Religious conservatives’ setbacks in Kansas last year thread through a Rolling Stone piece headlined “Evangelicals in exile.” Look at Kansas and elsewhere, author Robert Dreyfuss suggests, and it looks like the Christian right is on the ropes.
But Democratic strategist James Carville counsels against counting out conservative Christians. “The reports of their demise have been greatly exaggerated. If anybody thinks that they’re not going to exert influence in the Republican nominating process in 2008, they’re nuts.”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Daniel on Open thread 11/22
132 Comments
One thing that they do very effectively is organize and vote. That gives them disproportionate influence relative to their numbers. Other groups need to learn a lesson from them.
Well, for once, I totally agree with mr. dlc.
Counting out the wingnuts and religious wackos would be a big mistake.
As cindy duckett so eloquently noted, they get their political marching orders from the pulpit every Sunday.
And they have big money. Like the catholic church, through the kofc, was the LARGEST funder of the hate amendment in ks. To the tune of over $100,000.
Looks like the fundies dont like catholics unless the catholics bring their checkbook….
Nice separation there of church and state. But, funny thing, I dont see anyone investigating any 501(c)3 status reports.
The religious nut jobs in ks and elsewhere are far from being done. Like vampires, it will take a wooden stake to keep them from imposing their taliban like agenda on us non-believers.
…and where is values boy today?
Carville is correct in his assessment. That’s why Giuliani has problems, IMHO.
Ben, you are also correct as to the how; conterorganizing, etc., is necessary to break up their influence, as well as to build opposing viewpoints, regardless of the party involved.
I considered Kline to be the quintessential religious-right candidate. He got defeated soundly. He won with women, sedgwick county, and republican voters. He started 3 percentage points behind Kline in Sept. But prevailed with a margin of 16 percentage points, IIRC.
What was in Morrison’s message that was effective? There were really only two parts of the message than I recall:1) Kline is incompetent, a politician and not a real lawyer;2) Kline is an extremist who wants to get into your private medical records (the message failed to point out that it was abortion clinic records he was after).
Were these or other messages effective in defeating Kline, or was it that Kline was so confident that he would win, that he never really tried to counter these points? [I heard Morrison speak and he contends that it was not until the last debate, that losing ever even occurred to Kline].
I believe there is useful focus group data in Sedgwick county on how to beat religious right candidates.
Send me a few thousand dollars and I will see if I can extract it for you, Howard Dean.
They have a real problem on the horizon though. They can’t, in good faith, endorse anyone but Brownjerk. Brownjerk hasn’t a snowball’s chance in Hell. Brownjerk can’t, in good faith, endorse any of his sinful opponents. Don’t count them out, true, but as far as 2008 is concerned, I think you’ll find them “wandering in the desert, waiting on the rupture”. (Pun intended).
My hope is that they will do what the ‘purists’ on the left did on 2000 – sit out or vote 3rd-party.
I certainly would not count on the Christian extremists being quite during the upcoming elections. As we have seen from the intelligent design, gay rights, and abortion debates those people cannot not be loudmouths trying to enforce their views on the rest of the country
I certainly would not count on the Christian extremists being quite during the upcoming elections. As we have seen from the intelligent design, gay rights, and abortion debates those people cannot not be loudmouths trying to enforce their views on the rest of the country
I know there are people of sincere faith who are not simplistic, biblical-literalist drones. But that’s the way to bet.
Dobson and Falwell and Robertson, et al, count on their flocks’ desire for “enlightenment” from on high. Like the Limbaugh-tomized Masses, they seek someone out to “think so you don’t have to.”
Despite forums such as WE Blog, the vast majority of people are not political junkies. Research has shown that 79% of *all* contested elections are won or lost by the votes of those 20-30% of voters who make their decision in the last 48 hours of a campaign.
For those of us who care about politics, the 2008 presidential election is underway full-steam. But the margin of victory won’t be determined until after the first Sunday in November, 2008; when those political non-junkies who nevertheless vote finally pay attention.
These are the people who will be swayed by attack ads the weekend before the election that will say, “Candidate X voted *FOR* pornography in the classroom!” Or, “Candidate X advocates sexual activity for eleven-year-olds *PROVIDED* they get the HPV vaccine!”
You really can’t blame those margin-of-victory voters. Politics is frustrating when approached on a day-to-day basis. But without context — and every political campaign is an exercise in taking things out of context — emotion trumps logic. And there’s nothing more emotional than religious furvor.
Stem Cells are not “babies.” Condoms in schools do not appreciably contribute to the desire of teenaged boys to boink teenaged girls. “Just say no” works all the way up to “Yes! Yes!! *YES*!!!”
