Don’t you have to be seeking an office to be considered “campaigning”? Wasn’t this speech like 3 years ago, before Obama announced his candidacy or anyone figured he would?
Nope. June.
I don’t know about what should happen, if anything, but I actually see this as being a benefit to him and backfiring against whoever decided to file the complaint; if smearing Obama was their intention that is. It seems like a pretty flimsy case that will probably lead off into nothing, but it does put into the mainstream news more proof(?) that Obama is a Christian and not a Muslim mole, as well, it shows that the views of the UCC are more in line with those of the average American and not some militant uprising. Also, at least at this point, it looks like “the establishment” is unfairly trying to take down the candidate of hope and change and attacking the church in the process; this will probably serve to endear him to even more Americans.
If the IRS comes up with something significantly more substantial than all they appear to have now and do punish the church, then I don’t know what happens. I think that would do far more damage to his morale than it would to his poll numbers.
Dunno. If he hurt individual churches or the national congregation through his actions, I think he ought to do what he can to set things right.
I do not know to what extent the UCC is at fault here - whether they failed to invite others, failed to give guidance to Obama as to what he could say, or even, as is entirely possible, nobody did anything wrong. But they are on the hook as well, as described in the Journal piece, and should be held to account as well if they messed up.
I do not favor draconian penalties for anyone, for the reasons I explained above. But I have stated in the past on this subject that candidates and congregations should follow the rules - and that doesn’t change because of who said what here.
Take it for what it’s worth but I heard someone who was previously in the IRS game talking about this a few mornings ago on the AM radio and, from his understanding of the facts, it’s unlikely to amount to anything. Sure the IRS will investigate but it’s really doubtful that they would be stripping anyone of anything.
So it’s your considered opinion that the Catholic Church can arguably suborn the votes of Catholic voters by publicly threatening to excommunicate a candidate and anyone who votes for him, unless their reasons for doing so fit through a quite narrow loophole, yet a member of the United Church of Christ being actively considered for nomination for the Presidency cannot speak at that church’s General Synod unless they also invite contenders from other denominations to speak as well? (Noting that both candidates referenced above are Democrats, FWIW.)
No wonder you got along so well with Rick S.!
And if you notice above, there was nothing preventing Obama from speaking at the Synod all by himself - such an appearance, though, puts certain restrictions on what he can say, and he seems at first glance not to have abided by the rules.
As for the communion issue, when the IRS is able to tell the Catholic Church how it must administer its own sacraments, we no longer have religious liberty in this country.
I have stated many times that I have no beef with churches getting involved in political matters - this has been a part of American history that influenced everything from abolition to the civil-rights movement, and numerous movements besides. However, I think there is general agreement that churches ought not endorse candidates or create a situation where it seems like certain candidates are endorsed. And candidates for their part should feel free to speak in church - just not campaign there.
But if the Catholic Church feels that it is necessarily a political organization, and that a condition of receiving the sacraments is that you support its political agenda and vote for its chosen candidates, then I can’t see any plausible justification for allowing the Church to remain tax-exempt. If it thinks that part of its mission is political advocacy for or against particular candidates, then it is not entitled to that exemption.
Something of my point. According to** my** reading of what the Bishops in question did, the only way a Catholic could vote for Kerry without incurring automatic excommunication is if their view was that on balance he was the better canddidate despite being pro-choice (and a couple of other details, but the abortion question was the big one).
But I’d like to appeal to Bricker for clarification on this – he’s Catholic, Republican, and quite familiar with the constitutional law behind it, and probably has a better handle on how they could legally get away with it than I do.
Mr Moto, I see only one thing in the quoted Obama speech that crosses the line past "in my opinion as a UCC member, this is what we should be doing as a people regarding these social issues – and that was a statement regarding what he was pledged to do if nominated and elected. I think it’s arguable that that was a statement of intent relative to the points he was making on moral social theology, not a seeking of votes. (Though, obviously it’s easy to see it the other way – but my understanding of IRS rules is that it has to be a clear crossing of the line, not just a possible interpretation of words as crossing the line.)
