FoolThemAll

Interesting, thanks. A little modification is needed...perhaps scare tactics include what conservatives have slammed Moore for allegedly committing, dishonest misrepresentation without any actual falsities. How's that updated definition look?

Looking at the flier...I'm even more convinced that it was mere hyperbole. Relatively harmless hyperbole, as well, since they explain what the banned bible image is all about right below the image. So, I hold the score as follows: demonization of dems - 1, false generalization of dems - 1, hyperbole - 1, demonization of gays - 0.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

cthulu23

Really, all scare tactics require is scaring the shit out of someone to achieve a desired effect regardless of the method used.

I didn't realize that we were keeping score, but, if so, my score card looks a lot different than yours.

seretogis

Democrats claim that if Republicans are elected, there will be a draft.
Republicans claim that if Democrats are elected, the Bible will be banned.

Turn-about is fair play when desperately trying to maintain the two-party-system strangle-hold?

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

Ustwo

The difference is that while one flier has the bible will be banned (and its done so more in that biblical teachings will be banned) it is Kerry and a cohort of democrats saying crap about the draft.

Desperate measures from desperate and unscrupulous people.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

FoolThemAll

cthulu:

My final answer is that if (1)the frightening statements are completely true, or (2) the claim-maker believes in good faith that the frightening statements are completely true, then no scare tactics are present. Thus, when dems claim that the situation in Iraq will be a catastrophe for U.S. foreign policy if Kerry isn't elected, I don't consider that a scare tactic. I pretty much consider 'scare tactics' to be an overused term not unlike 'homophobia'. We'll have to agree to disagree here.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

cthulu23

Foolthemall:

I agree that the true acid test does involve intent by the purveyor of the scare tactic. This is obvious. Until a telepathy machine is invented, determining whether a tactic is fear mongering or not will always be a subjective experience.

hannukah harry

i disagree... whether one believes something to be true or not, if he knows that others are scared of something and uses that fear to manipulate them, then that is a scare tactic.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

jconnolly

Anti-gay marriage. Not anti-gay. You equate bigotry with an opinion that marriages are a cultural institution for men and women, which most Republicans have taken to heart.

The Bible thing is ridiculous, though. The Anti-Culture Thought Police aren't to be associated with the Democrats, though they call themselves liberal.

cthulu23

That's what I meant by intent....meaning to scare the shit out of something regardless of truth. I think that my earlier posts clearly make this distinction.

FoolThemAll

Then by that definition, I don't think that there's necessarily anything wrong with using scare tactics.

(I can't stay away from this topic for some reason!)

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

jb2000

And on that I'll agree with you, on a technical level. Just being a scare tactic doesn't make it a bad tactic.

But the bad thing about scare tactics, at least as regards trying to have a constructive debate about an issue, is that they not only rely on fear of a threat as their basis, but they exploit that fear to create an irrational bypass of other logic and evidence that may be present.

Lebell

My wife (a teacher) cannot wear any type of crucifix to her work place because it might "offend" someone. (The school district is fairly liberal).

My friend's daughter was told she could not take a Bible to school and could not meet with friends to discuss it quietly during school lunch. (The school district is fairly liberal).

This is the fuel that keeps fliers like that circulating.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Ustwo

Or perhaps even vindicates them.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Lebell

I would agree to some extent.

Even on this board, there are many who are openly hostile to religion and have admitted that they would gladly do away with it if they could.

On the other hand, I have no problem with gays marrying, nor do I see that allowing them to do so would have any serious effect on our society and culture.

We would have to deal with some issues, such as what gay couples rights were verses those who oppose them on religious grounds, but this is a bridge we've crossed before with other demographic groups.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

jb2000

Reality check:

More than 80% of the country is Christian. (how much dependent on location)

I support seperation of Church and State. But I feel oppresion of religion is as bad as appointment of religion.

I don't want a school environment where children who do not have Christian beliefs are pressured or made to feel less than those who do. So things like crucifixes on the walls, religious sayings on posters, organized prayer as part of the official routine, these are all out. But should a teacher be able to wear a crucifix? Yes, and even answer honestly when asked by a student about it. Should religious students have the opportunity to organize and have Bible discussions or whatever before or after school hours? Yes. Should they be permitted to use religious groups for clique building during school hours? No. Should students be permitted to wear Christ shirts or Head-scarves or Yamakas? Sure.

Personally, I am an agnostic, and have been since birth. I have never felt compelled to believe in any supernatural explanation for our existance, nor to discount one. I have never wanted to eliminate religion, although I speak vehemently against those specific teachings of certain religions that I find immoral or unethical, as an expression I suppose of my own freedom of religion. Unfortunately, many who are not Christian, who consider themselves Athiests, are ex-Christians and I suspect may one day again be a Christian, but are using their status to 'strike back' at a religion they had a bad experience with. This is unfortunate, as Lebell is right, it fuels the fires under Christian scare tactics such as this flyer.

As for the flyer's publishers, they get no respect from me for using religion, which should be a positive element of our lives, as a dividing issue, exploiting faith to promote bigotry and inspire fear. I don't care if the publishers elieved their own words, afterall, I am sure most white supremecists believe their literature too.

jb2000

Ustwo, gotta call you on that one.

