Mail call!

Where does the Mary Starrett campaign stand on the First Amendment?  I ask because I received this rather pedestrian e-mail last night, presented without alteration (other than to remove the contact information), from, let's call her "Jane":

Gully!

   You are a pig! Gully got porn????? Gully got viagra?? Here Gully, we have lubricant.. Is it  that you don't have a woman?

What would Jesus view?

What does this e-mail have to do with Mary Starrett?  Well, I won't give out private contact information over the internet, but I can tell you that "Jane" is major player in her campaign.

So, as I wrote back to "Jane":

Jane,

If you don’t like the idea of women in sexy clothing (and notice that there is CLOTHING and no nudity or profanity—I don’t publish anything they can’t show on network television), then don’t read my site.  While you are at it, pull the plug on your television, avoid motion pictures, and the beach on a sunny day.

If you want to send me constructive advice, you can do so without being so rude and childish and insulting.  And you have obviously never met my WIFE.

What would Jesus view?  Well, I seem to remember something about Him saying “turn the other cheek.”  You happen to be writing to a devout Christian, but comments like that seriously make me question the usefulness of the religious right.

And, considering the source, they seriously make me question the usefulness of Mary Starrett in politics.

If you think the First Amendment shouldn't be used to, say, give blanket protection to live sex acts featuring underage girls for cash, well, I agree with you.  That's why I've been working hard to enact change on our own state Supreme Court.  But if you think breaking down the wall of separation between church and state means the morality squad needs to come in and harass any publisher whose "rated PG" content isn't up to your Bible-thumping standards, count me out.  Just stay indoors and continue to teach your home-schooled children that evolution is Satan's tool for stealing our souls, and stay out of politics.  Or at least focus on electing Jack Roberts instead of sending hate mail to a blogger.

Remember, kids, you don't have to be a left-wing liberal to be a moonbat!

Comments

[greendink]

typical rightwing fascist hypocracy! where was Jane when Rush Limbaugh was busted for having his VIAGRA without a prescription????

[gullybabe]

Jane may be a tad overwrought. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for candidate, is it?

[John Eyler]

Conservatisim and the Religious Right only "seem" to be alike and on the same team. The differences are scary.

[John Eyler]

P.S. I thought this was one of the most entertaining and eye-catching Carnivals ever!!!!

[Bob]

I once opined that the folks in the constitution party have read neither the Constitution nor the Bible.

I took alot of flak that only reinforced my view.

[Max]

Pardon my French, but what in the HELL was this moonbat griping about? It's not as though I don't regularly stop by your place. Starrett was only a so-so tv "personality" at best, back when she was in her prime. Now she's got that huge lantern jaw and a mentality that harkens back to the old "Alley Oop" cartoons.

[Gullyborg]

Apparently, attractive women in sexy clothing carrying guns aren't compatible with the Constitution Party -- a party that says it prides itself in things like free speech and gun rights.

I guess if you are Constitution Party member, the proper place for women is covered up, barefoot, pregnant, in the kitchen, and getting a sandwich for her man... and certainly NOT able to make up her own mind to do what she wants to do with her own adult body.

Which makes me question the Constitution Party having a woman for its nominee.

[SondraK]

Send her to me.
HA!

[Gullyborg]

ohmygawd! anyone here listening to Limbaugh right now? he just used the word "dick" - in a purely gender-identifying way - about 20 times!!!

Call the FCC! Break out the Bibles! Tell Jane!!!!!!

[Rivrdog]

Gully, if you've ever been to any of their political demonstrations, and I was at a few (four years ago), you will know that they are ring-tailed nut cases.

Their platform is very appealing, but unfortunately, like the "Big-L" libertarians, the leaders are from some other planet.

I posted on this, and linked your post.

[Gullyborg]

Rivrdog... good post. Thanks for the trackback.

[Oregon Conservative]

What did this email have to do with Mary Starrett? Absolutely nothing. What a poor excuse for expressing vitriol toward people in the "religious right."

There is nothing in the Constitution that indicates pictures, nor anything printed to incite sexual feelings is protected free speech.

The last sentence of the 1828 dictionary description of "Liberty of Press" qualifies all the liberal descriptions before it when it says, "Unless it is pernicious to society."

Until recent times sexually revealing pictures were rightly considered pernicious or as Scripture phrases it causing one's "brother to stumble."

