GOP admits mailing anti-gay fliers
 

Kooks


Unbelievable. What a bunck of kooks.

i absolutely love election time!!! all types of stories come out of the woodwork, including this one. i'm not shocked they did it, i'm just surprised they actually ADMITTED something. usually, it's all about skirting the truth.

Seems like quite a slanted story with lots of "They basically said" rather than direct quotes. But hey if you want to take paraphrasing as a source who am I to stop you.

Yeah, this is a horrible article. Not a single mention of how the republicans "demonized" homosexuals.

I didn't see the part about homosexuals but I did see the picture of the Bible with Banned written on it. I couldn't help but to chuckle to myself, knowing that some people will actually believe that Democrats would really try to ban the Bible. Quite rediculous.

Actually, the article is full of direct quotes so I don't see what you guys are complaining about as far as source materical is concerned. But here's another article that is a little heavier on details:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...=694&ncid=2043

Hmmm, sounds like the usual scare tactics. turn middle of the road Democrats into scary radicals with nary a concern for the truth. Accusing Democrats of wanting to ban the Bible? Where the hell does that come from?

Let's just turn this around and imagine that the Democrats had sent out a mailing accusing Republicans of wanting to institute Biblical law and to have homosexuals put in camps...I think that the outrage would be sharp and immediate, including people from the left. Can we please look past partisanship and call dirty politics what they are?

Hooray for american politics. Killing optimism, one day at a time.

http://images.themaxx.com/mirror.php...20Arkansas.jpg

Won't allow image leeching, switched to link.

I can. Y'all know I'm far from republican, but I call a big steaming pile of bullshit on this one.

In the first place, PC is the rage (unfortunately), and the republicans would be STUPID to send out stuff like this. The whole reason they whomp the democrats as much as they do is because they're far from politically stupid.

Shakran,

This has been on many major news outlets and the Republican National committee has confirmed it.

from http://www.iht.com/articles/540458.html
Still sound like steaming bullshit? Maybe you've been overestimating the Republican noise machine.

Edit: Is it PC to try and correct distortion and fear mongering? Why is is that leftwing, Democratic or any "progressive" stories seem to be subjeted to a greater standard of truth in this forum? Has anyone else noticed this? Even 100% accurate stories are immediately called bullshit, as if the source material wasn't even read.

hmm...

well, it does seem to have actually happened... but the first article cited was very poorly written. barely journalism. it's difficult to have any strong feelings about these things in a partisan sense because both sides do it so some extent and most people are only interested in pointing out the transgressions of the opposition.

Although both sides certainly do "spin" issues, this is a pretty egregious example of total distortion perpretrated by the National Committe of the Republican party. If the DNC had done something like this, the collective howl of American conservatives could be heard on the moon.

yeah the original article does sound like bullshit. There's a difference between "demonizing homosexuals" and banning gay marriage.

After all, I'm not allowed to ride my bike on the interstate, but that doesn't mean the government is demonizing bicyclists.

Ummm, that's not what the flier was about at all. It used the specter of gay marriage as a scare tactic to generate votes. Using gays as an anonymous fear generator does stink of a measure of "demonization" and Republicans have a poor history of tolerance to homosexuals. Couple this with the BS claims of "Bible banning" and we have a perfect example of meaningless propaganda.

Comparing traffic laws to civil rights is incorrect and callous. "Blacks want to ride at the front of the bus? Well, I can't ride on the hood of my car!" See what I mean?

the DNC does do stuff like this all the time.

-"If you elect a Republican, another black church is going to burn"

-"Missouri Republicans have a plan, you're not a part of it" (on a bill board showing a picture of a african-american family)

-That one commercial few years back with some cute little girl asking for more [insert toxic substance] in her drinking water (i forget the chemical).

i'm not sure how loud the howl is on these, but these are several examples of the dnc doing just that. i've heard very little condemnation of these ads from democrats so i can't help but chuckle a bit when a big deal is made of a GOP controversial ad. what a world.

Do you have a source for that? I searched but could only find it coming from Hannity and he's not too reliable.

I do agree that both sides use scare tactics, but its usually based somewhat on reality. I don't have a problem with using the gay marriage thing, even though Kerry is really against it, because there are quite a few Democrats who are 100% in favor of it. On the other hand, suggesting that Democrats will ban the bible is a pure lie and crosses the line in my opinion.