I am a member of the County Democratic Party here and so I meet a lot of liberals. I also knew a lot of Liberals in Portland, OR (they fester there!). Most every one of them is a God-fearing Christian, and even the non-religious types like myself don't hate religion. You'd be hard pressed to find a more liberal person than my wife, but I wouldn't tell her that she isn't a good Christian, she'd be tempted to go against her otherwise peaceful and Christ-like ways.

I've met a few people though that are totally anti-religion, that you could say hate religion. But of the five or six of them, only two are political, and one's a Republican, so go figure.

Ustwo, so based on that, I'd have to say that your statement is dead wrong, and represents the way in which so many people have allowed themselves to fall into completely false assumptions about Liberals on the basis of a few bad apples blown out of proportion by the right-wing spin machine.

Ustwo

God fearing Christians wouldn't vote for a party that allows partial birth abortion.

Think about it, if you feared God, good luck explaining that one away when you get there.

I don't fear God, so its not an issue for me, I don't mind abortion as it means less state dependent voters in the future, but some things you can't just explain away as a choice.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Superbelt

God fearing christians wouldn't vote for a party that allows for executions, that allows for the private amassment of riches (camel through the eye of a needle), that allows for the increases in pollution that degrade the world the Almighty gifted to us and has been proven to be fatal to humans such as the increase in mercury, NOx and SOx's... etc. A good christian can't vote for people who form alliances with Islam Karimov, brutal dictator of Uzbekistan. Good christians don't vote for people who continue to use depleted uranium shells which have killed and deformed countless children and young adults.

Where do all the good christians go? Where are all the good christians? I haven't seen many in my lifetime.

cthulu23

Your astounding powers of telepathy aside, the term "god-fearing christians" is so broad and subjective as to be rendered almost meaningless. Don't assume that you can pigeonhole spiritual belief into neat little packets that confirm your political views. Most of this country is christian and it looks like close to 50% of them will be voting for the Democrats this November. Are we to believe that only Republicans who oppose abortion (not all Republicans by any means) are god fearing? Sheesh.

BTW, did you know that your sig is a fabrication?

jconnolly

I'm very assured most of the people voting Kerry have no idea what a partial birth abortion is. They might be persuaded by a few pictures of a small but fully formed baby having its brains sucked out.

cthulu23

Not only is this a vast assumption that can't possibly be backed up but it has very little to do with the topic.

jconnolly

You never seem to have problems with dragging threads off topic.

martinguerre

Wow. It's an ad homiem attack.

Most Christians aren't single issue voters. Even if they are against abortion, there a few other Christian issues.

We believe that poverty - caring for the poor and vulnerable - is a religious issue. Do the candidates' budget and tax policies reward the rich or show compassion for poor families? Do their foreign policies include fair trade and debt cancellation for the poorest countries? (Matthew 25:35-40, Isaiah 10:1-2)

We believe that the environment - caring for God's earth - is a religious issue. Do the candidates' policies protect the creation or serve corporate interests that damage it? (Genesis 2:15, Psalm 24:1)

We believe that war - and our call to be peacemakers - is a religious issue. Do the candidates' policies pursue "wars of choice" or respect international law and cooperation in responding to real global threats? (Matthew 5:9)

We believe that truth-telling is a religious issue. Do the candidates tell the truth in justifying war and in other foreign and domestic policies? (John 8:32)

We believe that human rights - respecting the image of God in every person - is a religious issue. How do the candidates propose to change the attitudes and policies that led to the abuse and torture of Iraqi prisoners? (Genesis 1:27)

We believe that our response to terrorism is a religious issue. Do the candidates adopt the dangerous language of righteous empire in the war on terrorism and confuse the roles of God, church, and nation? Do the candidates see evil only in our enemies but never in our own policies? (Matthew 6:33, Proverbs 8:12-13 )

We believe that a consistent ethic of human life is a religious issue. Do the candidates' positions on abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, weapons of mass destruction, HIV/AIDS-and other pandemics-and genocide around the world obey the biblical injunction to choose life? (Deuteronomy 30:19)

Those blurbs come from sojourners, at sojo.net.

Ustwo

Lets go into a WWJD.

Would Jesus create a welfare class and destroy families while the ones doing so were rich beyond kings (or catchup)?

Would Jesus condone mass murder if the despots of the nation agreed it was ok?

Would Jesus use the enviroment as an excuse to prevent human progress?

Would Jesus say anything in order to be loved(or elected)?

Would Jesus not see the abusers have been punished?

Now this one Jesus might do, and turn the other cheek, but I'd rather not be killed by a terrorist.

Last one take as you will.

I could see a 'god fearing christian' not voting for Bush, but I could never see the same one voting for Kerry. If you believe that abortion is murder then those who support it have commited a genocide as great as any despot.

I'd hate to have to explain that at the pearly gates.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

smooth

Odd, care to back up your assertions, (un)cleverly disguised as questions, with scripture (a la martinguerre)?

