Is this a serious question?
I cannot imagine that Kerry would appoint nominees that are friendlier to the idea of the Bible and Biblical influences in government and public life (or, if you prefer, I cannot imagine Kerry’s nominees being more hostile to the Establishment Clause) than Bush’s.
I suppose I can track down support for this position, but are you seriously suggesting that Bush’s nominees are LESS hostile to the Establishment Clause than Kerry’s?
Rick,
Is it
a) true
or
b) false
that John Kerry and the Democrats want to ban the bible?
Is it
a) true
or
b) False
that the leaflet intentionally presented the image that Kerry and the Democrats want to ban the bible?
I’ve spelt it out in simple terms as you seem to have taken a complete leave of your senses in this thread.
False.
False.
The first answer needs, I trust, no explanation.
The second answer is “False,” because any reasonably informed reader of the pamphlet would understand that the image of the Bible with the word “BANNED” across it was not intended to seriously convey an actual ban of the Bible, since such an act would be completely impossible under our Constitution.
Questions for you:
“The new ice cream place opened up last night, and we decided to give it a try. They were amazing - those ice-cream cones must have been a mile high!”
A. True
B. False
A. A lie
B. The truth
C. Hyperbole
Bricker:, I hate to be a part of a pile-on, but…
So, let me try to be clear on your position. You’re saying that it’s OK to tell an outrageous lie as long as:
(1) this outrageous lie is in some way a grossly exaggerated version of the truth
and
(2) this outrageous lie is SO OUTRAGEOUS that no one could ever possibly believe it to be true, at which point anyone who reads it will immediately realize “ahh, that’s obvoiusly not true. Ahh, I see that it is just an exaggerated version of the truth, presumably done for comic effect and emphasis. How clever. Wow, that certainly clearly communicated its point effectively.”
Is that a fair summation of your point?
If so, do you honestly not believe that there are any republicans out there who would take the claim that Kerry wants to ban the bible as 100% factually true (particularly if you interpret “banning the bible” as something like “making it illegal to read the bible in public” or “making it illegal to ever mention the very existence of the bible in public schools”?) (And, given the level of bile that is directed at liberals, I don’t doubt for a second that there are some republicans who would believe that full-on banning would not be out of the question). Note also that the banning claim was made in parallel with the claim that Kerry wants to allow gay marriage, which, while not necessarily true either, is clearly not OUTRAGEOUSLY FALSE HYPERBOLE of the same sort.
Furthermore, I might see where you were coming from if we were talking about, say, a stand-up comedian. If, for instance, Dennis Miller went off on a rant about Kerry and said that Kerry “wants to ban the Bible”, I wouldn’t object, partly because Dennis Miller doesn’t speak with the imprimateur of the Republican Party, but mainly because the standards of truth and accuracy expected during a comedy monologue are very different from those expected in an official political party mailing.
Upon previewing, I see that you’ve partly addressed the question, and I still definitely disagree with you. Although without polling data, I don’t know how we’ll determine what percentage of republicans actually believe that Kerry would ban the bible, either in the strong sense or in a weaker sense.
I also think your proposed test for acceptability of outrageous lies is a very dangerous one, because all of a sudden, claims in campaign literature and advertising are no longer more acceptable as they become more true, rather, they’re more acceptable as they become more false. Doesn’t that strike you as a rather dangerous standard?
You are really, really stretching here.
There is a huge difference between the hyperbole of a mile high ice cream cone and a picture of the Bible with the word “BANNED” over it. Even the least intelligent knows full well that ice cream cones don’t come a mile high- this is harmless hyperbole in a sales pitch. The Bible with the word BANNED is a clear message that can easily mislead those that do not keep up with current events. The ice cream cone is not meant to fool anyone, but the Bible ad is aimed to deceive.
You’ve got to be kidding me.
By this token, do you think it would be reasonable political discourse if John Kerry ads said that Bush will abolish the Bill of Rights, dissolve Congress and impose martial law across the nation if he is reelected? After all, such an act would be illegal, so everyone would automatically understand that the claim wasn’t meant to be taken seriously. Republicans wouldn’t have a problem with such a claim?
Especially those who are already convinced that the Dems are bent on banning their religion.
