posted
This is a bold and - to me, anyway - disturbing move by the Bush campaign. And it's not just agnostic lefties that are concerned about it, either.
Maybe they're really worried the Dems are actually going to get their voters turned out in higher than average numbers.
quote:Bush Seeks to Mobilize Religious Conservatives
By David Morgan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - 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 obtained by Reuters 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. ***** 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 told Reuters in an interview, 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.
posted
Well I looked at the article and the only quote from anyone even vaguely associated with Bush is:
quote: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
Which isn't exactly the same as what the Reuters reporter is saying. Not that I neccessarily think that he's exagerating, but the fact that there's no actual direct quotes or detailed descriptions, just brief summarys by the reporter makes me suspicious. I would much rather see the document, or parts of the document before I judge Bush guilty of this type of thing.
However, should he be guilty, then I second Kat's reaction.
posted
Insulating Bush from responsibility for what his campaign does is failing to hold him to the same scrutiny we did for Gore's campaign blunders.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pooka, what I'm worried about isn't if it was Bush or his Campaign that did this, if the "this" that we're told that they did is really what we're told it is. In other words, did Bush insist on Church's giving him their member list with phone numbers and adresses? That's the basic summary that the reporter gives us, but he has little evidence to back it up. If the campaign did this, I agree, I don't care if it was his campaign or Bush himself, it was wrong and it was Bush's fault.
posted
Here's another article on it from the Seattle Times
This one includes the quote from the publication:
quote: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."
By Aug. 15, they are to "talk to your Church's seniors or 20-30 something group about Bush/Cheney '04" and "recruit 5 more people in your church to volunteer for the Bush Cheney campaign."
By Sept. 17, they are to host at least two campaign-related potluck dinners with church members, and in October they are to "finish calling all Pro-Bush members of your church," "finish distributing Voter Guides in your church" and place notices on church bulletin boards or in Sunday programs "about all Christian citizens needing to vote."
The document was provided to The Washington Post by a Democrat. A spokesman for the Internal Revenue Service, Frank Keith, said, "It would be inappropriate for the IRS, based on a limited set of facts and circumstances, to render a judgment about whether the activities in this document would or would not endanger a church's tax-exempt status."
He pointed out, however, that the IRS on June 10 sent a strongly worded letter to the Republican and Democratic national committees, reminding them that tax-exempt charitable groups "are prohibited from directly or indirectly participating or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office."
That warning came one week after The Post and other media reported on a Bush-Cheney campaign e-mail that sought to identify 1,600 "friendly congregations" in Pennsylvania where Bush supporters "might gather on a regular basis."
Just wanted to point out that the article mentions the efforts of the Clinton campaign in targeting black churches. But they don't specify what that "targeting" entailed.
The item about sending the directory to the campaign HQ is the only troublesome item, IMO - albeit a big one. Asking active church members to use their church involvement in political organizing is standard political operating procedure. Ditto with the asking people to vote and the voter guides (as long as they're issue-oriented and don't endorse a specific candidate).
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't really see the big deal...it is common practice to use churches for campaigning. I know Clinton and Gore did it in the last election. The only time I have a problem with it is if they have a collection of money at the church for the election...that is a huge no no.
As for the directory, at the churches I have been a part of, the directory was not a secret. Anyone could get one. If you don't want to be listed in the church directory you don't have to be (same as with a normal phone book). While it is really supposed to be used for church members to be able to get a hold of each other...it is not surprising that a politician would want to contact members.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What lupus said. It's not like they told the churches "hand over your tithing and attendance records..."
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Still, in the current atmosphere of spammers and junk mail, I really wouldn't want my name sent to any political oganization so I could be targeted and wooed. I throw away any political pamphlette I get in the mail, unread, even if I like the candidate, because I know that the useful and accurate content of that pamphlette is likely to be nil.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Our church membership lists are stricly reserved for church business only - there's a huge disclaimer across the top of all of them to not use them as address lists for anything else. I think it's a real betrayal of trust to turn over the names and addresses to a political machine. I don't like it when my bank does it either.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
There is a fear, hyped by many politicians and many church leaders, that liberals are out to kill Christianity and Secularize everything. It is upon this fear that they are asking for church participation.
There is a counter fear that some politician in church robes is trying to become the first Protestant Pope and force everyone to convert or become second class citizens. Here can be seen have proof of the politicians attempting to gather such crusading forces.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find this incredibly inappropriate, and would find it so no matter which candidate's campaign was doing it. Use of a church membership list should be limited strictly to congregation business. Political campaigns are not...I repeat, NOT...congregation business. If these campaigns want to contact registered voters, voter registration records are a matter of public record and can be accessed. If they want to contact and sign up new voters, they should go set up a card table outside the local grocery store and try to drum up support.
I never believe anything I read in campaign literature sent to me anyway, so they might as well save their stamps.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In our congregations (I'm in the same church as kat, last I checked) we are always encouraged to participate in the political process on whichever side we choose.
And even if there were some culture war, that would not override the general principle that lists not be used for outside stuff. I don't doubt that some d'oh head will send in their lists, and we won't ever know since politicians exempted themselves from the Do not call thing (if that's even law at this point, I haven't been following it).
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ya know, I don't know just what I would do if I found out that our Bishop was turning over my name and number to the Bush campaign. I'd be extremely pissed about it, and likely, I'd never go back to that church again (and I'd ensure that my personal information was removed from their possession).