We have always had censorship. The only difference today, between when I grew up and now, is that it is Christian speech which is increasingly censored and pornography which is increasingly protected.

Participating in this trend isn't responsible with the kind of attitudes expressed on this page. It isn't patriotic or Christian. It shows no love of others.

As our Founding Fathers frequently said, it is God who gives liberty and who defines it. The Declaration of Independence and the addendum to it, the Constitution, was written with the understanding that the principles giving strength to liberty were grounded in Scripture. It was written for a "religious people. It is a matter of history. The quote on on the Liberty Bell is from Leviticus 25:10.

With liberty comes responsibility. Both Scripture and our Founding Fathers point that out. There is nothing "far right" or extreme about acknowledging that.

Since some of you, who have slammed the "religious right" also claim to be Christians I find it confusing that you defend, and redefine, immorality in the name of liberty (authored by God, not by any government) and disregard for what Scripture says about it. It seems to me that you are all trying to have it both ways.

1Cr 8:9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak.

Do such photos appeal to one's resolve to be strong in self-government?

Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.
Alexis de Tocqueville

Too much liberty corrupts us all. Terence

But what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint.
Edmund Burke

The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time.
Author: Thomas Jefferson

God ALSO gave us the law and our Founding Fathers acknowledged that.

[T]he Holy Scriptures....can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability, and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments [protections] around our institutions." -- James McHenry, signer of the Constitution.

Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Jhn 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

It's one thing to be imperfect in spite of Scripture's instruction to do otherwise. But, it is another to defend doing wrong in the name of God-given liberty. When you do that, you've made war with the wrong person and it isn't the religious right. It is the author of right and wrong.

Mat 24:10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.

One has to watch out for being too offended by the truth or else they will begin to destroy the very friends who have always been on their side.

I don't like what I've seen on this page, Gully. It won't kill you to admit it might have been unnecessarily insulting to post the bottom photo.

And those of you who encouraged Gully to adopt this attitude might remember that job seekers look at web sites like this. Defending such a silly point of view in such this manner could hurt his either getting a good job, or keeping one in the future. There is no real regard for FOR ANYBODY'S welfare in what has been said here; not society's and not Gully's.

From the "Religious Right" and not ashamed of it.

[Patrick Joubert Conlon]

The Constitution Party is big among the unreconstructed dinosaurs of Coos County. I thought I'd check them out having never heard of them till I moved here. Ugh!

John Eyler said it for me: Conservatisim and the Religious Right only "seem" to be alike and on the same team. The differences are scary.

I belong to the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan not the Pats (Buchanan and Robertson.)

[Johnna]

I really think that some people have way tooo much time on there hands...... If you don't like what your looking at, shut it off loser!

maybe the rest of us enjoy a little skin and guns :) heee ehhe

[Mike Clark]

To our friend who posts under "Oregon Conservative" - You may find it useful to remember - "Judge not lest ye be judged."

[Oregon Conservative]

FYI, "Jane" has no official capacity in the Starrett campaign. Never has.

[Oregon Conservative]

FYI, "Jane" has no official capacity in the Starrett campaign. Never has.

[Gullyborg]

I never said Jane was in any "official" way connected to the Starrett campaign. But she does travel around speaking to groups on Mary's behalf. What's more, not one, but TWO readers e-mailed in guessing who "Jane" really is. So my description of Jane as "major player" was certainly accurate enough for insiders to know who she is, and what her capacity is.

She might not "officially" be part of the campaign. But then, you and I were never "officially" part of the Atkinson campaign. However, had we sent e-mail like that to anyone in journalism, and I do consider this blog journalism, you can bet the journalist would have gone public with it, and identified us as "prominent parts of the Atkinson campaign."

This is proper. When a regular person sends a private e-mail, a journalist can keep it private. When someone connected to a political campaign, in an "official" capacity or not, sends an e-mail, a journalist has a right - a DUTY even - to make that information public in order to educate the voters.

Jane is representative of the Starrett campaign. Starrett has put herself into the public eye by running for governor of Oregon.

I would have published this in the same manner, had it come from one of Saxton's, Kulongoski's, or Westlund's campaigners, "official" or not.

I am sure that, had you received an e-mail like this from a man named Felix, you would have made sure the whole world saw it.

