I've been waiting a few days to see if anyone would pick up on this, and so far nobody has. I don't normally start topics, but I think this one is worth mentioning. Here is a report I caught off the Yahoo New service:

Bush-Cheney '04 Commits 'an astonishing abuse of religion'; Campaign Seeks to Enlist Tax-exempt Congregations in Campaign

From the article:



The rest of the article is like that so I won't continue. What all these people are complaining about is a letter dispatched from the Bush-Cheney campaign office to
members of a group called the IFA (Interfaith Alliance) asking them to use their church to organize or generate support for the Bush campaign. Here is the text of the letter:



To me this seems like a clear and eggregious violation of Church/State separations, and at best it endangers the tax-exempt status of the churches targetted.

My question then is: Is Bush trying to illegally/improperly use churches in his campaign efforts?

Illegal, no. Improper, definitely.
As long as it is the congregation rather than the church doing the dirty work it is technically legal, the Christian Coalition has used this loophole for years to disseminate it's "voting guides".

Nothing wrong here at all. I think some might need more schooling on the issue of 'separation'. Far too many try to make it more akin to 'elimination'.

Political activism is a legitimate expression for churches and perfectly consistant with the seperation of church and state dicta of the 1st Amendment. Ever hear of the Rev. Martin Luther King jr? The issues that churches are being mobilized over tend to favor the rightwing agenda of the GOP in this election. A little personal insight into how we got here. Does anyone wonder why Dan Quale who was so famous for making silly statements became George Bush seniors running mate? It was due in large part to the fact that Quale was strictly pro-life and Pat Robertson nearly wrestled the nomination away.

Don't get me wrong, I am as concerned as anyone that churches might be used to front for partisan political campaigns. Still, for a religious 'faith based' movement has every right to endorse candidates that support issues they feel strongly about. The First Amendment has never been about silencing the voice of the religious, it was meant to protect it.


"The religion gap is the leading edge of the "culture war" that has polarized American politics, reshaped the coalitions that make up the Democratic and Republican parties and influenced the appeals their presidential candidates are making. The debate over same-sex marriage is expected to make it wider than ever this year. Gay rights, partial-birth abortion, definitions of patriotism and other "values" issues are likely to exacerbate the divide between the most observant and others."

Chruch Goers and partisian politics

This is a hard area to pin down. I don't believe that the Bush/Cheney folks did anything wrong in appealing to sympathetic congregations. The civil rights movement had a strong southern baptist element in it, and there are more than a few quaker anti-war groups out there. I'm not sure where one would quite draw the line in terms of church-state separation, advocating political change, and losing one's own tax-exempt status. To just solve the problem-they should just be taxed at 5% and we'll call it good while they can do all the hollerin', screamin', and stomping to get their way in our political system.

Is Bush trying to illegally/improperly use churches in his campaign efforts?

Illegal? I'm not sure, a supreme court ruling would be needed here, but it is definitely toeing the line.

Improper? Absolutely. There is something inherently wrong with heading to church on Sunday and then either being told while in church or handed literature to the effect of "Jesus wants you to Vote Bush/Cheny in 2004!" (probably an extreme example, but I wouldn't at all be surprised to read something like that)

This is yet another reprehensible attempt by the Bush administration to blur the line between church and state.

There is absolutely nothing illegal nor improper about this at all. People love to come here and cite "Separation of Church and State" and turn that into a "Separation of Church FROM State" when that was clearly never the meaning. Guess what? Religious people have rights too. Christians, Buddists, Jews, Muslims, you name it, they all have the same rights to vote and to support candidates as anyone else does. If a minister, priest, rabbi or imam wants to say that he or she supports a candidate for office because that candidate extolls and exhibits their values, that is their right. The US Constitution protects that right. If a candidate wants to appeal for the support from a religious group because that candidate supports that group's values, that is entirely proper and appropriate. So no, Bush is doing nothing, absolutely nothing wrong here at all. People of faith have rights too.

Eggregious? Hardly. Actually, if you look hard enough, this has little if anything to do with the seperation of church and state.

First of all, notice how it is the 'Bush/Cheney 2004' campaign. In this action, they are representing the Republican party, not the U.S. government.

