Hey, Mormons marry dead people. I’m pretty sure the IRS doesn’t give them any tax breaks for that, though. You can engage in pretty much any religious ceremonies you like, so long as they don’t actually involve sacrificing infants to Baal or anything like that. There is no federal Bureau of Sacraments which has to sign off on what religious ceremonies you choose to participate in.
Ah, now you are talking about the civil status of being married. Naturally, if you want the Feds to recognize your spouse as your survivor for the purposes of SSI, you will need to let the Feds know that you in fact have a spouse, who that spouse is, etc.
See, I know this is terribly confusing, but marriage is civil institution which is also solemnized or sanctified or whatever by various religions. The rules for the civil status of marriage and the Sacrament(s) of Holy Matrimony in this country overlap to a large degree, but they aren’t identical. In terms of civil law, divorced people can remarry, which isn’t the case in terms of the laws of the Catholic church. The Church of Jesus Christ the White Blue-Eyed Messiah, Inc. may declare that any marriage between an “Aryan” and a “mud person” is an abomination unto the Lord and null and void, but civil laws against miscegenation are unconstitutional. Sadly, the Democratic Party doesn’t really agree with me on this, and therefore has punked out on the issue of gay marriage, but at least they don’t want to bring back public witch burnings the way the GOP does.
Most Christians baptize their babies, therefore, under the separation clause, I guess birth certificates are unconstitutional.
But none of those are even remotely close to banning the Bible. There’s a world of difference between believing in the seperation of church and state and believing that a religious text believed in to varying degrees by the vast majority of both parties should be banned. To hyperbolize is to exagerate, but I think you can make a pretty strong case that banning organized prayer in public schools and banning the Bible aren’t even on the same continuum.
The contrapositive of the “men will marry men if liberals win in November” bit (given our two-party system) is “if conservatives win in November, men won’t marry men.” In order for that to happen, the federal government would have to ban gay marriage nation-wide. Isn’t that contrary to your own “leave it up to the states” take on gay marriage, that you’ve advocated many times (or I’m a mixing you up with another poster?)?
When you called this add hyperbole, were you merely being an apologist for the RNC, or do you truly believe that those kinds of tactics (regardless of which party does them) are legitimate?
I was all set to reply to Bricker’s post asking him if he sincerely believed the mailing was just hyperbole. In fact, I was editing a post to ask him how he could not see that this was an out and out lie.
I reread the article, however, and I agree with him. The mailing is not a lie and is just hyperbole. In fact, I find the title of the Yahoo! article intentionally misleading. The way I read it, without having seen the flyer, the word ‘banned’ across a picture of a bible doesn’t refer to banning bibles, but rather symbolizes the banning of the ideas for which the bible mentions; accepting same-sex unions, allowing murder (abortions) and – not mentioned in the bible, but you get the idea – removing the word god from the pledge of allegiance.
For what it’s worth, I’m an atheist and a Republican and it’s becoming increasingly difficult to admit the latter.
And I’ll call double bullshit back on you. Weeee, that is fun.
The church recognizing a religious aspect of marriage has bugger all to do with things. For the secular apsects of marriage, you need the secular procedure. Your Church can view you as married if you go through what ever religious ceremony you chose. The fact that you do not need to have any religious ceremony to get married, however, shows your mistake.
Personally I think “in God we Trust” on the currency is a violation of SOCAS. Many don’t. It tends to be allowed like the federal support for Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays as being a de minimis exception. Of course that leaves it up for grabs how de minimis it actually is. What there is general legal acceptance of, however, including at least a 6-3 majority on the Court, is that the Establishment Clause prevents more than just picking a state religion. And the majority thinks that includes the type of school sponsored prayer that is no longer allowed (damn it bugs me when people talk about school prayer as if it has EVER been banned), and the display of the 10 Commandments on governmental property in the majority of situations. Now that isn’t bullshit, it’s the truth.
Of course religion can be in the public arena. No law can prevent Bush telling us what a great Christian he is (though he represents exactly the train of thought that has made people like me in some way ashamed to publically say we are Christian, for fear we will get seen as holding the same views). What the law does not allow is that the US favors one religion over another.
Do I think Bush is likely to impose a theocracy? No, not least because the Court won’t allow it. But I do think he is a damned sight closer to doing it than the other candidates. Therefore by your own hyperbole standard, there is nothing wrong with saying Bush is intending to impose theocratic rule.
Sorry RickJay, but the correct answer to both questions is “None of the Above.” The Republicans only want Christian prayer in school (while some might be okay with a Jewish prayer) and neither party really cares about human rights, only with staying in power.
A bible with the word BANNED across it is symbolic of banning the Bible. A male hand slipping a ring on another male hand with the word ALLOWED is symbolic of allowing same-sex marriage. Jerking and twisting the symbology around to fit into your tortured interpretation is ludicrous.
I think the Democrats need to use this type of hyperbole to their advantage. They could reach out to the Republicans who fear same-sex marriage using the same tactics:
“We know you’re all worried what will happen if gays are allowed to marry, but which party sent the U.S. military out into the world to round up random people and sodomize them? That’s right, the Republicans! You could be next! Which would you rather have? Legalized gay marriage or non-consentual government enforced sodomy?”
They could put it next to a picture of some guy being sodomized with the word “ALLOWED” across it.
We must be working from different dictionary sources.
From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
Now, it’s clear to me that factually, there are no “mile-high ice-cream cones,” not even a remote chance of this being true. It’s factually incorrect.