Mary Starrett is welcome to respond. She is welcome to leave a comment here, or send an e-mail for publication. She can support her campaigner, or distance herself from her campaigner. That's up to her.

If you are concerned about Starrett's campaign, well, SO AM I.

Starrett came out with a bang, but has since fallen off the radar. Her campaign is in disarray. At first, I thought she could, at least, be as significant as Al Mobley. But since then, she has done nothing, and I mean NOTHING, to rally the conservative base against the moderate Saxton -- and that's despite Saxton seemingly doing everything in his power to piss off the far right.

So please, tell Mary to chime in here, so we know she is alive and still a candidate. And if she leaves a dignified response that people can respect, whether she agrees with me or not about this issue, she can more than make up for any damage this post has caused her.

Believe it or not, I really DO like Mary Starrett. If it were up to me, she would beat Saxton and the rest. But it isn't up to me. It's up to the voters. And since the voters are influenced by people like Jane, Mary needs to do something, ANYTHING, to improve the way her message is getting out.

So, Mary, please chime in here...

[Independent Thinker]

"There is nothing in the Constitution that indicates pictures, nor anything printed to incite sexual feelings is protected free speech. "

While you will surely disagree, I put it to you that the picture isn't just a girlie picture (which, by the way, the Oregon Supreme Court in the "live sex acts case" says would be the kind of free speech the founders envisioned when the wrote the First Amendment).

I also put it to you that, while it is a "picture" or an "image," it is also POLITICAL SPEECH.

That girl isn't just being sexual.

She is being sexual WITH A GUN.

What is she communicating? A cynical old "morality squad" member like yourself might think she is communicating something like "have sex with me" or "I'll pose for pictures in exchange for drugs."

I think otherwise.

I say, the message she is communicating is "I am armed. Don't think you can touch me, just because I'm sexy."

Or perhaps it says "If a sexy thing like me can enjoy a gun, so can you."

Maybe it just says "Shoot the damn politicians when they try to take away our freedoms."

This is a PRO-GUN message. It IS the type of political speech that our Founding Fathers DID envision when they wrote the First Amendment (although they never dreamed the First Amendment would have to be used to protect the Second -- they figured it would be the other way around).

So, if you want to be all high and mighty with your Bible verses about morals and virtue, go right ahead. That's your FIRST AMENDMENT right.

But if you want to try to make a case that this picture shouldn't be covered by the First Amendment, you are barking up the wrong tree.

[Oregon Conservative]

"Judge not lest ye be judged."?
Yup. Starrett was judged even when she had absolutely nothing to do with the e-mail. So was the CP. She doesn't even know about it & shouldn't be subjected to it. Some vented against the CP. The e-mail was sent by a Republican.

Starrett is a "lady." She didn't deserve this. The judgmental bread was cast upon the water. It was returned in her defense.

There are several meanings associated with Scriptural judgment.

One refers to "damning"; deciding that someone should go to hell (literally). Another; "looking down on" someone. Romans 14:10 "You, then why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother?"

It does not mean one should stay silent over wrongdoing. Thus, Gully's perception of wrongdoing by "Jane" would rightly prompt action. So would Jane's perception of Gully's photo.

We are also admonished to correct in a loving manner, especially with those older than ourselves. The end result of not doing that has been evident here.

The last meaning has to do with making "judgment calls" which we are instructed to do. One can't get through life without making daily judgment calls.

What meaning applies to this verse? What I read was an anxiousness to "look down on" & gang up on, Starrett & everyone in the CP, for the actions of someone else.

BTW, ever notice that blogs thrive on judgmentalism? Those who reference Scripture didn't invent being judgmental.

Gully said: "...am sure that, had you received an e-mail like this from a man named Felix, you would have made sure the whole world saw it."

Actually I doubt that. Knowing that Felix IS officially "the" campaign chairman, AND spokesman, not merely a friend, I'd consider contacting Saxton directly in the hopes Felix would be reprimanded or fired. Why should Saxton learn of it on a blog?

I have already received insulting or name-calling emails from supporters of Saxton & Wayne Scott.

Through my 46 years in various campaigns I've had some hateful correspondence. I have yet to "publish" it. I've endured insulting & improper romantic overtures I could have used to embarrass & hurt. I didn't rush to handle it publicly.

Insults come with the political territory.

Returning hurt by telling the world should be a last resort.
Public admonishment is not necessarily a pursuit of justice.