Bush Campaign Seeks Help From Thousands of Congregations...Update: Group Challenges Falwell's Tax-Exempt Status

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
UPDATE:
Citing Falwell's Endorsement of Bush, Group Challenges His Tax-Exempt Status
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/16/politics/campaign/16jerry.html


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/03/politics/campaign/03CHUR.html?hp

The Bush campaign is seeking to enlist thousands of religious congregations around the country in distributing campaign information and registering voters, according to an e-mail message sent to many members of the clergy and others in Pennsylvania.

Liberal groups charged that the effort invited violations of the separation of church and state and jeopardized the tax-exempt status of churches that cooperated. Some socially conservative church leaders also said they would advise pastors against participating in such a partisan effort.

But Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for the Bush administration, said "people of faith have as much right to participate in the political process as any other community" and that the e-mail message was about "building the most sophisticated grass-roots presidential campaign in the country's history."

In the message, dated early Tuesday afternoon, Luke Bernstein, coalitions coordinator for the Bush campaign in Pennsylvania, wrote: "The Bush-Cheney '04 national headquarters in Virginia has asked us to identify 1,600 `Friendly Congregations' in Pennsylvania where voters friendly to President Bush might gather on a regular basis."

In each targeted "place of worship," Mr. Bernstein continued, without mentioning a specific religion or denomination, "we'd like to identify a volunteer who can help distribute general information to other supporters." He explained: "We plan to undertake activities such as distributing general information/updates or voter registration materials in a place accessible to the congregation."


The e-mail message was provided to The New York Times by a group critical of President Bush.

The campaign's effort is the latest indication of its heavy bet on churchgoers in its bid for re-election. Mr. Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, and officials of Mr. Bush's campaign have often said that people who attended church regularly voted for him disproportionately in the last election, and the campaign has made turning out that group a top priority this year. But advisers to Mr. Bush also acknowledge privately that appearing to court socially conservative Christian voters too aggressively risks turning off more moderate voters.

What was striking about the Pennsylvania e-mail message was its directness. Both political parties rely on church leaders ? African-American pastors for the Democrats, for example, and white evangelical Protestants for the Republicans ? to urge congregants to go the polls. And in the 1990's, the Christian Coalition developed a reputation as a political powerhouse by distributing voters guides in churches that alerted conservative believers to candidates' position on social issues like abortion and school prayer. But the Christian Coalition was organized as a nonpartisan, issue-oriented lobbying and voter-education organization, and in 1999 it ran afoul of federal tax laws for too much Republican partisanship.

The Bush campaign, in contrast, appeared to be reaching out directly to churches and church members, seeking to distribute campaign information as well as ostensibly nonpartisan material, like issue guides and registration forms.

Trevor Potter, a Washington lawyer and former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, said the campaign's solicitation raised delicate legal issues for congregations.

"If the church is doing it, it is a legal problem the church," Mr. Potter said. "In the past, the I.R.S. has sought to revoke and has succeeded in revoking the tax-exempt status of churches for political activity."

If a member of the congregation is disseminating the information, however, the issue is more complicated. If the congregation had a table where anyone could make available any information whatsoever without any institutional responsibility or oversight, then a member might be able to distribute campaign literature without violating tax laws. But very few churches have such open forums, Mr. Potter said. "The I.R.S. would ask, did the church encourage this? Did the church permit this but not other literature? Did the church in any way support this?"

Mr. Bernstein, the e-mail message's author, declined to comment
. Mr. Schmidt, the campaign spokesman, said the e-mail message only sought individual volunteers from among the "friendly congregations," not the endorsements of the any religious organizations or groups.

"The e-mail is targeted to individuals, asking individuals to become involved in the campaign and to share information about the campaign with other people in their faith community," Mr. Schmidt said. "Yesterday, a liberal judge from San Francisco overturned a partial-birth abortion ban which banned that abhorrent procedure. That is an example of an issue that people of faith from across the United States care about."

He said that the Pennsylvania e-mail message was part of a larger national effort. The number of congregations mentioned - 1,600 in just one state - suggests an operation on a vast scale.

But even some officials of some conservative religious groups said they were troubled by the notion that a parishioner might distribute campaign information within a church or at a church service.

