PDA

View Full Version : Legality Of Bush Campaign Tactics Questioned



Gayle in MD
11-08-2004, 09:49 AM
Those interested might want to pick up a copy of todays Washington Post.

Gayle in Md.

SnakebyteXX
11-08-2004, 10:06 AM
Are you referring to this article?

Evangelicals Say They Led Charge For the GOP (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32793-2004Nov7.html?sub=AR)

[ QUOTE ]
As the presidential race was heating up in June and July, a pair of leaked documents showed that the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign was urging Christian supporters to turn over their church directories and was seeking to identify "friendly congregations" in battleground states.

Those revelations produced a flurry of accusations that the Bush campaign was leading churches to violate laws against partisan activities by tax-exempt organizations, and even some of the White House's closest religious allies said the campaign had gone too far.

<hr /></blockquote>

Gayle in MD
11-08-2004, 10:36 AM
Yes, I was, although apparently they passed a technically legal test, by advising religeous leaders not to state a specific candidates name, nevertheless, the people knew whom they were promoting.

Big_Jon
11-08-2004, 10:45 AM
So it is OK for the Dems to use every shady trick in the book, but the Reps use one loophole they should be shot on sight? OK i see it now...

Thanks,

Jon

SnakebyteXX
11-08-2004, 10:49 AM
[ QUOTE ]
apparently they passed a technically legal test, by advising religeous leaders not to state a specific candidates name, nevertheless, the people knew whom they were promoting.
<hr /></blockquote>

So then it wasn't illegal but rather a brilliant move on the part of the Republicans to rally a huge pool of supporters?

Wonder why no one on the Democratic side got on to that business in time to do anything about it?

In fact, could anything have been done to impact on that process?

Bitching and moaning about it after the contest has been lost seems kind of pointless - except to rub salt into the open wounds of the losing side.

Hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20. It takes a little foresight and a superior strategy to win elections. Apparently the Republicans had more of both.

Snake

eg8r
11-08-2004, 11:00 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20. It takes a little foresight and a superior strategy to win elections. Apparently the Republicans had more of both.
<hr /></blockquote> /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r

highsea
11-08-2004, 11:49 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Yes, I was, although apparently they passed a technically legal test, by advising religeous leaders not to state a specific candidates name, nevertheless, the people knew whom they were promoting.<hr /></blockquote>Lol, I sure am glad the Democrats didn't stoop to this tactic! <blockquote><font class="small">Quote USA Today:</font><hr>Kerry has a double-dose of God as he stumps for black voters

MIAMI (AP) With just three Sundays left before Election Day, Sen. John Kerry is asking for all the help he can get from black voters and the Almighty.

The Democratic presidential nominee attended two church services Sunday, instead of his usual one, worshipping first with Haitian Catholics and then with Baptists, where the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton tied his election to the civil rights struggle.

"We have an unfinished march in this nation," Kerry said at Friendship Missionary Baptist Church, as many congregants waved fans handed out by the campaign with his slogan, "Hope is on the way."

Speakers avoided criticizing President Bush by name, since they were in church, but he was indirectly vilified.

Former Rep. Carrie Meek said Kerry is "fighting against liars and demons. ... He challenges the man who walks with a jaunty step." She rocked her hips in an imitation of Bush's swagger as the congregation cheered and Kerry laughed from his high-backed seat behind the pulpit.

In Florida, Kerry, who is Catholic, also attended Mass at St. James Catholic Church. Aides said it was for his own personal worship rather than for any campaigning and that Kerry plans to fit in Catholic mass every Sunday through election day.<hr /></blockquote> Gayle, you complain very vocally about a lack of separation of church and state, yet your candidate stumped in black churches every Sunday throughout his entire campaign. Doesn't this seem a little bit inconsistent to you?

Gayle in MD
11-08-2004, 12:08 PM
Oh yes, well atleast that is word for word what I stated in my post, Right? Your post makes no sense to me, sorry.
G.

Gayle in MD
11-08-2004, 12:12 PM
Nowhere have I read or heard of the Kerry Campaign securing mailing lists from (tax exempt)churches for the purpose of sending anti-Bush material.
G.

highsea
11-08-2004, 12:23 PM
I can't read the article Snake linked, because I don't want to register. But his excerpt says this supposedly happened back in June or July. So why didn't the dems exploit it back then?

Where are the so called "leaked documents"? Should we ask Dan Rather? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Once again, this is an example of democrats seeking an excuse for their losses, rather than face reality. Strange, I read yesterday that some democrats are calling Nov. 2 a bigger disaster than Sept. 11. That's rather sad. I think some of these people are completely out of touch.

Ross
11-08-2004, 01:13 PM
There are three different issues that seem to be getting confused in this discussion:

1. The principal of separation of church and state is about keeping personal religious beliefs out of government which make decisions that affect us all. This is vital, otherwise we don't have freedom of religion in this country. This is what Gayle's original post was about.