“Candidate X voted to encourage that grungy long-haired boy who smokes to boink your 12-year-old daughter in the backseat of his daddy’s Buick!” The lie only has to work up to the First Tuesday after the First Monday of even-numbered years.
“Christians” are masters of the art. They renew the lie every Sunday morning.
A tidbit from the current convention in DC which I felt appropos;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melinda-henneberger/conservative-bushbashing_b_42385.html
Not to mention a related story about Senator McCain “dissing” them, as he is the only candidate (announced or otherwise) for president who won’t speak.
You libertards are so full of it it is a laugh.If Democraps are so much more superior how about discussing some real issues then?It is always a Democraps that will fire the first shot on gay marriage and abortion across a conservative candidates bow rather than discussing more important issues such as defense, taxes, the economy, education, social security…..it is becausee they know their stance on the economic issues are so far off the mainstream, the social issues is only place they have a chance to gain votes.So much for taking the high road. Libertards.
“So much for taking the high road.”
Kia, you wouldn’t know what a high road was.
“It is always a Democraps that will fire the first shot on gay marriage and abortion across a conservative candidates bow”
That would be really funny if it were not so delusional and sad. Especially given that kkkarl rove used both of those issues to rally the base…
Jeez, Mr. KIA, you certainly full of crap this afternoon.
But, I’ll bite on your argument.
Tell me how you plan on paying off the National Debt that now totals nearly $9 Trillion. Even by the most opptomistic Bush calculations, the budget will not be balance until 2012, at which time the debt will be nearly $11 Trillion.
So, this liberal wants to address economic issues – how do you plan on addressing the debt.
BTW – Don’t give me the “liberal tax and spend” routine. Of the estimated $10 trillion debt that Bush will leave us with, nearly $9 trillion has been generated under Republican Administrations.
Such imaginaive verbiage Mr. Kia! Are you sure it is a gated community you live in and not a state facility?
Count OUT the rapture right? I’m counting ON them.
SOME of them are realizing that the GOP is not a party that respects their Gods creation. They are holding their noses and voting for environmental stewardship.
The rest? I need them to field the candidate more moderate folks just cannot vote for.
Nice conclusion JR. I am not one of the 7,000,000 that live in a gated community.
I felt the verbage goes well with many of the others I’ve seen on here such as kkkarl rove, RepubliCON, reichwingers…..I guess the high road is a one way street as far as libertards are concerned.
Mr Kia
Not OUR fault your side is filled with socially retarded miscreants. Heal thyself.
Still waiting to “debate” those economic issues, KIA..
I think that the followers of Dobson, Falwell and Robertson peddle more than just they will tell their followerw what to think. I feel these so-called religious leaders’ followers like the fact that they belong to a ’special club’ or they are ‘holier than that person over there’. It has nothing to do with God or religion. It is purely a social status thing. Much like living in a gated community of 7,000,000.
WS, that onus is on you now my friends as the one in control of Congress. Those 100 hours up yet?
As far as 99% of the comments on the evangelicals I would question if any of you ever set foot in a church or if you had were deaf at the time.But I will continue to pray for the souls of the lost.
“WS, that onus is on you now my friends as the one in control of Congress. Those 100 hours up yet?”
So the Republicans ring up the tab and now it is up to the Democrats to pay the bill?
Just like the situation in Iraq? The Republicans screw the pooch and the Democrats have to take care of the puppies?
You are a hypocrite of the worst order, Mr. KIA. Go sit on the bench with Fleet, GSher and Golf Nut.
Is this the Democrap platform?Sit in power and blame everything on the Republicans?”Well it’s so screwed up we can’t do anything now – so we’ll just sit here and do nothing.”Nice CHANGE.Now if you will excuse me, I must get back to work off my union regulated lunch hour.
Can you really expect Democrats first 100 hours to fix everything Bush and Company has ruined in the last 6 years? And don’t worry about praying for the rest of us Kia, you might want to concentrate on yourself. Doesn’t the Bible teach to not judge, lest you be judged?
I’m not even a Christian -but even I can see that those who oppose Christians do so for the VERY reason they, themselves, want to be excused.
They don’t want Christians dictating their morals – yet those who oppose Christians often want to legislate their OWN morality (welfare, nanny state, gift economy) and force the rest of us to live under it.
I don’t think the Democrats were expected to ‘fix’ everything – but I certainly think they could quit wasting taxpayer monies by debating non-binding resolutions.
Why not grow some balls and pass real BINDING resolutions? It’s like they’re busy playing house.
I can’t believe anyone would think the Democrats could run the country when they can’t even pass binding resoultions.
It’s all for show.
I think that’s sad.
