with the campaign to never use tactics like this again."
Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, called the mailings an ugly contrast to Mr. Bush's public statements. Although the president has called for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, he often emphasizes the need for tolerance as well.
"The president takes more or less the high road and his henchman and allies on the right have been let loose to conduct these ugly, divisive smear campaigns," Mr. Foreman said. "It is wedge politics at its worst."
In any event, the Bush campaign appears confident about its religious appeal.
The mailing seeks to appeal to conservative evangelical Protestant pastors and political leaders who say they worry that legal rights for same-sex couples could lead to hate-crimes laws that could be applied against sermons of Bible passages criticizing homosexuality.
Conservative Christian political commentators often cite the case of Ake Green, a minister in Sweden who was jailed in June for a month for a sermon denouncing gays as sinful.
Mr. Parker, of the Interfaith Alliance, said, "I think it is laughable to think that someone could be arrested for reading out loud from the Bible."
But Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, argued, "We have the First Amendment in this country which should protect churches, but there is no question that this is where some people want to go, that reading from the Bible could be hate speech."
Still, Mr. Land questioned the assertion that Democrats might ban the whole Bible. "I wouldn't say it," he said. "I would think that is probably stretching it a bit far."
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
Reprinted from The New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/24/p...gn/24bible.html
__________________
APOLOGIZE, you fucks! APOLOGIZE!"When the Massachusetts Supreme Court sanctioned same-sex marriage and people in other states realized they could be compelled to recognize those laws, same-sex marriage became an issue," Ms. Iverson said. "These same activist judges also want to remove the words 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance."
Fuck it, they just ruined my chances of voting Republican for at least two elections, unless they have Arnie or McCain on the ticket.
BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman
I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
One day, the Democrats are going to get the message and run a candidate with serious crossover appeal. Then the Republicans will really be in trouble.
BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman
I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
- DPDarkPrimus
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 18399
- Joined: 2002-11-22 11:02pm
- Location: Iowa
- Contact:
What. The. FUCK?
This is absolutely deplorable. This isn't even twisting of facts, it's outright lying. Blatnetly wrong, and probably illegal too!
This is absolutely deplorable. This isn't even twisting of facts, it's outright lying. Blatnetly wrong, and probably illegal too!
Mayabird is my girlfriend
Justice League:BotM:MM:SDnet City Watch:Cybertron's Finest
"Well then, science is bullshit. "
-revprez, with yet another brilliant rebuttal.
Justice League:BotM:MM:SDnet City Watch:Cybertron's Finest
"Well then, science is bullshit. "
-revprez, with yet another brilliant rebuttal.
Who cares? Sure, its an outright lie, but there are going to be people that believe it. It's rotten, dirty, and underhanded, but that has no bearing whatsoever on its effect on the masses. Best case-study on this? "Sadaam was responsible for 9/11." UTTERLY untrue, yet many people STILL believe it today. That's why disapproval for the war isnt at 100%. The Reps have realized this. The standard idea is to lie and then accept whatever consequences come with the lie. The Reps have realized that if they make an appealing lie, there will be no consequences.DPDarkPrimus wrote:What. The. FUCK?
This is absolutely deplorable. This isn't even twisting of facts, it's outright lying. Blatnetly wrong, and probably illegal too!
The wisdom of PA:
-Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad
-Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad
- General Zod
- Never Shuts Up
- Posts: 29211
- Joined: 2003-11-18 03:08pm
- Location: The Clearance Rack
- Contact:
cripes. the republicans aren't even trying to make their lies look plausible this time.
they must either be getting extremely desperate or think there's no way they can possibly lose the election.
they must either be getting extremely desperate or think there's no way they can possibly lose the election.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
According to the article, it said 'liberals' would ban the Bible, not 'liberal Democrats'. A subtle but important distinction as it keeps the mailing from being slanderous in a legal sense. I'm sure we could find at least one self-described 'liberal' in favor of banning the Bible. Hell, we probably could find several over at the DU forums.
Self-serving? Yes
Hypocritical? Of Course
Surprising? Not at all
Illegal? Of course not.
Are the Democrats any more principled? Hell no. They say the exact same BS on issues important to their base. Look at Kerry's AWB statements for a perfect example.
All in all another day in election 2004.
Self-serving? Yes
Hypocritical? Of Course
Surprising? Not at all
Illegal? Of course not.