Second, look at what their letter detailed...



General info and voter registration... eggregious, I'm sure.

Also, they're asking for volunteers. Anyone from any faith who goes to worship can volunteer for Bush/Cheney '04. All the Bush/Cheney team is doing is appealing to their support bases. It's no susprise to anyone that Bush has large support among the various Protestant denominations, and that's where he's looking to. It's no different than the Kerry campaign asking Boston Catholics to volunteer for their campaign.

It would be another thing if Kerry or Bush asked the Vatican for a campaign contribution.

The reason why no one has picked up on this is because it is a non-issue.

On another note, religion has always played a part in politics. Just look at the recent decision from the Vatican itself to deny communion to pro-choice politicians.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/apr/04042301.html



So who exactly is trying to impose on the seperation of church and state?

I'm with Cube Jockey on this one; the Bush/Cheney Campaign is definitely toeing the line. This could be a foot in the door to try to get more religion infused with the state and politics in general, although it seems as though they just want to get to their voter base. The one part that sticks out to me is:



and



To me this shows that they're looking for any place rather than a certain denomination (although I'm sure the Catholic church and their members are what he is after). I do think people should keep an eye on this though, it seems very close to what is wrong. Mainly being endorsed or having his campaign endorse a certain denomination.

On a side note, here in Texas there was a rally for the GOP in which the members prayed and endorsed the GOP in general. The scarriest part of this for me is that this certain group asserts that the separation of church and state clause is a myth and that there needs to be an increase in religion (their religion and no one elses) into the American political system. This Christian group seems to be not far off from the extremist Middle East clerics. Just crazy and scary that people agree with this and literally preach it. (I'm sorry I can't find a link for this but I'd probably get yelled at for going off topic).

Bottom line: Bush is getting very very close to making a huge blunder with the separation of church and state clause

Is Bush trying to illegally/improperly use churches in his campaign efforts?

Nope. This is not the government attempting to promote one particular religion. This is a political campaign looking to find volunteers amongst the "true believers" (you know: the ones who just won't question anything about their leaders ) to be a local coordinator for the BC2004 campaign.

This action is neither illegal nor improper.

I guess I don't understand the context of what you mean by "true believers". If you mean Bush supporters, I can assure you that we do indeed question our leaders as we have questioned the current ones. If you mean something else, then frankly I don't really know......

In any case, religious people do have rights in this country and among those rights is the right to support a political candidate for office and to campaign in their behalf. Funny thing about that old Constitution. It seems to work both ways......

The wonderful thing about this is how people on both sides can't see things clearly. Some of those on the right can't see anything at all wrong with any of Bush's uses of religion in his policies, and some of those on the left see cause for alarm with every time Bush says "god bless America." The bottom line is, technically speaking, no laws have been passed "respecting the establishment of religion." And if Bush gets his morals from his religion, well then you can't really tell him that he can't use his own moral compass to guide him in how to govern America.

However.

Every time he says "god bless America," I cringe. Every time he mentions his faith in a speech, I wince. Every time I read of articles like the one listed, or read about him visiting Bob Jones, or understand how the leader of the free world, instead of using personal experience and observations, conventional wisdom and guidance, or scientific facts, looks to a 2000-year-old book written by a bunch of misogynistic men, I shudder.

The founding fathers did not articulate the separation of church and state clearly enough, and we are suffering for it now. I suppose they thought that because they clearly intended to establish a democracy, few would misinterpret that to mean a theocracy. They didn't anticipate born-agains like Dubya.

If places of worship are actively participating and cooperating with government officials, then they need to lose their tax-exempt status immediately. From what I understand - and I could be wrong - the whole tax-exemption was based on a separation of church and state - that means no money goes from the government to the churches, and no money goes from the churches to the government. Once the money starts flowing from one way, it needs to start from the other.

There was never a clear line separating church and state to begin with, but if things continue like they are - head first towards a theocracy - and Bush is elected another four years - I may no longer be able to call America the greatest place on earth.

I find it ironic how not two days after that headline ran in the paper (Bush asks churches to back his campaign) Bush was scolded about the Iraq war by the pope.

