Dirty GOP Tactics in W.V.

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

GOP mailing warns liberals will ban bibles
By WILL LESTER
The Associated Press
9/17/2004

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.”

Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie said Friday that he wasn’t aware of the mailing, but said it could be the work of the RNC. “It wouldn’t surprise me if we were mailing voters on the issue of same-sex marriage,” Gillespie said.

The flier says Republicans have passed laws protecting life, support defining marriage as between a man and a woman and will nominate conservative judges who will “interpret the law and not legislate from the bench.”

“The liberal agenda includes removing `under God’ from the Pledge of Allegiance,” it says.

It does not mention the names of the presidential candidates.

Jim Jordan, a spokesman for American Coming Together, described the mailing as “standard-issue Republican hate-mongering.”

Gillespie said same-sex marriage is a legitimate issue in the election. President Bush has proposed amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage. Democratic Sen. John Kerry also opposes gay marriage but said a constitutional amendment is going too far.

The RNC also is running radio ads in several states urging people to register to vote.

“There is a line drawn in America today,” one ad says. “On one side are the radicals trying to uproot our traditional values and our culture. They’re fighting to hijack the institution of marriage, plotting to legalize partial birth abortion, and working to take God out of the pledge of allegiance and force the worst of Hollywood on the rest of America.”

“Are you on their side of the line?” the ad asks before making the plea to “support conservative Republican candidates.”

http://www.nola.com/newsflash/topstories/index.ssf?/base/politics-6/109545747696410.xml&storylist=topstories

2

What’s dirty about that?

The ACLU would probably spearhead the effort.

3

Nothing is dirty about that.

Democrats would ban the Bible from being mentioned in schools.

Democrats would sanction gay marriage.

Stating that is not dirty.

FWIW–I agree with sanctioning gay marriage, and I’m not a Christian.

4

Lumpy:

Let me explain what “dirty tricks” are: A dirty trick is coming up with negative information about a candidate and broadcasting it nationally two days before the election!

I am sure you recall the DNC’s dirty trick during the last Presidential election. That dirty trick cost George Bush perhaps two million votes.

5

Imagine: Justices interpreting the law(their job), not trying to make it and thus destroying our three branch system of government(not their job). How horrible.

I cant believe lumpy was dumb enough to post that.(Well, I take that back)

Also imagine the GOP saying that liberals will assault religion and try to redefine marriage at every turn. False claims?

So basically, the mailers told the truth and that pisses communists like lumpy off.
Tough shit.

6

Tricks are only dirty when they are fabricated or distorted. If news about a candidate is really true, then there is nothing dirty about it. I can’t believe how biased people are around here.

The distortion here is the concept of banning the bible, as if religion is going to be outlawed. That’s nonsense and everyone with half a brain would know it.

Religion belongs to the people, it does not need to be institutionalized in schools or in government, becuase then it is difficult to be fair to the multitude of religions present in society.

What part of that is scary and dangerous to you?

7

[quote]vroom wrote:
Religion belongs to the people, it does not need to be institutionalized in schools or in government, becuase then it is difficult to be fair to the multitude of religions present in society.

What part of that is scary and dangerous to you?[/quote]

We have a right in this country to practice any religion we please.

There are those who are scared of the fact that some people chose to practice this openly. Religous organizations should have the same freedom to assemble as other organizations do.

The ACLU gang wants religion removed from their sight. Banning Bibles, while seemingly innocent, is a slippery slope that would snowball quicky. (smoking laws and prohormone bans have enjoyed the same fate)

You may disagree - that’s your right, but I think it a little over the top to accuse those who oppose banning bibles as fearful.

8

Lumpy you’re a moron. You prove this with every post.

First -
This is actually fairly true. You can count on two S.C. justices leaving doing the next presidential cycle - O’Connor and Rehnquist. O’Connor is slightly conservative and Rehnquist is conservative and a supporter of state’s rights. If Kerry chooses the justices or the Dem’s control the Senate, I guarantee you that you will get judges who are left leaning (unless it’s Kerry with a Dem Senate - then you’ll get a true left winger).