That's still really weak. It's not "using the specter of gay marriage as a scare tactic", gay marriage really is seen as a danger to society in much of the republican party. It's not a scare tactic if a danger is genuinely believed to exist. It's a huge stretch to try to find demonization in this.

As for the Bible thing, someone correct me if I missed something, but it seems like a metaphor for organized prayer being banned in public schools. If so, that's much, much less of a stretch than the 'demonizing gays' thing.

From a similar RNC radio ad:

None of these things is in the DNC platform at all. This is Christian misinformation worthy of Jack Chick.

Yes, both sides do resort to fear mongering, but these particular ads seem to go above and beyond the typical bullshit. They abuse spirituality, a deeply personal issue, to futher their agenda. It's strange how many Christians don't act very Christ like.

Except that the Democrats aren't pushing gay marriage at all. The issue can only hurt them this election year. That doesn't stop the propagandists, though. Lot's of people will believe this, just like lots of people still believe that Iraq was involved in 9-11.

You're calling me weak with an excuse like this?

Kerry certainly isn't pushing it. But aren't quite a few other democrats? Edwards? Nevertheless, I see your point. I suppose it does count as a scare tactic.

However, the case for homosexual demonization remains weak. This only strengthens the argument (pretty well, in my estimation) that republicans here are dishonestly demonizing democrats. While wrong, this contrasts with the original claim in being completely unsurprising. Politics involves mudslinging between political groups? Wow.

It's speculation, admittedly. You can take it or leave it. I'm simply saying it's possible that this particular part of the propaganda was more a matter of hyperbole through imagery, than deliberate misrepresentation. Rereading that second article, a more likely speculation would be that the banned Bible image represented alleged democrat efforts to remove the word God from the pledge, money, ect.

Lot's of people really believed that Reds were infiltrating all corners of our society and trying to undermine American society, so I guess McCarthy didn't use any scare tactics, then.

Are you really saying that it is completely unreasonble to respond to Republicans working against numerous gay issues--from marriage to employment to protection from crime--by saying that Republicans are anti-gay or demonizing gays; yet its fine for the Republicans to say that the Democrats are going to ban the Bible, as long as its just a metaphor for Democrat opposition to prayer in school?

To your question: no, it's not fine. But as I understand it, they didn't say that dems are going to ban the Bible. If they did, okay then; they were wrong to do it. If it was hyperbole as I imagine it was, that's wrong as well, but to a lesser degree.

And I said nothing about employment or protection from crime. I was speaking of gay marriage alone.

If McCarthy had good reason to believe what he said about the level of infiltration, then he did not use scare tactics. Perhaps we have different ideas of what a scare tactic constitutes; I consider dishonesty to be part of it.

You are right that it's possible to interpret it that way....that's what plausible deniability is all about. Considering the lack of subtlety and the tone of the ad, I sincerely doubt that the creators of the it intended for the citizens of West Virginia to think "well shucks, some Democrats do seem very concerned with prayer or religion in public institutions...how does that jibe with free speech" rather than "holy jesus, lock the doors cause the queers are coming for our bibles!!!!!" It's nice to see that the "America under Assault" meme hasn't been limited to foreign policy matters.

I understand that you are trying to be balanced here, but I would be careful before defending McCarty. Remember that his name became synonomous with witchhunt. He had no problem destroying lives with slander and innuendo, finally sealing his own fate when he grew arrogant enough to accuse the Army of being infiltrated with communists. It's only today that enough time has passed between that era and now that kooks like Ann coulter can try to salvage his reputation without being laughed at openly. Make no mistake, the man was alcoholic, self-serving scum.

Edit: it's possible and common to couple scare tactics with reality. In fact, those are the most effective scare tactics...for example:

"There were n muders in the US last year, a decline of x%"

versus

"There were n murders in the US last year! A man is not safe in his own house! Vote for me and I'll personally disembowel criminals"

These aren't great examples, but I hope you see what I mean.

Well, that's where we differ. I find it much, much more likely that they intended the "well shucks, some Democrats do seem very concerned with prayer or religion in public institutions...how does that jibe with free speech?" Especially since that is what's verbally mentioned by them (with no mention of Bible banning) in that second article:

I think they're deserving of the benefit of the doubt in this particular case.