From the link:



(Point of information: the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was looking to promote racial equality, not a Presidential candidate. There is a vast difference. He was not a member of Congress or a President, but a minister. Does it not make sense that he delivered most of his messages in churches?)

The campaign setting this up might have some devout Christians in its membership, but the strategy is from the top where there must be a cold, cynical person directing it all.

And lethe, you're right, there is irony in the Pope taking President Bush to task at the same time. You see, the Pope still preaches against war and against capital punishment, to name two things that he and Bush don't agree on.

But George W. Bush used it as a PR event anyway, awarding the Pope a Presidential Medal of Freedom. If you heard his little spiel, it was less than eloquent when he presented it to the Pope. But he got his Photo Op, by God (or somebody else). One thing you do know: that's that Bush didn't go there to LISTEN to anything John Paul II had to say.

Bush has come far closer to violating the separation of Church and State than anyone else I can think of. Even the avowed Baptist elder, Jimmy Carter, did not use such blatant religiosity to promote himself for a second term in the White House.

There is an old saying, "Friends come and go, but enemies accumulate." This could backfire on Bush, and I believe it should.

Is Bush trying to illegally/improperly use churches in his campaign efforts?


Well, I don't think that it's illegal. The guy certainly has no problem pushing the proverbial envelope as far as church/state goes. However, I suppose that he is perfectly within his bounds.

Just as a point of reference: the "separation of church and state" clause IS a myth. You find that exact clause in the United States Constitution, and I'll have Pizza Hut deliver any pizza of your choice, to your door, on my dime, via the wonders of the Internet.

Now, let's look at the particular issue, and determine, is this a partisan attack? We have a letter from the Bush-Cheney Campaign soliciting volunteers, and outrage.

In contrast, we have this (from the Kerry Campaign website):



Report on the Edwards campaign:




Okay, so, is it a partisan attack?



Interfaith Alliance

Btw, a search of their site reveals not a single peep about the activities I've noted above.

It appears that some absolute prohibitions are more absolute than others.

Suzy, in this case, there is no money whatsoever changing hands between the federal government and any congregation.



I don't see anything about the Bush/Cheney campaign asking for money.



You know, we've become so afraid of politicians who practice a faith that it's gotten silly. What's wrong with quoting the Bible? What if he quoted the Koran, the Torah, or the analects of Confucious? I mean, I would rather have someone who is not afraid to embrace their faith, whatever it may be, to be elected than someone who is too afraid of what the public reaction would be.

Now that's not to say that I agree that money between the two should change hands. I oppose that completely. But I'm not gonna run around saying 'the end is nigh' and that were headed into a thocracy. I don't think you give the American people enough credit. The day the government attepts to turn into a thocracy is the day many of us will fight it.

I think that this situation is being blown way out of proportion.

While you are right Titus the letter did not ask for money, but when a political group is asking people to have a political meeting within their place of worship that does go beyond the separation of church and state.

Push for Bush in churches faulted



If the Bush-Cheney campaign doesn't see a problem with what they are doing why do they seem to back pedal when asked about it? With their reply that the campaign did not mean to imply that religious supporters actually should congregate in their place of worship. So if they did not want them to meet in their place of worship to do this why did they not add that little info into their message so it could not be misinterpreted? Even religious leaders that were quoted in both articles do see that there is a problem with it hmmm wonder why.

Edit to add:

I don't mind people having faith in what ever religious belief they choose to, my problem is when people use it to their advantage over others like with what certain bishops are doing to people of their own faith or others. Like the no communion for a pro-choice candidate or going even futherer to people that support them. That is one of the many reasons why I am not a religious person, because of how they make you believe is either their way or your wrong. I do believe in GOD but I don't need some one else to tell me how to believe in him, that is for all of us to choose for ourselves.

While I don't think it is illegal- I do think it is very scary. The poeple in the right wing that are part of the christian right have no real difference than the Taliban- they wake up every morning dreaming of a theocracy in America. It taints the foriegn policy of the US now- with folks like Tom DeLay hoping to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem in order to fulfill prophecy.

Faith based initiatives etc etc are all payoffs aimed at his religious soldiers.

It is scary, but probably not illegal.

I hope we see even more of these calls for support from religious groups. No particular religion or belief is being promoted.

