Undecided Iowa Evangelicals Are Praying for an Answer

[Bowfinger]

Well, that would merely be your opinion. ...

Yes. Exactly.

 

[woolfe9999]

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

Right. I think she's saying that they should lose their exempt status if they engage in political influence of their congregations, i.e. that the law should be changed. Her position in this thread is actually pretty easy to decipher.

 

[Bowfinger]

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.

I'm fine with that. Any religious organization that attempts to influence elections or legislation should be taxed like any other business. They're free to do so ... but they should then lose their tax exemption. (In my opinion.) Similarly, and also in my opinion, religious organizations of any sort -- black or white, left-leaning or right leaning, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Wiccan, whatever -- should be prohibited entirely from donating to political campaigns, candidates, and advertising ... as should all organizations including both corporations and unions.

 

[Bowfinger]

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

Re. Iowa first, I agree. While I think starting in smaller states is the right approach, I don't think it should always be Iowa. I'd rather see a rotation of some sort, with a different state starting each election cycle.

That said, I'm concerned the religious fundamentalists will tend to dominate in many states, perhaps most. They're simply more motivated as a group than average voters, so it's easy for them to wield undue influence in such early events.

As I suggested in my response to Cad, I think the GOP as a whole needs to more firmly distance itself from the religious fringe. Their influence disenfranchises more traditional Republicans and drives away independents. I used to be an active Republican supporter, many years ago. The rising influence of the religious right is one of the two key changes that drove me away.

 

[werepossum]

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

Agreed. That's the fundamental dichotomy of the Republican Party and especially its base - you simply can't have small and/or limited government but also government that can force people to behave as you see fit. Freedom must include the right to do things with which you fundamentally disagree, else it's not freedom. I'm a registered Republican (admittedly after years of being a registered Democrat) but my party desperately needs to learn to mind its own business.

Personally I wish the primaries were more grouped, maybe with Iowa and New Hampshire having simultaneous primaries. That would limit the ability of candidates to try being all things to all people.

 

[werepossum]

I'm fine with that. Any religious organization that attempts to influence elections or legislation should be taxed like any other business. They're free to do so ... but they should then lose their tax exemption. (In my opinion.) Similarly, and also in my opinion, religious organizations of any sort -- black or white, left-leaning or right leaning, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Wiccan, whatever -- should be prohibited entirely from donating to political campaigns, candidates, and advertising ... as should all organizations including both corporations and unions.

I have no problem with that. I would prefer that only those entitled to vote be able to donate to campaigns, and only individually, no bundlers of any type. Anyone else would be free to assemble and fund commercials for their issues as a matter of free speech, but not donate directly to a campaign.

 

[Onceler]

God stays out of it, thats why He gave us free will is to be able to make our own decisions.

 

[cybrsage]

I'm fine with that. Any religious organization that attempts to influence elections or legislation should be taxed like any other business. They're free to do so ... but they should then lose their tax exemption. (In my opinion.) Similarly, and also in my opinion, religious organizations of any sort -- black or white, left-leaning or right leaning, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Wiccan, whatever -- should be prohibited entirely from donating to political campaigns, candidates, and advertising ... as should all organizations including both corporations and unions.

You realize you will be burned at the next DNC rally for saying this?

 

[dank69]

God stays out of it, thats why He gave us free will is to be able to make our own decisions.

God stays out of it? What about all the bible stories of his direct influence?

 

[cybrsage]

God stays out of it? What about all the bible stories of his direct influence?

That brings up a good point that all Christians and Jews do not want to hear. ALL government is allowed to exist based on the will of God. No leader comes into power that God does not want in power.

This does not mean the leader does the right thing. It simply means God wants said person in power at that time. God does not make it a habit of telling us the details of why.

What this does mean for us is that we need to support the person in power. We must not do anything which violates a command from God, as they trump all, but we must support our leader. We do not have to agree, but we have to follow the rules set down by our leaders. Their actions are between them and God, and God will handle that on His own. Our actions are between us and God, and that is something we have control over.

So while I think Obama is the wrong choice and I will work to replace him at the next election cycle, he is the guy God wanted at that time. I do not know if Obama did what God wanted him to do, but that is not for me to decide.


The main reason Christians and Jews do not want to think about this is because it also means Hitler was placed into power by the will of God. I am going to guess Hitler did not do what God wanted him to do.

 

[sportage]

And what if religion is nothing more than wishful cults?
That no God, at the last minute, is going to ride in on a flaming horse to save the day?
Or that if there were a God overseeing all, that any such God would care to pay any attention to some crazy election.
And just maybe society will become so ignorant of their own destination, they will eventually live in squalor and self destruct.
Iowa evangelicals praying?
It would better serve their purpose to keep rubbing that lamp, and wait for the magic genie to appear.

 

[CallMeJoe]

That brings up a good point that all Christians and Jews do not want to hear. ALL government is allowed to exist based on the will of God. No leader comes into power that God does not want in power.
This does not mean the leader does the right thing. It simply means God wants said person in power at that time. God does not make it a habit of telling us the details of why.
What this does mean for us is that we need to support the person in power. We must not do anything which violates a command from God, as they trump all, but we must support our leader. We do not have to agree, but we have to follow the rules set down by our leaders. Their actions are between them and God, and God will handle that on His own. Our actions are between us and God, and that is something we have control over.
So while I think Obama is the wrong choice and I will work to replace him at the next election cycle, he is the guy God wanted at that time. I do not know if Obama did what God wanted him to do, but that is not for me to decide.