Are the Democrats any more principled? Hell no. They say the exact same BS on issues important to their base. Look at Kerry's AWB statements for a perfect example.
All in all another day in election 2004.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."- General Sir Charles Napier
Oderint dum metuant
Oderint dum metuant
- Gil Hamilton
- Tipsy Space Birdie
- Posts: 12962
- Joined: 2002-07-04 05:47pm
- Contact:
Of course they aren't going to apologize. Much of the religious right base within the Republican party believes this completely and if they said "Yeah, we were being bogus and just trying to mobilize the Christian Right", they'd lose face.
This is nothing new anyways, conservatives have always in recent history tried to link liberals with Godless Secularism, Athiest, Communism, et cetera. Of course it's dirty and immoral, but it works because much of their base eats it for lunch like the Green Party eats up anti-nuclear propaganda.
I'll prove it too. Just go to Spacebattles, which has a mix of liberal, centrist, and conservative posters and post a thread asking if they think that liberals are trying to ban the Bible and want to persecute the poor defenseless Christians. I'll put down ten bucks american right now that you get at least four people minimum strongly arguing that it's true. And these people aren't exactly a small minority in America! I'll even bet that someone (probably ArthurDent) will make a comment about how Christians are the only group left that it's socially acceptable to descriminate against.
This is nothing new anyways, conservatives have always in recent history tried to link liberals with Godless Secularism, Athiest, Communism, et cetera. Of course it's dirty and immoral, but it works because much of their base eats it for lunch like the Green Party eats up anti-nuclear propaganda.
I'll prove it too. Just go to Spacebattles, which has a mix of liberal, centrist, and conservative posters and post a thread asking if they think that liberals are trying to ban the Bible and want to persecute the poor defenseless Christians. I'll put down ten bucks american right now that you get at least four people minimum strongly arguing that it's true. And these people aren't exactly a small minority in America! I'll even bet that someone (probably ArthurDent) will make a comment about how Christians are the only group left that it's socially acceptable to descriminate against.
"Show me an angel and I will paint you one." - Gustav Courbet
"Quetzalcoatl, plumed serpent of the Aztecs... you are a pussy." - Stephen Colbert
"Really, I'm jealous of how much smarter than me he is. I'm not an expert on anything and he's an expert on things he knows nothing about." - Me, concerning a bullshitter
"Quetzalcoatl, plumed serpent of the Aztecs... you are a pussy." - Stephen Colbert
"Really, I'm jealous of how much smarter than me he is. I'm not an expert on anything and he's an expert on things he knows nothing about." - Me, concerning a bullshitter
-
- What Kind of Username is That?
- Posts: 9254
- Joined: 2002-07-10 08:53pm
- Location: Back in PA
That's quite a slippery slope they have going there.
Surely, if some people don't care if gay people have same rights as heterosexuals, it's only a matter of time before televangelists are sent to labor camps and interior decorating becomes a mandatory class in high schools.
Surely, if some people don't care if gay people have same rights as heterosexuals, it's only a matter of time before televangelists are sent to labor camps and interior decorating becomes a mandatory class in high schools.
BotM: Just another monkey|HAB
- SyntaxVorlon
- Sith Acolyte
- Posts: 5954
- Joined: 2002-12-18 08:45pm
- Location: Places
- Contact:
If that dimwit Kerry doesn't fucking go after this, like a dog after buttsex, he's lost my confidence.
WE, however, do meddle in the affairs of others.
What part of [ ,, N() ] don't you understand?
Skeptical Armada Cynic: ROU Aggressive Logic
SDN Ranger: Skeptical Ambassador
EOD
Mr Golgotha, Ms Scheck, we're running low on skin. I suggest you harvest another lesbian!
Kerry is trying far too hard to maintain the look of a "Clean campaign" Yesterdays speech notwithstanding. Quite honestly, I grow weary of hearing about Kerry's flip flopping, when Bush does precisely the same thing, only they call it Bush Being "Fleixible and adaptable"SyntaxVorlon wrote:If that dimwit Kerry doesn't fucking go after this, like a dog after buttsex, he's lost my confidence.