2. Churches encouraging their congregants to vote for one candidate or another is a different issue entirely. I don't like it, but pastors don't pass laws that I'm forced to follow. Of course there is the issue of them being tax-exempt, and tax-exempt organizations have some obligation to not be wings of a particular political party. But if they don't believe in, say, abortion for religious reasons I can see how they could legitimately talk about this issue in church. But pastors should respect that not all of their church members will see fit to vote the same way.

3. Candidates stumping in front of church congregations. I don't see this as a problem at all. Attending a church service to try to get votes isn't that different from going in front of a union organization or a NOW rally or a manufacturers association meeting. It is just campaigning. Bush does it, Kerry does it. By attending black church services, Kerry is not hypocritical, he is campaigning. If he goes to synagogue services (and I'm sure he has) he is not pretending to be Jewish. Just like he isn't professing to be a woman if he attends a NOW rally.

Of course I think organized religions in general are mostly guided by irrational dogmatic beliefs and are the source of much misery in the world, but what do I know?

highsea
11-08-2004, 01:38 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>1. The principal of separation of church and state is about keeping personal religious beliefs out of government which make decisions that affect us all. This is vital, otherwise we don't have freedom of religion in this country. This is what Gayle's original post was about.
<hr /></blockquote>Personally I don't care if a candidate stumps in a church or not. What I was referring to as inconsistent was Gayle's position that it was a violation of separation as it applied to Bush, but not to Kerry.

To your point, I will say this. Separation of Church and Stae is not about keeping personal religious beliefs out of government. It is about keeping government out of personal religious beliefs.

There is a difference. An individual is not a State. The doctrine is aimed at the State, not the individual. A public official or candidate for public office is perfectly entitled to excersize his or her religious beliefs, and even use those beliefs as a moral guide when making decisions. No reasonable person would argue otherwise. However, the State is still prohibited from establishing any laws establishing an "official" religion, regardless of the personal belief of any official.

So a public school cannot post the Ten Commandments on the wall, but the student or teacher may wear a cross or a headscarf as a symbol of their faith. If the President chooses to pray every morning, that is not a violation of the doctrine. If he uses a Christian moral standard in making decisions, that is not a violation as long as it doesn't establish his religion as officially sanctioned by the State. Freedom of religion applies to the President just as much as it applies to you and me.

crawdaddio
11-08-2004, 04:43 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I can't read the article Snake linked, because I don't want to register. <hr /></blockquote>

Check it out.

http://www.bugmenot.com/

Never register again.

~DC

Ross
11-08-2004, 04:51 PM
I agree completely with your definition of separation of church and state. You said it more clearly than I.

Now to the issue at hand. I see what you are saying in that you feel the black churches endorsing Kerry is equivalent to the white evangelical churches endorsing Bush. Black churches have historically been mixed in with politics because of the fight against segregation, etc. They used religious faith to strengthen their resolve to fight against oppression in the past. I can see why this was useful historically, but ultimately it would be good if all churches got out of politics.


So I guess there is a long history of chuch/politics getting mixed up together. It is just a matter of degree. If tax-exempt churches offered internal lists of names and address of congregants to the Republican party then I think that is going even a step further in the direction of illegality. If that were the case, then the church is allowing itself to become an extension of the Republican party apparatus, not just expressing its opinion. However, it is not clear if that is what happened though from the article. They may have been publically available chuch directories which either party could have requested.

Actually the main gist of the article is that certain evangelical higher-ups were openly leading the charge for the Republican party. They were way ahead of the Repub party in organizing voter registrations etc. It is hard to make that illegal, because they can always couch it in terms of just getting people to vote or to stand up for fetuses, etc. Of course they were conversing with Republican party on a weekly basis via conference calls, so that seems a bit obvious.

I agree with your main point, Highsea though. The Dems need to take this election defeat seriously and learn from it - not look for excuses.

highsea
11-08-2004, 08:51 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>I agree with your main point, Highsea though. The Dems need to take this election defeat seriously and learn from it - not look for excuses.

<hr /></blockquote>Well, we agree then Ross, at least on that point. I would like to see both parties move a little more to the center. Hell, if the Dems would get a little more mainstream, I might even vote for one of them! (Well, ok, a LOT more mainstream...)

I guess I agree with nhp on that one... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

pooltchr
11-09-2004, 06:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> There are three different issues that seem to be getting confused in this discussion:

1. The principal of separation of church and state is about keeping personal religious beliefs out of government which make decisions that affect us all. This is vital, otherwise we don't have freedom of religion in this country. This is what Gayle's original post was about.

2. Churches encouraging their congregants to vote for one candidate or another is a different issue entirely. I don't like it, but pastors don't pass laws that I'm forced to follow. Of course there is the issue of them being tax-exempt, and tax-exempt organizations have some obligation to not be wings of a particular political party. But if they don't believe in, say, abortion for religious reasons I can see how they could legitimately talk about this issue in church. But pastors should respect that not all of their church members will see fit to vote the same way.