I was just pointing out that I believe the only thing that has been done during the first 100 hours was a non-binding resolution in a Congress that celebrated a mandate for change. Can you honestly say you wouldn’t have expected more (at least ideas) at this point?
You are absolutely right Lucee on the Christ teaching of being judgemental. I do my best to live that daily. My statement to pray for the souls of the lost has nothing to do with judgement. It has to do with the belief that absolutely zero social ills of our nation will be cured without a spiritual awakening in this country.To cast a vote based on a blanket ban on abortion or gay marriage or to believe such would end these things is to live in a Fantasyland.So that being said, I will continue to pray for you and the souls of the lost.
Wait, KIA, I thought you wanted to debate economic policy!!!!! So I’ll come up with a plan to address the $1 trillion dollar debt generated under Democratic administrations and you give me an answer for the other $8 or $9 trillion.
For my part, eliminate the tax cuts for the top 1% of the population.
What about your part?
Well, I can see Golden Shower is off pissing into the wind again — need some tp GS?
Ken – what, specifically, did I say that you take exception to?
Damn near everything. I find it surprising that you (or any woman) could support a group or administration that wants to take away your right to choose — and leave you to answer any questions your god might have about your choices.
How arrogant of you to assume my soul is lost, Mr. Kia. How did you come to that conclusion? Just because I dared to question your logic?
That is what I find wrong with the fundamental Christian movement. These people assume that they, and only they, are the righteous ones and the only ones going to Heaven. Was Jesus this judgemental when he was walking on Earth?
Save your prayers for yourself Mr. Kia. My soul is in good hands with my God. You see, I am a Christian but I just don’t believe in beating people over the head with the Bible and then wonder why they don’t listen to me.
Those social ills that Mr Kia was talking about needing to be cured in this country, would that include the corruption of the K-Street Gang, the Foley scandal, the congressmen with their mistresses, Jack Abramhoff and various other incidents of the Republicans making? Why just pick on the Democrats?
As for the first 100 hours of the Democrats majority rule, I say the first thing Pelosi did was a good thing. She made it a 40hr, Monday-Friday work week for the House members. I recall the Republicans whining the most about this. Why? Was it cutting into their time on K-Street?
The majority of voters booted out the Republicans in the last election. Rather than blaming all Democrats for it, the Republicans had better step back and take a good long look in the mirror and ask some hard questions about themselves and George W. Bush’s failed policies, both foreign and domestic.
Gonna hop in the mud with us are you Kia? I thought you were too nice to do that.
I DO want my democrats to do more than they are. But I also want it to be thought out and not a knee-jerk reaction that will only serve to do us more harm. And that can happen. At least we think it through and don’t just shout “god said and therefore we must pass a law”
Sure Dems COULD just start going far left and start doing this and that, but then wouldn’t we be stuck in the same spot as the Republicons are right now?
There is a lot to be undone. We’ll get there.
Ken – I don’t support the religious right – I’m pro choice. I’m just pointing out how their tactics work. I don’t even believe Jesus existed – so don’t lump me in with them. But, if everyone would step back, they would see that the RR has a method to their madness – and it works. That’s what I’m trying to illustrate. They believe as strongly as does the Left, in their agenda – the only difference is in how they go about getting results.
If the Democrats could find some cohesion in their methodology, perhaps they, too could push an agenda through. But there MUST be conviction – passing non-binding resolutions is superficial. No depth.
The religious right has an astronomical amount of persuasion, since they can lobby in their own houses of worship. Religion is more than a belief – it encompasses an entire lifestyle.
Kia and GS I think what the demos do is underestimate severely the base of the conservative GOPs. There are extremist on both sides but the moderates on the right outweigh the moderates on the left. Our moderate candidate Rudy is beating every candidate in polling on both tickets.
I am pro-life but that is my social belief. I am conservative in how I want the government to be ran. Lower taxes, tougher on crime, fiscal responsibility, less government – that is what a Rudy offers. He is indeed a candidate with a record and it speaks well for him. What demos don’t realize is that before we will roll over and let an ultra-liberal candidate like Hillary win, we will embrace the candidate we mostly agree with and vote them into office.
If the election was held today I would vote Rudy as well.
Social issues have no place in the federal government as far as I am concerned. I am for state by state laws on abortion, gay marriage, death penalty, religion (such as prayer in schools), even universal health coverage. I can not think of much I’d want to have the Federal Government involved with other than defense. Socialy security I suppose we are in too deep now to do anything different. I would go so far as eliminating the Judicial branch of the Federal Government. I suppose I would place my views much more towards a Libertarian than Republican. But Libertarians don’t have a prayer to win an election.
The ill of society have no bias either sunny.