- Stormbringer
- King of Democracy
- Posts: 22678
- Joined: 2002-07-15 11:22pm
- Gil Hamilton
- Tipsy Space Birdie
- Posts: 12962
- Joined: 2002-07-04 05:47pm
- Contact:
I think the RNC would be too worried about losing their far right base to run with Schwartzeneggar. He's as socially liberal as alot of democrats, more so, in some cases, and that would tank with the sort of people that this thread is about. Those being the ones who honestly think that liberals are trying to ban the Bible and think that Falwell is on to something with the Gays.Stormbringer wrote:We'll have the Governator sooner, mark my words.
"Show me an angel and I will paint you one." - Gustav Courbet
"Quetzalcoatl, plumed serpent of the Aztecs... you are a pussy." - Stephen Colbert
"Really, I'm jealous of how much smarter than me he is. I'm not an expert on anything and he's an expert on things he knows nothing about." - Me, concerning a bullshitter
"Quetzalcoatl, plumed serpent of the Aztecs... you are a pussy." - Stephen Colbert
"Really, I'm jealous of how much smarter than me he is. I'm not an expert on anything and he's an expert on things he knows nothing about." - Me, concerning a bullshitter
- The Kernel
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 7438
- Joined: 2003-09-17 02:31am
- Location: Kweh?!
If Kerry wins the election this year, they won't have much choice but to run him in '08, assuming they can get the amendment they need passed. Arnold is about the only thing that could tear down an incumbent President without too much trouble.Gil Hamilton wrote:I think the RNC would be too worried about losing their far right base to run with Schwartzeneggar. He's as socially liberal as alot of democrats, more so, in some cases, and that would tank with the sort of people that this thread is about. Those being the ones who honestly think that liberals are trying to ban the Bible and think that Falwell is on to something with the Gays.Stormbringer wrote:We'll have the Governator sooner, mark my words.
The Kernel wrote:If Kerry wins the election this year, they won't have much choice but to run him in '08, assuming they can get the amendment they need passed. Arnold is about the only thing that could tear down an incumbent President without too much trouble.Gil Hamilton wrote:I think the RNC would be too worried about losing their far right base to run with Schwartzeneggar. He's as socially liberal as alot of democrats, more so, in some cases, and that would tank with the sort of people that this thread is about. Those being the ones who honestly think that liberals are trying to ban the Bible and think that Falwell is on to something with the Gays.Stormbringer wrote:We'll have the Governator sooner, mark my words.
Might just get to see a Rudi/Conan ticket in 2008
Sudden power is apt to be insolent, sudden liberty saucy; that behaves best which has grown gradually.
- Stormbringer
- King of Democracy
- Posts: 22678
- Joined: 2002-07-15 11:22pm
And the same thing would happen, most likely, with a real crossover Democrat. The party faithful would crucify them.Gil Hamilton wrote:I think the RNC would be too worried about losing their far right base to run with Schwartzeneggar. He's as socially liberal as alot of democrats, more so, in some cases, and that would tank with the sort of people that this thread is about. Those being the ones who honestly think that liberals are trying to ban the Bible and think that Falwell is on to something with the Gays.Stormbringer wrote:We'll have the Governator sooner, mark my words.
The libertarian leaning Volokh Conspiracy has a different outlook.
And a followup post
Eugene Volokh, September 22, 2004 at 9:26pm] Possible Trackbacks
Banning the Bible:A reader points to this story:
Campaign mail with a return address of the Republican National Committee warns West Virginia voters that the Bible will be prohibited and men will marry men if liberals win in November.
The literature shows a Bible with the word "BANNED" across it and a photo of a man, on his knees, placing a ring on the hand of another man with the word "ALLOWED." The mailing tells West Virginians to "vote Republican to protect our families" and defeat the "liberal agenda." . . .
Does anyone have any more details on what the mailer says inside? Does it specifically refer to the "liberal agenda" being banning the Bibles in public schools, banning anti-gay messages from the Bible, banning Bibles generally, or something else?
Certainly if the claim is that the liberal agenda includes actually banning the Bible as such, that seems quite false. (Unfortunately, hostile environment law may sometimes be interpreted as restricting the publication of Bible verses when this may offend people based on religion, sexual orientation, sex, and the like; but though I quite oppose that, it still seems wrong to say that liberals would ban the Bible more generally.) On the other hand, if the mailer makes clear that it's discussing banning Bibles in schools, or something else that's at least plausible, then it's the AP story that's misleading for not mentioning this.
