Undecided Iowa Evangelicals Are Praying for an Answer

[Bowfinger]

#insert <RNC_talking_points.h>

I rest my case.

 

[CrackRabbit]

If the church takes a moral stand against abortion (for example), providing information to churchgoers about the position each candidate has taken on that issue is not politics, it's simply providing a service. As long as they are not telling people how to vote, they are fine and well within their rights.

That is where things get murky, and what I have an issue with.
It is perfectly acceptable for a church to take a moral stand against something.
However even providing "information" to parishioners is crossing the line. If the people of the congregation feel strongly enough about an issue they should take their own time to figure out who to vote for.
If they vote for someone that doesn't share their beliefs on that issue (if it is really that important to them) that is their own fault.

 

[soundforbjt]

"unite behind one of the candidates" to avoid "a splintered evangelical electorate that brings Romney a win,"

When's the last time you used the word "electorate" to describe a few ministers?

 

[Franz316]

I wish people could look at the facts themselves, come to a logical conclusion, and then vote for the candidate that most closely matches their conclusions. No guidance necessary.

 

[Bowfinger]

Perhaps you should read the article a little more closely...it appears that you have trouble distinguishing facts from fiction. The article says the following:

"Iowa social conservatives originally came together on Monday to pray and to try to choose one candidate to support in the Jan. 3 caucuses. But the meeting turned into a discussion about getting behind one candidate with the goal of preventing Mitt Romney from winning the caucuses and going on to win the GOP nomination."

Please point me to the part where they are campaigning from the pulpit and telling their congregation who to vote for.

You know, people have rights to support whatever political candidate they want to regardless of whether or not they they happen to be a church leader. They are individuals and they have rights just as you do.

As I said:

Bullshit. When they're talking about needing to "unite behind one of the candidates" to avoid "a splintered evangelical electorate that brings Romney a win," that's exactly what they're trying to do. It's a damn sure sight their handful of individual votes aren't going to swing an election. Anyone who doesn't acknowledge the clear implication of that statement is either an idiot or a liar.

 

[cybrsage]

If the people of their congregation does'nt know that their church is against abortion, then they have a very uninformed or un-attentive audience.

Or they are new. Everyone is new at some time. For example, I always thought all major Christian groups were against abortion. I later found out the Presbyterian Church USA and the United Methodist Church (as two big examples) are both pro choice.

 

[cybrsage]

I wish people could look at the facts themselves, come to a logical conclusion, and then vote for the candidate that most closely matches their conclusions. No guidance necessary.

Which is all some churches do, by putting up a list of the facts, along with a list of the church's official position on each item.

 

[cybrsage]

When's the last time you used the word "electorate" to describe a few ministers?

Not sure I have ever actually used the word at all.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Which is all some churches do, by putting up a list of the facts, along with a list of the church's official position on each item.

And that is still wrong. If the people in the congregation are not smart enough to figure things out on their own, that is their problem. Not the churches.

 

[cybrsage]

Po' baby. Did I hurt your feelings? It's a literary technique highlighting the similarities of two things to help add clarity. That's sometimes needed when people are incapable of thinking things through, when blinded by partisanship, for example.

There is no similarity to highlight. I think you meant differences to contrast...but that defeats the point you are making...

 

[cybrsage]

And that is still wrong.

Nope, it is quite well within the allowed boundaries. The candidates themselves post lists of their positions.

 

[bfdd]

lemmings shouldn't have the right to vote? so anyone registered with a political party should lose the right as well. i mean those guys are really fucked, they've been leading us down the wrong path for 100+ years now.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Nope, it is quite well within the allowed boundaries. The candidates themselves post lists of their positions.

And it should be each individual member of the congregations duty to read those on their own.
It should never be the churches duty to provide that information.

 

[Bowfinger]

There is no similarity to highlight.

You're lying again.

I think ...

Ibid

 

[dank69]

Perhaps you should read the article a little more closely...it appears that you have trouble distinguishing facts from fiction. The article says the following:

"Iowa social conservatives originally came together on Monday to pray and to try to choose one candidate to support in the Jan. 3 caucuses. But the meeting turned into a discussion about getting behind one candidate with the goal of preventing Mitt Romney from winning the caucuses and going on to win the GOP nomination."

Please point me to the part where they are campaigning from the pulpit and telling their congregation who to vote for.

You know, people have rights to support whatever political candidate they want to regardless of whether or not they they happen to be a church leader. They are individuals and they have rights just as you do.

If the bolded statement doesn't convince you and the others in this thread that they are trying to influence not only the Iowa Caucus, but the entire GOP nomination process, nothing will. Continue on with your spin.

 

[Bowfinger]

lemmings shouldn't have the right to vote? so anyone registered with a political party should lose the right as well. i mean those guys are really fucked, they've been leading us down the wrong path for 100+ years now.

I don't think anyone is suggesting they don't have a right to vote. I can't speak for everyone else, but I'm not even suggesting the pastors don't have the right to tell their congregations how to vote. I'm just saying that if they do, they should no longer qualify for tax exemption. Let them pay taxes like any other business and they can do whatever the law allows.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

As I said:

I understand what you said...I just don't agree with your perspective.

I can find nothing illegal that was done here, nor was there any evidence of any tax-exempt status violation at any church. However, without any facts, you have assumed otherwise.