Americans realize that the strongest moral foundations are found among those who believe in God. Seeking leaders for our nation who are grounded in that faith is our greatest strength.

Non-believers are entitiled to their 'beliefs', but they should never gain a position of power in a nation of believers. That's not to say they won't keep trying though.

This, of course, is your opinion. And subjective.

We shall see if Bush is really viewed by the American public as being of "strong moral foundation" this November. I think it's obvious to most Americans that "strong moral foundation" is never enough in the absence of "strong intellectual foundation" and "strong leadership".

Bush/Cheney is foolishly endangering the tax-exempt status of churches in PA. It's sad that one belief system is being offered an advantage over another in the political arena. You might have thought that, in America, all belief systems would be given equal footing by the government to campaign for their political platforms. Not so. When people with beliefs in supernatural beings, on tax-exempt property, in tax-exempt buildings, with tax-exempt materials; are allowed to campaign for their candidate, the believers of other ideals, that are not permitted the same tax-exempt resources, suffer. They cannot promote their candidate with the same freedom. For every $3 that the tax-exempt people spend on campaigning, the non tax-exempt people spend $2 on campaigning and $1 on taxes.

Religious people have the right to campaign. They do not have the right to use their buildings, their property, or their tax-exempt church materials to do it. If they want to run a campaign, rent out the local VFW just like anyone else would have to do.

I'm glad people are adressing the subject at hand. I have no issue with Bush employing faith in his presidency or his campaign; nor do I have a problem with people of faith making judgements based on that.

The reason why I created this thread is the fact that Bush was endangering the tax-exempt status of churches and using them in ways that are expressly forbidden in federal regulations. It is obviously not a complete non-issue (as a few of you have shared) because non-partisan groups representing these churches have been vocal in their disagreement and anger.

Titus, I am not "afraid of politicians who practice a faith." I am afraid of politicians who don't know the difference between their faith and America's government.

And what if he quoted the Koran, Torah, or Confucious? The facts would still remain that instead of basing his decisions on common knowledge, scientific facts, and personal inquiries, he'd be basing them on the rantings of delusional men who have come and gone, with the exception of Confucious. I'm not going to apologize for being afraid of anti-intellectuals in power, and yes, anyone who doesn't think about why things are right and why things are wrong, anyone who doesn't ever try to analyze the concepts of moral and immoral, anyone who simply looks to a book to find their answers for everything they encounter instead of trying to think about the problem and figure out a solution is an anti-intellectual.

There is a difference between "embracing" your chosen dogma and forcing everyone in the nation to adhere to it's rules. Bush is headed down the latter path, headfirst. All the little instances of a "faith-based initiative" here, and a "religious consultation about foreign policy" there add up.

I'm sorry, but if you don't realize that the government is already attempting to impose theocratic ideals into our society already, then you're one of millions who will be trying to "fight it" too late.

As for this little gem ---> "Non-believers are entitiled to their 'beliefs', but they should never gain a position of power in a nation of believers." Passion, you do realize that our democracy is set up in ways that actually offer protections and safeguards to the minority? I agree that the minority shouldn't be able to hands-down rule the majority, and vice-versa, but never gain a position of power? Ever? At all?! Atheists and other seculars should never be promoted to CEO of any company - let's keep them flipping burgers and washing cars. They should never have a position of power, any degree of power, anywhere in the nation. Come on. A non-belief in the supernatural - and that includes the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and God - affects the decisions someone makes, yes, but not their overall ability to perform! That's like saying "oh, you're black? You should never be promoted to a position of power, because you might want to give reparations to blacks, and the majority are against that." Should blacks never be in a position of power because they're a racial minority? Should males never be in a position of power because they're a gender minority? Should seculars never be in a position of power because they're a religious minority?

Atheists and other seculars are perfectly capable of stellar job performance and work ethics, and whether they believe in the supernatural or not has absolutely nothing to do with that.

Is Bush trying to illegally/improperly use churches in his campaign efforts?

I am not so sure, but much more educated people in here have already mentioned that it is not illegal.

What I find disturbing, is what do these congregations expect in return for their support? Are they being offered or promised anything?

