Godless Catfight—Elizabeth Dole and Kay Hagan Fight Over the Lord
In a campaign rife with ugly moments, Sen. Elizabeth Dole's new TV ad accusing Democratic state Sen. Kay Hagan, Dole's opponent for a U.S. Senate seat from North Carolina, of accepting "godless" money is one of the ugliest. It is emblematic of Dole's desperation mode in the final stages of what looks like a losing campaign for re-election.
Polls show the veteran GOP cabinet secretary, presidential candidate, and now senator running slightly behind a Democratic novice. That, more than anything, accounts for Dole's latest TV ad. The Washington Post reports that the ad accuses Hagan of taking money from an atheist political action committee and "ends with an image of Hagan on the screen and a female voice saying, 'There is no God.' "
The PAC calls itself the "Godless Americans PAC," which, quite frankly, is not the most eloquent way to describe itself. This group definitely needs a new copy writer. How 'bout: "The Freedom from Religion PAC" or the "Separation of Church and State PAC"?
What is perhaps the saddest aspect of this catfight is that Hagan felt compelled to wage a counterattack, defending her bona fide Christian credentials as a Sunday school teacher and believer. The South hasn't changed much at all, has it?
Tags: North Carolina | Senate | religion | 2008 Senate election | campaign advertising | Elizabeth Dole | Kay Hagan
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (19) | Print
Reader Comments
God doesn't solve the problem
Or, you can accept the idea of an eternal, benevolent, creator.
Which one sounds more like a religious leap of faith to you?
The creator is the leap of faith, of course. Who created the creator? And if creator's can "just be", why can't universes?
Science has given lie to all the specific, immediate claims of religion and the pious must continually push back what they "know" to be true. But note the pious dont' just believe in some deistic creator claims, they believe very speficic claims about what God did, what he wants, etc. based on revelation and it is from that any belief in a possible vague creator flows. If you people made any attempt to familiarize yourselves with the state of scientific knowledge instead of resting on your pre-existing biases, maybe you wouldn't be so ignorant as to parody the scientific account of origns so laughably.
Rights
Doesn't everybody have right to religious freedom?
Who is the Judge?
Who are we, to say she should not have taken money from some one who don't believe. After all the person gave the money to her and know where it was going towards, so!!! Who is right here? Some one who believe and don't give or some one who don't believe and give?
advertisement
