WASHINGTON - 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.
The literature shows a Bible with the word "BANNED" across it and a photo of a man, on his knees, placing a ring on the hand of another man with the word "ALLOWED." The mailing tells West Virginians to "vote Republican to protect our families" and defeat the "liberal agenda."
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.
The flier says Republicans have passed laws protecting life, support defining marriage as between a man and a woman and will nominate conservative judges who will "interpret the law and not legislate from the bench."
"The liberal agenda includes removing `under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance," it says.
It does not mention the names of the presidential candidates.
Jim Jordan, a spokesman for American Coming Together, described the mailing as "standard-issue Republican hate-mongering."
Gillespie said same-sex marriage is a legitimate issue in the election. President Bush (news - web sites) has proposed amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage. Democratic Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) also opposes gay marriage but said a constitutional amendment is going too far.
The RNC also is running radio ads in several states urging people to register to vote.
"There is a line drawn in America today," one ad says. "On one side are the radicals trying to uproot our traditional values and our culture. They're fighting to hijack the institution of marriage, plotting to legalize partial birth abortion, and working to take God out of the pledge of allegiance and force the worst of Hollywood on the rest of America."
"Are you on their side of the line?" the ad asks before making the plea to "support conservative Republican candidates."
posted
I heard about that on Malloy. I was hoping it was untrue... So frustrating So damned annoying. Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm on their side of the line... and damned proud of it. *grumbles* stupid RNC...
At least I'm on their side with the gay marridge part, still thinking about abortion but leaning heavily prochoice and frankly I'd be happy if they took God out of the pledge of allegiance, cause we are NOT infact, despite popular conservative christian belief, a christian nation, in the same way we are not a jewish nation nor a muslim nation nor a hindi nation nor a buddhist nation. People need to get over it and stop trying to make us a christian nation
quote: The flier says Republicans have passed laws protecting life, support defining marriage as between a man and a woman and will nominate conservative judges who will "interpret the law and not legislate from the bench."
"The liberal agenda includes removing `under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance," it says.
I'm a socially liberal guy and this flier pretty much described my position pretty well.
-pro choice, check -pro gay marriage, check -removing under god from Pledge of Allegiance, don't really care
I'm Vwiggin and I approved this message. Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would the RNC support the more inclusive edit of the Pledge that would say "Insert Diety Here" where "Under God" is spoken? Under Allah? Under Yahweh? Under "Bob?" Under God(s)?
Our paper today had a great editorial cartoon. It was the arm of Reagan passing on various legacies to the current Bush. Bush sits on a pile of Reagan-era stuff but the newest thing being handed to him is the bottle of spray on Teflon. Too true, too true.
A vote for Kerry is a vote for Al-Qaeda and Bible burnings!
posted
I tend to see "Under God" as being interpreted as something all-sinclusive anyway, fil. Allah=God. Yahweh=God. Even Bob=God. It doesn't say "Under the Judeo-Christian God".
I suppose the only thing it doesn't include is Atheists. That's why I don't think we should force kids to say the pledge of Allegiance at all. Because I think removing the "Under God" would be a move toward Atheism in government policy.
We are not a Christian Nation. We are not an Atheist nation. We are a multicultured, multitheist nation. It's impossible and (I think) inappropriate to force our elected officials to have no regard for their religious/moral beliefs, whatever they may be. Our nation needs to be a place where anyone can worship or not worship according to their own wills and desires.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Muppet, you are aware that the legislation that inserted under god specified that it was to affirm we are a christian nation, and as such, doesn't include in its intent allah or yahweh or bob?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it doesn't say it in the words themselves, does it matter what the original intent was? The term "Christian" wasn't originally given to be a compliment either...
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I suppose the only thing it doesn't include is Atheists. That's why I don't think we should force kids to say the pledge of Allegiance at all. Because I think removing the "Under God" would be a move toward Atheism in government policy.
We are not a Christian Nation. We are not an Atheist nation. We are a multicultured, multitheist nation. It's impossible and (I think) inappropriate to force our elected officials to have no regard for their religious/moral beliefs, whatever they may be. Our nation needs to be a place where anyone can worship or not worship according to their own wills and desires.
