“Campaign mail with a return address of the Republican National Committee (news - web sites) warns West Virginia voters that the Bible will be prohibited and men will marry men if liberals win in November.”
“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.”
Whoever sent it, it’s pretty disingenuous. Is this the lowest tactic yet this election?
It’s hyperbole, at least with respect to actually banning the Bible outright. But of the two parties, which would you say is more closely associated with efforts to keep the Bible and Biblical references in the public, governmental sphere? Which party is more supportive of school prayer, for example, or public display of the Ten Commandments on government property?
And of the two parties, which one is more supportive of gay rights?
Yes, but that’s not what they said. Hyperbole becomes plain old falsehood when the statements are factually incorrect.
I had this argument on another board about Zell Miller’s speech. Miller said that Kerry “has made it clear” that he would not authorize any military action without UN approval. However, Kerry has said exactly the opposite–that he will not require anyone’s approval to defend our country. In other words, what Miller said was a lie.
“No it isn’t,” the argument went. “You have to agree that Kerry is a lot more likely to wait for international consensus and is going to be a lot more hesitant to deploy the military.” Maybe so–one can dream–but that’s not what Miller said.
Similarly, to say that Kerry or anyone in his administration would “prohibit the Bible” is just an outright lie. It’s like saying that Bush plans to kick old people and children out on the street to freeze to death, and saying that it is just a hyperbolic way to say that he would fund social programs less than Kerry would.
Or in other words, of the two parties, which one is more supportive of instituting a theocracy in which anyone who publicly professes any religion but Christianity is put to death?
So outright, fucking bullshit lies are now classed as hyperbole in the Bushie lexicon. If the DNC sent out a mailing saying that Bush will start a nuclear war if re-elected, would you be satisfied if we said it was just hyperbole?
I guess supporting those torturing, lying sacks of shit has sucked out every bit of morality in you.
Bushiesm in 1936: Well, we don’t know for sure the Communists didn’t burn down the Reichstag.
By taking the Hitler detour, you failed to answer the basic question: is what is being described in the OP (about banning the Bible) hyperbole or an outright lie?
Oh, and can I call BULLSHIT!! You’re talking about the federal government not being allowed to establish an official religion. MEBuckner, you’re full of shit trying to pull that theocracy crap. What’s worse is you know it’s bunk.
When my wife and I got married in a church, we had to show the certificate to the city, county, state, and feds to make it “legal”. How the fuck does that prove a seperation? Of course, the marriage certificate wasn’t valid until signed by a notary witness. Know what a notary witness is? I’ll give you a hint. It’s someone licensed by a, of, SECULAR government official.
Guess what happens if we, God forbid, get divorced? That’s right, we go before a judge. To get an annulment, we’d go to the Church. But that doesn’t quite take care of property, custody, alimony, etc. does it?
There is a lot of different ways the church is already involved with governmental affairs.
The US can’t declare an official religion, but religion can very well be in the public arena. examines Federal Reserve Note stating “In God We Trust”
Incidentally, all this simply proves that marriage is not “religious”. Different religions may certainly institute ceremonies and sacraments commemorating or solemnizing or sanctifying marriage; and different religions may teach moral values about the proper way to enter into marriages or behave as married people; but marriage is not an exclusively religious institution and isn’t the sole property of any particular religion or group of religions. The sacrament of infant baptism doesn’t mean non-Christians can’t give birth to children.
So we could have gotten married without the Federal government ever knowing of it? How would that work with filing taxes? Or setting up trust funds? Or declaring right of protest to wills between couples? Or declaring survivor benefits for spouses through SSI?
Marriage is mostly done in a religious ceremony, therefore ALL marriages should be null and void under the seperation clause, right?