Mr Kia this I think is what will win the election. THe last election was a wake up call that to do nothing puts a segment of the government in power that does not have the long term well being of the nation as their top priority.
ksgrm – all good points. The moderate right is a force to be reckoned with.
You are (in my opinion) dead on in your assessment that the moderate GOP will vote in a weaker conservative – rather than risk a liberal.
I think we will see a GOP’er in the Oval Office in ‘08. but I think that person has yet to announce his/her candidacy.
I think we have more base American support than the vocal part of the Left is saying.
Can they inspire the numbers to get out and vote?
A “moderate right” candidate could do very well, especially if the Dems put up a “purist.” In fact, that is what Bush advertised as back in 2000. Part of whay killed Gore was that the left extreme abandoned him – 3% for Nader swung NH and FL (hanging chads notwithstanding). Over the years I have voted and worked for a number of Republicans. One of them was #3 in line for President until the new Congress took over.
hey sunny,
how many full weeks has pelosi had the house in session?
the five day work week?
has happened twice under her leadership.
its knit-pickey – but you brought it up.
hey everyone!!!!
You can discount anything Mr KIA says from here on out. He’s actually claiming that its liberals who use social issues to motivate the base, and that Dems economic priorities are ‘out of the mainstream.’ Wow. That says an awful lot to me about MrKIA….
BLINDED BY POLITICSDOESN’T LIVE IN REALITY
sheesh, what a maroon.
If the religious right leadership is preaching politics from their pulpits, and ENDORSING candidates, then why dont we get together, and petition to get them off of the tax exclusion free ride wagon!!! They are NOT supposed to endorse a candidate… either straight up, OR through the NON endorsement of any other candidate!! I have seen MANY preachers who could be called into question for their openly blatant DISSING of the opposition candidates, while not actually — uhhh — literally — endorsing any name on the ballot!! (Ahem…)
Ben;I agree with you. The so-called religious right gather around each other and plot how to get seats at the governing table. They center on one or two subjects then organize for a big push to make their voices heard. I don’t trust those who spout off their religous beliefs. My father was a minister for 24 years of my life. He was very dubious of those who were vocal about religous beliefs. He always said,”If they are loud about religion hold on to your wallet!!!” I’ve been holding on for a long, long time and will continue to do so!
All this talk of how wonderful the religious right is and Brownback and his wonderful cruisade is about to gag me. I have to say, I am a Catholic, but I guess I could also be called the anti-Christ due to my feelings politically being woefully un-Catholic. These people who are so anti-homosexual marriage, I wonder if they have any lesbian/gay friends who just so happen to be involved with someone? When are people going to wake up and realize that these people are people and they have feelings too. Is that so difficult to understand. As I always say, it is not our place to judge people for how they live their lives. The bible even says that but then again the bible has contradictions all over the place. Don’t get me wrong. I love reading the bible. There are beautiful stories in it, but then dig deeper, there is a lot of incest, rape, hate, war mixed in there. I guess you could say it is for teaching purposes, but I believe I once heard that the bible is one of the most violent books out there. I have to believe that. I took an Old Testament class at Newman. I think there was a war in every chapter within a book. Talk about a lot of blood and guts. You don’t even have to turn on the TV to experience it. So when people get off acting like they live their life by the bible….I cringe. I wish they would just tell me by which book, chapter, & verse. I would be a whole lot less worried.
I’ve attended church on and off my entire life. I’ve attended evangelical churches for nearly 20 years. I have never heard a Pastor mention any candidates from the pulpit or endorse anyone or anything with regards to a political party. This is done 99% of the time among predominantly African American churches with the like of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and guest speakers such as the Clintons on their pulpits.Feel free to start with them in taking away the 501-C-3 status.
Kia you know how they do it, they take the issue of the day and discuss it, saying ‘any candidate that supports this should be beaten by a candidate that believes x, because it’s God’s way”
And yes, there have been many instances of far right who have actually named names. Just like all those religious groups who invited Phill Kline to come ’sermon’ to them, then the church patrons would hold a fundraiser afterwards- off property of course.
If it wasn’t for the Religious Right Democrits would have People fornicating on the Street with drugs in both hands while getting abortions for their twelve year olds! Wait! They already do that!
“I don’t go to church, thank god, these people are scary!”
I shouldn’t have generalized as much with my 99% comment, but my point is that sword more than cuts both ways Mom. Whether it likes of Jesse and Al (”welfare pushing poverty pimps” – JC Watts or your Phil Kline and whatshisname in Topeka.I say if you want churches to show charitable work to earn their tax deductions, the good ones are going to be far greater than they get in donations now and the others can pound sand.
ROSCOE! YOU ARE SO FULL OF SHIT!
It’s the religious right who does that!