Which is why I qualified my statement with an 'if'.

edit: To clarify, for any incidents in which McCarthy made these accusations without good reason, he was guilty of scare tactics. And probably slander as well.

They put a picture of the bible with "Banned" stamped across it, and put it as the goal of the Democrats. I'm not sure how much clearer you can be.

We have no way of knowing what went on in the man's head, nor what any of the current leaders of the Republican Party have going through theirs.

I did notice that you were careful to qualify your statement about McCarthy, but not about Republican leaders. You assume that the Republican attacks on gays are because they legitimately believe their own words, but yet you don't extend the same benefit of the doubt to Mr. McCarthy. Why is this?

I prefer not to debate what a person does or doesn't think inside their head, as I have no way to know anyway. What I can go off of is what they say and how it fits into the situation.

Republican attacks on gays by portrayal of them as representing a threat to our society and culture is indeed a scare tactic. So is Democratic portrayals of the Bush Doctrine respresenting a threat to a peaceful, cooperative global community.

Both are definitely feared amongst their respective groups. Even the leaders making those portrayals may legitimately believe them. And ultimately they may well be true. But they are still scare tactics.

Does merely believing it constitute 'good reason', or is more presentation of evidence required? Not saying one way or the other, but just clarifying.

Ooh. I'm sure that there are republicans that are against gay marriage solely because they believe homosexuality to be immoral. Because I've heard them say as much. But I do believe that there are republicans that don't base their opposition to gay marriage on any notion of homosexuality's being immoral. Because I've heard them say as much. I base it on their stated reasons, provided they aren't self-evidently false and are backed up in some reasoned way.

I don't really know much about McCarthy, to be honest. Perhaps if I did, I wouldn't consider him a user of scare tactics. That's not to say that I wouldn't consider his tactics to be of another deplorable kind, perhaps.

Replace 'gays' with 'gay marriage', and I don't consider either of those to be scare tactics. Nor do I have a moral problem with either. You're right, it can't be known for certain what people actually think when they speak. Thus, it can't be known for certain if one is using a scare tactic. But when you expand the definition as you did, to include all statements declaring that a given stance/action is dangerous, you end up categorizing nearly all publicly announced disagreements as scare tactics, and the word loses its weight. Scare tactics no longer are necessarily a bad thing.

So what would I consider a scare tactic? Person A makes a negative false statement B about an action/stance C. If it turns out that person A had prior knowledge that statement B was false, or is unable to provide backing of any kind for statement B, then it's a scare tactic. It might be a scare tactic if there is backing for the statement, but the backing is very easily debunked.

Hope that clarifies it all.

Why do scare tactics have to be false? Exaggeration is probably more common in fear mongering than outright lying, for obvious reasons.

Certainly. But I tend to think of exaggerations as statements that are partly false.

"Democrats want to ban everything remotely religious from the public sphere" is an exaggeration because it's not completely true (far from it), and it can't be reasonably backed up, so it's a scare tactic.

I'm analyzing my idea of scare tactics as this goes along, to see if it makes complete sense, so I appreciate the criticism.

As long as you are interested, for an example of an anti-gay scare tactic practiced by Falwell, Robertson, et al, on the 700 Club they would show excerpts of and sell copies of videotapes containing scenes from a Gay Pride event in San Francisco. The footage of almost naked men and women dressed up in outlandish costumes and hamming for the camera scared the bejeesus out of some segments of middle America. In reality, there is a huge measure of camp and the playing up of stereotypes at these events but Mr and Mrs Smith from Topeka might not understand this. By taking the event out of context and providing scary narration, Falwell gets to implant an image of that as the standard gay lifestyle and completely befuddle his audience..."Satan must be inspiring them....look at the men kissing and gyrating suggestively!"

So I guess that this is an illustration how you can amplify fear simply by showing someone or something different without providing any understanding of what they are viewing. This plays off of the base xenophobia that seems near universal in humans.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/atrios/rightwing1.jpg
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/atrios/rightwing2.jpg

Looks like it's meant to spur on legitimate debate to me /sarcasm

Well ironicly the add is pretty much true to form.

Liberals hate religion as a rule, at least as taught in the bible, and want to see gay marriages.

Is it over the top? Sure, but its more right then wrong.

Look at the bottom of that flier.....