The question of when and where a bible (or many other religious symbols) can appear is a close one. The test, the Endorsement Test, was written by O’Connor. If you have someone who is left of her, I guarantee you that you can throw this test, which is already highly criticized, out the window. Instead, plan on the new 6-3 left leaning court to take a much harder look at the issue.

Gay marriage is the same thing. A left slanted court will rule that the majority of Americans who now only want to extend benefits to Male-Female relationships that they MUST support those relationships they do not approve of. Even those who view it as an abomination (whether you agree with them or not) will be forced to support it (such as through tax benefits). Also, if you’re a business owner who doesn’t agree with it - too bad.

So, yeah, if you do elect a democrat, expect to see more and more atheist decisions (funny how nobody seems to realize that atheism is a religious choice just as Christian is) and gay marriage.

Second -
How is this at all different than what the democrats do? For years, we’ve heard stories how if the Republicans get control we’ll see women’s right to choose taken away and there would be masses of women getting “back alley abortions.” I’ve even seen pro-choice groups using a crossed out coat hanger as their symbol.

What about the fear mongering involved with this notion that Big Brother is coming. Oh no! Here they come for you’re library books!! Oh - a camera wherever you go! Oh look out. Or what about this nonsense regarding the recently expired weapons ban? All of the protests and overblown stories of kids shooting each other? They made it sound like this country is going to break into urban warfare.

So yeah, this item was sent out. So is that worse than publishing pseudo-academic opinion pieces? Is it worse than holding a national press conference? Is it worse than protests (and accompanying press conferences) based on mis-information? Is it different than the materials that are sent out from Moveon.org and their like to their supporters? And if so, how?

I absolutely go MAD when I see people like you bitching about factually supported (albeit slanted to one side) materials, but you have no problem with the complete and utter lies and baseless character assassinations that come pouring out of the left. Just because you enjoy spinning the actions on your side as “progressive,” or other similar terms, and what the conservatives say as “hate mongering,” “closed minded” (let me say how funny it is to hear someone say that because you don’t agree with them, that means you’re closed minded), or other emotional term doesn’t mean that your arguments are better or methods are more valid.

Lumpy, if you had the slightest level of logic and circumspection, I may be able to have some respect for you. But since you are blinded by your own ignorance, I can’t.

9

vroom:

You raise many good points. However, there was a time when people could practice prayer openly in the public school system. That right no longer exists. There was also a time when a Municipality could place Christian scenes in front of their City Hall, that too has been prevented in many areas.

There appears to be a trend to change the religious traditions in this country. That’s why some people are scared, and I can see their point!

10

I can’t think of any Democrats candidates offhand who want to make gay marriages legal… not John Kerry. Kerry favors a ‘civil union’ definition.

I suspect a lot of your fear about gay marriage is really a thinly concealed dissapproval of gay sex. Why not just be honest and admit you hate gay people?

Also, it’s a lie to say that liberals will ‘ban’ the Bible. That’s just nonsense.

Guys, when Liberals get elected, you will still get to read your Bibles for an hour each morning, in the liberal Detainment Camps. Once you have been reassigned to a Relocation Camp, the rules may vary.

Also, regarding gay marriage, under Liberal rule it will become mandatory. Regular marriage will be banned… gay marriages only. Regular marriages interfere with the Liberal agenda to destroy traditional values, so it has to go.

11

[quote]Lumpy wrote:
I can’t think of any Democrats candidates offhand who want to make gay marriages legal… not John Kerry. Kerry favors a ‘civil union’ definition.[/quote]

You missed my point, Lumpy. If Kerry gets to pick the justices, it probably won’t matter what he says because the justices will make the decision for us. The biggest issue in this election, for me anyway, is who is going to select the S.C. justices. I’d rather have Bush’s choices.

Then you don’t know me, do you? My biggest mentor in undergraduate was gay, my former roommate (yes, same room) was gay, two of the three people who I was going to have write me recommendations for law school were gay and I have other gay friends as well. I could give two shits less what you like to do to whom.

That being said, I don’t think that those who disapprove of the activity should be forced to confer benefits upon it. In the same way that a business shouldn’t be forced to give benefits to married couples, neither should a business who doesn’t want to support gay marriage, but does want to support straight marriage, be forced to extend it to both couples. This is about whether independent actors or electorates should have the choice taken away from them. Hey, if Vermont wants to allow it, fine. If Georgia doesn’t want to, the why should they be forced to?