3. Candidates stumping in front of church congregations. I don't see this as a problem at all. Attending a church service to try to get votes isn't that different from going in front of a union organization or a NOW rally or a manufacturers association meeting. It is just campaigning. Bush does it, Kerry does it. By attending black church services, Kerry is not hypocritical, he is campaigning. If he goes to synagogue services (and I'm sure he has) he is not pretending to be Jewish. Just like he isn't professing to be a woman if he attends a NOW rally.

Of course I think organized religions in general are mostly guided by irrational dogmatic beliefs and are the source of much misery in the world, but what do I know? <hr /></blockquote>

Ross,
Since your first point was already addressed, let me skip to 2 and 3. Why is it ok for politicians (Jesse is more politician than minister IMHO) to go to the churches and promote their party just because of the history of the black churches fights over segregation, yet it's not ok for the churches to endorse politicians who support the causes that are important to the predominately white churches? If it's ok for one group, it has to be ok for the other.
Steve

SPetty
11-09-2004, 10:33 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr>
Check it out.

http://www.bugmenot.com/

Never register again.<hr /></blockquote>Now this is cool! I just knew that there had to be something like this around! Thanks crawdaddio!

In fact, I'm going to bring it to the top in another post...

SnakebyteXX
11-10-2004, 02:16 PM
The other side of the coin?

Liberal Christians Challenge 'Values Vote'

By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 10, 2004; Page A07

Liberal Christian leaders argued yesterday that the moral values held by most Americans are much broader than the handful of issues emphasized by religious conservatives in the 2004 presidential campaign.

Battling the notion that "values voters" swept President Bush to victory because of opposition to gay marriage and abortion, three liberal groups released a post-election poll in which 33 percent of voters said the nation's most urgent moral problem was "greed and materialism" and 31 percent said it was "poverty and economic justice." Sixteen percent cited abortion, and 12 percent named same-sex marriage.

But the religious leaders acknowledged that the Christian right had reached more voters than the Christian left. Some said it was time for "moderate and progressive" religious groups, as well as the Democratic Party, to rethink their positions.

"One of the things a few of us are talking about is a reassessment of how the Democrats deal with an issue like abortion -- could there be a more moderate ground, where even if they retained their pro-choice stance, they talked about uniting pro-choice people together to actually do something about the abortion rate?" said Jim Wallis, editor of the liberal evangelical journal Sojourners.

If the Democratic Party were to "welcome pro-life Democrats, Catholics and evangelicals and have a serious conversation with them" about ways to reduce teenage pregnancy, facilitate adoptions and improve conditions for low-income women, it would "work wonders" among centrist evangelicals and Catholics, Wallis said.

In a conference call with reporters to discuss the election and the new poll, Wallis and three other Christian leaders argued that many religious Americans do not fall neatly into liberal or conservative camps.

They contended that there is a vast religious middle, including "progressive evangelicals," "resurgent mainline Protestants" and "socially conservative African Americans," that could be attracted by biblically based "prophetic" appeals to make peace, fight poverty and spread social justice.

"The values that were promoted most within the conservative religious community were almost always tied to a fear factor, and that was not necessarily the case in the Democratic strategy, and I would say should not be the case," said the Rev. Welton Gaddy, head of the Interfaith Alliance.

The nationwide telephone poll of 10,689 voters was conducted by Zogby International for the Catholic peace group Pax Christi, the New York-based civic advocacy group Res Publica and the Washington-based Center for American Progress, a think tank allied with Democrats. It had a margin of error of plus or minus one percentage point.

The poll found that 42 percent of voters cited the war in Iraq as the "moral issue" that most influenced their choice of candidates, while 13 percent cited abortion and 9 percent same-sex marriage. Asked to name the greatest threat to marriage, 31 percent said "infidelity," 25 percent cited "rising financial burdens" and 22 percent named same-sex marriage.

Tom Perriello, an organizer at Res Publica, said the poll shows that "while there may be a solid 20 percent who are very focused on abortion and gay marriage, for most Americans of faith, there are other moral issues of greater urgency, and that's where the religious middle is."

Throughout the presidential campaign, opinion polls showed that frequent churchgoers were far more likely to support Bush than his Democratic rival, Sen. John F. Kerry. Exit polls on Election Day found that 22 percent of voters cited "moral values" as the key to their vote, and they tilted 4 to 1 toward Bush.

The answer to this "God gap," Perriello said, "is that progressives need to embrace the deep moral critique that people are looking for and make that case on poverty and Iraq, and not just try to talk more about God or outpace the Republicans on gay marriage or abortion."

According to Perriello, liberal religious groups registered 500,000 new voters, made 400,000 get-out-the-vote phone calls, and raised $1.75 million for newspaper and radio ads during the campaign. But he said the post-election poll found that 71 percent of voters had heard from the religious right while 38 percent said they had heard from the religious left.

Gayle in MD
11-11-2004, 08:46 AM
If that is what you got from my post, then I did not make myself clear. My position as a voter, is not from the point of view of either candidate or party, BTW. I am an independent, and as a matter of fact, my Grandfather was chairman of the Rupublican Committee. I have cousins who wouldn't vote for anyone but a Republican because our long dead grandfather wouldn't like it, if you can believe that!