Where did anyone get the idea that hyperbole is somehow lost when the statement is not factually correct? The GRAVAMEN of hyperbole is that it is NOT factually correct; it greatly exaggerates a truth in order to make a point. The ice-cream cones are tall; they are not “mile-high.”
If Kerry is elected, his judicial nominees will be less friendly to the Bible in public life than Bush’s judicial nominees. That’s the fact. “Bible BANNED” in a graphic is the hyperbolic exaggeration to make the factual point.
Now, if the Democrats were to do a mass mailing that said, “Stop President Bush’s Theocracy!” then I’d say, “Ah, hyperbole.”
The only problem arises when the position asserted is not extreme enough that it’s clear that it’s hyperbolic. If a mailing said, “Kerry Will Put the Entire US Military Under Permanant UN Control,” no reasonable person would believe it. But if a mailing said, “Kerry Plans to Cut Military Spending in Half!” that’s got a ring of fact to it. A reasonable person might think that the claim is literally true. It’s at that point that we leave the realm of hyperbole and enter the realm of the outright lie.
You simply must give me the name of your Psychic Friend who has predicted President Kerry’s judicial nominees and the opinions they will issue on cases involving “the Bible in public life” with such stunning accuracy.
It’s not a factual point. It is a belief, based on…what again? What specifically leads you to believe that President Kerry’s judicial appointments will be “less friendly to the Bible in public life,” other than the erosion of SOCAS that has taken place under Republican appointees?
A “Bible BANNED” graphic is making the claim that President Kerry will ban the Bible. It is not making the claim that President Kerry and his judges will “be less friendly to the Bible in public life.” It’s saying the Bible will be BANNED. Period. Full stop. Your claiming that the lie that President Kerry will ban the Bible is merely hyperbole is itself, as far as I’m concerned, at best a pathetic excuse to justify the lie and at worst a lie itself.
Now point me to something that Kerry has ever said that indicates he has the remotest interest in banning any book, much less the Bible, or stuff your partisan hackwork excusifying up your hyperbolic ass.
I can’t believe I am actually reading this. We truly have gone through the partisan looking-glass.
The claim that the Bible will be banned is a lie. It may also be hyperbole, but it’s quite obviously a lie. Since you pulled out the dictionary, I’ll counter with a cite from the same source:
LIE (noun) 1 a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive.
Unless you believe the Republican Party honestly believe Kerry plans to ban the Bible, they were lying. There just isn’t any room for interpretation here.
The GOP wants to burn heretics at the stake. The Dems want to send all Christians to the re-education camps. And I should probably reconsider my earlier support for Nader–God only know what he wants to do. Sacrifice babies to Baal, no doubt. I suppose there’s always Badnarik, although I gotta say, it’s going to be a real pain paying 17 different tolls just to drive to the grocery store to pick up a gallon of milk.
Giant churches on every corner[sup]1[/sup], with big signboards out front with the pastor’s “message of the day”. Little churches in storefronts and strip malls and old Putt-Putt Golf courses[sup]2[/sup]. Entire networks of TV channels and radio stations devoted entirely to Christian programming; even more Christian programming on half[sup]3[/sup] the normally secular channels on Sunday morning. Sections devoted to religious books in every bookstore–except for the Christian bookstores, which have nothing but religious books. Christian billboards. Christian bumper stickers. Christian T-shirts. Ads for Christian churches on the time and temperature phone number. Auto body shops and hair salons with Bible verses on their signs out front. Christians standing on street corners or going door to door to hand out tracts and “witness” to try to gain converts to their religion. Religious books in public libraries; religious books in public school libraries; Christian extracurricular clubs in public schools.
Yet somehow, none of this is “public” enough for some Christians; they insist that the courthouses must be turned into altars to their God, that the public schools must propagandize for their religion, and that every American must show fealty to their God simply in order to express his or her love of country. And anyone who is opposed to using the government to advance the religious opinions of some of the citizens is trying to drive Christianity from the “public square”, or even trying to “ban the Bible”.
[sup]1[/sup]“Churches on every corner” is hyperbole, by the way.
[sup]2[/sup]Not hyperbole at all. There is a former Putt-Putt Golf course which has been turned into a church in Cobb County, Georgia.
[sup]3[/sup]Not actually one-half of the non-devotional channels, at least not if you get basic cable, but a substantial number.
Bricker, do you believe that this pamphlet is honest, or dishonest? Is it a fair representation of the opposing party, or unfair?
The crux of this matter is not dictionary definitions, but whether or not this crosses the line into dishonesty.
If you were in charge of making pamphlets for the RNC, would your personal moral system allow you to make such a claim about your opposition? Does the fact that you can file this under “hyperbole” (ignoring the fact that it also fits well under the definition of “lie”, as RickJay points out) mean it’s something moral and right to do in your book?
As far as the government is concerned, marriage is purely a secular civil contract. Any religious significance you attach to it is purely personal and, legally, entirely superfluous.
It’s no different than if you have a high priest officiate and perform a ceremony for a contract to say, build a house. Just because you decide to make it religious doesn’t mean the government sees it as religious.
What do you mean by “public life?”
Is that another way of saying that Kerry will defend the Establishment Clause?
And how is that comparable, even by exaggerated extension, to “banning the Bible?”
This absolutely blows me away. Not only is it repulsive, anti-American, and patently false- it’s going to work. If you throw enough mud, some will stick. Too bad present day Republicans didn’t listen to Lincoln- when asked if God was on our side, he said we should pray that we are on God’s side.