[quote]Also, it’s a lie to say that liberals will ‘ban’ the Bible. That’s just nonsense.

Guys, when Liberals get elected, you will still get to read your Bibles for an hour each morning, in the liberal Detainment Camps. Once you have been reassigned to a Relocation Camp, the rules may vary.[/quote]

Decisions kicking seniors out of community centers because they held a bible study there. Telling children they cannot pray in school. Telling local communities that they must take down any reference to the nativity, although Santa Claus, trees, and reindeer are okay. Putting cities in such fear of the Establishment Clause and its litigation that they change symbols that include a cross that have been used for over a century. Challenging the phrase “Under God” on money and in the pledge of allegiance (even though the S.C. still invokes God before they would decide such a case).

Will they force you to hide it away, no, unless you’re at a school or a teacher who likes to keep one on his desk (yes, this really happened). Oh, and you’ll be forced to quit wearing a crucifix if you’re a teacher as well. But, yeah, you’re probably right. You can probably keep your bible - just as long as nobody sees it. After all, we can’t “establish” a religion - unless that religion is atheism.

No, but like I said above, no matter what you think of it, you will be forced to recognize it and treat it the same way. Even if you’re the Catholic Church, you will have to extend the same benefits to gay couples as you will to straight couples.

Oh, what happens if you allow civil unions? I guarantee you that straight couples who don’t want to get married are going to start asking for benefits as well - Oh wait, I’m too late - it’s already happened at my school.

12

Zeb, the problem was that only one religion was practiced in the public school system. It represented a publicly funded endorsement of one religion to the exclusion of others. How would you feel if your children were forced to endure the reading of the Koran (however its spelled) each morning in school. Would practicing this one faith work for you?

Nobody is trying to eliminate religion per se, but it is important to not have the government being partial to any one particular religion. I’d imagine that anyone who wanted to read the bible in the school yard and say prayers prior to class would be able to do so. Just don’t expect to subject others to it if they won’t want to be subjected to it.

There is a balance of rights that needs to be observed. So, yes, we can disagree, but I do feel that religion is a private or personal thing, and that while people can choose to congregate other people should not be forced to endure religions they are not interested in.

This is the same issue. What if there was a city with Islamic Jihadist elected officials who built a monument for terrorists killed in action. You are suggesting public funds should pay for this? Governments should not be in the business of picking a religion to endorse. Private citizens can of course do so. This is not the same as “banning the bible”. What a silly notion.

I know, there is a freedom of speech thing, but this is reserved for citizens, not government adminstrative bodies.

Yes, I can see the reason people are scared too. It is because the religious right is practicing silly fear mongering claiming that the godless heathen liberals are going to eliminate religion and everyone will end up going to hell because of it. What a crock.

13

I’d like to know the demographic of this mailing. It almost sounds like they’re going for the “backwoods” Baptist type. By the description it seems to have that same kind of fear factor that those little religious booklets have.

It doesn’t show a trap door to Hell in the voting booth that opens up when you pull the Democratic lever does it? : )

I really don’t like this because it’s entirely fear based.

With a picture of a gay couple getting married right on the brochure and ending with:

It’s almost like they’re saying “You ain’t one of them there queers are ya?”

14

vroom:

All good points. I would not want to push my religion down anothers throat. However, what I think many liberals forget is that this country was and is largely Judeo/Christian. I don’t have the exact percentage, however the overwhelming majority of people in this country are either Jewish or Christian, well into the 90%+ range. What happens to their rights? Once again the majoritys rights are trampled on!

With respect to other religions I feel that if one does not want to participate in Christian/Jewish prayer they can be allowed to leave the room. In all fairness if they practice a different religion that too can be represented and Christians can be allowed to leave the room. (hey can’t we just all get along…ha ha)

The answer is not to shut out all religions because we have different religions represented. I think the answer is to respect all religions!

Christians have a right to feel threatened when they see their rights being taken away one by one. It’s not just the “far right” fundamentalists Christians either. I think mainstream Catholics, etc. also feel somewhat threatened by recent moves by our countrys high courts.

