A couple of examples of over the top rhetoric:

1.) Democrats don’t want to ban the Bible.

Despite claims by some Republican campaign literature, the so-called liberals (see this on why I say “so-called”) aren’t really pushing for a ban on the Bible. CBS News had the following to say about that flier:

The literature shows a Bible with the word “BANNED” across it and a photo of a man, on his knees, placing a ring on the hand of another man with the word “ALLOWED.” The mailing tells West Virginians to “vote Republican to protect our families” and defeat the “liberal agenda.”

The Times said RNC spokeswoman Christine Iverson had confirmed that the GOP had sent out the mailings.

The flier says Republicans have passed laws protecting life, support defining marriage as between a man and a woman and will nominate conservative judges who will “interpret the law and not legislate from the bench.”

“The liberal agenda includes removing ‘under God’ from the Pledge of Allegiance,” it says.

While the truth of the last two paragraphs is debatable, the first paragraph is, at best, hyperbole. The truth is, some “liberals” may want to ban parts of the Bible from being read aloud (as there are passages that condemn homosexuality, and condemning homosexuality is hate speech), but there’s nothing in the official agenda of the Democratic Party to lead me to believe that Bible banning is a major talking point for the left.

Of course, the Democratic party doesn’t speak for all “liberals”, but it’s the best formal structure I can find for getting an official stance. The Democratic Party may not be arguing for things like the removal of “Under God” from the Pledge of Allegience, but there are undoubtedly some major Democratic leaders who have put that argument forward.

What does the official Democratic National Convention party platform document say about homosexual marriage?

We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families. In our country, marriage has been defined at the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to be defined there. We repudiate President Bush’s divisive effort to politicize the Constitution by pursuing a “Federal Marriage Amendment.” Our goal is to bring Americans together, not drive them apart.

So, the official Democratic party line isn’t that homosexual marriages should be allowed, but they’re not arguing against it, either. I’m pretty sure the law as it stands now requires each state to honor marriages performed in other states, so if one state allowed homosexual marriages, that would, essentially, be allowing those marriages elsewhere.

2.) The Religious Right doesn’t believe in destroying the environment to bring about the end of time that much quicker.

Bill Moyer’s speech, accusing former Secretary of the Interior James Watt of saying, “After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back”, has been debunked. Moyer himself has apologized, and both the Washington Post, which used the false Watt quote in a column, and the Minneapolis Star Tribune, which used the whole speech as an op-ed, have run corrections. (The former was more gracious than the latter, but even the Strib should be given credit for acknowledging the error.

Still, some people, like Jon Carroll, are taking the Dan Rather route to being caught referencing fake information. The quote may be a fake, but it’s still accurate. In reality, though, it’s a gross misrepresentation of more than just the actual words that Watt used. In February of 1981, Watt did mention the Lord’s return, but what he actually said was this:

That is the delicate balance the Secretary of the Interior must have, to be steward for the natural resources for this generation as well as future generations.

I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns, whatever it is we have to manage with a skill to leave the resources needed for future generations.

Still, Carroll (mis)represents the position of the Religious Right this way:

I am not the first one to notice this. The environmental Web site www.grist.org has been covering it; Bill Moyers also wrote a column about it (preserved by truthout at www.truthout.org/docs_2005/013105F.shtml). Alas, the quote attributed to James Watt, the secretary of the interior under Ronald Reagan (“after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back”), is not verifiable, although it’s been reported many times. Probably the liberal media again, taking time out from promoting the homosexual agenda.

So read the Rapture Index. Consider its implications: One of George Bush’s core constituencies is actively praying for environmental degradation. Its members are in fact praying for the end of the world, because the end of the world is the beginning of the fun part of salvation.

Despite his insistence on blaming the Religious Right and the Left Behind series (?!) for driving environmental policies, Carroll provides no evidence that the Bush Administration policies are truly harmful to the environment (neither logging nor drilling, for example, are by definition harmful to the environment), much less that they are deliberately so for the purposes of hastening the end of the world.

Neither of those two positions (“‘Liberals’ want to ban the Bible!” “The Religious Right wants to destroy the world!”) has a strong basis in reality. In both cases, there may be people who believe those positions, but to believe that those people would drive national agendas is fairly absurd without some evidence to back it up.

These sorts of outlandish claims do what they’re intended — they belittle the opponent, and they can win votes from those who’re too busy (or too disinterested) to research the true positions being advocated by their candidates. However, they also stifle true discussion and debate and provide no real benefit to anyone.