The main reason Christians and Jews do not want to think about this is because it also means Hitler was placed into power by the will of God. I am going to guess Hitler did not do what God wanted him to do.

You submit to a truly fucked-up deity if you would support Hitler because God chose him...

 

[Double Trouble]

Seems to me like those who simply don't like (or disagree with) religion would like to find a way to muzzle churches because they don't agree with the message.

There's nothing in the law that prevents churches from taking a stand on an issue and preaching that stand. There's also nothing to prevent them from providing information to their members, provided they don't endorse a candidate or tell their constituency not to vote for a candidate.

If people want to seek out guidance from God or anything else for that matter to help them make a decision, that shouldn't be a problem to anyone, and it certainly is not against the law.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

You need to learn to read moron. Church leaders get together to ask for guidance from God, hoping He guides them and helps them determine who the right person is for them to vote for. They are not telling anyone how to vote.

trolls like Bowfinger, Dave, and the others just don't understand things like that. When "Evangelicals" or other "religious" things get mentioned, it's like their eyes glaze over and they stop things and just go into attack mode. It's quite hilarious really...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

And what if religion is nothing more than wishful cults?
That no God, at the last minute, is going to ride in on a flaming horse to save the day?
Or that if there were a God overseeing all, that any such God would care to pay any attention to some crazy election.
And just maybe society will become so ignorant of their own destination, they will eventually live in squalor and self destruct.
Iowa evangelicals praying?
It would better serve their purpose to keep rubbing that lamp, and wait for the magic genie to appear.

Ok? Then why are Dave, Bowfinger and many of the rest of you leftists getting your panties in a bunch?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

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?

There is nothing in that story indicates they were going to their congregations and specifically endorsing candidates. As individuals they are free to "unite behind one of the candidates" to avoid "a splintered evangelical electorate that brings Romney a win". They are well within their rights to politically influence and they have done nothing to jeopardize their church’s tax-exempt status. You have assumed otherwise and have offered no facts to back up your assumption.

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.

Church’s have the right to discuss political issues…they don’t have the right to specifically endorse a candidate. Church leaders have rights to endorse any candidate they want as well as the right to talk to other like-minded individuals to attempt to politically influence as they see fit. You have no basis in fact to assume that these leaders are going to their congregations and explicitly asking them to vote for a particular candidate. This point seems to elude you.

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.

And I’m expressing my opinion that you’re opinion is poorly contrived and baseless.

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.

See my first comment above.

So who are you to lecture others about credibility?

And who are you to attack those who disagree with your opinions as either idiots or liars?

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.

I’m sorry that you perceive my comments as a reckless attack on you personally. I just happen to disagree with you…nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Bowfinger]

trolls like Bowfinger, Dave, and the others just don't understand things like that. When "Evangelicals" or other "religious" things get mentioned, it's like their eyes glaze over and they stop things and just go into attack mode. It's quite hilarious really...

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]

You submit to a truly fucked-up deity if you would support Hitler because God chose him...

The ability to understand more than two sentences in a row is not your forte, apparently.

 

[Bowfinger]

There is nothing in that story indicates they were going to their congregations and specifically endorsing candidates. As individuals they are free to "unite behind one of the candidates" to avoid "a splintered evangelical electorate that brings Romney a win".

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.

They are well within their rights to politically influence and they have done nothing to jeopardize their church’s tax-exempt status. You have assumed otherwise and have offered no facts to back up your assumption. ...

And as I've pointed out multiple times -- reading is hard, I know -- I never claimed they are breaking the current law. I expressed an opinion of what I think should happen based on the information presented in the article. In my opinion, that in and of itself crosses the line and should be grounds for losing tax exemption. If you disagree where the line should be drawn that's fine, but stop with your vapid straw man arguments attacking positions I didn't take.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

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.

lol, it's obvious what you think is implied, but that is because we all know the perspective you are coming from. A leftist, anti-religion one. Sure, it COULD mean they are going to go back and preach to their congregation to specifically back one candidate -OR it could mean that they act in accord for the caucus or in their personal lives to show their support. Just because they want unity doesn't mean they are going to use the pulpit to spread it. There are many ways for them to do it outside the pulpit... but yeah, I know it's hard for your kind to accept that kind of reality...

btw, isn't there video of BHO behind the pulpit during his last run? Just wondering if there is rage equality...

 

[JTsyo]

Does the Catholic Church as a whole ever endorse a candidate?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

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.

Of course that's what they're trying to do. However, my point is that they have every right to attempt to politically influence others as they see fit (except directly recommend candidates from the pulpit) and their actions have absolutely nothing to do with violating any church tax-exemption requirements.

And as I've pointed out multiple times -- reading is hard, I know -- I never claimed they are breaking the current law. I expressed an opinion of what I think should happen based on the information presented in the article. In my opinion, that in and of itself crosses the line and should be grounds for losing tax exemption. If you disagree where the line should be drawn that's fine, but stop with your vapid straw man arguments attacking positions I didn't take.

Yes...I disagree with where you're drawing the line...and I'm glad the law does as well.