I don't think that this is in any way appropriate for any political group to try to use. If nothing else, alot of people would believe what their pastor said, and a significant number would probably vote for the person that a pastor endorsed over and over again in front of the congregation.
Thinking about it a bit more, I think that this could be what people worried about when people were looking at electing a Catholic president in the 60's.
posted
Well, Mormons shouldn't have much to worry about. If our current president holds the kind of beliefs I'm almost 90% sure of, he doesn't consider you christians anyways. So don't expect to get a call from the Republican party any time soon.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've already received a voicemail on my cell phone from Bush & Co reminding me to register to vote. I did, but they won't like who I vote for.
I could care less if Bush thinks I'm a Christian or heathen. I would love to slam my door in his face if he "tried to save me" or whatever trype he thinks it would take to "save me", but that'll prolly never happen.
Thankfully, it seems that the LDS church has managed to isolate itself from the political arena (at least from what I can tell in AZ). Yay for moderation then!
quote:The item about sending the directory to the campaign HQ is the only troublesome item, IMO - albeit a big one.
I agree. Targeting churches just makes good sense from his perspective. Asking people to turn over phone lists is a violation of privacy. (Or a solicitation to violate privacy).
posted
I think that it would be a good idea to target churches for a general rock the vote type of idea, but it should be done by a 3rd party (even if the feds wanted each state to have their election people manage it or whatever).
I have problems with what the Seattle Times shows. In case you missed it, here's what the article had:
quote: 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."
By Aug. 15, they are to "talk to your Church's seniors or 20-30 something group about Bush/Cheney '04" and "recruit 5 more people in your church to volunteer for the Bush Cheney campaign."
By Sept. 17, they are to host at least two campaign-related potluck dinners with church members, and in October they are to "finish calling all Pro-Bush members of your church," "finish distributing Voter Guides in your church" and place notices on church bulletin boards or in Sunday programs "about all Christian citizens needing to vote."
Note how there's no mention of any specific "duties" for Democrats in church, nor how there's a move to call all Pro-Kerry (or even Pro-Democrat) either.
I think that if a church follows the guidelines that the Bush campaign has put out, they should lose their tax exempt status (since a church has to remain politically neutral as part of their conditions for tax free status).
Posts: 851 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apparently quite a few of the churches agree, and good for them.
"It's one thing for a church member motivated by exhortations to exercise his Christian citizenship to go out and decide to work on the Bush campaign or the Kerry campaign. It's another and totally inappropriate thing for a political campaign to ask workers who may be church members to provide church member information through the use of directories to solicit partisan support." Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.
quote:Note how there's no mention of any specific "duties" for Democrats in church, nor how there's a move to call all Pro-Kerry (or even Pro-Democrat) either.
I think that if a church follows the guidelines that the Bush campaign has put out, they should lose their tax exempt status (since a church has to remain politically neutral as part of their conditions for tax free status).
slacker, I might agree if this was to churches. It's to church members, who have every right to campaign for a political candidate of their choice, and to do so to members of their church. The church is one of most church-goers' main social community. That's the absolute essence of free speech.
The church has to be "neutral" in the sense that they can't campaign for a particular candidate. The church membership does not. The church itself can give their stances on issues, and tell how individual candidates agree or disagree with that stance.
Why would the Bush campaign tell people what to do to help Kerry beat him? That makes no sense at all.
The only thing inappropriate is asking for the directory.
Dagonee Edit: And if the Churches do everything on that list, it shouldn't threaten their tax-status. Even handing over the list is well within the Church's legal rights, although I would consider it unethical.
posted
boy, slacker, I'd be careful what I ask for:
quote:I'd never go back to that church again (and I'd ensure that my personal information was removed from their possession).
Asking to have your personal information removed'll get you a nice letter stating that your baptism is invalid and your name and personal information will be permanently removed from the lists.
Dag, I agree that church members are also citizens and should participate in citizenly activities. The church directories and one-sided talks with church leaders and pro-Bush rallies/dinners are unacceptable.
I expect my Pastors to talk to the congregation about local, national and global issues, but I do NOT expect them to endorse, push or even gently suggest which candidate to vote for by word or implication. (Shudders)
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I bet Bush failed every test in school on seperation between church and state. Then again, he failed a lot of tests in school...
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: And if the Churches do everything on that list, it shouldn't threaten their tax-status. Even handing over the list is well within the Church's legal rights, although I would consider it unethical.
How is handing over a list containing private member information (many people do have unlisted phone numbers, you know) to anyone "within the Church's legal rights"? Just because I give the church my address and phone number does not mean that I am giving them permission to hand it out to anyone who asks for it. If churches are not bound by confidentiality rules, there is something mighty wrong going on.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unless when you handed it over to the church they signed something saying they wouldn't give it out, the Church has no legal obligation to keep the information secret. There are no "confidentiality rules" with regard to names, addresses, and phone numbers - how do you think you end up on telemarketers' and junk-mailers' lists? Even if the Church did hand it over in violation of the law, it would not be a matter that threatened their tax exemption. You might be able to sue for damages if there was a breach of contract or some other violation.
Now, it's mighty unethical for the Church to hand over those lists, and I would take it up with the Church leadership in the most stringent tones. But it's not illegal.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
W ![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
Spanks W
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
