Damn, we've been found out; the prospect of banning the Bible

[Pure]

Damn, the liberals' secret plan is out of the bag!


Republicans Admit Mailing Campaign Literature Saying Liberals Will Ban the Bible

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK


NY Times
Published: September 24, 2004

[excerpt]
he Republican Party acknowledged yesterday sending mass mailings to residents of two states warning that "liberals" seek to ban the Bible. It said the mailings were part of its effort to mobilize religious voters for President Bush.

The mailings include images of the Bible labeled "banned" and of a gay marriage proposal labeled "allowed." A mailing to Arkansas residents warns: "This will be Arkansas if you don't vote." A similar mailing was sent to West Virginians.

A liberal religious group, the Interfaith Alliance, circulated a copy of the Arkansas mailing to reporters yesterday to publicize it. "What they are doing is despicable,'' said Don Parker, a spokesman for the alliance. "They are playing on people's fears and emotions."

 

[Weird Harold]

Republicans Admit Mailing Campaign Literature Saying Liberals Will Ban the Bible
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

...
A liberal religious group, the Interfaith Alliance, circulated a copy of the Arkansas mailing to reporters yesterday to publicize it. "What they are doing is despicable,'' said Don Parker, a spokesman for the alliance. "They are playing on people's fears and emotions."

Sounds like "the pot calling the kettle black" to me.

Both sides are playing on people's fears and emotions instead of appealing to their logic because that's what works.

 

[SummerMorning]

Logic doesn't work? Wow.

 

[Pure]

Hi Weird,

Yes, logic is important; how about

Iraq is fucked up, becoming a quagmire and breeding ground for terrorists.

Bush/Cheney etc. directed it.

They have no plans to change the approach, rather to 'stay the course.'

So they must be turfed out.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Hi Weird,

Yes, logic is important; how about

Iraq is fucked up, becoming a quagmire and breeding ground for terrorists.

Bush/Cheney etc. directed it.

They have no plans to change the approach, rather to 'stay the course.'

So they must be turfed out.

Pure, has anyone presented any evidence that Iraq is now a hot bed of terrorist recruiting or activity? Beyond the insurgence, which so far has featured more foerign born terrorist leaders than local products, I haven't seen it. Has there been a rise in the number of Iraqi international terrorists? Or is this hot bed of terrorism lable just an extrapolation that iraqis are joining the insurgancy, ergo they are terrorists now?

-Colly

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

. . . Republicans Admit Mailing Campaign Literature Saying Liberals Will Ban the Bible . . .

This story just made Outrage of the Week on The Capital Gang.

Funny. I wasn't outraged. My original thought was that the Bushies mustn't be getting enough sleep.

Surely no one in Arkansas is dopey enough to believe such a preposterous canard.

If I actually believed they would, I’d make damn certain my travels should never take me through Arkansas.

 

[amicus]

Avoid Arkansas at all possible speed!

 

[Colleen Thomas]

This story just made Outrage of the Week on The Capital Gang.

Funny. I wasn't outraged. My original thought was that the Bushies mustn't be getting enough sleep.

Surely no one in Arkansas is dopey enough to believe such a preposterous canard.

If I actually believed they would, I’d make damn certain my travels should never take me through Arkansas.

Well,

No prayer in Schools, who did that? Liberals.
Taking the words under god out of the Pledge. Who's fighting for that? Liberals.
Removing the ten commandments from public buildings. Who is fighting for that? Liberals.
With only minor extrapolation, using the courts to banish Christianity from public life whenever and where ever they can. Who is doing that? Liberals.

It does not take a giant leap to see them fighting for Banning the Bible. Christian groups, especially the SBC, make no distinction between liberals and hell spawn.

As a Liberal, I feel pretty comfortable asserting you feel most of the list at the top is right and proper. You probably don't see yourself as being anti-religion, but strongly pro constitution. Still, to a devout believer, Liberals are anti religion, specifically anti-christian. I feel pretty sure that the "revelation" that liberals plan on banning the bible, isn't a surprise of any kind to a lot of folks in Arkansaws. They have been hearing it for at least several years now from the pulpit that liberals aim to foster an atheistic state, where christians will face the same persecution they did in Rome.