My concern is the affect of organized religeon as regards the political process, and smear tactics used by either party. Untruths repeated over and over until they seem to be facts.

The politics of personal destruction, and the use of federal money to expose personal information and indulge in the politics of personal destruction by invetigating the sex lives of our president, any president, any Governor, and the crippling effect on the day to day work of Government, not to mention the waste of our money.


In times such as this, one wouldn't think that family values, so to speak, should overshadow the platforms of both parties. In my way of thinking, we have much more pressing issues to be focussed upon, issues which become lost in the fray.

The issue of gay rights, abortion, etc., just two examples, seem to me to affect only those involved, and I personally think they are personal issues, and in my world come under the heading of personal choice.

I am still confused about how two people, whatever their sexual preference, who want to have certain legal rights, afforded to others in same sex relationships, hurt anyone else by being given that opportunity. If not for the religeous teachings and beliefs, one wouldn't think they need be addressed.

Albiet a legal tactic, (?) perhaps, when one party targets mailing lists from certain organized religeous groups, (Who are tax exempt) I do not think that it serves our Republic, nor does it reflect the meaning of our constitution, IMHO.

If these tactics lead to having a president in office who can then appoint Judges with the power to overturn or affect our laws as a nation, and who reflect his personal religeous beliefs and doctrines, and those of certain targeted religeous group, in an effort to deny rights to certain others who do not agree with their philosophies, then our constitution does not stand for much, IMHO.

Also, speaking of hypocracy, I dare say one would find it difficult to accumulate in one book more hypocracy than exists in the bible.

Historically, the affect of organized religeon has had a devastating effect on mankind through the ages, IMHO.

I might add, as I originally stated, I would rather have seen Howdy Doody in office than George Bush. I do think I have a right to my opinion.

BTW, I know of no reliable information that suggests that Richard Clark ever considered running for president, which you said in another post. Perhaps you know or have read something of which I am unaware, but that information is certainly very contradictory to everything that I have ever read regarding his goals and personality.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
11-11-2004, 08:51 AM
Thank you sir, I wish I knew you. You have expressed my opinions perfectly. I was beginning to think I was all alone out here, LOL.
Gayle In Md. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Wally_in_Cincy
11-11-2004, 09:20 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>

I know of no reliable information that suggests that Richard Clark ever considered running for president,... <hr /></blockquote>

That was Deeman2 that posted that and he realized his mistake shortly thereafter. He was thinking of Wesley Clarke.

Gayle in MD
11-11-2004, 09:28 AM
I meant this post to be directed to Deeman. Sorry, my mistake.
Gayle in Md. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Gayle in MD
11-11-2004, 09:33 AM
May I remind you that none other than Jerry Falwell rushed to the TV screen after 9/11 and said the event was God's punishment for we sinners. Apperently Falwell and Bin Laden are of the same opinion.

He should have been barred from TV forever after that statement IMO.

Qtec
11-11-2004, 09:46 AM
[ QUOTE ]
James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, took this line of thinking to its logical conclusion recently when he asserted that gays will usher in the end of the world.

Speaking at a political rally in Oklahoma Oct. 22, Dobson blasted gays as sexually promiscuous radicals bent on crushing traditional marriage.

"Homosexuals are not monogamous," Dobson assured the audience. "They want to destroy the institution of marriage. It will destroy marriage. It will destroy the Earth."

<hr /></blockquote>

So there you have it. The biggest threat to mankind is homosexuality!
The Evangelicals believe in Creationism aka Intelligent Design. This means, nothing on earth happened by accident. Man didnt evolve, he was made by God in his own image from the word Go.
If this is true, how does one account for Gays? God wouldnt make Gay people because they are an abomination.
The answer is simple.
Homosexuality is a disease or its a choice, its not Gods fault. They believe gays can be cured!
Comitting a Homosexual act is a choice but I dont believe being Gay is.
I,m against gays marrying , but then again, it doesnt affect me so why should I care?

Its strange to think that these same people support the war in Iraq against because terrorists want to impose THEIR religious beliefs on everyone else!
Q

Qtec
11-11-2004, 09:56 AM
Gayle, either you are for free speech or you are not.
You cant ban someone for voicing their opinion just because you disagree with it.
I,m sure its in the Constitution.

BTW-The recent murder of Theo van Gogh and the subsequent reaction is not about Islam v,s Christianity. Its about free speech. Being able to voice your opinion [ however wrong ] without fear of persecution.

Q

Deeman2
11-11-2004, 10:08 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> If that is what you got from my post, then I did not make myself clear. My position as a voter, is not from the point of view of either candidate or party, BTW. I am an independent, and as a matter of fact, my Grandfather was chairman of the Rupublican Committee. I have cousins who wouldn't vote for anyone but a Republican because our long dead grandfather wouldn't like it, if you can believe that!

<font color="blue"> </font color>
Tell them, in a religous context, Grandpa doesn't care anymore! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

My concern is the affect of organized religeon as regards the political process, and smear tactics used by either party. Untruths repeated over and over until they seem to be facts. <font color="blue"> </font color>

While organized religeon should never control the political process, they have every right to express their opinion on policy.