"If I were a pastor, I would not be comfortable doing that," said Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. "I would say to my church members, we are going to talk about the issues and we are going to take information from the platforms of the two parties about where they stand on the issues. I would tell them to vote and to vote their conscience, and the Lord alone is the Lord of the conscience."

The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of the liberal Americans United for Separation of Church and State, argued that any form of distributing campaign literature through a church would compromise its tax-exempt status. He called the effort "an absolutely breathtakingly large undertaking," saying, "I never thought anyone could so attempt to meld a political party with a network of religious organizations."

In a statement, Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, a liberal group, called the effort "an astonishing abuse of religion" and "the rawest form of manipulation of religion for partisan gain." He urged the president to repudiate the effort.

In a statement, Mara Vanderslice, director of religious outreach for the Kerry campaign, said the effort "shows nothing but disrespect for the religious community." Ms. Vanderslice continued: "Although the Kerry campaign actively welcomes the participation of religious voices in our campaign, we will never court religious voters in a way that would jeopardize the sanctity of their very houses of worship."


How many congregations or worshippers will choose to cooperate remains to be seen. In an interview yesterday, the Rev. Ronald Fowlkes, pastor of the Victoria Baptist Church in Springfield, Pa., said he had not seen the e-mail message but did not think much of the idea.

"We encourage people to get out and vote," Mr. Fowlkes said, but as far as distributing information through church, "If it were focused on one party or person, that would be too much."
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,711
8
81
Why not just replace the crucifix with a large Bush/Cheney campaign poster, and have stained glass images of Bush on the aircraft carrier with 'Mission Accomplished' and Bush wrapped around a flag in front of ground zero rubble? Instead of a mass the priest could just give a speech promoting Bush's crusade against evil Islam and declare anyone who refuses to vote for him will burn in hell?
 

fitzhue

Golden Member
Sep 24, 2000
1,242
0
71
Originally posted by: lozina
Why not just replace the crucifix with a large Bush/Cheney campaign poster, and have stained glass images of Bush on the aircraft carrier with 'Mission Accomplished' and Bush wrapped around a flag in front of ground zero rubble? Instead of a mass the priest could just give a speech promoting Bush's crusade against evil Islam and declare anyone who refuses to vote for him will burn in hell?

:D LOL
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Yes, and I suppose those "friendly churches" who cooperate will be rewarded with millions in taxpayer dollars via Bush's beloved "faith based initiatives?" A little quid pro quo please.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
. . . and this is different than eliciting support from say - - - labor unions how? Aren't labor unions famous for supporting demotard candidates (you know the friends of labor) with union dues without the permission of the union members? And of course labor unions would never get anything in return for that support right.

Right. :roll:
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Originally posted by: UltraQuiet
. . . and this is different than eliciting support from say - - - labor unions how? Aren't labor unions famous for supporting demotard candidates (you know the friends of labor) with union dues without the permission of the union members? And of course labor unions would never get anything in return for that support right.

Right. :roll:
Actually I'm less concerned with that element compared to the fact that both labor unions and churches are tax-exempt organizations. It would certainly take idiotic church leadership to risk losing that exemption just to endorse an imbecile like Bush.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: UltraQuiet
. . . and this is different than eliciting support from say - - - labor unions how? Aren't labor unions famous for supporting demotard candidates (you know the friends of labor) with union dues without the permission of the union members? And of course labor unions would never get anything in return for that support right.

Right. :roll:

So, um, two wrongs make a right? Is that about the gist of your argument?

Right. :thumbsdown:
 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
91
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Yes, and I suppose those "friendly churches" who cooperate will be rewarded with millions in taxpayer dollars via Bush's beloved "faith based initiatives?" A little quid pro quo please.

Hi,

Who bought that "charitable choice" provision to the 1996 welfare reform *Bill* again?

;)

Andy
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,647
10,071
146
Originally posted by: UltraQuiet
. . . and this is different than eliciting support from say - - - labor unions how? Aren't labor unions famous for supporting demotard candidates (you know the friends of labor) with union dues without the permission of the union members? And of course labor unions would never get anything in return for that support right.