To dismiss the effectiveness of such a tactic out of hand, is to not allow yourself to expand your mind and see things from the perspective of someone who has been raised to believe there is only one god, one true religion, that this country was founded on that religion, and that liberals have an anti-church agenda that they began pushing when they had prayer banned from public schools.

-Colly

 

[Pure]

C: //Pure, has anyone presented any evidence that Iraq is now a hot bed of terrorist recruiting or activity? Beyond the insurgence, which so far has featured more foerign born terrorist leaders than local products, I haven't seen it. //

I know of no evidence that the 'insurgents' are mostly foreign born.

//Has there been a rise in the number of Iraqi international terrorists? //

If you mean someone willing to go outside his country and wreak vengeance, I believe so, but I'm not sure.

//Or is this hot bed of terrorism lable just an extrapolation that iraqis are joining the insurgancy, ergo they are terrorists now?//

I do see your point, Colly. Occupier and colonialist are likely to see 'freedom fighters' (of the country in question) as terrorists, and to the extent that they are local, they aren't a problem to their neighbors or the US proper, at later points.

That said, I believe the presence/formation of certain radical Islamic groups iin Iraq indicates that ordinary Iraqis are increasingly disposed to become terrorists, or, more important, to be passively or actively supporting terrorist.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that you are right that Iraqis, now terrorists (or freedom fighters), won't leave Iraq.
Let us also assume that the foreign folks you mention as a majority, are important, though a minority--i e in the hundreds, rather than the thousands.

That could still leave Iraq as a training and recruting ground, much the way Afghanistan was. 1) A person in another country is encouraged to go and fight; 2) S/he receives training and indoctrination; 3) S/he actually fights the Americans, and become battle hardened, experienced. This happened in Afgh'n.
At that point, you have someone willing to take another assignment, including to the US heartland, or US overseas installations not in Iraq, IMO.

Conclusion: Even if no native Iraqis were trained to terrorism outside Iraq, it is likely a training ground for foreign terrorists who fight there, and the present Iraq situation *fuels* international Islamist terrorism in that way. Also, it might be noted that the mere US presence in Iraq, with lots of civilian casualties on Al Jazeera is likely a useful promotional tool in recruiting terrorists outside Iraq.

Therefore, the international war on terror is fueled, not hindered (as Bush claims and insinuates), by the current US presence and actions in Iraq.

At very least, the Iraq war is without effect on intern'l terrorism, which means it's a diversion from the main antiterrorist task at hand, in money, manpower, expertise, etc. It's also a diversion from the rebuilding of Afgh'n.

 

[Pure]

Colly said,

It does not take a giant leap to see them [liberals] fighting for Banning the Bible.

As you point out, there are a series of measures to make schools neutral as regards religion, and there are laws to deter/prevent the promotion of Christianity in public schools. That includes compulsory Christian rituals, like venerating baby Jesus at Christmas (i.e., in a play the whole school is involved in, as in my day.)

No teacher may say, "As a Christian I abhor premarital sex, and since my religion is from God and His Son, you had better listen to what you might call 'the Christian position', since otherwise you're in grave danger of eternal punishment."

In that sense, the Bible is already 'banned.' No teacher can take out a Bible, and say, "I read from Deuteronomy; please take notes and learn this material. It is God's word. If any of you lack a Bible at home, see me after class, and I'll give you one for study as God's word."

As I understand it, the public schools may *study* religion, and in a 'study of religion' class look at the Bible, Koran, and other scriptures. In that sense the Bible isn't banned. You can carry it around, read it in at least one class, etc.

 

[poohlive]

Actually, I don't mean to deter the thread from the original argument, but I think I would feel a lot better if the bible was "officially" banned from schools.

It just seems easier. They came out with a bunch of stuff a while ago, saying what books are banned because of problems with religion or political turmoil. Books that are evil and satanic like Harry Potter.

It just sickens me a little bit. How, the bible is somehow considered this great document that should never be touched or outlawed. It's just a book people, and school shouldn't be that politically motivated anyway.