The politics of personal destruction, and the use of federal money to expose personal information and indulge in the politics of personal destruction by invetigating the sex lives of our president, any president, any Governor, and the crippling effect on the day to day work of Government, not to mention the waste of our money. <font color="blue"> </font color>

I agree, we have much bigger fish to fry. Character should be an issue in political races but most of us can make up our own minds about who shot John type issues.


In times such as this, one wouldn't think that family values, so to speak, should overshadow the platforms of both parties. In my way of thinking, we have much more pressing issues to be focussed upon, issues which become lost in the fray. <font color="blue"> </font color>

Again, I agree. But in many cases both sides and the press make those too important and the politicians defent themselves. I don't think the NJ gay politician should leave for being gay, he should leave for being corrupt.

The issue of gay rights, abortion, etc., just two examples, seem to me to affect only those involved, and I personally think they are personal issues, and in my world come under the heading of personal choice. <font color="blue"> </font color>

That's because you think it is not wrong to kill unborn babies. That's your right. Some people think it is wrong. I still want women to make this choice but wish they would not go for the easy solution. However, realizing I won't get pregnant, it's not as much my business as a fertile woman's. Is it wrong to kill unborn children then scream to not execute mass murderers? That's a tought question but it seems a paradox for a pro abortionist. A difficult issue.

I am still confused about how two people, whatever their sexual preference, who want to have certain legal rights, afforded to others in same sex relationships, hurt anyone else by being given that opportunity. If not for the religeous teachings and beliefs, one wouldn't think they need be addressed. <font color="blue"> </font color>

Gays can still have all the legal rights. They can still do sodomy, put people in thier wills, visit them in hospital, raise kids; all with a legal union. Under equal protection you will never get away with saying two people can get married without saying five people can get married, brother and sister can get married, etc. Leave marriage along, we'll even give up the Bravo channel.

Albiet a legal tactic, (?) perhaps, when one party targets mailing lists from certain organized religeous groups, (Who are tax exempt) I do not think that it serves our Republic, nor does it reflect the meaning of our constitution, IMHO. <font color="blue"> </font color>

Then the NAACP will lose it's tax exempt status. Politics is a very small part of even the most active churches. They get tax status for other reasons. These may be good or bad. if we take away that status, then let's take away all tax exempt status.

If these tactics lead to having a president in office who can then appoint Judges with the power to overturn or affect our laws as a nation, and who reflect his personal religeous beliefs and doctrines, and those of certain targeted religeous group, in an effort to deny rights to certain others who do not agree with their philosophies, then our constitution does not stand for much, IMHO. <font color="blue"> </font color>

This has always been the way political judicial appointments have been made. You have never complained when you fell on the other side of the argument. Your main concern seems to be Roe vs. Wade. I don't think many rational people really believe it will be overturned. It may be threatened but the hard liners on both sides will keep this from happening. I wish Democratic efforts would be channeled toward helping prevent as many unwanted pregnancies as possible with abortion as a last resort. You know, killing less babies is not a bad political position. Do that and even we that believe in pro life will feel something/someone wa saved and protect the real needs, not make it an easy lifestyle choice. I had a child aborted by my girlfriend many years ago. It is the single most shameful thing in my life but it was her choice and I didn't discourage her and helped her get it done. I wish I had been more a help to her but I was young, stupid and, sadly, willing to sacrifice something for my own convienence. It is not as simple and straightforward as some of us want to believe. I thank God my girls never had to make that choice but would hope they would have been better at it than me. We all learn, I hope.

Also, speaking of hypocracy, I dare say one would find it difficult to accumulate in one book more hypocracy than exists in the bible. <font color="blue"> </font color>

The Koran, The Talmud, My Life, It Takes a Village, Mein Kamph, Mao's Little Red Book, any book Deeman writes.....

Historically, the affect of organized religeon has had a devastating effect on mankind through the ages, IMHO.
<font color="blue"> </font color>

Mixed, Good and Bad....


I might add, as I originally stated, I would rather have seen Howdy Doody in office than George Bush. I do think I have a right to my opinion. <font color="blue"> </font color>

Howdy Doody would have been a better candidate than the one you selected and may closely reflect your politics. Go for him 2008. Couldn't resist... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

BTW, I know of no reliable information that suggests that Richard Clark ever considered running for president, which you said in another post. Perhaps you know or have read something of which I am unaware, but that information is certainly very contradictory to everything that I have ever read regarding his goals and personality.
<font color="blue"> </font color>

It was Moi, not highseas, that made this blunder. I only read the last name in that post and like a conservative, blamed it on sacrimental wine in my system. It WILL happen again.

Gayle in Md.
<hr /></blockquote>

Deeman
Should never post before reading further....

Wally_in_Cincy
11-11-2004, 10:13 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>
Its strange to think that these same people support the war in Iraq against because terrorists want to impose THEIR religious beliefs on everyone else!
Q
<hr /></blockquote>

There is a difference. The terrorists will cut your head off if you don't practice the same religion as them. It is pretty rude of you to even compare the two.