Surely you know that lashing out against those who disagree with your assumptions as either idiots ot liars does not make your argument any more credible or compelling. Then again, perhaps not.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

If the bolded statement doesn't convince you and the others in this thread that they are trying to influence not only the Iowa Caucus, but the entire GOP nomination process, nothing will. Continue on with your spin.

I am not denying that they are trying to politically influence...sigh.

 

[Throckmorton]

If he tells his congregation how to vote he loses his tax free status. Only unions are allowed to keep their tax free status while engaging in politics.

I pay taxes on my union dues.

 

[Fern]

If he tells his congregation how to vote he loses his tax free status. Only unions are allowed to keep their tax free status while engaging in politics.

Or you know other organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce and things like that. But hey, don't worry about that.

The Chamber of Commerce is not a 501 (c)3 organization. Fees/donations to them are NOT deductible as charity.

There are all kinds of nonprofits. Hell, political campaigns and PAC's are nonprofits.

Cybersage is correct to the extent he is saying church leaders cannot use their church position to endorse candidates .

Fern

 

[Bowfinger]

I understand what you said...I just don't agree with your perspective.

My perspective is that these pastors met to discuss how they might unite in getting their congregations to support a specific candidate, to "unite behind one of the candidates" to avoid "a splintered evangelical electorate that brings Romney a win," or, in other words, they are trying to politically influence. Which is something you concede in your very next post. So this leaves me with the impression that either you don't know what you're trying to say, or you yet again indulged your compulsion to attack me because of a giant chip on your shoulder. Which is it?

I believe that religious leaders have rights just as you do. You have never addressed this point.

I also never addressed the point of their hair styles. Why not? Because it's not at issue. I've never suggested they don't have individual rights. I did, however, quite explicitly state that those churches should lose their tax exempt status if they are being used for political influence:

"When church leaders get together to discuss who they want their congregations to support (i.e., vote for), the churches have crossed the line that justifies their tax exemption."
​

If you're going to attack, focus on what I've actually said instead of some caricatured straw man of what you wished I said.

I can find nothing illegal that was done here, nor was there any evidence of any tax-exempt status violation at any church. However, without any facts, you have assumed otherwise.

I assumed nothing. I expressed an opinion about what I think should happen. I never said they broke any laws. The only assuming is yours. Once again, read what I actually said.

Surely you know that lashing out against those who disagree with your assumptions as either idiots ot liars does not make your argument any more credible or compelling. Then again, perhaps not.

This is the same "you were against it before you were for it" issue of these pastors hoping to influence their congregations, right? Their goal to "'unite behind one of the candidates' to avoid 'a splintered evangelical electorate that brings Romney a win'"? The point you attacked me for while conceding it to Dank69? Flip. Flop.

So who are you to lecture others about credibility?

Dude, you seem intelligent, but you also seem to have some sort of grudge against me that leads you to ASSume I said things I didn't say, and then to recklessly attack me for it. While I am certainly fallible, I try to pick my words fairly carefully to say what I mean. If I didn't actually say it, don't attack it. You just look foolish when you presume to read my mind.

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
Cybersage is correct to the extent he is saying church leaders cannot use their church position to endorse candidates .

Fern

Of course, that's not in question. The issue here is that these church leaders seem to be intent on doing exactly that. They met to try to "unite behind one of the candidates" to avoid "a splintered evangelical electorate that brings Romney a win."

 

[Fern]

-snip-
I did, however, quite explicitly state that those churches should lose their tax exempt status if they are being used for political influence:

Well, that would merely be your opinion. The law does NOT forbid mere "political influence".

For example, if there were a referendum on approving late-term abortions the Catholic church could legally encourage it's members to vote "No" in accordance with it's tenets.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, other than a gratuitous attack. First, if there are "black churches" (and by that I assume you're insinuating Democratic-leaning congregations) actively engaging in politics, they should also lose their tax exempt status. Color has nothing to do with it.

Second, your comment about putting faith in government vs. God is a complete non sequitur. The two are unrelated, and neither issue has anything to do with this thread. The issue is churches taking an active role in politics while still claiming the privilege of tax exemption. No. Pick one.

I'm simply pointing out that this same behavior is ubiquitous in black churches, meaning churches with black pastors and predominantly black congregations. It's a holdover from the days when blacks were often unable to assemble otherwise, especially in the south, and also is historically a good place to reach a large number of blacks. Even today, it's not at all uncommon for black politicians to first have a power base as black spiritual leaders. If you are calling for churches meddling in politics to lose their tax-exempt status, let us apply this equally. Just be advised that it will hit Democrats harder than it will hit Republicans.

 

[Fern]

Of course, that's not in question. The issue here is that these church leaders seem to be intent on doing exactly that. They met to try to "unite behind one of the candidates" to avoid "a splintered evangelical electorate that brings Romney a win."

I understand. It looks to me like they are trying to actually endorse a candidate. Worse, at least IMO, it looks to be based soley upon Romney's Mormon religion.

I believe, as do the majority of churches, that churches should generally stay out of politics.

I'm curious to see if they can get a consensus and, if they do, how they try to skirt the law and avoid problems with the IRS.

I sure wish IA wasn't the 1st state to hold a primary. The Repubs there seem dominated by hard core religious fundi types who focus on social issues. IMO, and from what polling I've seen, social issues aren't particularly relevant this cycle.

Fern