Stephen King wrote about all of his books being taken out of school, public, high school, and whatnot. He said, good. It shouldn't be in public schools. However, in every town in every State of the U.S.A. there is a public library, that outlaws nothing. Go, check it out, read it.

There are yard sales and garage sales, and used book stores where you can get the most banned and controversial shit on the market for pennies a page. Go, find it. The adults don't want you to read it? Why don't you find out what it is, and then tell the adults if you can or can't read it.

Bibles are everywhere anyway. Hell, you can't cross the street in a major city without someone handing them out. You don't even need to leave your home, religious fanatics will knock on your door, leave leaflets and give you free order forms for Bible's and new versions of Bible's, and Bible bookmarks, and Bible reference pages, and Bible Translation pages, and Bible hats, and Bible T-Shirts, and What Would Jesus Do? product merchandising.

The Bible should have been banned from school the minute some guy stood up and said, "Well, hell, I think we outta seperate Church and State."
And a buncha guys agreed with him.

If Liberals are trying to ban the bible, I say good for them. About time someone did it. If Republicans are trying to manipulate that, well, than, I think that gives you a good idea of who's looking out for your best interest.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

C: //Pure, has anyone presented any evidence that Iraq is now a hot bed of terrorist recruiting or activity? Beyond the insurgence, which so far has featured more foerign born terrorist leaders than local products, I haven't seen it. //

I know of no evidence that the 'insurgents' are mostly foreign born.

//Has there been a rise in the number of Iraqi international terrorists? //

If you mean someone willing to go outside his country and wreak vengeance, I believe so, but I'm not sure.

//Or is this hot bed of terrorism lable just an extrapolation that iraqis are joining the insurgancy, ergo they are terrorists now?//

I do see your point, Colly. Occupier and colonialist are likely to see 'freedom fighters' (of the country in question) as terrorists, and to the extent that they are local, they aren't a problem to their neighbors or the US proper, at later points.

That said, I believe the presence/formation of certain radical Islamic groups iin Iraq indicates that ordinary Iraqis are increasingly disposed to become terrorists, or, more important, to be passively or actively supporting terrorist.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that you are right that Iraqis, now terrorists (or freedom fighters), won't leave Iraq.
Let us also assume that the foreign folks you mention as a majority, are important, though a minority--i e in the hundreds, rather than the thousands.

That could still leave Iraq as a training and recruting ground, much the way Afghanistan was. 1) A person in another country is encouraged to go and fight; 2) S/he receives training and indoctrination; 3) S/he actually fights the Americans, and become battle hardened, experienced. This happened in Afgh'n.
At that point, you have someone willing to take another assignment, including to the US heartland, or US overseas installations not in Iraq, IMO.

Conclusion: Even if no native Iraqis were trained to terrorism outside Iraq, it is likely a training ground for foreign terrorists who fight there, and the present Iraq situation *fuels* international Islamist terrorism in that way. Also, it might be noted that the mere US presence in Iraq, with lots of civilian casualties on Al Jazeera is likely a useful promotional tool in recruiting terrorists outside Iraq.

Therefore, the international war on terror is fueled, not hindered (as Bush claims and insinuates), by the current US presence and actions in Iraq.

At very least, the Iraq war is without effect on intern'l terrorism, which means it's a diversion from the main antiterrorist task at hand, in money, manpower, expertise, etc. It's also a diversion from the rebuilding of Afgh'n.

The leaders of most of the terrorist activity, Here I will keep the definition to taking hostages & killing them with a live internet feed, as opposed to actions that could be legitimately construed to be partisan activity against a percieved occupying power, seem to be foerign born terrorists. My perception there could be very wrong, as I don't actually go to the web and look for these things. I know the an who killed Berg was a 2nd or third tier AQ leader.

I don't, by any means, aim to say we are doing a good job in Iraq. I was merely curious, as I hear this mantra that Iraq is createing more terrorists again and again, yet no one has yet linked an act of terror, outside of the activites that could be construed as partisan activities, to an Iraqi.

-Colly

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly said,

It does not take a giant leap to see them [liberals] fighting for Banning the Bible.