You say you're against gay marriage. Isn't that imposing your religious beliefs on everyone else? That's what you are accusing the Christians of.

Popcorn
11-11-2004, 10:14 AM
Why even bother spinning it, we all know what it is on both sides. Truth is, neither of them belong there. They spend a fortune on TV ads that reach millions. Why do you think they would waste their time in some church talking to a few hundred people if not just for a photo opt. and pandering. The scary part is the thought there may be voters so stupid this is effective.

Deeman2
11-11-2004, 10:18 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> May I remind you that none other than Jerry Falwell rushed to the TV screen after 9/11 and said the event was God's punishment for we sinners. Apperently Falwell and Bin Laden are of the same opinion.

He should have been barred from TV forever after that statement IMO. <hr /></blockquote>

Wow, we agree on most of this. I, however, still belive we should let him on TV as stupid remarks should not be shielded from the public. Surprise, I too, don't want evangelists running my country....

Deeman

Deeman2
11-11-2004, 10:37 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Gayle, either you are for free speech or you are not.
You cant ban someone for voicing their opinion just because you disagree with it.
I,m sure its in the Constitution.

BTW-The recent murder of Theo van Gogh and the subsequent reaction is not about Islam v,s Christianity. Its about free speech. Being able to voice your opinion [ however wrong ] without fear of persecution.

Q <hr /></blockquote>

I agree, who wants every one to join the Salmon Rusdie Club?

Q, Gayle and few others might be surprised at this. When I lived in Germany, if you declared a religous affliation on your tax documents, they automatically withheld 10% of your salary and sent it directly to the church! That's why German church officials all drive Mercedes and BMW's. Is this common throughout Europe? I worked in UK and France but was always paid through Germany. You'd be surprised how many American GM executives quickly changed their tax form to "no religeon" after their first paycheck. Is this a sign of church being tied to state? Is Liberated Europe more Right than they care to admit of is this just Eine Deutche Dinge?

Deeman
claimed to be a shallow water, snake handling Baptist so they left me alone...

Qtec
11-11-2004, 10:43 AM
[ QUOTE ]
There is a difference. The terrorists will cut your head off if you don't practice the same religion as them. <font color="blue">I dont think anyone has been beheaded just because they were not a Muslim. </font color> It is pretty rude of you to even compare the two. <font color="blue"> Thats ok. </font color>

You say you're against gay marriage. Isn't that imposing your religious beliefs on everyone else? <font color="blue"> My opinion isnt based on Religious belief. i,m not imposing anything, its just my opinion.</font color> That's what you are accusing the Christians of. <hr /></blockquote>

Q

Qtec
11-11-2004, 10:48 AM
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
LOL

I,ve never heard of that. I,m sure its 'just a German thing'. LOL

You certainly have developed a English sense of humour!

Dry but pittig. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Q

SnakebyteXX
11-11-2004, 10:48 AM
[ QUOTE ]
, however, still belive we should let him on TV as stupid remarks should not be shielded from the public.
<hr /></blockquote>

It might be useful to consider that when tele-evangelists like Falwell make stupid remarks on national TV they do more to damage their own credibility than their most vocal critics.

eg8r
11-11-2004, 10:55 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Man didnt evolve, he was made by God in his own image from the word Go.
If this is true, how does one account for Gays? God wouldnt make Gay people because they are an abomination.
The answer is simple.
Homosexuality is a disease or its a choice, its not Gods fault. They believe gays can be cured!
Comitting a Homosexual act is a choice but I dont believe being Gay is.
<hr /></blockquote> No one believes gays can be cured unless you are referring to some illness they might have. Being gay is not an illness, disease or anything other ailment, it is a choice.

[ QUOTE ]
Its strange to think that these same people support the war in Iraq against because terrorists want to impose THEIR religious beliefs on everyone else! <hr /></blockquote> Sometimes your make it very tough to argue that you put any thought into your posts. People support the war in Iraq and on terrorism because they want to rid the world of terrorists, NOT MUSLIMS. It is just interesting that all the terrorists so far have come from the peaceful Muslim religion.

eg8r

Deeman2
11-11-2004, 10:55 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
There is a difference. The terrorists will cut your head off if you don't practice the same religion as them. <font color="blue">I dont think anyone has been beheaded just because they were not a Muslim. </font color> It is pretty rude of you to even compare the two. <font color="blue"> Thats ok. </font color>

You say you're against gay marriage. Isn't that imposing your religious beliefs on everyone else? <font color="blue"> My opinion isnt based on Religious belief. i,m not imposing anything, its just my opinion.</font color> That's what you are accusing the Christians of. <hr /></blockquote>

Q <hr /></blockquote>

Q,

They will cut your head off if you're not the same TYPE of Muslim that they are. Where is the indignation at the beheadings? There was uproar over the incidents at Abu Grabe and Guantanimo. Yet, hardly a harsh outburst by you and not a peep out of the moderate Muslim community. Is the worl court in The Hag demanding these ruthless people be brought to justice? No, they are watching to see if they can punish any American soldiers for crimes. You have a double standard but will you admit it? Let's hear a little outrage at the French in Africa? No, the U.S. is source of all evil.