If anyone has a copy of the mailer, please e-mail me at volokh at law.ucla.edu — I'd love to see it. Thanks!
UPDATE: Several people sent me the links to this copy of the cover of a flyer that was apparently sent in Arkansas -- but it seems to be just the cover, not the inside contents. Does anyone have a copy of the material inside as well, so I can see whether the inside elaborates on the claim on the cover?
And a followup post
"Banning" the Bible:Reader Matt Johnson reminds me that the American Library Association -- hardly known as a bastion of Republicanism -- defines "banning" of books to include "remov[al of] material from the curriculum" of a public school. Under that definition, many liberals do support "banning" the Bible: If a school teaches the Bible as part of its normal curriculum (except in unusual contexts, such as for instance a comparative religion class, likely in the upper grades), then liberals would want it to be "removed . . . from the curriculum."
This is, of course, apropos the Republican mailer that suggests that the "liberal agenda" would lead to the Bible being "banned" and same-sex marriage being "allowed." As I mentioned in my original post, it's hard to tell whether this is "dishonest" (as one correspondent of mine suggested) without seeing the inside of the mailer. If the senders are really claiming that liberals would want to criminalize all distribution and reading of the Bible, even on private property, then that charge is pretty dishonest. But if the inside of the mailer makes clear that they are just claiming that liberals would want to ban the distribution and use of the Bible in public schools (again, except in certain unusual contexts) -- the very meaning that the American Library Association uses -- then there's no dishonesty there.
Incidentally, I would not use the word "ban" myself to refer to removal of a book from a curriculum; government agents must select what's in the government-run schools, and if a lower-level employee (a teacher) selects a book, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong in a higher-level official (a principal or a school board) changing that selection. The particular choice may be foolish, but because it's an unwise decision to remove a book from the curriculum, not because all such decisions are wrong. Nor would I call them "bans," since the book is still available elsewhere.
Nonetheless, if this is what the Republican mailer meant by the Bible being "banned," then the American Library Association usage further illustrates that such a meaning isn't inherently dishonest, and -- even if imprecise -- probably within the boundaries of legitimate political hyperbole. But, as I've said before, if anyone can pass along to me the contents of the inside of the mailer, we may get a better idea of what meaning of "banned" was involved.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."- General Sir Charles Napier
Oderint dum metuant
Oderint dum metuant
-
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 685
- Joined: 2003-11-01 11:10am
- Gil Hamilton
- Tipsy Space Birdie
- Posts: 12962
- Joined: 2002-07-04 05:47pm
- Contact:
Precisely. A centrist candidate like Arnold from either party is too much of a risk for either pary to run just because it will cause too much division within the party. The main parties are too cowardly to take that sort of risk.Stormbringer wrote:And the same thing would happen, most likely, with a real crossover Democrat. The party faithful would crucify them.
Arnold would have to become an independant and hope to capture the moderate and skim off both edges, I think, if he wants to be president.
"Show me an angel and I will paint you one." - Gustav Courbet
"Quetzalcoatl, plumed serpent of the Aztecs... you are a pussy." - Stephen Colbert
"Really, I'm jealous of how much smarter than me he is. I'm not an expert on anything and he's an expert on things he knows nothing about." - Me, concerning a bullshitter
"Quetzalcoatl, plumed serpent of the Aztecs... you are a pussy." - Stephen Colbert
"Really, I'm jealous of how much smarter than me he is. I'm not an expert on anything and he's an expert on things he knows nothing about." - Me, concerning a bullshitter
- Talon Karrde
- Fundamentalist Moron
- Posts: 743
- Joined: 2002-08-06 12:37am
- Location: Alabama
- Contact:
- Xenophobe3691
- Sith Marauder
- Posts: 4334
- Joined: 2002-07-24 08:55am
- Location: University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL
- Contact:
- frigidmagi
- Sith Devotee
- Posts: 2962
- Joined: 2004-04-14 07:05pm
- Location: A Nice Dry Place
Either way, this is downright shameful. I doubt Al Sharpton for example would endorse banning the Bible from all public and pirvate life.
And frankly I don't think the Bible should be in a government run school, I feel it violates seperation of church and state. So I could agree with that, has long has it was equal treatment of all regilions.
And frankly I don't think the Bible should be in a government run school, I feel it violates seperation of church and state. So I could agree with that, has long has it was equal treatment of all regilions.