:wally
There, ya happy?
Shouldn’t the point be more about the separation of State and Churches ?
Brutus, your attempt to make labor unions equivalent to churches is specious, at best. A labor union is a political organization, it is based on the power relationship between ownership and labor. Do you imagine that such benefits as the 8-hour day, work safety rules, and pension plans fell like manna from the generous hands of the owners? Or were they bitterly contested in the political arena? Even the most casual and shallow awareness of American history will prove my point.
That said, I don’t think this is a fight worth having. Yes, there are any number of churches whose membership is largely Republican. The Rev. Moon, for instance, is a stalwart supporter, I’m not sure how the Scientologists break out, but given the Administrations rather generous dealings with them of late, I suspect they will carefully examine thier bread to determine which side is buttered.
But most Americans already seperate Church and State in their own minds. The Bushiviks push to organize political action in fundamentalist Pentacostal churches is no more obnoxious than community action organized in a largely black Baptist church. They are preaching to the choir, it is an attempt to motivate persons already aligned to the Republican agenda. As such, it isn’t likely to be particularly effective.
I think we should regard the question as moot. The seperation of church and state is always a sticky question, but I hold that the Constitution is mostly “one way” on the issue: the State may not impose itself on the Church. But a church, being composed of citizens, has every right to impose its views on the state, if it can do so by way of ballots cast by citizens.
I personally think an America that aligned itself to fit a Quaker/Unitarian coalition would be vastly improved. I have cousins who are snake-handling Pentecostals, and thier political agenda scares the bejabbers out of me. But they are no worse than the Moonies, and if you don’t think the Moonies have political clout, you aren’t paying attention.
Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a thousand schools of thought contend. That was Reagan, right?
I missed the part where anyone was bending or breaking any rules at all. Seems to me that the Republicans are simply trying to change the law drawing the line as to when and where a church’s political activities would revoke that church’s tax-exempt status. They aren’t saying the existing rules should be ignored or bent; they’re saying they should be changed via the ordinary political process.
Now, obviously, there are plenty of reasons as to why this may not be a good idea from a policy perspective. That’s a legitimate area for debate. But it certainly isn’t an underhanded or sneaky idea.
And doubtless the Republicans believe that such a move will confer upon them an electoral advantage. So what? Doubtlessly many representatives supported McCain-Feingold’s restrictions because it would confer an advantage upon incumbent candidates. Welcome to politics.
As has been noted, in the unlikely event this becomes law, there is nothing to prevent candidate Kerry from also seeking the endorsement of churches. Even if it passes, the playing field remains even and fair.
There are two basic reasons. First, the groups are tax exempt because they are, in theory, working for the public good in religion, education, or charity. Allowing them to support specific candidates would be, as early out pointed out, giving them a financial benefit in their support of a candidate. The organization remains free to choose, they can either support individual candidates, or they can be tax-exempt. They just can’t be both. Second, the rule helps keep the election process on the up and up. It does not allow for the founding of the Kerry Church of Big Foreheads, which would be tax exempt, yet only be founded for supporting a particular candidate. It helps limit the sneaky ways of violating campaign finance laws.
As to the OP, I agree, but I am also completely unsurprised.
OK, you got me. I agree, that once upon a time, labor unions were useful. Other than that, I can’t really tell if you are agreeing with me or not.
Dems are standing at a precipice. If they cannot put a candidate forward now, of all times, that is clearly defeating Bush, they have a bleak future. I can certainly understand why they are pooping their pants at the prospect of the Republicans picking up their own union-like political groups.
Yeah, they’re clearly in panic mode, what with Kerry’s lead in the polls and GeeDubya shooting himself in the foot every other week. Why, look over there, there’s a Democrat sobbing in despair! Oh, wait, he’s chortling in glee.
Well, he’s really gonna change his tune just as soon as Brutus tells him that he’s screwed.
Election year or not, I don’t believe this is the first time this has come up. I think attempts have been made before to change this rule.
Of course, I’ve lived my whole life in the shadow of Chicago, so I’m used to ministers and churches campaigning for politicians. Just not the Republicans.
I mean, not to say they should or they shouldn’t. Just don’t get the idea that this is limited to one party.
Within the context of Capitol Hill, “quietly” would undoubtedly mean “with no attempt to interest the media.” Compare and contrast when Congressmen introduce something along the lines of “The Goodness for America Act” or the “Tax Relief for Everybody And Their Little Dogs, Too, Act!” Speeches, press conferences, press releases, interviews or radio and TV. Now that’s being loud, Capitol Hill wise.
Well, considering that despite a bad news cycle (media overplaying Abu Ghraib while downplaying the ever-improving economy) Bush is still only a few points behind, and Kerry’s still not percieved as eminently likable by even his base, I’d say they’re still biting their nails…
Cool, Lib. I hoist a pint in your general direction.
Given what’s now being revealed about this adminstration’s explorations of “how much torture can we get away with under the guise of some weasel-worded interpretations of the law,” I don’t think it would be possible for the media to overplay Abu Ghraib. The media properly paying attention to Abu Ghraib is what has led to John Ashcroft in front of a Senate committee, hemming, hawing, and showing himself to be wholly inadequate to the position he occupies. We need more of this.
Brutus, you think Bush is so easy to defeat the Dems should have a slam-dunk? I’m not seeing it.
Errr… cite?
Outside of wishful thinking by Fox News and the usual right-wing pundits, I haven’t heard anybody say boo about Kerry not appealing to his base constituency.
Give Phil Hendrie a listen sometime, Rjung.
Is that Brutus suggesting that perhaps there might be something Bush should be worried about?
I think i better check my cold medication, either that or Rod Sterling is going to walk in my livingroom.
Same thing happened with respect to my wife’s ACLU membership, with the additional fun that they sold her name to everybody offering cash, such that the solicitations came from more than just the ACLU. This was a primary factor in her decision not to renew. It’s tough when you really want to publicly support an organization because you wholeheartedly believe in its goals, but you don’t want your name anywhere near their actual mailing list.
Well, the Southern Baptist Convention just came out hard against this bill, because they’re afraid of the IRS strictly enforcing the “limited number of violations” provision. So maybe it’ll die quietly.