Removing the "Under God" bit moves us more toward a SECULAR nation which we are SUPPOSED TO BE! We are supposed to have an absence of religion in government, its called being secular. The separation of church and state and all that? Not an atheist nation, atheism is the fervent belief that there is no god. Moving toward atheism would be putting in something like "without a god" (which I do when I have to say the pledge of allegeance ).
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually I think the absolute best thing to do would not be to remove it, but simply have a blank spot there and have people fill in whatever they feel best fits their belief. So I would say "without god" there, a christian would still say "under god" , a muslim could say "under Allah", so on and so forth. That would be most fitting I think, cause it most represents the US, and it would sound really cool when you reached that point, it would go from being in unison to a cacophony of names and phrases to being back in unison. It would most represent what the US is.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Muppet, you are aware that the legislation that inserted under god specified that it was to affirm we are a christian nation, and as such, doesn't include in its intent allah or yahweh or bob?
Actually, I didn't. I'm just giving my own opinion (as a christian) on what I think "Under God" means where the pledge of allegiance is concerned. Hence the "I think".
As I understand it, the original words to the pledge of Allegiance did not include the phrase "Under God". It was even adopted by Congress as such, with the strict stipulation that noone would be coerced into saying it in classrooms or elsewhere. Keep in mind this was the non-Under God version.
Then, for whatever reason, the "Under God" was added. To take it back out now seems to me like saying "oh we were wrong about that whole God thing". I realize that to some, this might be a good thing. But I feel that in order to best keep in line with this:
quote: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
We should just keep the pledge in its current form, teach everyone all about its history, changes, and meaning to different peoples and times, and just leave it at that.
We are not a country that requires a pledge of loyalty or allegiance from its citizens. This, I think, is a very very good thing. That's why I think the Pledge in any form shouldn't be quoted by schoolchildren on a daily basis.
posted
I'm not sure how to construe removing "under god" from the official version of the pledge as "prohibiting free speech," as it does not prohibit you from saying it. It just removes the expectation that you say it in order to pledge allegicance. Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I know that Cheney has threatened the United States with another terrorist attack if Kerry should win, but I haven't really seen any media coverage of the Kerry/Edwards camp.
Two days ago, John Edwards said that if George W Bush should win, the liberals will allow the Jews to eat all the Christian babies.
I guess it truly is a Jewish-liberal-biased media.
--DOG
I AM DOG, and I approved this message.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't really want to get involved in this conversation, because I don't neccessarily feel one way or the other.
But...Paul:
quote: Muppet, you are aware that the legislation that inserted under god specified that it was to affirm we are a christian nation, and as such, doesn't include in its intent allah or yahweh or bob?
quote: Katharina- Yes.
Just to clarify Paul, Are you a strict constitutionalist? I don't know for sure, without going back to read all your political posts, but I don't seem to remember you being one.
So if original intent is what truly matters, should we have privacy rights? Should the supreme court have judicial review? It was not the original intent of the writers of the constitution to do so, as can be proven historically by looking at Jefferson and others views of things.
I was merely curious, because if the original intent of the framers of the constitution do not mean anything to you, I cannot see how you could accept the original intent of other lawmakers as being reason enough to support/not support something.
As I said, I don't neccessarily disagree with your views, I merely take exception to your reasoning as given.
posted
I know people are ticked off about the mention of God in the pledge. I am curious--how do you feel about the numerous mentions of Deity in patriotic songs? Sure, not all of them have it, but a significant number do! When a person is religious and they wax patriotic, their religious beliefs tend to be a part of that. Does this bother atheists?
I am in favor of people inserting whatever the heck they feel like there. Silence if they wish too. But if the pause is removed, people who wish to say it cannot.
posted
So, the constitution only protects what it was meant to protect? If the founding fathers didn't intend for abortion to be legal, there's no reason for it. If Christian started out as an insult, it's an insult today. If the swastika wasn't originally a Nazi symbol, there's nothing insulting about waving the Nazi flag in front of the Holocaust museum.
Back yourself up, Paul. Your thesis is that original intent is more important than evolved meaning.
quote:Your thesis is that original intent is more important than evolved meaning.