Note: Church goers in general come from all walks of life and have varying extremes on all issues. People that would support a candidate THROUGH their church, would most likely be the most extreme of these church goers and that doesn't sound very comforting. These are the people that would tend to expect something in return for their support. At that point, the line of SEPARATION would be crossed.

UltimateJoe, you said

NON PARTISAN??

Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, et al are campaigning IN CHURCHES and Interfaith Alliance doesn't say "boo", yet they are a fuss over this, and you're calling them "non-partisan."



hmmph. Kerry campaign gets a pass, Bush campaign gets dinged.. More "non-partisan" concern for the churches, right?

You have an article or two to back that up Bikerdad? I consider myself to be fairly up to date when it comes to news and I haven't read this anywhere. Not saying you are wrong, but a claim like this deserves a source.

For me, this reminds me of the Dave Letterman bit "Is this anything?" where someone performs and they have to decide if it's something. I really don't think anything bad/worthy of note has happened yet. That being said, I'm pretty sure someone, somewhere will cross the invisible, nebulous line separating someone approaching their parish to having a church operate as a de facto political organization, that will then be de facto dodging their taxes (apparently I like the phrase "de facto" today).

Two points: one, saying that it's improper to organize congregations into political volunteer groups within a church is not saying people of faith can't vote. It's saying that political organizations don't get tax-free offices. Second, speaking in a church is different than trying to turn a congregation into a PAC. The line that needs to be avoided is the one where clergy plugs a political meeting during a sermon, immediately afterward a member of the congregation signs people up for phone calling, and the volunteers work out of the church, all free by church fiat. This is a blurry line, but it's distinct from a church allowing a candidate their venue as a speaker. Churches are often used as public spaces, the concern here is a church will go beyond providing an equal opportunity venue and religious guidance to the flock and actively support a candidate, with money saved on taxes paying for campaign phone calls, etc.

What's being now is a step up from the usual approach of churches. As expressed in this initial solicitation, it's on the up and up. However, I think it's naive to assume that this doesn't increase the risk of exploitation- whether we hear about it or not, I'd bet some of these churches will overstep their legal bounds and act in a political fashion inconsistent with their tax-exempt status.

As I said before, from the Kerry Campaign Website

and from the Greenville News

Bikerdad, the non-partisan group I CLEARLY identified is the non-profit Interfaith Alliance. Your refutation of them confuses me. They are not responsible for inviting political candidates of any stripe to churches or congregations. They are an organization that serves to represent congregations of various faith.

Of course, your refutation makes little sense elsewise as you A) didn't specify whether Republican politicians were given equal standing in the churches you are referring to in your accusation and you are trying to equate two actions which are substantively different.

Allowing a politician to speak to your congregation is substantially different from working for a politician to generate support among your congregation.

OK, it seems to me that the story mentioned in the OP is pushing the envelope while staying within the letter of the law, if not the intent. This, however...
I'm sure this is just a coincidence.

Cadman, they're not asking for a political meeting in the church either. Nowhere does the Bus/Cheney letter say, 'We'd like to have a meeting or a campaign rally at your church. It's asking for voulunteers to pass out information and voter registration on their behalf. Again, all blown way out of proportion.

Suzy, I'm glad to see you didn't add Confucious in your tirade! And at the risk of sounding off topic, I feel I should address this. Correct me if I am wrong, but if I translate your quote...




....you're saying religion is, at the very least, an intellectual crutch. That's all fine and dandy. but the truth is, most don't feel that way about themselves. If one feels he can rely on a text from his faith to provide answers, then why can't he use it. I mean, where is Bush advocating the stoning of women for adultery? Where is he advocating slavery? (Old Testement) Where is he "forcing everyone in the nation to adhere" to his faith's guidlines? Where is he imposing his faith? I don't feel that my freedom of religion is being threatend. And, unless that day happens, neither should you. The American people have more power than that.

And if this is such a big deal, then why aren't people yelling the sky is falling when voting demographics mention Catholics, Jews, and Protestants? Candidates have always pandered to each of these groups. But when Bush asks for volunteers in the congregations to hand out info, everyone has a heart attack?

There's no money involved.

There's no meetings in the chuches involved.

Until I see otherwise, I see no reason why the Bush/Cheney letter denotes inethical actions.