As you point out, there are a series of measures to make schools neutral as regards religion, and there are laws to deter/prevent the promotion of Christianity in public schools. That includes compulsory Christian rituals, like venerating baby Jesus at Christmas (i.e., in a play the whole school is involved in, as in my day.)

No teacher may say, "As a Christian I abhor premarital sex, and since my religion is from God and His Son, you had better listen to what you might call 'the Christian position', since otherwise you're in grave danger of eternal punishment."

In that sense, the Bible is already 'banned.' No teacher can take out a Bible, and say, "I read from Deuteronomy; please take notes and learn this material. It is God's word. If any of you lack a Bible at home, see me after class, and I'll give you one for study as God's word."

As I understand it, the public schools may *study* religion, and in a 'study of religion' class look at the Bible, Koran, and other scriptures. In that sense the Bible isn't banned. You can carry it around, read it in at least one class, etc.

My point really had little to do with the actual issue of the bible in schools. It had more to do with perception and seeing someone else's.

The idea that Liberals are perniciously, spitefully, trying to remove God from all aspects of public life as part of an atheistic, immoral agenda seems laughable to most Liberals. From the view point of a great many Christians, it is anything but laughable.

I don't think many people would support the introdution of Islamic precepts on law, or society should be introduced. The same goes for buddism, shintoism, Taoism, Judaism, or any other religion. The crux of it is, the institutions in this country that have achieved some measure of tradional affiliation are almost all protestant Christianity. So when you move to enforce the Establishment Clause, when you lobby to enforce separation of Church and state, your actions, in effect become anti-christian, from the point of view of devout christians.

Refusing to see this, is to ignore the powerful message that is being sent to Christians. The Liberals want to take your bible away! may become as common a rallying cry as The Democrats want to take your guns away! in future elections.

Democrats and liberals dismiss such perception out of hand at their own peril. It is becoming increasingly difficult to find a devout christian who votes Democrat. The GOP may have sold out to the Christian right, in terms of policy, but they have also effectively co-opted Christianity as a Republican value.

I see two, rather alarming aspects to this as far as Dems should be concerned. One, is that the GOP could end up siphoning a lot of votes that have traditionally gone to the Dems, fom the ranks of Catholics, and devout minorities. Two, is that GOP could well gather enough support in this way to stack the house, senate, white house and courts, then push through legislation that supports returning "Christian" values to the national stage.

It's troubling beacuse the potential is there and both Dems and Liberals seem prepared to laugh at the very idea. Call me a little paranoid, but I don't see it as humerous in any way.

-Colly

 

[Pure]

//I don't, by any means, aim to say we are doing a good job in Iraq. I was merely curious, as I hear this mantra that Iraq is createing more terrorists again and again, yet no one has yet linked an act of terror, outside of the activites that could be construed as partisan activities, to an Iraqi.//

As I said, perhaps the Iraqi terrorists created, will confine themselves to Iraq.

In Afghanistan, foreign persons from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, came to fight the good fight (jihad) for Islam. Now they've moved elsewhere, most of them, but they're experienced.

I believe there's some evidence that is happening in Iraq, and indeed you claim a majority of insurgents are foreign. In any case, Iraq is a new training ground, to fight the godless American imperialists. Those who don't get killed, and who've tasted American blood there, will be experienced and ready to move elsewhere --outside Iraq-- since Iraq isn't their country anyway.

I believe there is recruiting going on in Pakistan and other areas, using the occupation as the stimulus. "See what the US is doing, killing Muslims and desecrating holy places. The toll is now over 10,000. See the lackey government so typical of many other Islamic countries."

I suggest that's a potent recruiting tool, perhaps as potent as the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was. Mujihadeen from around the world (US, Canada, UK, not to say Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistand etc.) came, and toughened themselves, to be used on missions, later, in other countries.

In short, it's not necessary for Iraqis to turn up with bombs in NYC. If OTHER groups have swelled their ranks with new recruits either from Iraq or exercized about it, then the Islamic terrorist cause has been strenthened by the US, and the US homeland, as a result, is in greater danger, even if not from Iraqis.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

//I don't, by any means, aim to say we are doing a good job in Iraq. I was merely curious, as I hear this mantra that Iraq is createing more terrorists again and again, yet no one has yet linked an act of terror, outside of the activites that could be construed as partisan activities, to an Iraqi.//

As I said, perhaps the Iraqi terrorists created, will confine themselves to Iraq.