You are right Roscoe all to the encouragement of the Republicrap politics, budget cuts.
“I have never heard a Pastor mention any candidates from the pulpit or endorse anyone or anything with regards to a political party.”
Yeah, right, Mr. KIA. They may not DIRECTLY tell you who or what to vote for, but they certainly leave little doubt who or what they WANT you to vote for.
Do you think that the folks at Spirit One have any doubt as to who their pastors want them to vote for?
Do you think that Jerry Falwells flockers have any doubt?
Phred Phelps hate group?
Yeah, they may not draw pictures for you, but there is little doubt as to what they really want.
I don’t see how that is any different than an organization such as Planned Parenthood for example.If you are a member or supporter of an organization you obviously share their values. You don’t need the organiztion to tell you what to do to know what you should do based on your values and beliefs.
Budget cuts legislate Morality!?! hahahahaha!
Mr. KIA, can you get your pet dog Roscoe under control, please?
How can an evangelical Christian vote for Rudy, Mr. Kia? Those social ills that need curing has plagued Rudy also. You do know he has had multiple wives, don’t you? If an evangelical Christian is to vote his faith – then how on earth could you vote a man that had an adulterous affair,divorced his wife and publicly humiliated his wife? How ingood conscience can a serious Evangelical Christian do that?
It is only bad when a Democrat does it, Lucee. You know, it is okay for Republicans to dodge the draft like Cheney, Buchanan, Gingrich, Limbaugh et al., but God forbid that Bill Clinton should game the system.
It is okay for Ghoul-iani to play fast and loose with morality, but God forbid that Clinton should get a little head on the side.
Remember, George W Bush was a WAR HERO – John Kerry was a coward.
Just ask them, the religious right knows the facts.
The thing about Guiliani is his hypocricy. He says no to topless dancers, but is pro-choice. He thinks morality should be legislated like the religious right, but as long as he can screw whoever he wants.
He could be just like Hugh Heffner, if only his politics matched. At least he wouldn’t be a hypocrite.
And how he totally mutilated his wife in public- when it was HIM parading around with his mistress, flaunting her in front of the public while dissing his WIFE who was home with the kids…At least Bill Clinton TRIED to lie about it- if anything to save his family’s image.
No, Guiliani is a number 1 jerk. I cannot believe anyone would even consider voting for him.
That’s my feelings exactly political mom. And what’s more, the people surrounding him were dissing Rudy’s wife also, in my opinion, by even being with him and the mistress.
But I should not be surprised. After all, look at all the ones that was pointing their finger at Bill Clinton and they, themselves, were down the steet checking into the hotel with their own mistresses.
God is the only thing that is going to change the social ills of our country.No man is perfect and we don’t live in a perfect world.If we have a candidate that recognizes this I’d be very excited about that. However, that is entirely too rare.More often than not the vote is for the lesser of two evils.
“God is the only thing that is going to change the social ills of our country.”
Who’s God, Mr. KIA? The Islamic God Allah? The Jewish God Yaweth? The Christian God?
If you had the say in the matter, would you mandate Christianity? Christian “morals?”
Which social ills do you want to change? Homosexuality? Abortion? Intolerance? Hate crimes? Baggy pants?
Where would you draw the line, if the line was your’s to draw?
You can’t draw any line WS it’s not the point. You can not legislate morality. It is a matter of the heart.
However the 10 Commandments and the Gospel of Jesus Christ do not constitute hate speech either.I suppose that is where I draw the line.
“If we have a candidate that recognizes this I’d be very excited about that. However, that is entirely too rare.”
With due respect and all seriousness, what is it that a candidate could/would do that you would want them to do?
Morality cannot be legislated, true enough, so what can a senator, president do to change the tide?
Support of faith based intiatives.Faith based organizations can do more for drug addicts, abused women, children, homeless than any Government burearcy can. Most likely more cost effectively and better long term results.Why?They deal with the matter of the heart and the work is done out of love, not a paycheck.
Bush has pushed the faith-based initiatives and all I’ve seen from the push is more preachers and churches have received taxpayer money with very little to none success in curing those social ills.
Maybe we would be better served if government helped employers to provide steady, living-wage jobs with access to affordable health care. Let’s start placing value on the US children, and not just in lip service. Just because school age children can pass some test does not mean they have learned the material they will need to be successful in their lifetime.
The work is also done with an agenda, of hopefully winning converts along the way. Also they believe they’re saving their own souls…it’s not done simply because of compassion for their fellow man.
Tell me why a homeless shelter would have MANDATORY prayer/bible lessons if it weren’t so. Missionaries do the same thing, there was just an article in Yahoo news today about how Africans are tired of being told they have to do xyz to get the aid from the do gooders. Listen to me preach or you won’t get to eat!
