1
   

OUTRAGEOUS! Bush Seeks Church Membership Data

 
 
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2004 09:38 am
Bush Seeks Church Membership Data
By David Morgan, Reuters

WASHINGTON (July 1) - President Bush, seeking to mobilize religious conservatives for his reelection campaign, has asked church-going volunteers to turn over church membership directories, campaign officials said on Thursday.

In a move sharply criticized both by religious leaders and civil libertarians, the Bush-Cheney campaign has issued a guide listing about two-dozen "duties" and a series of deadlines for organizing support among conservative church congregations.

A copy of the guide directs religious volunteers to send church directories to state campaign committees, identify new churches that can be organized by the Bush campaign and talk to clergy about holding voter registration drives.

The document, distributed to campaign coordinators across the country earlier this year, also recommends that volunteers distribute voter guides in church and use Sunday service programs for get-out-the-vote drives.

"We expect this election to be potentially as close as 2000, so every vote counts and it's important to reach out to every single supporter of President Bush," campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said.

But the Rev. Richard Land, who deals with ethics and religious liberty issues for the Southern Baptist Convention, a key Bush constituency, said he was "appalled."

"First of all, I would not want my church directories being used that way," he said, predicting failure for the Bush plan.

The conservative Protestant denomination, whose 16 million members strongly backed Bush in 2000, held regular drives that encouraged church-goers to "vote their values," said Land.

"But it's one thing for us to do that. It's a totally different thing for a partisan campaign to come in and try to organize a church. A lot of pastors are going to say: 'Wait a minute, bub'," he added.

The guide surfaced as a spate of opinion polls showed Bush's reelection campaign facing a tough battle.

A Wall Street Journal/NBC poll showed Bush running neck-and-neck with Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry among registered voters, 47 percent of whom said they now believed the president had misled Americans about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

You asked: Is the 2004 election going to be close? How close?

The Bush campaign has also been spending heavily on television ads, only to see the president's approval ratings slump to new lows.

Stanzel said the campaign ended the month of June with $64 million on hand. He had no figures on how much Bush has raised in June. At the end of May, Bush had raised $213.4 million and spent all but $63 million.

The latest effort to marshal religious support also drew fire from civil liberties activists concerned about the constitutional separation of church and state.

"Any coordination between the Bush campaign and church leaders would clearly be illegal," said a statement from the activist group Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,701 • Replies: 31
No top replies

 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2004 10:54 am
Just when you think he can't sink any lower, he finds a deeper hole to go into.

Wouldn't that also be an invasion of privacy of the worst sort? Is everything fair game now?
0 Replies
 
JustanObserver
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2004 01:07 pm
You have GOT to be kidding me. Please say this is a joke.
0 Replies
 
onyxelle
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2004 01:10 pm
amazing...
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2004 01:42 pm
It seems wrong, but is it illegal?
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2004 01:46 pm
This has been going on for several months.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2004 10:44 pm
Surely not all "religious leaders and civil libertarians" have "sharply criticized" this move.

Would it not have been more appropriate (and less biased) for Morgan to use a modifier like "some" or even "most?'

The Churches need not provide the membership lists.

Whether or not it is unseemly, it could only be a violation of separation of church and state if the Bush Administration was forcing or coercing churches to provide the lists.

As for the question "Wouldn't that also be an invasion of privacy of the worst sort?"

It might be deemed an invasion of privacy but of the worst sort? Worse than publishing someone's medical records on the internet? Worse than installing cameras in someone's bedroom? Worse that using someone's genetic information to decide whether or not they should be accepted into a college? Worse than a psychiatrist going on TV and recounting all that has been told to him by his patients?

Worse than telemarketers calling during the dinner hour?

What is being missed in the discussion of this story is that the so-called Religious Right may not be prepared to do anything to get Bush reelected. Sort of spoils some of the paranoia concerning Bush and conservative christians, doesn't it?
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2004 10:54 pm
Quote:
The Southern Baptist Convention, a conservative denomination closely aligned with President Bush, said it was offended by the Bush-Cheney campaign's effort to use church rosters for campaign purposes.

"I'm appalled that the Bush-Cheney campaign would intrude on a local congregation in this way," said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.

"The bottom line is, when a church does it, it's nonpartisan and appropriate. When a campaign does it, it's partisan and inappropriate," he said. "I suspect that this will rub a lot of pastors' fur the wrong way."


Baptists Angered by Bush Campaign Tactics
0 Replies
 
Solon
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2004 12:02 am
Bush has larger things to pretend to worry about than people protesting him [which has been happening since he became president].
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2004 11:10 am
As there is no constitutional safeguard mandating separation of state and grease-spattered auto workers, we might consider that this is a somewhat more dangerous proposition than a party seeking cooperation with a union.

And we might also consider what quid pro quo will emanate from a party so critically dependant upon votes from the religious sector.

