Eugene Volokh points out that, by the American Library Association’s definition of book banning (ie: removing a book from a public library, a school library, or a school curriculum a la Huckleberry Finn or Bridge to Terebitha), then there have indeed been attempts to “ban” the Bible in many communities.
Just a thought.
I don’t quite see how a Bible with the word “banned” embossed on it is meant to represent a change in school reading lists. His analogy also fails because “right to choose” has a common understanding as dealing with abortion , but BANNED does not have any such common association with library science. And, of course, there is the constrast: the cover is not saying that gay marriage is now going to only be ALLOWED in public schools. These are general statements about what society bans and allows in general.
If there were no separation, might there be no independent-of-church city, county, state and/or feds to whom you would have to show the certificate? Somewhat alternately, might the church take the place of one or more of the above agents?
Let us also consider the hypothetical that a church might choose to marry two rats to each other. The US government currently does not register rat-rat marriage, and as such showing the relevant documents to the relevant government officials would probably get lots of “Awww, how cute!” but less “Okay, let me just enter that into the system.” What is accepted by the church will not necessarily be accepted by the government, and what the government recognizes might well not be accepted by … hell, any church.
You’d also think having brought the question up previously in this thread also would have helped. But we can’t expect **duffer ** to actually learn on this board, now can we?
And my hat’s off to you for doing so.
I used to teach at an evangelical Christian college; I have fundie in-laws. I know the sort of scare propaganda these people get already, from the Pat Robertsons and James Dobsons of the world, and quite often from the pulpits in their own churches - and quite frankly, this sort of thing isn’t that different from what they hear anyway. They already hear, over and over again, that we dastardly liberals are banning Christianity and the Bible from schools, government buildings, and whatnot.
So when the God-fearing people of Arkansas and West Virginia get flyers like this in the mail, and it comes from the RNC, rather than from yet one more religious group, it doesn’t look like hyperbole - it looks like independent confirmation.
And that’s why I take this particular mailing very seriously.
I need to support this wholeheartedly and overtly.
I’m participating on a Christian board where any exaggeration or misrepresentation presented by a “man of God” or by the Republican Party is believed implicitly, because those fine upstanding decent Christians would clearly never lie, right? So I get people sincerely arguing that, e.g., gobear or jayjay could choose to renounce their homosexuality and find themselves a good woman, and God would grant them happiness for having done His obvious will. (Perhaps Homebrew can speak to that aspect of their thinking; he’s been there!)
So quite simply, such people are going to take seriously the idea that “them Godless Democrats” who want to ban the Pledge of Allegiance and school prayers and all that other good stuff are seriously intending to ban the Bible if they’re elected – because our beloved President and his party wouldn’t lie to us, would they?
That frame of mind really does happen – and pretty commonly, too. I don’t care how unlikely someone having that frame that may seem in NYC or big city suburbs – there are people out there who sincerely believe this sort of thing, especially if someone “reliable” like Pat Robertson or the Republican National Committee says it’s true.
And that is what makes it so damnable. If I were John Kerry, I would demand a statewide mailing in those two states, paid for by the RNC, that says, “We lied. That’s not the truth” and I’d sue to demand compliance before November 2.
Any opinions? Can anybody give an example of anything sleazier from this election yet?
There’s been mention from the left that Bush will institute the draft if elected, citing the current bills in the House and Senate. They fail to mention that the bills are sponsored by Democrats, and are extremely unlikely to pass. But I think that’s a pretty distant second, barring any other examples.
Heavens, yes. Sorry I missed your earlier post.
There’s every appearance that Bush’s Iraq policy is driven by the U.S. election, rather than by realities and events on the ground in Iraq. Having U.S. soldiers (and the Iraqi citizens we supposedly came to rescue) get blown up in order to preserve the impression in the minds of American voters that Iraq is simply going a spot of turbulence on its way to being a modern democracy, so that GWB can win another term, is about as sleazy as I can envision.
As Josh Marshall summed it up:
Bricker, while I can see where you’re coming from, keep in mind that some folks thought Harry Potter really was sparking a rise in Satanism. Nobody ever went broke, etc.
At the same time, I think that if a Democrat sent out an ad showing Bush and Ashcroft next to a picture of the Bill of Rights with “BANNED” across it, I’d understand that the picture wasn’t meant to be taken literally, and I’d not get very upset over it. Maybe that’s just my partisanship showing.
Daniel