Deeman
selective outrage is trendy...

eg8r
11-11-2004, 10:57 AM
Jerry Falwell should have been banned from TV long before that incident.

eg8r

eg8r
11-11-2004, 10:59 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Gayle, either you are for free speech or you are not.
You cant ban someone for voicing their opinion just because you disagree with it.
<hr /></blockquote> Did she say she wanted to ban him from free speech, or did she say she wanted him barred from TV? There is a difference.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
11-11-2004, 11:58 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> I dont think anyone has been beheaded just because they were not a Muslim.

Q <hr /></blockquote>

I give up

Gayle in MD
11-11-2004, 02:00 PM
Hi Q.,
I must apologize, what I really meant was, not in a legal sense. I should have been more specific, but, if I were in television production, after his statement, he would never be invited back. It was, IMO, one of the most offenseive statements I've ever heard. I wonder how the families of those lost on 911 felt after hearing that.

Gayle in Md.

cheesemouse
11-11-2004, 02:01 PM
eg8r,
[ QUOTE ]
No one believes gays can be cured unless you are referring to some illness they might have. Being gay is not an illness, disease or anything other ailment, it is a choice.
<hr /></blockquote>

Are you saying that we are all queer and most of us just made a choice to be straight??????? Ed, what made you choose and when did you know???

Deeman2
11-11-2004, 02:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr> eg8r,
&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
No one believes gays can be cured unless you are referring to some illness they might have. Being gay is not an illness, disease or anything other ailment, it is a choice.
<hr /></blockquote>

Are you saying that we are all queer and most of us just made a choice to be straight??????? Ed, what made you choose and when did you know??? <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> I don't believe most people chose their sexual orientation but if they did, mine would have been the first ime I saw this 400 lb. guy bending over fixing my mom's washing machine. That butt crack scared me straight, so far, for a half century!!! </font color>

Deeman
love's all women but has the right one already.....

Gayle in MD
11-11-2004, 02:18 PM
I think that if you find abortion to be objectionable, sinful, whatever, then you have a right to your opinion. I don't think you or anyone else has a right to dictate to another person what they can or should do.

I do know that the women I have known who have had abortions find it to be an extremely difficult decision, certainly not one taken frivously, and usually made partly because of a total lack of concern or offer of help from the father of the baby. That is not aimed at you personally, just applies to situations to which I have personally been close to.

Gayle in Md. MYOB, would save a lot of strife in this world.



Personally, it is something that I could never do, but I have never been poor, jobless, with a house full of children already who are hungry. To me it is a personal issue, and the decision should be made by each in provate and under the conditions prevailing for each individual.

Gayle in Md

Gayle in MD
11-11-2004, 02:31 PM
Let me get this straight, Ed, ... Yo believe that gay people have a choice about being attracted to the same sex or the opposite sex, so you do not think it is a physiological phenomena? Surely that isn't what you think. Did you know that same sex attraction also exist in the animal world. I guess you think the animals have a choice also.

When you think how really yukkie is it to think of having sex with the same sex seems to straight people, how could you possibly think that being gay is a choice?

/ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif
Gayle in Md.

Deeman2
11-11-2004, 02:59 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> I think that if you find abortion to be objectionable, sinful, whatever, then you have a right to your opinion. I don't think you or anyone else has a right to dictate to another person what they can or should do.

<font color="blue"> </font color> We agree, completely.

I do know that the women I have known who have had abortions find it to be an extremely difficult decision, certainly not one taken frivously, and usually made partly because of a total lack of concern or offer of help from the father of the baby. That is not aimed at you personally, just applies to situations to which I have personally been close to.

<font color="blue">Some women are in the situation you describe, some are in others. While I say again, I don't believe abortions are right, I don't pretend I should make a decision for them. For many it is painful and the worst thing in their lives. For some, it seems to have become a convienence. Even then, it's not my decision. I just wish there was less of it for all reasons. My situation was not one of not being willing to step up and help, financially or otherwise. I, honestly, just knew it was easier for me not to have a child at 17 or 18 and let her decision make it easier on me. I would have done what I thought was right is she wanted to have the child but it was not my choice. I was just admitting that even those of us who value life have made choices we were/are not sure of at times. I think I would have done some things differently now (wouldn't we all with a second chance)? In the end, now and then, with me, it would have to be her decision. </font color>

Gayle in Md. MYOB, would save a lot of strife in this world.

<font color="blue">No, it would just sweep the issues under the carpet. </font color>



Personally, it is something that I could never do, but I have never been poor, jobless, with a house full of children already who are hungry. To me it is a personal issue, and the decision should be made by each in provate and under the conditions prevailing for each individual.