15

Lumpy and his predictable diatribes.

Is it dirty? No. Grassroots campaigns go straight for hotbutton issues. If you don’t think so, I’ve got GOP and Democratic mailers that talk about all sorts of scary scenarios if I don’t vote their way; I can fax them to you.

Is it smart? That’s a better question. It’s an attempt to get the partisan base out to vote. Talking about banning Bibles and guns is the same as Democratic scaremongering that if a Republican is elected, the next appointed Supreme Court justice will twist the ends of his mustache and nefariously shred God-given abortion rights.

What is interesting is the shrill base of the Right rarely gets into the streets in protests. It’s one thing to get a mailer in the privacy of your own home, which you can discard into the recycle bin after two seconds of review, whereas a protestor takes up public space and shouts, at great volume, their extremist message, and you get in legal trouble if you dump the protestor in the recycle bin.

I’ll take a mailer any day.

16

Mailers like this are largely preaching to the converted; it’s reinforcing existing values [be it positively or negatively], not undermining the right to hold them.

Religious freedom, or at least the concept, is based on a massive double-standard, insofar as being religiously free is predicated on the protection of one’s own religion, not the protection of all religions, which are either heretical of false religions. Certainly history is replete with examples of colonies [and even countries] being set up by religious dissenters fleeing their point of origin in order to practise their own particular ‘orthodoxy’.

What I think is particularly dangerous is the trend to lump the terms conservative/republican/religious
and liberal/democrat/secular together, as not only is each term mutually exclusive and having multiple, intrinsic interpretations but in many
cases the terms mean nothing other than being a convenient lable for people to hang their prejudices on.

Now, it is entirely possible that some democrats will wish to see the school system religion free, however, that doesn’t necessarily mean they are against the bible or that they’re not christians; thus I would suggest that we throw our rhetoric around with a little more care adn a whole lot more precise definition…

17

School isnt the place for prayer. A childs religious upbrinbing/education is the responsibility of its parents and whatever church/temple/synagogue/mosque they choose to attend. It has know place in school.

18

[quote]Cory089 wrote:
You missed my point, Lumpy.
[/quote]

I didn’t bother to read your post, since half of it was just insults towards me.

Now you want to engage me in a point-by-point breakdown? Are you kidding?

Cory, “you’re a moron. I wish I could respect you but I can’t.”

19

[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
School isnt the place for prayer. A childs religious upbrinbing/education is the responsibility of its parents and whatever church/temple/synagogue/mosque they choose to attend. It has know place in school.[/quote]

I agree completely.

WHAT??? You mean a kid can’t privately say a prayer during the school day? That’s not good enough, everybody in the room has to do it together as a class? That’s religious “freedom”?

If you want your kid to have a religious education, then send him to a religious school, like a Catholic school.

Also, back to the flyer, it’s a flat-out lie to say that “liberals will ban the bible”.

Only a dope can’t tell the difference is between BANNING THE BIBLE and not forcing every kid in public school sit through a group prayer session.

20

Zeb,

Now we get into the realm of rights and entitlement. Just what right does a person have to have their religion given a special place in the school curriculum? I think the point of minority versus majority is non-issue here.

The question is, what rights do we really have? I know by custom the religion I was born into has been given special privilege – I do recall saying or at least listening to a prayer every morning. Was that really my right?

Could I not practice my religion without doing it inside school? If I was devout, could I not have done this prayer at home? Could I not have prayed personally during a moment of silence? Could I not have read a bible during lunch?

Anyway, I am curious, could you describe some actual rights being removed? I mean, rights that are appropriate and deserved, not just customs that people would like to see continued.

I believe some people of minority religion would claim that they have the right to freedom of religion too. Forcing them to endure the Lords Prayer when it does not reflect their religion may in fact be a violation of their rights.

Isn’t it really about conflicting rights… and an appropriate adjustment to reflect the rights of religious minorities? Those that have had more than their “right” will feel a loss, but that doesn’t make it wrong.

Also, I will say, finding a way to respect all religions (as you suggest) would certainly solve the rights issue. It would be a more complex solution than the removal of religion from the educational and governmental bodies.