In Afghanistan, foreign persons from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, came to fight the good fight (jihad) for Islam. Now they've moved elsewhere, most of them, but they're experienced.

I believe there's some evidence that is happening in Iraq, and indeed you claim a majority of insurgents are foreign. In any case, Iraq is a new training ground, to fight the godless American imperialists. Those who don't get killed, and who've tasted American blood there, will be experienced and ready to move elsewhere --outside Iraq-- since Iraq isn't their country anyway.

I believe there is recruiting going on in Pakistan and other areas, using the occupation as the stimulus. "See what the US is doing, killing Muslims and desecrating holy places. The toll is now over 10,000. See the lackey government so typical of many other Islamic countries."

I suggest that's a potent recruiting tool, perhaps as potent as the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was. Mujihadeen from around the world (US, Canada, UK, not to say Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistand etc.) came, and toughened themselves, to be used on missions, later, in other countries.

In short, it's not necessary for Iraqis to turn up with bombs in NYC. If OTHER groups have swelled their ranks with new recruits either from Iraq or exercized about it, then the Islamic terrorist cause has been strenthened by the US, and the US homeland, as a result, is in greater danger, even if not from Iraqis.

Again, it seems the link to Iraq and increased terrorism is all conjectural. Which is fine, by default hard intelligence on terrorists is scanty. I have just heard it brandished like a sword several times and wondered if there were any hard facts behind the assertion.

-Colly

 

[amicus]

Colly.....

Something you said...or the tone of your post prompts me to add a little.....

I have lived in the south for several years...to be near kids and grandkids....Arkansas, Mississippi and North Carolina.

Pursuing my career in radio and newspaper, I have discovered just how much 'religion' has moved into, (or perhaps has always been) in the school system.

High school coaches lead prayers for theirs teams before each game..teachers regularly make reference to biblical quotations, in and out of class on the campus. School facilities and functions have a prayer delivered by a preacher and religious gospel singers us school facilities regularly.... and much more...


amicus...

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

... It does not take a giant leap to see them fighting for Banning the Bible. Christian groups, especially the SBC, make no distinction between liberals and hell spawn. .

Banning the Bible is far different than preventing one religion’s symbols from being shoved down the throat of all the other citizens, against the principles set forth in the Constitution.

I can be empathetic enough to understand how even liberal Christians may be saddened by the moth-balling of many of their symbols, previously employed in a secular portion of civic life. I also think they are intelligent enough to understand that their present freedom of worship is founded upon the strict observance of the separation of church and state. The one thing that most American religions have in common is that they share a history where somehow, sometime, somewhere they were suppressed by a competing belief.

How ignorant must a person be to believe that their form of religion is the only religion that values the Bible, so that only they would object if it were banned? (Even Moslems value the Bible as one of their holy books.)

How out of touch must one be? How tenuous a grasp on reality must one have?

However much, it requires more gullibility than I can generate to believe that a claim such as that would find credence with any save those with the dimmest of intellects.

No matter what the jokes and stereotypes purports, I cannot believe that enough citizens of Arkansas are sufficiently feebleminded to allow this gambit to prosper.

In fact, were I an Arkansan I should probably take it as an insult to my intelligence and an affront to my state.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Banning the Bible is far different than preventing one religion’s symbols from being shoved down the throat of all the other citizens, against the principles set forth in the Constitution.

I can be empathetic enough to understand how even liberal Christians may be saddened by the moth-balling of many of their symbols, previously employed in a secular portion of civic life. I also think they are intelligent enough to understand that their present freedom of worship is founded upon the strict observance of the separation of church and state. The one thing that most American religions have in common is that they share a history where somehow, sometime, somewhere they were suppressed by a competing belief.

How ignorant must a person be to believe that their form of religion is the only religion that values the Bible, so that only they would object if it were banned? (Even Moslems value the Bible as one of their holy books.)

How out of touch must one be? How tenuous a grasp on reality must one have?

However much, it requires more gullibility than I can generate to believe that a claim such as that would find credence with any save those with the dimmest of intellects.