<font color="blue"> Again, I agree but still feel it is wrong. However, I don't think a judge should change this. See, I am not leaning all the way right. Just tipped a bit....Besides, you and I are too old to be having babies. </font color>

Gayle in Md <hr /></blockquote>

silverbullet
11-11-2004, 03:50 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>
The answer is simple.
Homosexuality is a disease or its a choice, its not Gods fault. They believe gays can be cured!
Comitting a Homosexual act is a choice but I dont believe being Gay is.
eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

DNA mapping is in its infancy, but they have already found some genetic coding variations in gays. To get to the absolute truth of 'born that way or choice' other than anecdotal evidence, fast forward ten years in the future for your answer. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

sb

nhp
11-11-2004, 05:33 PM
Homosexuality is not a difficult matter when it comes to it's origin. I believe that some homosexuals are born like that, and some choose to be like that at a certain point in life.

Many animals practice homosexuality, even apes and gorillas, who are supposedly the most "human-like" of the animal kingdom.

God lets all types of irregularities exist in newborns. I don't know if it is God's intention, or he just lets human life go on it's own, choosing not to control what conditions babies have when they are born. Some are born with severe deformities, some are born with life-threatening illnesses, mental retardation, etc. If you can be born with one of those, what's to say that you can't be born gay?

eg8r
11-12-2004, 06:17 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Let me get this straight, Ed, ... Yo believe that gay people have a choice about being attracted to the same sex or the opposite sex, so you do not think it is a physiological phenomena? Surely that isn't what you think. <hr /></blockquote> When I stated I thought it was a choice, you needed all this to "get it straight"? It is a choice.

As far as your example to animals, it probably should not be that hard to recognize I do not believe in evolution, so what the animals do, matters not to me.

[ QUOTE ]
When you think how really yukkie is it to think of having sex with the same sex seems to straight people, how could you possibly think that being gay is a choice? <hr /></blockquote> Using your words, I think gay people choose to be yukkie. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
11-12-2004, 06:18 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that we are all queer and most of us just made a choice to be straight??????? <hr /></blockquote> No, you said it.

eg8r

silverbullet
11-12-2004, 07:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Let me get this straight, Ed, ... Yo believe that gay people have a choice about being attracted to the same sex or the opposite sex, so you do not think it is a physiological phenomena? Surely that isn't what you think. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif
Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

Gayle,

I cannot speak for ed, but many conservatives think that sexuality is a choice and more so if they are conservative christians. The only thing I would have to ask them, since they did not state it as opinon but fact, where are the facts to back up what they state to be true?

Not even the Bible states it is a choice, that conclusion is inferred from the context, rather than specifically stated.The few verses in there alluding to homosexuality, do not discriminate between absolute gayness and bisexuals carrying out homosexual acts. And there is a difference between bisexuality and being gay. A case perhaps could be made for bisexuals having a choice If they are using the Bible as their source, but those who use the Bible as their only source, are doing what most do, picking out a few verses, placing their own interpretations on them, and using these as what they now claim to be true.

Anyone who wishes can debate the Bible with me, although it would be somewhat boring to me, because after defeating all pastors and theologians I encountered in Biblical debates 20 years ago, it ceased to be a challenge. And I defeated them not as a person who did not believe the Bible to be 'the word of God', but as a Christian without dogma, who did believe the Bible to be God's word. That was why I could defeat them. They knew their own 'dogma' while I knew their's, all the other opposing dogma and the Bible, without dogma. Using their 'dogma' in debate, was like trying to put a square peg in a round hole, and in my extentive study of the Bible, to me, they were in 'mental straight jackets'.

sb

Gayle in MD
11-12-2004, 08:01 AM
"Needed all this" ???????? to what do you refer with this statement,(?) "All this" a sentence? Really Ed, I do wish we could debate without your constant, sarcastic, condescending remarks, they tend to not bring out the best in me, lol.

Truly, when I read that post of yours, I honestly thought there must be some misunderstanding, typo, writing too quickly, something. Now I understand your meaning, discussion over. I have no desire to go all the way back to Darwin or the Kangeroo Court, LOL. I won't even venture to ask for your proof, or accuse you of spewing lies if you don't post factual information to back up what you are saying, LMAO.

Have a nice day!

Gayle in Md. "Check Please"

Gayle in MD
11-12-2004, 08:11 AM
My friend, I seldom have a candidate. Generally speaking, my vote is against a candidate. How I wish that not to be the case. I did vote for Reagen, however, since my opinion at that time was that the general public needed a really great actor in office.

But, that is another story, LOL.
Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
11-12-2004, 08:18 AM
Bravo, my dear man, where have you been all my life, LOL.

Gayle in Md., /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r
11-12-2004, 09:01 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I won't even venture to ask for your proof, or accuse you of spewing lies if you don't post factual information to back up what you are saying, LMAO.
<hr /></blockquote> This is a good position for you to take. Finally I have read a post of yours (in a political discussion, however much this one has veered) that makes sense. Since you don't bother offering any facts, it would be wrong for you to request them yourself.

However, there is not proof or factual evidence for my opinion on this subject of gays (born with or choice). I have formed my opinion on my beliefs. There is no proof or evidence contradictory, so we are at an empasse.

eg8r