Well, Mr. KIA, the most “moral” of religions is Islam. They do not allow alcohol or drug use, no homosexuality or premarital sex, certainly no extra-marital sex, they demand a strict prayer and service schedule.
So, Mr. KIA, would you accept funds for faith-based initiatives going to Muslims?
Here’s the thing. Money is so precious to political parties that once they defeat someone or derail a movement…they tend to look forward and not look back. So, we should be suffocating the christian movement by promoting common sense logic based dogma all the while intending to smother, kill, shred, dismember, all christian right activists, politicians, and movements.Why aren’t we spending tons of money just replaying the quotes that have come out of Pat Robertsons mouth? That goofy bastard can derail a candidate with one hour of bullshit on his 700 shitclub. Robertson actually believes he talks to God? Why aren’t we exposing and laughing our assess off at this guy? People need to know.
I think this answers your question better than I could WS:
“The indispensable and transforming work of faith-based and other charitable service groups must be encouraged. Government cannot be replaced by charities, but it can and should welcome them as partners. We must heed the growing consensus across America that successful government social programs work in fruitful partnership with community-serving and faith-based organizations — whether run by Methodists, Muslims, Mormons, or good people of no faith at all.”
If that is true – and I assume that it comes from the Bush Administration – why has all the money gone to Christian organizations?
Somehow, I cannot imagine a Virgil Goode voting to send funds to the Dearborn Sunni Mosque for the Advancement of Islamic Principles.
Why are my tax dollars being used to further Christian dogma, which is anathema to me?
Sorry, Bush did not give all of the faith based initiative funds to Christian organizations.
It was only 98.3 percent.
I am not sure who got the other 1.7 percent.
I don’t know WS. How many Mosques are running food pantries? Or soup kitchens? Or homeless shelters? Or providing after-school programs for children? Safe houses for abused women? Drug rehab programs? Job placement?I’m guessing there in lay your answer on the funding.
So, 98.3 percent of the good works done by faith based organizations is done by Christian groups?
I think not.
Most Islamic mosques have extensive community outreach programs as do Jewish groups.
Somehow, I think that there just MIGHT be a little bias in the way that the funds are allocated.
Ninety-eight point three percent of faith based initiative funds are distributed to Christian organizations.
I thought that the Constitution of the United States prohibited the government from establishing a national religion.
Someone here has not done Missionary work to say “listen to me preach first and then I will give you food! You give them food, medical help and water first! Then you hold your Faith services in a separate area apart from the food, water and medical areas! You feed the soul after people have full bellies and feel well enough to attend Faith Services!
Go away, Roscoe, you bore me.
First, President Bush does not decide who gets the money. Organizations have to compete for it from whichever government agency has available funds that match the grant requirements.
All the FBO/CBO Initiative did was to level the playing field. The vast majority of the money had been going to a handful of major nonprofits, and these nonprofits had the attitude that it was automatically “their money”. You see a similar mentality at McConnell with the surplus equipment process by the regular bidders.
Second, any faith-based organization has strict requirements on what they can and cannot do if they choose to apply for the money. For example, funded services have to be provided without regard to persons religious beliefs (or lack thereof); participation in religious services cannot be required to receive funded services. There is a handbook available listing the prohibited practices for funded services. These restrictions only apply to the programs funded federally, and not to the organization’s other nonfederal funding sources. An Islamic group can still hold Islamic services in a building receiving federal funds, but federal funds cannot be used to cover religious costs or services.
Another example is computers; if a Christian group receives money for computers, then the computers cannot be used for religious purposes, like creating weekly church bulletins.
Many faith-based organizations choose not to be bridled with the numerous restrictions. Locally, the Rescue Mission chooses not to apply for federal funds, as do many other Christian, Jewish, Islamic, and other religious groups. There are plenty of “costs” that go with receiving federal monies.
Last year, former President Clinton pointed out that one thing he learned as President was the federal government cannot do everything.
“First, President Bush does not decide who gets the money.”
Are you really that naive? But just for starters, explain why that Christian organizations received 98.3 percent of the funding.
You cannot deceive yourself enough to believe that only Christian organizations were able to met the criteria to receive funds.
Amy–
Clinton? You people are quoting Clinton now?
This is a man who inserted a cigar into an intern in the same room that we declared an embargo on Cuban products . . .
Faith based initiatives were pure money for votes–literally, political pay offs using our tax dollars.
Never fear, the Dems will cut off the head of this “faith-based” serpent as soon as we take back the White House.
It’s time for the churches to quit worshipping filthy Mammon.
But it wasn’t a CUBAN cigar, Capn’!!