Removing 'Under God' from the pledge of allegiance - True.
Allowing teenages to get abortions without parental consent - True.
Overturning the ban on the hideous procedure known as partial birth abortion - True.
Allowing same-sex marriages - True.

You see folks the reason you are reacting so strong to this is that its true. This isn't the typical baseless claim that liberals make about conservatives, this is a vaild point that liberals know they can't defend so they act outraged as if bringing these things up is somehow wrong.

"Liberals want to impose their values on Arkansas."

What... the... fuck? Did conservatives forget the definition of impose?

Under God: Religious value, currently being imposed on public school students.
Partial birth abortion: So fucking hideous it's usually only used to save the lives of the deliverers.
Same-sex marriages: Religious value currently limiting marital freedom amongst homosexuals.

Can't really back up the teenage abortion deal. The right to privacy, I don't think, extends to limiting what a parent can know about their under-18 children.

Liberals hate religion!?! What are you talking about? You are either trying to bait someone here or you are completely blinded by your own ideology. Come to think of it, what is a "liberal" anyway? Do you really think that "we" all march in lockstep and want gay marriage (probably a minority view), to remove "under god" from the pledge (defintiely a minority view.), partial birth abortion (the very use of that title implies a conservative slant)? I am more "liberal" than most (I prefer the term progressive, since liberal has ben ruined by propaganda), and I know full well that most Democrats disagree with me on very many issues. Are any of the aforementioned issues part of the Democratic platform? I suppose that doesn't matter to you, as you already know what "liberals" want, even though you don't seem to respect them or understand them.

The problem is most liberals don't argue from that stance. Lets take a look at Tom Daschle as an example. He acts like a conservative when he gives speeches at home and a liberal when he is in the senate. Dick Durbin, a senator from my state, does the same thing. The problem I have with liberals are they don't present themselves as liberals. If you want all those things SAY it to the people. Say 'I want to get rid of under god in the pledge' or 'I want to allow gay marriages' or 'I want your 16 year old daughter to be able to get an abortion no matter what you have to say about it!'. The problem of course is they would LOSE so they pretend to be something else. They let liberal and unaccountable judges do their dirty work for them. They rely on the basic nature of the American people to not pay attention to what their congressman votes for.

This is why three times as many Americans say they are conservative as compared to say they are liberal. Liberal is a dirty word, it stands for things the public does not want, and since they can't get it democratically they try to back door their agenda.

Ah. I see how it is. The liberals do want all those things the flier said. Just because they never say that's what they want, doesn't mean Ustwo doesn't know the TRUTH about what they want!

:lol:

Nine times out of ten, you make up statistics.

And if conservatives said "I want to put the interests of the rich before the middle class" or "I want to allow corporations to pump dioxins directly into your bedroom" or "I want to justify the invasion of Middle East countries by lying to the American people" or "I want to cite God for political purposes while ignoring the basics tenants of the teachings of Jesus (tolerance, peace, forgiveness)," I suppose that they would LOSE as well.

Does this vapid oversimplification of conservative beliefs sound fair to you?

there's a reason that a lot of liberal politicians don't campaign on these things... because to them they're non-issues. you don't hear anyone campaigning on right to privacy (the 16 year olds having abortions issue) and gay marriage didn't really pick up until after the last election (as far as i noticed).

i bet if you went around and asked a bunch of liberals if they think that "under god" should be in the pledge, most would say no (not because they hate religion, but because of seperation of church and state). but ask them if they really care about it being there, again, they'd probably say no. it wasn't an issue until the dude in california made it one. no one cared before then, most still don't.

i love how you bring up activist judges. you know what i call an "activist judge?" i call one "someone doing their job." a judge is job is to run their court room, make rulings on cases, and interept the law when questioned. it's not like these judges are randomly picking pages from a book of law and saying "hey, lets question this one today." someone is bringing it to them and then they interpret the law and make a ruling. but appearantly if you happen to disagree with their opinion, that makes them an "activist." and you and the ignorant masses have fallen for a sound byte.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!)

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.

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.

Or perhaps even vindicates them.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

"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.

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...

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.

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.

I would love to continue this conversation in a new thread :)

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

Pardon?

Are you trying to make a joke, call me a liar or both?

I've stated in a few places what I've done, and before I took a break from posting this spring I had a open thread for some health advice.

I'll let you look them up. You might want to look at my last health care thread on this board.

right you are.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=1434934