Right. :roll:
Labor unions do not claim the guidance of a higher power, unless you count Jimmy Hoffa, who may still rise from the dead, cement willing.

Looking carefully through the Constitution, I find no specific provision for the separation of Labor Union and State.

Labor unions are just like any other hog swilling, horse trading special interest group.

The business of organized religion, due to the "incinerate an infidel for Allah" and "kill a commie for Christ" factor, are a whole different ballgame, as our founding fathers so rightly and SO SPECIFICALLY noted.

For instance, the Crusades could never have been mounted merely to bring the 40 hour work week to the Saracens.

And our current bloody differences with Islam do not revolve around the holy right of shop stewards to be on the factory floor.

C'mon. There IS a difference, Dave.
 

Runner20

Senior member
May 31, 2004
478
0
0
So what is exactly wrong with religion?

Anyway, Bush is good for America as he is the right leader to lead America in the war on terror.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Runner20
So what is exactly wrong with religion?
I don't have all night to go into it.

For the sake of this topic, let's just go with separation of church and state, shall we?

Anyway, Bush is good for America as he is the right leader to lead America in the war on terror.
He was, for about 2 months. Then he stopped his battle in the war on terror and led us into this costly affair in Iraq.
 

Crimson

Banned
Oct 11, 1999
3,809
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Runner20
So what is exactly wrong with religion?
I don't have all night to go into it.

For the sake of this topic, let's just go with separation of church and state, shall we?

Anyway, Bush is good for America as he is the right leader to lead America in the war on terror.
He was, for about 2 months. Then he stopped his battle in the war on terror and led us into this costly affair in Iraq.

Could you please quote from the consitution where it states 'Separation of Church and State"... what amendment was that again?
 

Genesys

Golden Member
Nov 10, 2003
1,536
0
0
Originally posted by: Crimson
Could you please quote from the consitution where it states 'Separation of Church and State"... what amendment was that again?

amendment 666.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Crimson
Could you please quote from the consitution where it states 'Separation of Church and State"... what amendment was that again?
How many times do you have to be told? First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Perhaps you should print it out and hang it next to your computer. You ask like every other day. :roll:
 

Crimson

Banned
Oct 11, 1999
3,809
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Crimson
Could you please quote from the consitution where it states 'Separation of Church and State"... what amendment was that again?
How many times do you have to be told? First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Perhaps you should print it out and hang it next to your computer. You ask like every other day. :roll:

I just read the first amendment.. and I see NOTHING about separate of church and state.. are we reading a different constitution?
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Bush doesn't have a prayer this November. Just last ditch politics.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Well... Bush hears whispers from God.. So, it stands to reason that God will do his own whispering to the multitude of church goers. God being God may again with divine intervention secure the Presidency for our Mr. Bush. It will be interesting to see which of the many cast of republicans he will empower with magic like abilities and stealthy creativeness to once again do the bidding of the Almighty and have Bush elected. Perhaps God's work will not be finished by November and God would know this, I'm certain.
So pay no attention to the pleadings of Mr Bush... listen instead to the whisper of God himself..
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: UltraQuiet
. . . and this is different than eliciting support from say - - - labor unions how? Aren't labor unions famous for supporting demotard candidates (you know the friends of labor) with union dues without the permission of the union members? And of course labor unions would never get anything in return for that support right.

Right. :roll:

So, um, two wrongs make a right? Is that about the gist of your argument?

Right. :thumbsdown:

I made no argument only pointing out the usual double standard and hypocrisy present here.


Labor unions do not claim the guidance of a higher power, unless you count Jimmy Hoffa, who may still rise from the dead, cement willing.

I'll bet the majority of union members do claim the guidance of a higher power.

Looking carefully through the Constitution, I find no specific provision for the separation of Labor Union and State.

Nor is there any specific provision forbidding any organized religion from supporting the campaign of any government official nor is there one forbidding any candidate from soliciting the support of a religous group. Lets review:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Labor unions are just like any other hog swilling, horse trading special interest group.

Couldn't agree more but so are religions.

The business of organized religion, due to the "incinerate an infidel for Allah" and "kill a commie for Christ" factor, are a whole different ballgame, as our founding fathers so rightly and SO SPECIFICALLY noted.