Get rid of these jerks, please.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2004 11:39 am
Even Machiavelli is turning over in his grave. The Prince should be politically hobbled.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2004 11:52 am
I'd never thought of separation church/state in this context but of breaking laws/incitement to break these laws of the protection of data privacy.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2004 12:12 pm
blatham wrote:
As there is no constitutional safeguard mandating separation of state and grease-spattered auto workers, we might consider that this is a somewhat more dangerous proposition than a party seeking cooperation with a union.

And we might also consider what quid pro quo will emanate from a party so critically dependant upon votes from the religious sector.

Get rid of these jerks, please.


Sorry, can't accommodate your request, but would you care to explain why you believe the quid pro quo of a political relationship with religious groups is any more menacing to society than the quid pro quo of political relationships with unions, civil rights activists, gay and lesbians, hollywood celebs, and environmentalists?

Is it that these more traditionally Democratic constituencies are more benign than the Southern Baptists?

And since the Democrats have their own religious constituencies (of which Baptists, ironically enough, comprise a large share) are you somehow able to draw a distinction between "good" churches and "bad" in America? Does your knowledge of the Constitution inform you that it calls for separation of state and conservative religion, but not state and liberal religion?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2004 12:27 pm
I believe that the founders of our country thought religion was so dangerous, that despite the fact that they themselves were religious, they went far out of their way to eliminate the link between our Govt' and churches.

Church and religion have always had a special ability to control the weak minded, and influence the strong minded. Eternal salvation is dangerous stuff to be messing in with politics.

I don't like it when Dems stump in churches, either. Find me some links of the Dems doing this kind of activity and I'll knock them the same way.

To compare churches to unions, celebrities, and environmentalists is just ridiculous, and you know it....

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2004 12:33 pm
I believe that if churches--as churches--engage in promoting partisan political activity, the IRS might reconsider their tax-exempt status.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2004 12:34 pm
The right wingers will applaud this move by Bush and company. They just don't "get it."
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2004 01:38 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I believe that the founders of our country thought religion was so dangerous, that despite the fact that they themselves were religious, they went far out of their way to eliminate the link between our Govt' and churches.

Church and religion have always had a special ability to control the weak minded, and influence the strong minded. Eternal salvation is dangerous stuff to be messing in with politics.

I don't like it when Dems stump in churches, either. Find me some links of the Dems doing this kind of activity and I'll knock them the same way.

To compare churches to unions, celebrities, and environmentalists is just ridiculous, and you know it....

Cycloptichorn


I know no such thing, and your posting does little to explain why it might be.

The First amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Of course if the quid pro quo flowing from the request for membership lists was to establish Christianity as the official religion of the US, it would be outrageous, but we all know that is not remotely possible.

There is nothing in the First Amendment that suggests that groups established on the basis of their religious convictions cannot participate in the political processes of the nation.

They may not be entitled to a tax free status, but that is a different issue. (Although it may be a actor in the refusal of the Southern Baptists to accomodate the administration)

As long as the quid pro quo flowing from a relationship between a political party and a religious group doesn't constitute the establishment of religion or prohibits the free exercise thereof, how does it run afoul of the constitution?

Church groups seek political influence on the issue of abortion. So do Womens' Rights Groups. Why is one position more dangerous than the other?

I'm fairly certain that my opposition to a State created or sponsored religion is as strong as anyone else's, and I am not a member of any organized religious group. I fully appreciate how, throughout history, religious groups have been responsible for heinous acts, but I also fully appreciate how they have been responsible for courageous and charitable acts and have provided their members with great comfort and inspiration.

I suppose we can argue over this until the cows come home, but I don't think the Founders saw religion, by itself, dangerous, but rather as part of a combination with the State. The distinction may or may not be subtle, but it nevertheless is real.

What I am taking issue with is the apparent reflexive negative response to religion, and the apparent presumption that individuals organized around religious principles are inherently more dangerous that individuals organized around political principles.

I am also taking issue with the notion that there can only be one interpretation of the First Amendment and if one doesn't agree with that one interpretation, one "doesn't get it," whatever the hell "is" is.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2004 01:40 pm
Noddy24 wrote:
I believe that if churches--as churches--engage in promoting partisan political activity, the IRS might reconsider their tax-exempt status.


I'll take it a step further: The IRS should reconsider their tax-exempt status.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2004 02:49 pm
I'll take it one step further; the IRS must reconsider their tax-exempt status. Next is "shall." ;(
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2004 03:09 pm
Yes I do think it is the invasion of privacy of the worst sort. It is barging in my church and I don't like it one bit.

What if a preacher that is political minded gives out that information to Bush and his gang without checking with members first. Religion is more private and sacred than most of those things you mentioned besides medical records which I don't want Bush or any other person getting ahold of either.

There is just something crass about the whole thing. I am reminded of Jesus when he said that those that were in the temple turned his Father's house into a den of theives. That is what Bush is doing to religion in American, he is cheapening it by using it every which he can.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » OUTRAGEOUS! Bush Seeks Church Membership Data
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/04/2024 at 10:01:41