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Paq

UsTwo...you work in healthcare...exactly what do you do?

__________________
Live.

Chris

smooth

the best I've been able to ascertain is that he's a dentist--or some type of dental care provider.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Superbelt

You know the difference between a dentist and a sadist don't you?

cthulu23

Would Jesus support war in anything other than self-defense?

Would Jesus support invading another country after bearing false witness aginst it?

Would Jesus support amassing great wealth while exploting the poor?

Would Jesus support state sanctioned murder (death penalty)?

Would Jesus support poisoning the earth in exchange for filthy lucre?

Man oh man, I just don't understand how some conservatives think that they have a monopoly on the prince of peace. Jesus didn;'t like the rich and powerful very much and advocated giving your wealth away to the poor. How about we think of that before we start assuming that Jesus would hate the welfare system or vote Republican.

Jesus was about compassion, forgiveness and love. How does that fit into your rant, Ustwo?

BTW, your new sig is out of context BS. Would Jesus support bending the truth like that?

martinguerre

Jesus spoke of our duty to the poor. He didn't demonize them, or make assisting them sound hopeless.

The rest are quite off base. They have zero to negative scriptural backing, and don't even make sense as slams on kerry.

Nor...did i suggest we elect Jesus. That was Woody Guthrie, in his classic country gospel song: "Christ for President."

What i did suggest is that Republicans hardly have a monopoly on Christian values. Neither party is perfect.

Superbelt

Christ would never make it on the Republican Ticket.
His insistance to raise taxes and funnel the money into social programs to help the sick, homeless, poor and otherwise unfortunate runs counter to Republican mantra.

His anti-violent stance would turn the neocons off.

His acceptance of all people for who they are would push the Christian Coalition to the Constitution Party.

He would quicky be ruined in the Grand Old Party when pictures of him in berkenstocks, hanging out with his best friends who include prostitutes and tax collectors are played incessantly in early primary states.

Lebell

I'm sorry, but Christ would also not make it on the Democratic Ticket either.

Insist on raising taxes??

Jesus was apolitical, if anything, focusing on the actions of the individual, not governments or institutions.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Superbelt

You're absolutely right. Neither ticket. I see Jesus as more of a Ghandi figure if he lived in the American Landscape.

And I fully believe Jesus would be all for taxing the wealthy to benefit the poor.
Either that or go around and just strip the rich of their wealth. Jesus militantly against anyone who wished to retain or gain monetary wealth.

It can't be much simpler than "It is easer for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven" (Luke 18:25)
Jesus would have no problem seizing wealth from those unwilling to give it.

Lebell

Could you please point out the gospel passages where Jesus advocated seizing and redistributing wealth?

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

The_Dunedan

"siezure" is a polite word for what we out here in the Real World call "Armed Robbery." Considering that "I come not to destory the Law, but to fulfill it" and part of that Law is "Thou shalt not Steal:" seems to me that Jesus' position is pretty clear.
Ezekial also warns against having Kings ( governments ) and gives a long list of the vile things Kings do: one of these is the confiscation of goods ( taxes ). This was God telling the Israelites why Kings were a bad thing: they steal your stuff! ( among other things )
As for the "Camel through a needle's eyes" this is believed by many to be a mistranslation referring to camels-hair yarn. Thick and course, it was difficult ( but not impossible ) to thread a needle with this stuff. Ergo, it is difficult ( but not impossible ) for the rich man to enter into Heaven. Consider Matthew, the Tax Collector, or Joseph of Aramathea ( 3rd richest man in the world at the time, after Caesar and one of his generals ): friends of Jesus who also happened to be very rich.

Superbelt

You are right, I got carried away. I don't know if he would actually seize the money or not. I applied a bit of myself to him.
I do believe that he would look down on anyone who amassed material wealth while others unable to achieve stability. And that is justification enough for me to tax the rich to help the poor.

[edit] What was this thread about again? Oops, I'm gonna stop now...

Rekna

Actually the eye of the needle is a gate in Jerusalem. This gate was very narrow and the rule by the king was a camel had to be able to walk through it without removing any packs. Any packs that were removed became property of the king. Thus the quote means that for a rich man to get into heaven he has to be willing to give up all his worldly possessions.

martinguerre

Lebell... "Jesus was apolitical"

I disagree. He's executed on a political charge. Treason. Much of the way he's interpreted...especially by Paul, lends itself well to this view. Kyrios or lord, basilea or kingdom, eirene or peace, pistis or faith...all these words have extremely political meanings in that time. Caesar is the only power recognized who can deliver authority, peace, kingdom, order, peace... Jesus makes a claim to people that is beyond the poltical order. You're right...he's not stumping for yet another canidate...and in that way is apolitical. But his speech does bring him in to conflict with political systems. Then and now.

Superbelt is probably conflating certain passages in Acts with the teachings of Jesus. They may reflect authentic teachings...or they may be later developments after Easter. I'd say it's about 50/50 odds, myself.

Acts 4:32 to 5:11 is the reference, btw.

Lebell

I would love to continue this conversation in a new thread

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

tecoyah

My guess would be......this one holds a BS

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha