Churchgoers Get Direction From Bush Campaign
 

The Bush-Cheney reelection campaign has sent a detailed plan of action to religious volunteers across the country asking them to turn over church directories to the campaign, distribute issue guides in their churches and persuade their pastors to hold voter registration drives.


Campaign officials said the instructions are part of an accelerating effort to mobilize President Bush (news - web sites)'s base of religious supporters. They said the suggested activities are intended to help churchgoers rally support for Bush without violating tax rules that prohibit churches from engaging in partisan activity.


"We strongly believe that our religious outreach program is well within the framework of the law," said Terry Holt, spokesman for the Bush-Cheney campaign.


But tax experts said the campaign is walking a fine line between permissible activity by individual congregants and impermissible activity by congregations. Supporters of Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, charged that the Bush-Cheney campaign is luring churches into risking their tax status.


"I think it is sinful of them to encourage pastors and churches to engage in partisan political activity and run the risk of losing their tax-exempt status," said Steve Rosenthal, chief executive officer of America Coming Together, a group working to defeat Bush.


The instruction sheet circulated by the Bush-Cheney campaign to religious volunteers lists 22 "duties" to be performed by specific dates. By July 31, for example, volunteers are to "send your Church Directory to your State Bush-Cheney '04 Headquarters or give [it] to a BC04 Field Rep" and "Talk to your Pastor about holding a Citizenship Sunday and Voter Registration Drive."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...9082_2004jun30

It's a wonder why people associate republicans with the relgious right.

There are plenty of democratic-leaning churches that have been doing this for awhile now.

It's not exactly a new strategy.

Of course the dems gonna bitch about any way the Bush campaign tries to get voters. And by the way, I'm proud to be associated with the religious RIGHT.

<-- part of the religious LEFT- we dont force our beliefs on others...

I don't associate it with the right or left. I'd just be irritated to get pamphlets from either candidate via my CHURCH. Can at least one place that has my address keep it private. That's just freaking annoying.

As if you've never heard of Democratic church leaders (Jesse Jackson) *ACTUALLY ENDORSING* candidates. I believe he's still tax exempt for some reason.

Uhhh...Jared...so are you saying I am not right? :confused:

Oh yeah?

How's that?

Does the left want to pass new laws? Please answer yes, or no.

----

If you answered "Yes", then your above statement is wrong. The purpose of laws is to force your beliefs onto someone else.

ktsnake, human beings cannot be tax exempt. Institutions can be tax exempt.

A church which turns over its membership list to a reelection campaign (as opposed to an issue-oriented organization like, say, National Right to Life) forfeits its tax-exempt status. If you know of any church that has done so, for either party, do the taxpayers a favor and let us know.

Ivy, JD

Nationally my Church does not endorse candidates for office. We believe that every church member has a right to vote for the candidate they feel will do the job best. Not to say that we aren't politically involved, we have State Public Policy Advocacy Offices all over the country. We are about issues, not particular candidates.

Also, our buildings are often opened up to the community for polling places, if we are endorsing candidates that could be a definite conflict of interest.

This sounds a lot like my church as well. We have had various elected officials who reflects the same issues that we believe in speak at our church (i.e. State Attorney General, etc.).

But we do not endorse any political party.

True..but the organizations he oversees..that push his political agenda is tax exempt..I think that is what ktsnake is referring to.

And don't forget the REV. Al Sharpton

By "he" I meant the Rainbow Push Coalition.

What I mean, not what I say:D

Being descended from the big daddy of the Protestants (I'm Lutheran), we take the Protest in Protestant pretty seriously. However if Luther didn't have cool castles to hide out in, it would have probably been the Moravians instead of us :)

Sin Boldly!

We are not using laws to force our religious beliefs on others- much like the religious right tries to do. (Such as Iowa's Republicans passing the "choose life" license plates where the money for the plate goes only to institutions that are anti-abortion or our state senator Veenstra saying that since the bible says homosexuality is wrong that the state should not allow same-sex couples to adopt)

So: yes on laws, no on forcing our religious beliefs

So as the spokesman for all liberals you can say that you don't do that. Wow. I'm honored you've come to GC to speak with us plebians.

Do you not think that many liberals consider it a moral as well as religious duty to provide health care to the elderly? Housing and aid for the unemployed and unemployable?

Do liberal politicians not craft and support laws that force everyone else in the nation to foot the bill for these people? How is that not pushing your own religious agenda?

I don't deny that Conservatives often try to legislate their moral code and religious beliefs. But the left side of the aisle is not immune to that by any means.

A> I aint no spokesperson- please dont assume I am.
B> I havent seen anyone on the left side of the political spectrum lately using the bible or God to say why they are doing something- but I have heard Bush say God told him to attack Iraq...
~J
(usually if people are hearing voices we institutionalize them)

Released into Congressional Record, February 12, 1999

Mr. BYRD. Mr. Chief Justice:

I think my country sinks beneath the yoke,

It weeps, it bleeds,

And each new day,

a gash is added to her wounds.