Yeah, meanings change. That's OK. As a Christian, it has never occurred to me that the "under God" refers to the Christian God in particular--only that it means that when *I* say it.
posted
You know, it bugs me that Christians get a free pass on this issue precisely because their word for their god happens to be the SAME word we use for generic gods. It's pretty clear that a generic god is not intended by the pledge, but Judeo-Christians can safely claim otherwise only because our language lets 'em get away with it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If we spoke the pledge of Allegiance in Arabic, we'd use "Allah" for God, because they mean the same thing.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, it's funny. Canada, as a nation, is significantly more atheistic and liberal than the US. (I can't give a link, but I recently saw a survey which said that 55% of Americans thought it was important to believe in some form of a god or another, whereas only 20% of Canadians held the same opinion.)
And yet, I haven't heard anyone complaining about the words "God keep our land glorious and free" contained in our national anthem. These words were not there at first, but were added to it in 1980.
So maybe it's just because I'm Canadian. But I really don't have a clue what the fuss is over your pledge of allegiance. Why do you even care? Atheists can look to Canada for comfort : an official mention of God will not keep your country from becoming a godless, pagan nation.
quote: It's pretty clear that a generic god is not intended by the pledge
I understand this was the original intent, but how is it "pretty clear" that that is the intention now? Some Christians argue that as an LDS, the God I believe in is in fact *not* the Judeo/Christian (or just Christian, if you prefer) God AT ALL. That doesn't stop me from thinking of my concept of God as I speak.
I know that Muslims have a special attachment to using the term "Allah". If a muslim said "Allah" in the pledge, I would say "good on ya!" and if an atheist said nothing there, I would say "more power to ya!" I do not require that you believe as I do, and it certainly isn't a requirement to be part of this country. No one should require it.
posted
beverly, it is similar to the assumption that one can be ethical only if one acknowledges the oversight of a God.
You could always add the "under God" part at the end on your own, I suppose. And doing it at the end means we could all do our own part at the same time (stay silent, add "under Allah" or "all the gods of the pantheon," what have you) and stay on rhythm -- [and, for what it's worth, not single out anyone for doing nothing [i]or[/] something. Heck, you could declaim a sonnet then if you wanted, in honor of free speech.]
[ September 20, 2004, 08:36 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've never said that intent of the constitution matters, but I've always said that intent of legislation matters.
They are two different categories, and I apply two different standards. I have been remarkably consistent in doing this, as well.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul -- why does it matter (to you) what the intent behind legislation is, but not behind the constitution? If I were to make a choice as to which is more important, I'd say that the intent behind the constitution is more important.
Posts: 143 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I'm just saying that it's not pretty clear to me that it is exclusively the Judeo-Christian god."
As someone who means the Judeo-Christian god every time he says it, I'm not sure how you're qualified to tell.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
How am I unqualified to say what it appears to mean? It would make just as much sense for me to say that since you don't mean that when you say it, you aren't qualified to tell.
posted
mph- Because the constitution is deliberately vague in order to allow changing dynamics of law. The constitution is meta-law. It tells us how to go about the process of creating law.
The bill of rights tells us what government may NOT do.
Laws, on the other hand, are clearly defined, and impact ONE thing, rather then creating vast frameworks.
The intent of a law can violate the constitution, but the intent of the constitution cannot violate itself.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul -- I must be missing something, because everything you said there sounds to me like it supports what I said, not what you said.
Posts: 143 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I tend to see "Under God" as being interpreted as something all-sinclusive anyway, fil. Allah=God. Yahweh=God. Even Bob=God. It doesn't say "Under the Judeo-Christian God".
I suppose the only thing it doesn't include is Atheists.
And don't forget the polytheists! Long may the thrones of the Valar endure! Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beverly -- patriotic songs are not determined by acts of Congress. They are not official. They are not property of the nation as a whole, but only of those who appropriate them.
The pledge is my pledge just as much as it is your pledge, or anyone else's pledge. While this doesn't mean it should try to avoid offending everyone, it should stay silent on those issues it has been decided the government should stay silent on, because it is a pledge to the nation incarnate, which is the people, and the power the people have embodied in the government. If something does not reflect the ways and values in which our government has been constructed, which the phrase "under god" most definitely does not, it should not be in the pledge.