However the bishops did not send mail to Kerry telling him this (and the bishop was not even Kerry’s bishop) but rather publicized it. I’m not aware that a politician not being allowed communion for being pro-choice is official church doctrine. So the problem is not the bishops’ position on Kerry’s communion, but their blabbing about it. Nevertheless, I agree that the IRS was right in not doing anything about it, and they should do the same thing here. It would pretty much keep any politician running for anything out of any church, except to shut up and pray.
As for who would be punished if the IRS decides to do something, it would be the UCC Church, not Sen. Obama. The punishment is limited to taking away the tax-exempt status, nothing else.
Politicians are free to speak in churches within certain limits. Ministers are free to speak in church about social issues as long as they don’t tell anyone how to vote. Obama is a member of a UCC church, so it’s not like he was a stranger. I didn’t see anything in the speech where he said, “So you see, you ought to vote for me.” I saw nothing that indicated the UCC endorsed him.
In this election, we have seen some prominent preachers endorsing a candidate in church, and that’s clearly over the line.
On the Catholic Bishops calling for refusal of communion to any elected official who’s pro-choice, IMO it was dirty pool, but completely legal. Kerry was not specifically named. Communion is an in-house matter, and it’s none of the government’s business. As it worked out, the bishops are not bound to obey such a recommendation, and Kerry had no problem finding a priest willing to give him communion.
I was at the General Synod and heard Obama speak. A few things to note:
• While there were certainly many UCC members at the General Synod who support Obama, our General Minister, John Thomas, and others repeatedly ask us not to campaign at the event and did not allow flyering outside the convention center, wearing campaign t-shirts, and holding posters during the speech.
• Obama’s speech is about his religious beliefs and how they are lived out in the public sphere- not just as a politician, but also as an inner-city activist.
• Nowhere in his speech did he ask UCC members to vote for him. He did state what he intends to do should he be elected president and how that relates to his understanding of what it means to be Christian, but nothing more than that.
• Considering that Jesus was executed by the empire for sedition and was essentially a political criminal, I personally find it very hard to separate my political beliefs from my faith. Poverty, war, civil rights (including LGBT equality), environmental stewardship, etc. are all religious issues as well as political ones.
Finally, you can see his speech online, so judge for yourself. Bill Moyers spoke at the same event, and he was pretty much just as if not more “political” than Obama.
What office is Bill Moyers running for?
I think the point was to illustrate what a genuinely political speech looks like and not a red herring, but that’s just me.
Right wing churches openly endorse and stump for candidates every day. This investigation seems a little selective to me. Hell. The Christian Coaltion has literally written the Republican platform.
Personally, I don’t think there should be any tax exempt stauts for any church at all and that they should all be able to say what they want and endorse who they want and politicians should be able to say whatever they want inside those churches. Our mistake was ever exempting any of those rackets from paying taxes in the first place.
Well, I stated above and in other threads that I have no beef with churches taking political stances. But the restrictions when it comes to the relationship between a church and a particular candidate are tighter, aren’t they?
Moyers isn’t running for anything - therefore, he may be as political as he wishes - though, again, advocating for a particular candidate in that forum would run into the same restrictions.
Actually, no. Not by law. The law is that the churches can’t endorse candidates and keep their tax exempt status. There are no retsrictions on the relationship between a church and a candidsate as long as the church doesn’t endorse the candidate.
Obama didn’t tell anybody who to vote for. Bush, McCain, Bill Clinton, et al have all given similar speeches (sometimes with much more explicit political messages) in churches. All politicians straddle this line. It’s SOP.
In '06 there was a pastor here in the Twin Cities who introduced a Republican candidate for Congress named Michell Bachman. He said to his congregation, 'I can’t tell you who to vote for but I’m voting for Michelle Bachman." Even that wasn’t enough to cost the church to lose its tax exempt status. As long as Obama didn’t say “vote for me,” nothing is going to happen, because they all pull this shit and the conservative churches don’t want to open this can of worms at all. The whole point of this investigation is just to give the impression that Obama did something wrong, but absolutely nothing will come of it. All that matters is getting the smear into the atmosphere.
It might be fun to find transcripts of every speech GWB and John McCain have ever made in curches, though.