Originally Posted By mawnck >>There is a point, however, where an emphasis on religion in a political campaign becomes inappropriate and even unsettling in a religiously diverse society such as ours. Appealing to voters along religious lines is divisive. It is contrary to the American ideal of including all Americans in the political process, regardless of whether they are members of large and powerful religious groups, religious minorities, or subscribe to no faith tradition. Voters should be encouraged to make their decisions based upon their assessment of the qualifications, integrity, and political positions of candidates. A candidate’s religious beliefs – or lack thereof – should never be used by voters, nor suggested by political candidates, as a test for public office or as a shorthand summary of a candidate’s qualifications.<< >>The Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, president of Interfaith Alliance, said he has been "deeply disturbed by the disproportionate role religion has played during recent election cycles with some candidates seeming to be running for ‘pastor-in-chief’" and that "a line is crossed when a candidate implies that they should receive your vote because of their faith."<< >>"Religion in Political Campaigns -- An Interfaith Statement of Principles" was signed by: the American Islamic Congress; American Jewish Committee; Anti-Defamation League; Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty; Interfaith Alliance; Islamic Society of North America; Hindu American Foundation; Muslim Advocates; National Council of Churches USA; Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund; Sikh Coalition; Union for Reform Judaism; The United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society; and the United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries.<< Article: <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/21/religion-politics_n_1291624.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...624.html</a> Statement: <a href="http://www.bjconline.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4904&Itemid=112" target="_blank">http://www.bjconline.org/index...emid=112</a> Those who wish moderate Christians and other religious leaders would speak up - Well, they are. But nobody covers it.
Originally Posted By ecdc So I go Google this, determined to prove mawnck wrong and show that this has been covered far and wide. Yeah...not so much. Fourteen places, including HuffPo (which was by far the biggest) covered this. No Fox. No MSNBC. iPad 3 generated 350 stories, Whitney Houston 1755. Our media sucks. Great statement, BTW. Really fantastic.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The media bias, as we all know, is towards controversy. "Let's all calm down and respect each other" - bleh. How reasonable and bland and unlikely to get guests to yell at each other. "Pastor says Obama trampling religious liberty" - now we're talking!
Originally Posted By mele I think they realize that it is having a negative impact on organized religions. Not saying that they are selfishly motivated, just that...well, they're not idiots. The more religion is used to harm people, the less people are drawn to religion.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I think they realize that it is having a negative impact on organized religions. Not saying that they are selfishly motivated, just that...well, they're not idiots. The more religion is used to harm people, the less people are drawn to religion.<< This.
Originally Posted By Donny I want to know where a candidate stands on defending the rights of churches and people of faith and if they have a history of doing so.If I see someone who looks to thumb down religious organizations then I want to know that as well.
Originally Posted By mawnck Side note: I just realized ... in my attempt to make a headline that would fit the character limit, I managed to declare all the groups involved in this, including the Islamic, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, etc. groups, as Christians. Mea culpa. However, the NCC-USA does include quite a few mainline Christian denominations: <a href="http://www.ncccusa.org/members/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.ncccusa.org/members...dex.html</a>
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I want to know where a candidate stands on defending the rights of churches and people of faith and if they have a history of doing so.<< Except you are starting with an entirely false assumption, all too common among people of faith in this country: That religion "needs defending" because it's somehow under the assault of secular meanie pants. To quote Jon Stewart: You are confusing war on religion with not getting everything you want. I got news for you: if a court rules that school prayer is unconstitutional, your rights haven't been violated in any way, shape, or form. You can pray to your little heart's content in your home or your church. Or your car, tool shed, front lawn, or panic room.
Originally Posted By dshyates Kids can even pray in school. And you still see tons of kids praying around final exam time.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Kids can even pray in school. And you still see tons of kids praying around final exam time.<< I once saw a bumper sticker that said "As long as there are exams there will be prayer at school."
Originally Posted By ecdc "In a rather curious and confused way, some white people are starting almost to think like a minority, even like a persecuted one. What does it take to believe that Christianity is an endangered religion in America or that the name of Jesus is insufficiently spoken or appreciated?" --Christopher Hitchens
Originally Posted By Donny ecdc "Except you are starting with an entirely false assumption" Not true. when a union wich is a 501c can donate to a specific candidate and even run phone banks and tell it's union members to vote for a specific candidate,now take a church(also a 501c) can't or it will lose it's 501c status I think thats attack one. Now tell chcurches that if you run an non profit organization that helps people it has to provide a service that contridicts its values that would be attack 2
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>now take a church(also a 501c) can't or it will lose it's 501c status I think thats attack one<< See: Constitution, U.S.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder It's exactly true Donny, but well, there's something causing you not to understand.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Guys, you have to spell it out clearly, OK? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501%28c%29_organization" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5...nization</a> <> 501c(3) -- Religious, Educational, Charitable, Scientific, Literary, Testing for Public Safety, to Foster National or International Amateur Sports Competition, or Prevention of Cruelty to Children or Animals Organizations 501c(5) -- Labor, Agricultural, and Horticultural Organizations 501c(3): Political activity Section 501(c)(3) organizations are subject to limits or absolute prohibitions on engaging in political activities and risk loss of status as tax exempt status if violated.[26] [edit] Elections Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are prohibited from conducting political campaign activities to intervene in elections to public office.[27] The Internal Revenue Service website elaborates upon this prohibition as follows: Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner. On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention. The Internal Revenue Service provides resources to exempt organizations and the public to help them understand the prohibition. As part of its examination program, the IRS also monitors whether organizations are complying with the prohibition. Lobbying In contrast to the absolute prohibition on political campaign interventions by all section 501(c)(3) organizations, public charities (but not private foundations) may conduct a limited amount of lobbying to influence legislation. Although the law states that "No substantial part..." of a public charity's activities can go to lobbying, charities with large budgets may lawfully expend a million dollars (under the "expenditure" test), or more (under the "substantial part" test) per year on lobbying.[28] To clarify the standard of the "substantial part" test, Congress enacted §501 (h) (called the Conable election after its author Representative Barber Conable). The section establishes limits based on operating budget that a charity can use to determine if it meets the substantial test. This changes the prohibition against direct intervention in partisan contests only for lobbying. The organization is now presumed in compliance with the substantiality test if they work within the limits. The Conable Election requires a charity to file a declaration with the IRS and file a functional distribution of funds spreadsheet with their Form 990. IRS form 5768[29] is required to make the Conable election. <> The 501c(5) organizations which includes labor unions are not prohibited from participating politically, as are the 501c(3) organizations. If they were prohibited as are churches, then they'd be classified as 501c(3).
Originally Posted By mele It's unfortunate that the government doesn't seem willing to challenge churches for their participation in political activity.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Agreed, mele. It's spelled out in the IRS code, plain as day. But the churches violate these rules ALL THE TIME! And I'm sick of it.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost I still hang on to the idea that people have a free will clause built into their DNA. If an organization could penetrate my skull far enough to convince me that their stand is correct, I might support it, however, when I get in the voting booth, I am free to vote whatever way I please. I know a lot of people are like cattle and are lead into things. I'm still banking on the idea that those numbers are not big enough to make a difference.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<I know a lot of people are like cattle and are lead into things. I'm still banking on the idea that those numbers are not big enough to make a difference.>> If Rick Santorum becomes the Republican nominee, you should seriously consider changing this presumption.