Mr.Kia — I would seriously challenge you to find even ONE quote from either Rev. Jackson, o Rev. Sharpton, where they ENDORSED a candidate BY NAME, from ANY pulpit anywhere…
And dont give me some lame duck argument about how Bill Clinton spoke in their pulpits…
Any president can preach/speak in any pulpit, as long as he/she doesnt ASK for a vote for their campaign… not like the Kline campaign literally asking for fundraisers after he visited a church…
And why do the Neocons ALWAYS, and forever bring up Clinton, when they want to argue against something??? The man has been out of office for SEVEN YEARS now…
Having been part of one church congregation or another for all of my 56 years, I can honestly say that I would not be in favor of any of my congregations to ever ask for, or receive federal funding… because of the paperwork hassles…
However, if a Church or any faith-based entity DOES accept federal funding, it can not use ANY of those funds, to propagate their particular “gospel”, be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or any other religious belief system…
I believe that the strength of the Religious Right will continue to increase in this next campaign run for the White House, to the detriment of our nation…
IF we are to stop that strength, we must be willing to go head to head with them in debate… open and public… and be willing to shoot down all of their arguments USING THEIR OWN LANGUAGE, rather than leftist rhetoric, to stop them in their tracks…
That means the Left had better start doing some hard Bible Study so they will know HOW to argue against the Fundamentalist or Evangelical arguments, using the same ammunition!!!
THEN we can stop the Religious Right in their tracks…
Any Liberals/Democrats/left-leaning takers out there??? God, I hope there are!!
“Sometimes,” Jackson said, “you have to play good defense before you get back on offense. President Clinton has been our first line of defense against the Newt Gingrich-Contract on America-right-wing assault on our elderly, our students, our civil rights. We must re-elect the president and take back the Congress, and stop the right-wing train in its track.”
“In 1996, Bill Clinton is our best option. The cross is on his shoulders,” he concluded.
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V116/N36/jackson.36w.html
This is just one example. I could find tons of Clinton, Gore as well as articles on Obama and Hillary stumping for the endorsements of these leaders currently.As I said, this sword cuts both ways so be careful what you wish for.
Mr. Kia, are you some kind of a lunatic, or just dont understand plain simple English?? You offer up an Article, that quotes from a speech that Rev. Jackson made from, WHERE MR. KIA??? NOOOO… not from a Church Pulpit… but at the 1996 DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION….
How absolutely STUPID of you to believe that he is not allowed to endorse a political candidate at a POLITICAL convention!!!
AND, if you would READ that article carefully, much of it is about Democrats disagreements with Mr. Clinton, but concluding that their disagreements do not out weigh their need to keep Clinton to fight off the “Contract With America” of Gingrich and the 1994 Neocon revolution!!!
NOW GO FIND SOMETHING THAT SAYS JACKSON OR ANY OTHERS ENDORSED A CANDIDATE FROM A CHURCH PULPIT!!! THAT WAS MY CHALLENGE TO YOU, YOU NUT CASE!!
Yeah chas, and then contrast that with the catholic church in Hill City that passed around an anti-gay petition to be sent to legislators.
It was passed around the congregation TO BE SIGNED DURING THE SERVICE!!!!!!!
One of my friends was there when it happened, and she was VERY uncomfortable with people watching to see IF she signed it.
She didnt.
She also hasnt been back to church since then.
AND BTW, Dont even try to tell me that Al Gore is heading up the Church of Global Warming either… Thats total lunacy!!
Well, Ksfarmgrrl… Then that is just the kind of atrocity I am talking about… Challenge that church’s 501(c)3 status… Such an activity should NEVER be condoned or practiced during ANY worship service… BTW, I am clergy, and I have a HUGE problem with such a thing!!
ALSO… I have had occasions where members of my congregations have been candidates for office.. It is always common knowledge.. BUT, I remind them all, that they are NOT to conduct their campaigns at worship services, or on Church property…
On the other hand, it is quite legal for a church to sponsor a “meet the candidates” forum for ALL candidates… BUT, not to allow distribution of flyers, or other election materials at such an event… That is a public service… and not a violation…
I am certainly not going to respond to a personal attack by someone who claims to be a member of the clergy.Way to walk in the light Chas.Hypocrit.
Amy who knows much about FBI’s has an email ‘youarescummy’???
Go figure.
But you are right about the group I spoke of with that requires the people they help to attend church- it is strictly private funded.
But I still think it’s crappy they require it. They should require regular mental health counseling instead.
Mr.Kia –
You call it a personal attack because I point out that you gave out a bogus Article, in defense of your alleged claims about Rev. Jackson?? Get real, sir… That is no personal attack.. Just TRUTH!
