If this isn’t illegal it certainly should be. It, at the least, puts the Church’s tax exempt status in danger. Why would the risk this?
Are they so afraid of losing that they would blur the line between church and state even more?
So…is this a good thing? Will it help their campaign?
Dems love to visit black churches here in the South. Nothing wrong with that. There’s nothing wrong with Bushco trying to get the God fearing bible thumping 'pubs riled up either. Thing is, he’s preaching to the choir (pun intended) and it won’t do him a bit of good. If he’s using government resources to organize church activity, he’s a dickweed and a criminal. We already knew that.
Just curious, Reeder: the abolition movement was driven in no small part from the pulpits of northeastern churches. Nearly a century later, the leading voices of the civil rights movement rang out from churchhouses. Do you have a problem with that intersection of religion and politics?
What if an individual Episcopal Church’s leadership endorsed a candidate committed to legalizing same-sex marriage?
If a church wishes to risk its tax-exempt status by engaging in political activism on issues it considers of great moral importance, and does so on its own nickel, then it can and should do so. Churches are but one more voice to the political conversation. The government cannot endorse religion, but neither should government silence the same.
I sort of agree. Most polls, and election results too, show that the populace is pretty evenly divided between the two parties, with a few third party oddballs.
If a church leadership wants to pick one political side and create turmoil in its membership besides losing its tax exemption that’s OK by me.
I wholeheartedly agree with Dewey.
Excuse me, I have to go lie down for a while.
What was the alternative-- to agree with Reeder? 
This seems like a bit of a strawman to me. There’s a difference between a church marquee that reads “Equal rights!” and a church marquee with a “Bush/Cheney '04” banner hanging from it.
I’ve got a question: who determines whether a church is tax-exempt? If it’s an organization that the Executive Branch controls, there’s clearly a crack in the system of checks and balances, and a resultant conflict of interest. The Executive Branch isn’t going to slap its own wrist, after all…
Who is being silenced? Did you read the link? This is the government asking churches to participate in the campaign. This is not a “You can’t do that!” action; it’s very much a “Do this for us, possibly in exchange for more money through faith-based initiatives, wink wink nudge nudge.”
Whew! I thought from Reeder’s thread title that Bush/Cheney were attempting to use Church’s Chicken for partisan purposes.* Then Kerry’d go for the KFC vote, violating the unspoken rule that fast food and politics must not intersect**, and…
*Ironic comment on Reeder’s flagrant misuse of the apostrophe.
**a.k.a. the Clara Peller Rule.
Did you read the link? It’s not the government, it’s the campaign organization. Big difference.
A pro-abolition church would almost certainly be saying “Vote For Mr. Lincoln” in so many words. Indeed, I would not be surprised to find instances of that message being made explicit, though my brief Googling hasn’t turned up anything.
From Reeder’s OP: "If this isn’t illegal it certainly should be. "
I can’t believe the Bush campaign is using Church’s for partisan ends. From now on, I only go to KFC.
Yeah, whoda thunk it?
Not sure this is so terrible. Or even that new.
At least we live in a country where this sort of thing is public knowledge and open to public discourse. Maybe that’s all we really need.
Just wondering (and too lazy to look it up) – but don’t churches get their tax exemption from a different principle than other non-profits? I mean, can a bona fide church actually lose its tax exemption for endorsing or advocating for a political candidate? Seems to me we’re talking First Amendment here, not IRS regulations.
If churches could lose their tax exemption for that sort of thing, seems like the Catholic church would have lost it long ago, as well as most evangelicals, for their political advocacy work. The list of issues and candidates seems endless. (When Pat Robertson ran for President, did he not get any churches to help him?)
Frankly, I kind of like the idea of energizing churches as political engines, because the folks who attend are at least motivated and engaged at some level in something (worship? society?) – and that might spill over into getting them to think about getting involved in politics. Seems to me what we need in this country is more people actually involved and thinking.
And despite that many folks believe thinking and religion are opposites, I’ve found that a lot of congregants I speak with do think critically about what their clergy tell them, and challenge it. Thoughtful energy in politics. What a dream! I certainly hope it happens.
Kind of gives Kerry a problem, because he’s on the outs with his church’s [I used it right 
] hierarchy. And ideas what he should do in response?
I dunno, I don’t like the idea of mixing religion and politics, but you can hardly say that such a thing is new, much less terrible. My greatest concern would be church + state, given that he IS the sitting President.
If I went to a church that started a political campaign, I would probably be more than a little miffed at the church…
Well, egg on my face. :smack:
The IRS says that churches do have to abide by the political prohibitions and even cites a court case. Hmmm.
On the other hand, if you read the link in the OP carefully (which I didn’t until after posting hastily :smack: ), you will see that the Bush/Cheney campaign has not asked churches to do anything. They have asked individual members to distribute information to other individual members. Using churches as a logical gathering place of like-minded people, I suppose.
So, really, what is the fuss about!?!
Every election there are news reports about churches in Chicago that invite candidates or their advocates to meet with their congregations, and sometimes they go so far as to have these people actually speak from the pulpit. I don’t see what the big deal is about this one this time. All that’s happening here is that people are being asked to spread the word about a candidate through a group they happen to be part of.
Reeder saw that Bush was doing something and assumed it was evil/illegal/uniquely partisan/you-name-it…
This is easily the most sensible thing you’ve ever posted on this message board.
It might just be that its the only one you entirely understood.
Touchè.