Presidential campaign reaches out to religious community

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**biccat**

From the Washington Examiner:

Attorney General Eric Holder, the IRS, and the liberal lawyers at the ACLU will brief several hundred pastors in the African American community on how to participate in the presidential election -- which the Congressional Black Caucus chair expects will help President Obama's campaign.

"We will have representatives from nine denominations who actually pastor somewhere in the neighborhood of about 10 million people, and we're going to first of all equip them with the information they need to know about what they can say and what they cannot say in the church that would violate their 501c3 status with the IRS," Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., told MSNBC today.

"In fact, we're going to have the IRS administrator there, we're going to have the Attorney General Eric Holder there, we're going to have the lawyers' organization from around the country, the ACLU -- all giving ministers guidance about what they can and cannot do," he noted.

Cleaver said they would not tell pastors which candidate to support. They will let them know who to regard as the bad guys, though (hint: not Democrats). "We're going to talk about some of the draconian laws that have cropped up around the country as a result of the 17 percent increase in African American votes," Cleaver said, describing voter ID laws as a form of Jim Crow-style "poll tax" on seniors and black voters.

The CBC chairman is confident that "President Obama is going to get 95 percent of the [African American] vote," and wants to keep that turnout high. "We want to let them know that there is a theological responsibility to participate in the political process, at least in the Judeo-Christian tradition," he said.

...I suppose some might classify the Washington Examiner as left-of-center.

**daedalus**

biccat wrote:
"We want to let them know that there is a theological responsibility to participate in the political process, at least in the Judeo-Christian tradition," he said.

**LoneLictor**

Reporting the truth makes you liberally biased, so I agree with you Biccat.

**juraigamer**

The world is round,
The world is round,
The world is round,
The world is round,
The world is round,
The world is flat... DAMMIT

Anyway, I heard something about the separation of church and state in history, and it's still sorta separate, but both sides of the isle would do the same thing. I just see finger pointing.

**AustonT**

Will the Attorney General be present at a meeting of conservative churches to assist them in his official capacity?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

LoneLictor wrote:Reporting the truth makes you liberally biased, so I agree with you Biccat.

I think perhaps he was taking a swipe at Kid Kyoto referring to the Post as right of center. The Examiner is a well known conservative paper.
Or as the all knowing wiki claims:
"When Anschutz started the Examiner in its current format, he envisioned creating a conservative competitor to The Washington Post."
Good on you for coming to their aid.

**Ouze**

I find parts of this to be OK, and parts of it not to be. I think the Justice department (and the IRS... maybe only the IRS?) should hold public workshops accessible to all to advise any interested churches and religious organizations to alert them to the limits of what they can or cannot say if they wish to continue being tax exempt organizations. Unfortunately our tax code is very complicated; and being a religious leader generally does not and should not require also being an expert in the ever-changing vagaries of tax-exempt status. So, it's the right thing to do.

The fact they are targeting what they perceive as their political base to do so with is substantially less OK. Determining "theological responsibilities" are not within the purview of the Justice department.

Attorney General Eric Holder, the IRS, and the liberal lawyers at the ACLU

As opposed to the conservative ones, I suppose.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:Will the Attorney General be present at a meeting of conservative churches to assist them in his official capacity?

If he does, let me supply the headline on FNC et al:

OBAMA THREATENS CONSERVATIVE CHURCHES WITH JAIL, FINES FOR FREE SPEECH

**sebster**

biccat considers this news, and that is weird. Very weird. I mean, Kerry got beat in 2004, and Democrats noticed they were polling badly among those who idenitied as 'religious', and really badly among those who identified as 'deeply religious'. So they started looking to change that, and then Obama ran in 2008 and gave a whole load of speaches how it was unfair for secular people to insist the religious leave their faith behind when they enter the public sphere.

Four years later and biccat is sitting there reading his paper and is so shocked that Obama is doing the same stuff he did four years ago that his monocle pops out.

I mean, seriously, you post political stuff at least as often as I do, and yet it seems like you're almost completely oblivious to anything outside of the partisan article you just finished reading.

**biccat**

sebster wrote:Four years later and biccat is sitting there reading his paper and is so shocked that Obama is doing the same stuff he did four years ago that his monocle pops out.

Sebster, you don't get it and you probably will never get it. Which is why I stopped responding to you.

It's possible that you do get it but are posting deliberately ignorant flamebait, but I'm not going to assume the worst.

Ouze wrote:I find parts of this to be OK, and parts of it not to be. I think the Justice department (and the IRS... maybe only the IRS?) should hold public workshops accessible to all to advise any interested churches and religious organizations to alert them to the limits of what they can or cannot say if they wish to continue being tax exempt organizations. Unfortunately our tax code is very complicated; and being a religious leader generally does not and should not require also being an expert in the ever-changing vagaries of tax-exempt status. So, it's the right thing to do.

It's the right thing to do if it's available to everyone. If all churches were invited to attend and there was a cross-political outreach to other churches, it wouldn't be a story. But the Democrats (and I think this is wise) don't want churches in more conservative areas to make political statements. They are OK with them making political statements in black churches because increasing turnout is likely to increase Democrat votes.

There is a glaring double standard (in the media, not the law) between progressives and conservative churches. Most Republican politicians would never speak from a pulpet during service, or call for "congregation captains" to support their campaigns. They would likely see this as a violation of the 501(c)(3) restrictions on political activity. When Bush refers to God in a speech, the media (and liberals, but I repeat myself) are all over how this is a glaring example of a creeping theocracy. But when Obama references Jesus more than Bush, nary a peep is heard (except how it reinforces the fact that Obama isn't a Muslim).

Ouze wrote:If he does, let me supply the headline on FNC et al:

OBAMA THREATENS CONSERVATIVE CHURCHES WITH JAIL, FINES FOR FREE SPEECH

I really think the 501(c)(3) restrictions are in violation of the 1st amendment. Political speech should be free and religious institutions should not be silenced.

**Ouze**

Well, I agree churches shouldn't have any restrictions on their political speech, because I also think churches shouldn't enjoy tax-exempt status.

**Frazzled**

Ouze wrote:IJAIL, FINES FOR FREE SPEECH

**Melissia**

sebster wrote:I mean, seriously, you post political stuff at least as often as I do, and yet it seems like you're almost completely oblivious to anything outside of the partisan article you just finished reading.

Short memories, I presume.

I never doubted that Obama is religious, and a Christian. But then again, I'm not the one that was arguing that Birthers might have been right.