"Republicans Say Liberals Will Ban the Bible"
by Jim Wallis
I learned from Sojourners about a Pepublican mailout of accusing Democrats of "banning" the Bible, essentially by establishing gay marriage. Here's what the Sojourner's article said,
The mailing includes an image of the Bible labeled "banned" and a photo of a man putting a ring on another man's hand labeled "allowed," and suggests that's exactly what "liberal politicians" would seek to do. Then the good church folks are warned, "This will be Arkansas if you don't vote." A similar mailing was sent in West Virginia. This new Republican campaign in the churches is similar to an earlier effort that asked church volunteers to perform 22 "duties" in this election year, including turning over congregational membership lists to the local Republican Party. That suggestion even offended some of the Republican religious base as a too-partisan intrusion into church life and an attempt to manipulate the faith of voters.
More later,
Yet Republicans are not only assuming, they seem to be demanding that religious people vote only one way - their way. What the Republican Party is doing in these mailings is claiming that the religious vote in American belongs only to them and disrespecting the faith of all believers who disagree with their political agenda or candidate. Neither Republicans nor Democrats should be allowed to get away with that.
Later still,
When I read about the new RNC mailing, my first response was to ask how conservative Republicans can accuse the "liberals" of wanting to ban the Bible when they ignore it altogether on the weighty scriptural matters of social and economic justice or on Jesus' command that Christians be "peacemakers." There should at least be a serious debate in this election about what those biblical teachings mean in relation to Christian voting. But the Republicans apparently don't want any debate about religion and the election. They have just declared themselves the winners.
Read the article "Republicans Say Liberals Will Ban the Bible"
To take action and send a letter to President Bush and the Republican National Committee click here.
They have a pre-written letter you can send to President Bush and Ed Gillespie, Chairman of the Republican National Committee. Of course, you can change or add to the letter, but it's pretty on the mark as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by Reid at October 6, 2004 10:14 AMReid:
Can I ask you to edit this so that you don't directly quote so much of it? Just give the hyperlink and give us a short quote. I know the world doesn't really care what we do here in our small corner of the Web, but I'm going to try and respect copyright guidelines. Thanks!
Posted by: Mitchell at October 6, 2004 10:21 AMThere are eleven paragrapahs (of relatively equal length) in the article. You really think quoting three infringes on copyright laws?
Posted by: Reid at October 6, 2004 10:27 AMI think it's definitely skirting the fringe, but I just did a quick scan of Fair Use policy and I think in this case it's okay. It's good that you include the link to the full article. It might be better if you also include the author's name.
Posted by: Mitchell at October 6, 2004 11:02 AMHaving gotten that taken care of, allow me to respond.
It's dirty politics, but it's not illegal, nor is it necessarily "wrong." I think I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement in Wallis's piece:
What the Republican Party is doing in these mailings is claiming that the religious vote in American belongs only to them and disrespecting the faith of all believers who disagree with their political agenda or candidate. Neither Republicans nor Democrats should be allowed to get away with that.
It is the Republican Party's right to interpret Democratic policy any way it wishes. It is clearly NOT "disprespecting the faith of all believers who disagree with [its] political agenda," and even if it is, who cares? The RNC may disrespect my faith all it wants--that's only going to inspire me never to vote Republican. If people are swayed to vote Republican by this underhanded publication, yes, it's dirty politics, but WHATEVER reason people decide to vote a certain way is still totally up to them.
Let's not rule out the benefit of the doubt for Republicans and conservative Christians. I'm sure many people do feel that giving gays marriage rights IS a step away from Biblical principal. I don't feel this way and neither do you, but it's a legitimate belief that lots of people have, and if it's the primary issue for someone in this election, I don't think it's fair for us to tell them not to communicate this particular interpretation of Democratic policy or tendency.
Again: It's sneaky and underhanded, but to say that neither "Republicans or Democrats should be allowed to get away with it" goes a bit far. They should be allowed to interpret the other side's policy any way they interpret it. If people believe the Republicans are saying something that's a lie, the people who feel strongly about this lie have the right to say so, as publicly as they wish. I don't think this qualifies as a lie anyway--it's more like a reach.
Posted by: Mitchell at October 6, 2004 11:13 AMWhen Wallis says that neither party should get away with using religion in the way the Republicans have, I believe he's saying that people should sharply criticize any party that uses religion in that way. He's not advocating for the suppression of one's interpretation of a party's position. It almost sounds as if you believe that the Republicans are simply giving their genuine interpretation of Democratic policy, and not using religion in a purely political way. If so, I think you're giving them way too much credit.
But I want to go back to something you mentioned in the previous post. You said that a party can interpret the opposing side in any way they want. But would you agree that there are lines that should not be crossed?
Certainly, a party should not lie or intentionally distort the other side's position, right? I believe using religion the way the Republicans have crosses the line. I'm a little suprised that you don't seem to feel the same way.
Finally,
Let's not rule out the benefit of the doubt for Republicans and conservative Christians. I'm sure many people do feel that giving gays marriage rights IS a step away from Biblical principal. I don't feel this way and neither do you, but it's a legitimate belief that lots of people have, and if it's the primary issue for someone in this election, I don't think it's fair for us to tell them not to communicate this particular interpretation of Democratic policy or tendency.
Even if the way the view is communicated is underhanded and manipulative? I can't believe you would use this paragraph in relation to what the Republicans are doing. You know I'm not opposed to allowing people to form their own opinions, basis for voting and the expression of these views. That's not what Wallis is objecting to, and neither am I.
Posted by: Reid at October 6, 2004 05:03 PM