No matter what the jokes and stereotypes purports, I cannot believe that enough citizens of Arkansas are sufficiently feebleminded to allow this gambit to prosper.

In fact, were I an Arkansan I should probably take it as an insult to my intelligence and an affront to my state.

It is exactly this attitude from liberals that is getting you creamed in elections across the USA. It's the inability to stretch your minds to see this isn't just an acillary issue, it's THE issue to many conservative christians. And it isn't just ignorant rednecks who feel their religion threatened.

I wish that many of you could sit in on a rual sunday go to meeting across the south and hear what is being said in the pulpits, the parking lots and over the potluck dinners. You aren't crusaders, protecting the constitution, you are atheistic swine, assaulting the rights of people to worship as they see fit.

For at least four years liberals have been paying the price for this lack of vision, and it is only likely to get worse. Especially when you apply mental deficiency to those who believe, because that's adding insults to the injury.

-Colly

 

[Pure]

Colly, the fallout from Afg'n took a few years to manifest--to see where the holy warriors ended up.

Further the link between 'failed states' and terrorism has been noted elsewhere.

I believe one can make a valid extrapolation from those cases. The jihadis practicing in Iraqi, will eventually turn up in other places, or I'm a horse's ass.

---
I do get your point about how liberals are seen, and how their religious stance (about church and state) is seen. OTOH, it's not certain that leaning of Southerners is easily appeased. However Carter and Clinton both seem to have be[en] religious and proreligious enought to placate the South. I would have liked to see Clark run, this time, myself.

 

[rgraham666]

Colleen?

The prospect of the True Believers 'getting the Bible' back into society frightens me as much as it being 'banned' frightens them.

There won't be much space for a person like me in the world they want.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colleen?

The prospect of the True Believers 'getting the Bible' back into society frightens me as much as it being 'banned' frightens them.

There won't be much space for a person like me in the world they want.

It is a frighteneing prospect. But realisitically, what have we got so far from W? Faith based inititives, which amount to nothing more than federal tax dollars for Churches. The house passing a bill to remove the question of the words under god from federal judicial review. Sops to th ereligious right are becoming major policy moves. It is very frightening.

-Colly

 

[minsue]

It is a frighteneing prospect. But realisitically, what have we got so far from W? Faith based inititives, which amount to nothing more than federal tax dollars for Churches. The house passing a bill to remove the question of the words under god from federal judicial review. Sops to th ereligious right are becoming major policy moves. It is very frightening.

-Colly

So vote, dear Colly

 

[Colleen Thomas]

So vote, dear Colly

I plan to goosey, not that it will make any difference.

-Colly

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

. . . it isn't just ignorant rednecks who feel their religion threatened. . .

How is their religion threatened? The threat is only that their religion is not to be given preeminence over all other religions, or over the founding principles of this country — the country which first gave them the freedom to practice their religion.

Unless they were C. of E. it wasn't in the cards for their religion to prosper, before this country separated government from religion.

I don't doubt that there are some in Arkansas who are as blinded by their religion as you say. It is just that I cannot believe enough of these exist in any state to make that much of a difference.

In any case, I plan to do all within my power to prevent those who appease these fanatics from retaining power. To see that those who — amongst other things — will not permit these fanatics to take more power than that which is each person’s right in our society. What more do you wish me to do?

Finally, if this is your true opinion — if you can see this so clearly — why are you not leading the opposition against those leaders who pander to this threat?

 

[Pure]

rg graham: //The prospect of the True Believers 'getting the Bible' back into society frightens me as much as it being 'banned' frightens them.

There won't be much space for a person like me in the world they want. //
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Colly: It is a frightening prospect.

=========

Just to put in a small qualification here. The US, before this century had a definite Christian character. The Bible was more visible and more quoted. And the US was scarcely the worst place in the world for tolerance, nor did it have 'no space' for the rggrahams.

Another point worth mentioning is that some Protestants, certain streams of Baptists in particular, have long favored church state separation. Partly because he who pays the piper, call the tune.

What needs to be teased out here is, imo, the dangers of fascism, and those streams of Christianity that might indulge it.