For instance, the Crusades could never have been mounted merely to bring the 40 hour work week to the Saracens.

And our current bloody differences with Islam do not revolve around the holy right of shop stewards to be on the factory floor.

The intent of the Constitution was to forbid the government from creating an "official"religion possibly giving that religion too much influence in government. It was never intended too "ban"religion from government. If that were the case only atheists would be allowed to hold public office (there's an idea). If your argument is that there is too much religous influence in this admin. I would tend to agree with you although I don't think it has any more influence than other groups have had on other admins. If your argument is that religous .orgs be forbidden from supporting candidates or being solicited for support by candidates jsut because they are church's I call BS. That was not the intent of the Constitution.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
"Bush Campaign Seeks Help From Thousands of Congregations"

Speaking of congregations, Rush sounds more like a Preacher everyday, you can hear his desperation level going up daily. Poor Rush and his followers
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Crimson
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Runner20
So what is exactly wrong with religion?
I don't have all night to go into it.

For the sake of this topic, let's just go with separation of church and state, shall we?

Anyway, Bush is good for America as he is the right leader to lead America in the war on terror.
He was, for about 2 months. Then he stopped his battle in the war on terror and led us into this costly affair in Iraq.

Could you please quote from the consitution where it states 'Separation of Church and State"... what amendment was that again?

I think DealMonkey's response is sufficient.

But....


http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

Jefferson's Wall of Separation Letter

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them, asking why he would not proclaim national days of fasting and thanksiving, as had been done by Washington and Adams before him. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which lead to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."

The letter was the subject of intense scrutiny by Jefferson, and he consulted a couple of New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still conveying his message: it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion.

Note: The bracketed section in the second paragraph had been blocked off for deletion, though it was not actually deleted in his draft of the letter. It is included here for completeness. Reflecting upon Jefferson's knowledge that his letter was far from a mere personal correspondence, he deleted the block, he says in the margin, to avoid offending members of his party in the eastern states.

This is a transcript of the letter as stored online at the Library of Congress, and reflects Jefferson's spelling and punctuation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. President

To mess? Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Jefferson was an excellent pen!
He lived among folks whose philosophy resulted it our fine Constitution. Althought Jefferson didn't have any direct input to the Constitution, he drew on the Virginia Bill of Rights to write the Declaration of Independence and oddly enough the VBR is very similar to our National Constitution's BofR.. and as it relates to religion this is from the VBR...
"That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other"
The last part was argued out... completely out of the adopted BofR and for good reason. It tends to deny those attributes exist similarly in another religion's 'forbearance'.

I guess my point is:
While seeking votes from a labor union is the same as from a religious union... and membership may overlap there seems to be a twinge coming from Jefferson's monument... not a big one but, a concern that Bush's tactics create the notion that to not vote for Bush may offend God. While to not vote for Kerry (assumed) has no similar moment from Labor Union members. Religion (that so believe) ought to deal with the soul and heaven and not the earthly nature and position of man.

edit to add: "Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to our god alone. I enquire after no man's and trouble none with mine; nor is it given to us in this life to know whether yours or mine, our friend's or our foe's, are exactly the right."
Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, September 26, 1814
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,647
10,071
146
Originally posted by: UltraQuiet
The intent of the Constitution was to forbid the government from creating an "official"religion possibly giving that religion too much influence in government. It was never intended too "ban"religion from government. If that were the case only atheists would be allowed to hold public office (there's an idea). If your argument is that there is too much religous influence in this admin. I would tend to agree with you although I don't think it has any more influence than other groups have had on other admins. If your argument is that religous .orgs be forbidden from supporting candidates or being solicited for support by candidates jsut because they are church's I call BS. That was not the intent of the Constitution.
Hey, Chief, how's civilian life treating you? :)

I agree with your analysis for the most part. Nothing in the Constitution or our laws bans religious organizations from supporting candidates.

Still, it seems clear that the founding fathers had a healthy distrust of the deleterious effects of religious partianship in politics, and I wholeheartedly agree.

They strove to keep our government out of the business of religion, and religion out of the business of our government. Seems like a fair and prudent deal to me.