It sounds as though the Senate campaign in North Carolina is now getting even nastier than the one here. Elizabeth Dole is running a spot with a picture of her opponent Kay Hagen and a woman's voice shouting "There is no God". Hagen, an elder and former Sunday School teacher in her Presbyterian church, is now seeking a "cease and desist" order against Dole's new attack.

Lost in all of this is the awareness that the Constitution, in Article 6, bans any religious test for office.

On what grounds would she have to cease and desist? I am not following ya here.

Even in political ads, I don't think you are allowed to dub in someone else's voice to make it sound like your opponent said something she didn't say.

I didn't take it that way, but on what grounds could the ad be pulled? I am not following you.

I listened to it and it doesn't say Kay Hagen is an athiest, it just says she took money from them and is associated with them:


Is that true? That she took money from them and attended some dinner with the head of this "Godless" outfit?

There's a copy of the letter that R.Bruce Thompson, partner at Parker Poe Adams and Bernstein, has sent to Elizabeth Dole at this URL:
http://edcone.typepad.com/wordup/files/cease_and_desist.pdf

so what if some cheesy lawyer sent her a letter? That is not grounds.

If Kay Hagan is taking money from Godless Americans PAC and being honored by their leader, don't you think voters might want to know that? I would want to know that. That might be a key factor in my vote.

Not having met the attorney in question, I have no idea whether he could be classified as "cheesy", but that letter does answer the question you asked. I assumed you were asking in good faith, so I searched for the answer and posted it in good faith. I don't intend to respond to any more of your questions.

Well no, it did not answer my question at all. Nowhere did it say that hagan has not taken any money from this PAC and is not affiliated with them. Some letter from some dime a dozen lawyer does not tell me that.

This is pertinent information about that candidate that voters might need to know, don't you think? It seems like Hagan is trying a little too hard to change the subject. Screaming that Elizabeth Dole is mean does not answer the question.

I don't really have any interest in this campaign, but actually, the letter did say she didn't take any money from this PAC or its principals. I believe the basis for the cease and desist is that the ad implies that she did.

So what's wrong with talking to an atheist group about their political concerns? Politicians talk to Christian groups all the time. Shouldn't our elected officials be responsive to all the people and listen to all groups?

The problem with Dole is that she's using this to paint her opponent as an atheist as if that were some sort of insult. Jesse Ventura is an atheist and he seems to be doing an okay job in Minnesota so what's the big deal? Not that I think Hagan is an atheist - she's probably not but that won't stop Dole from suggesting it if she thinks she'll gain political advantage from it. Dole is trying to stir up the Republican base, which unfortunately happens to be at least partly made up of religious bigots and racists. This is nothing new. Unscrupulous politicians have been pandering to people's prejudices ever since George Wallace perfected the art. It's the politics of division and hate as usual.

That was your question. The answer to it was clearly stated in the attorney's letter.

rprynne, I see it now, thanks. That would surely make the ad problematic IF TRUE. However, her lawyer wrongly said that the ad "implies" she is an athiest. It does not. Nor do we know if it is true that she didn't take money from the Godless PAC, we just have Hagan's lawyers word.

That might be a case of libel, at worst, but it has nothing to do with the Constitution.

No, it wasn't. The letter stated that the ad implied she was an athiest, it did not. And you stated this:

"Lost in all of this is the awareness that the Constitution, in Article 6, bans any religious test for office."

The ad has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution so your comment just added to the confusion. Wouldn't it have been easier to just say it is NOT TRUE that Hagan took money from the PAC?

Apparently, Hagan views it as such or she wouldn't be so upset.

That is a very bigoted remark on your part.

NMDreams, "lost" in your statement is that "religious test" applies to the "qualifications required by the State for holding an office." Since the Constitution specifically rejects any "State Religion" being the "recognized religion" of the Nation, there can't BE any "religious" requirement of any particular faith IN ORDER TO hold any office.

What you are attempting to do is to say that NO citizen can have ANY "test" of their own choosing as to who THEY think they would want to represent them.

This is nothing more than another blatant, though very poorly attempted, attempt by atheists to ban religion in any form or forum. It is simply another attempt to "muzzle" and "censor" any talk about religion.

Sorry NMD, but the Constitution specifically protects NOT ONLY from the establishment of State Religion, it also PROTECTS the rights of the citizens in the Free Exercise of their religion, and that INCLUDES the right of any citizen to have a "religous test" of any kind if that is what they want.

So let's be perfectly frank about this. The Founding Fathers were VERY clear in their many statements that a government made up of people who abandon their faith in God, in the "inalienable rights" given by God (like the LIFE of babies for example) WILL NOT SURVIVE.

We may well be living in the time when we see just how prophetic the Founding Fathers were in their assessment of the viability of the young "fetal Republic" when the "godless" do gain control of the power and establish a pervasive and intrusive NATIONAL goverment. The "unholy" triumverate of Obama/Reid/Pelosi and their hoped for "filibuster and veto proof" control of Congress and the Presidency. THEN they will set their sights on the Supreme Court and getting the "trifecta" of all 3 branches of the Federal Government. Heaven help us.

ML - I concur. But that's never stopped the liberals before.

Interesting too is the lack of outcry from Obama or from the liberals about the LA "hanging in effigy" of Sarah Palin.

A wife, mother, and Governor. Yep, THAT's worthy of hanging.

I wonder what Barack, or the liberals for that matter, would think if someone hung Barack in effigy to make a "political statement?"

****edit****

"Wayward thinking" seems to be a lot more pervasive than most of us thought." But then, consider John Murtha and his accusations of his fellow Pennsylvanians. Consider Obama's opinion that Pennsylvanians just "cling to their religion and guns."

And along comes another atheist spouting the same hate rhetoric.

Amazing if it wasn't so sad and indicative of the bias and racism/classism of a growing number of liberal-minded folks.

I think what Hagan views as an insult is the "Godless" voiceover portrayal of herself, despite the fact that she belongs to a church.

If you need a further explanation, it's not different than trying to portray Obama as a Muslim - a lie, with a very specific intent to discredit. I don't think it takes rocket science to figure out why Hagan is offended by Dole's ad.

AGG