You are wasting your time. Bricker is easily the most dishonest, laughably inconsistent Republican on these boards: far more so than december ever was (but at least respectful of board rules and mod requests, unlike december). To expect him to defend his own laughable standard in any other context than when it completely justifies Republicans is setting yourself up for disappointment.
Pop quiz…
The statement “Bricker thinks lying is okay when it is for a cause he supports” is
(A) True
(B) Damn true
© Blindingly obvious
(D) 98% true, with 2% exaggeration
(E) Far more accurate than the stupid-ass claim that Kerry wants to ban the Bible
You know, Bricker, when I first started reading your posts here you were one of the Dopers I admired most. Your posts showed intelligence and wit, they showed positions that were well thought out and sometimes presented with humor, and your suggested “Bricker rule” about slicing off the fingers of people who post wrong legal information in GQ threads I found hilarious.
While reading your many posts about same-sex marriage, my respect for you began to wane. With your ridiculous hackery in this thread, that respect is completely gone.
I have no idea whether you care about having my respect or not. But you’ve pissed it away.
I’m saddened.
No no no no no. Far better would be this:
The Democrats are nothing but a bunch of Godless Commies. Following the teachings of Karl Marx, religion will be classified as a schedule III drug and banned.
You know - I’m going to reverse my position here.
Although it’s hard for me to imagine, apparently there are enough people here (whose views I take seriously) that feel there is a semi-serious danger of the uninformed reading a “Bible Banned” graphic and actually believing it respresented a serious claim. I offered the mile-high ice cream cone because the two seemed to me to be in precisely the same category – obvious hyperbole.
But I find myself very convinced by:
To me, reading a party pamphlet that made a claim like Bible banning is tantamount to entering the world of obvious exaggeration and satire. But I cannot ignore the chorus that says otherwise. Based on that, I am prepared to concede that my initial reaction was wrong. If there are more than a tiny handful of people that could read such a thing and think, even for a moment, that it represents a serious claim, then it is absolutely improper to distribute it without some means of clearly identifying it as exaggeration, as illustration, as satire, as SOMETHING other than the literal truth.
So, call me a flip-flopper. But I was clearly in the wrong here, and I’d rather admit that than cling to a wrong position for the sake of consistency.
FLIP-FLOPPER!
I’m pleased you changed your mind.
Oh, what do you know, turns out the RNC did send out that lie-packed piece of filth after all. I guess Gillespie’s staff finally got the word from Karl Rove that, for a refreshing change of pace, they should tell the truth one time.
Evil fuckers.
From the article:
Because the MA supreme court is doubling as the Ninth Circuit court of appeals.
Evil dumbass fucker.
Dateline: Planet Duh
Here’s a pic of the actual flyer
http://www.steveclemons.com/GOPMailer.htm
This is precisely the sort of assholish idiocy against which my Pit thread is directed. Sure you can – maybe you ought to, in fact, since your opinion is that gobear and his husband, and the other gay couples here, need to. Yeah – how about repealing all laws that permit a spouse to act in behalf of their spouse! And enabling your birth family to take your entire estate, and leave your wife and kids out in the street and penniless! Sounds like a great idea to me! :rolleyes:
A minister or priest acts as an agent of the state in solemnizing a legal marriage, since he’s required for the religious marriage as well. But he’s no more crossing the SOCAS line in doing so, than is the state illegally endorsing Fred’s Bait Shop by enabling him to sell fishing licenses as their agent. It’s a convenience to enable both sorts of marriage to be performed by a single officiant in a single setting, as opposed to what religious people have to do to marry in France.
The fact that you have to go to two separate entities - one religious, one secular - didn’t bring on a short visit from Mr. Clue ?
Not religion. According to those damn leftie activist Supremes, that motto is “ceremonial deism” and permissible because it essentially is without any religious content whatsoever. They are “protected from establishment clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content”, to quote Dean Rostow. (Now, if I was of the religious persuasion, I would consider it blasphemy of the highest order to put God’s name on something as worldly and base as a dollar bill and then - to add insult to injury - claim that God really had nothing to do with it at all, it was just there for ceremonial reasons, like a smart design. But I’m not, so I don’t.)