I am the only remaining Member of Congress who was here in 1954 when we added the words 'under God' to the Pledge of Allegiance. That was on June 7, 1954. One year from that day we added the words 'In God We Trust' to the currency and coin of this country. Those words were already on some of the coins. But I shall always be proud to have voted to add those words, 'under God' and 'In God We Trust.' They mean much to us today as we meet here.

(The above is from CNN)
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...ents/byrd.html

You should have known I'd pull out the Robert Byrd on you.

"Under God" and "In God We Trust" are 2 intrusions of religion into politics. The Catholics used the backdrop of "fighting the Godless Communists" to get them in. It was a stupid move and those words should be removed.

What kind of source did you get that from?

THe Knights of Columbus, a Catholic group, were the lobbyists for adding God into the pledge and currency.

The Catholics?!?

You've said some deluded things on here, but that'll have to take the cake. Yes, it was part of the Catholic conspiracy headed by ROBERT BYRD, former KKK member.

As a Catholic who knows a few things about church history, I find your assertion to be hilarious.

Name an influential Catholic politician in 1952. You're a secondary history ed major, right?

The Knights of Columbus had apparently in 1951 instituted their own version of the Pledge of Allegiance for use at their meetings that contained the words "under God." Seeing that the time was right, they enlisted the cooperation of the American Legion in lobbying the Executive branch and the Congress to add "under God" to the pledge. Ignoring the Constitution and caving in to the expediency of the moment, President Eisenhower expressed support for the measure, and it was passed on Flag Day, June 14, 1954.

http://home.flash.net/~lbartley/au/issues/godtrust.htm

edit: and it wasnt until 1960 that the Catholics through Vatican II decided that when they become a majority in a nation that they would not force their religious fews on others through changing the government to a theocracy.

And if you really believe that liberals never legislate religion, how do you reconcile Robert Byrd's fairly recent statement with your belief?

I'm waiting for you to actually address that instead of blaming it on the Catholics.

It takes 51 Senators to approve something like that.

How many of those Senators were Catholic?

he's old. Old people believe in religion and use it to justify things.

There you go with your generalizations again. I thought liberals were more enlightened than that. Now you're belittlling old people and making stereotypical comments.

It was in 1952 when he voted for that measure. He wasn't old then. He's a liberal now, probably one of the most liberal. Other than sweeping generalizations about senior citizens, please reconcile your beliefs with his statement.

What is it that you have against Catholics and old people? Is that a liberal thing?

I have nothing against Catholics except for when they intrude on the seperation of Church and State- for that I hold big beef with anyone who dares to do so.
I do not want to emigrate from the US to lands that hold greater freedoms but if our nation continues eroding away the seperation of church and state and if I continue to be a second class citizen (yay for the Senate not moving towards a Constitutionalized second class citizenry)- then I will have to leave.

Please justify your argument that liberals do not legislate morality in light of what Robert Byrd said without hating on old people. I'm still waiting.

how did we jump to morality when we were arguing about religion?

I'll argue religion: Byrd was a retard for voting to put God onto currency and in the pledge.
As for morals: you can have morals seperate from religion, you should learn this as it is important in a secular society.

So you think Byrd was an idiot for voting that way. Okay.

He's liberal and he still believes that was one of the best things he ever did.

You stated that liberals do not legislate their religion on people. I provided you with an example (I'm sure there are plenty more) of a time where liberals did exactly that. All you have to say is that yes, sometimes liberals legislate their religion and force their beliefs on us.

I know and I think you know that what you said is a generalization that you have no way of supporting. All you have to do is admit that you were wrong.

I said recently and you gave me a vote from 1952.
If 1952 was recent then let's look at the immediate past- 1789 when we didnt put religion into the constitution.

I gave you a statement by a Senator that voted in 1952 who is still in Congress. The statement was made within the last 5 years.

I am catholic and liberal. I think the under god being blamed on catholics is just silly. Like ktsnake said catholics were not powerful politicans in those days. It was voted in by christians in general and was not forced in by one group. If they were so influential you would think they would be a political power house anyone running for office had to get approval from first.

I'm just waiting for him to realize that there's liberal Catholics.

I don't think he's capable of admitting he was wrong.

For a history major, he sure doesn't know much about history.

News flash: The evangelical movement and most religious people through Carter were...DEMOCRATS!

-Rudey

Yep to his credit he had "lust in his heart" though. ;) :p

Rudey is right. A lot of democrats are relgious. Just not all vote by how their reglion feels on the subject. I don't see many Democrats voting to remove it either because it probably would be politcal suicide especially in the south.