OUTRAGEOUS! Bush Seeks Church Membership Data

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.

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.
Then the preacher would be guilty of invasion of privacy. It is not an invasion of privacy to ask for records.

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.
I don't know, I have no problem with the government finding out if I am or am not a member of any church, but I sure don't want them (or anyone else) installing a camera in my bedroom.

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.
Well, this is a matter of opinion and you're entitled to yours. I trust you're not someone who thinks Bush is a religious zealot?

Sorry, can't accommodate your request, that's alright, finn, others shall 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?
That's a fair question. But I pointed to the answer above...the constitution implicitly acknowledges a unique concern that any particular religious constituency, if related to governance, may influence that government to become other than neutral on religious matters, "...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to an Office or public Trust under the United States".

Is it that these more traditionally Democratic constituencies are more benign than the Southern Baptists?
What or who might be considered 'benign' ought to be considered so only as regards whether they pose a danger to the separation principle. We can each decide where such danger might reside at present.

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?

finn said

Quote:

Sorry, can't accommodate your request, that's alright, finn, others shall 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?
That's a fair question. But I pointed to the answer above...the constitution implicitly acknowledges a unique concern that any particular religious constituency, if related to governance, may influence that government to become other than neutral on religious matters, "...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to an Office or public Trust under the United States".

I assume then that you share what you believe to be the implicit acknowledgement that there is a unique danger of religious constituencies influencing the government to part from a neutral position on religious matters. It's important then to understand what you believe to be contained within "religious matters." Can I assume that by "religious matters" you mean those issues which are concerned with a belief in a deity, the manner in which that deity is worshipped, and the condition of the soul? Am I correct in also assuming that you do not have a similar concern with religious constituencies having an influence on non-religious matters even if they come to them on the basis of religious teachings e.g.abortion?

Is it that these more traditionally Democratic constituencies are more benign than the Southern Baptists?
What or who might be considered 'benign' ought to be considered so only as regards whether they pose a danger to the separation principle. We can each decide where such danger might reside at present.

Why is that? I appreciate that one of the main themes of this thread is separation of Church and State, but we've all gone off on wilder tangents in this forum than the relative beneficence of political constituencies.

Is it that there is nothing more malignant than erosion of the separation principle?

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?

Then the preacher would be guilty of invasion of privacy. It is not an invasion of privacy to ask for records.

I don't know, I have no problem with the government finding out if I am or am not a member of any church, but I sure don't want them (or anyone else) installing a camera in my bedroom.

Well, this is a matter of opinion and you're entitled to yours. I trust you're not someone who thinks Bush is a religious zealot?

Quote:

Then the preacher would be guilty of invasion of privacy. It is not an invasion of privacy to ask for records.

I think that you are wrong. It is an invasion of privacy for the President (No matter who he/she is) to ask for records that show not only where a person goes to church but where they live and their addresses and things like that. It is just a slippery slope that I think is dangerous to even start going down.

Again, you're entitled to your opinion, but simply requesting information is not a violation of any privacy law.

Quote:

I don't know, I have no problem with the government finding out if I am or am not a member of any church, but I sure don't want them (or anyone else) installing a camera in my bedroom.

I do not want the government to do either. The reason that I think it is worse is because of the danger of someday if we keep allowing more and more of our freedoms to be chipped away; our religious freedoms might be in jeopardy and that is something that I do not want.

I don't want that either, but it is a huge leap from asking for membership records and eliminating our religious freedoms. I'm not arguing that there is no possible reason for your concern over the Bush campaign's request, but you have characterized it as the worse sort of invasion of privacy, and that characterization just doesn't hold water (Aside from the fact that a request is not an invasion.)

Quote:

Well, this is a matter of opinion and you're entitled to yours. I trust you're not someone who thinks Bush is a religious zealot?

I don't really know if Bush is sincere in his statements of faith or not. In either case I do think that he uses religion for political purposes which I do consider to be crass and cheap.