We value the absence of religious impositions by our government, and should value the same in our pledge -- if an atheist cannot say and mean the pledge of allegiance, as dictated and determined by our government, but can only use a elided knockoff, then we are not including atheists, we are throwing religion in their face, and we are failing in upholding the values we profess to pledge to hold so dear.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: As someone who means the Judeo-Christian god every time he says it, I'm not sure how you're qualified to tell.
The more I think about this, the more I can't figure out what you might mean by this.
I don't mean my God every time I use the word god.
I do mean my God when I say "one nation, under God".
How in the world does that make me unqualified to tell if if that phrase sounds like it is exclusively the Judeo-Christian God? I don't interpret as exclusive, yet you obviously do.
What makes my unqualified to have an opion, except for the fact that it disagrees with yours?
quote:Oooh, Tolkien would NOT like someone saying his world is polytheistic...
hehe... I know. But his world is both... created by the One God Iluvatar and ruled by the lesser Valar gods...
Hey Jim! Good to see you back online! How are the babies?
And just to make my thoughts a bit more clear, I should have said "stupid demagogues in general, be they R or D". Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can agree that someone can say "under god" to mean "Bob," Allah, Jesus, etc. But the fact is that at best that only includes those who are monotheistic and that is it. Yes, it doesn't include athiests, secular humanists, pagans, polytheists, spiritualists of any bent that don't have "gods" in them, etc. It also doesn't include folks who believe they are "under" any spiritual being. The kingly god that we serve under is again only a limited view of god that again doesn't represent everyone in the country. The fact is, a pledge should be something everyone can say and believe and be the same as those around them. A pledge minus any god reference (which is clearly something all people don't agree on) would be more inclusive and then to me at least more powerful as a nation building pledge (as IT was originally written...intent or not...since "under god" was added later).
Bully for the Canadians. They also say "god save the queen" from time to time even though the queen has no power over them. Should we invite fake/figurehead royalty back to this nation?
I am not why not having religious symbology represented in government institutions is so threatening to religious folks. Its presence only divides in a time when division isn't what this country needs. There are plenty secular issues to divide this country so I am not sure why people's belief in god should be taking up this valuable time since that really should only matter to the individual, not the nation.
posted
See, I don't mind if God is left in. I know why they put it in and I can appreciate the sentiment, and lots of people like it. And I don't care if I'm not allowed to get "married"...BUT I do want to have Civil Unions or at least the ability to adjust my insurance, visitation rights, will, executorship, etc. when I choose my life partner.
The idea of banning the Bible is just silly. Who would even think of that? Or banning any religious book. Strange idea. It's the demagogues who would try and fool the people into fearing this.
Long live the romantic-pragmatic-centrists!
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
mph- Lets try it this way. Lets suppose I create an ethical system that doesn't specify certain actions are ethical or unethical, but only lays out the framework for determining whether an action is ethical or not. You decide to live by this ethical system.
You take an action.
If your intent is to take an action that, under my ethical system, would be within the framework an ethical violation.
If your intent is to violate the ethical system, and then do so, it doesn't matter whether my intent was to exclude that PARTICULAR action, or not, because you violate the framework, even if I didn't think about that particular example, and would have written the framework differently in order to make the action ethical.
Its the same with laws. It doesn't matter if the intent of the framers is to exclude specific laws... if they wanted to exclude specific laws, they should have written the constitution to exclude them. But if the intent is to violate whats written, it does matter. It is unconstitutional because the intent is to violate the constitution.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: The idea of banning the Bible is just silly. Who would even think of that? Or banning any religious book. Strange idea. It's the demagogues who would try and fool the people into fearing this.
Actually this is more reality than you think.
Swedish pastor sentenced to one month's jail for offending homosexuals Ecumenical News International ^ | June 30, 2004
Stockholm (ENI). A Swedish court has sentenced a pastor belonging to the Pentecostal movement in Sweden, Ake Green, to a month in prison, under a law against incitement, after he was found guilty of having offended homosexuals in a sermon.
Soren Andersson, the president of the Swedish federation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights (RFSL), said on hearing the sentence that religious freedom could never be used as a reason to offend people. "Therefore," he told journalists, "I cannot regard the sentence as an act of interference with freedom of religion."
During a sermon in 2003, Green described homosexuality as "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumour in the body of society".
This is the FUTURE of Liberalism. It is NOT what America should strive to become or even attempt to emulate.
That is why I fight against Liberalism.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