However, if you think you can find something to prove your point, go ahead and try.
my point Chas is it is a double edge sword that cuts both ways.The left wants to take away Dr. Dobson’s freedom of speech, Jesse Jackson loses his as well.What is so hard to understand about that.Talk about “An Inconvenient Truth” LOL!!!!!!!
Kia.. YOU call ME a hypocrite, because I point out the error of your bogus Article post?? Now, that is a strange accusation on your part… I read what you posted, find the error of your claim, and you call that hypocrisy?? I need not say more..
my point Chas is it is a double edge sword that cuts both ways.The left wants to take away Dr. Dobson’s freedom of speech, Jesse Jackson loses his as well.What is so hard to understand about that.Talk about “An Inconvenient Truth” LOL!!!!!!!
Excuse me?? Calling somebody on a 501)c)3 violation does not deprive said person of the right to free speech… Just means he cant claim non-profit status if he chooses to continue… Where in God’s green earth does it say that you have the right to violate a 501(c)3 status, as part of free speech??
IF Jesse Jackson violates the terms of 501(c)3, then he should lose his status as well… Sir, that is a tax exempt status… and has nothing to do with free speech!!
I don’t see how that is any different than an organization such as Planned Parenthood for example.If you are a member or supporter of an organization you obviously share their values. You don’t need the organiztion to tell you what to do to know what you should do based on your values and beliefs.Posted by: Mr Kia | March 01, 2007 at 07:18 PM
I’ll refer you to this post of 13 hours ago and don’t really think anything else needs to be said on the topic.
IF Jesse Jackson violates the terms of 501(c)3, then he should lose his status as well… Sir, that is a tax exempt status… and has nothing to do with free speech!!
Posted by: Chas. | March 02, 2007 at 10:18 AM
Well good. I take back my attack on you. You are a reasonable man.
However why does a religious organization have to follow different set of guidelines for its 501-C-3 status than a social one?
Sir — That tax exempt status applies to ANY non-profit organization.. religious or secular.. Your post regarding Planned Parenthood is totally moot regarding this issue… See, if you KNOW what your beliefs are, as a part of some organization, thats one thing… for that organization to attempt to tell you how to VOTE in an election, that is another matter entirely… Is there something about that – that you dont understand??
http://www.ppany.com/endorsements/index.cfm
Does an “endorsement” constitute telling somehow how to vote or not?
From ppany.com
“Planned Parenthood Advocates of New York State, Inc (PPANY) is the voluntary, non-partisan political action arm for 13 Planned Parenthood affiliates in New York State. It works closely with the national Planned Parenthood Action Fund and similar groups in New York State.
PPANY is a not-for-profit organization that engages in legislative education and electoral activity including lobbying and informational campaigns. PPANY encourages public and political support for reproductive rights and women’s health care. PPANY volunteers also work in support of pro-choice candidates around the state.”
OK.. If I read that PPANY web site endorsement policy correctly, that particular group would appear to be a non-profit PAC group… Their stated purpose is to Advocate for certain candidates. I do not know from that web site if they claim a tax exempt status or not… They can be non-profit, and still not be a tax exempt group… You might want to check it out further, for your own interest…
Whatever it is, it is NOT a religious organization… but a Political non-profit… and I dont THINK it would qualify as a tax exempt group… As I say, check it further for tax exempt status…
Please, Chas. and MrK; read section 501(c) of the IRC in its entirety; I believe you will find there are numerous nonprofit entities which are tax exempt thereunder which do not qualify for the special status of a 501(c)(3) organization, which, shorthanded, means the donors to such an organization may take a charitable deduction for their donations. As only one example; social clubs under section 501(c)(7). The clubs are nonprofit, are exempt from the imposition of income taxes on their income (so long as it is not UTBI), but do not otherwise qualify under 501(c)(3), which is reserved for “religious, charitable or educational” organizations.
I don’t have the Code in front of me, so I cannot cite to specific provisions, but other organizations which are tax exempt under 501(c) include labor unions; chambers of commerce; business leagues; cooperatives; etc.
Other taxexempt orgs: section 529 college savings plans; 527 political action organizations; again, not subject to the 501(c)(3) restrictions.
Thank you Vaughn… I hope that clears things up for Mr. Kia… I know that solves part of the dilemma for me… Thanks again!!
It is common practice for issue oriented 501(c)3’s to also have a pac.
Pacs have to register with the IRS as a different class. They have to file reports with the IRS. And they also have to operate within certain guidlines.
All “non-profit” means is that they can not distribute any “excess” income to their shareholders or BOD. It doesnt mean they cant “make” money. They can retain the money and use it to support their “mission” as stated in their corporate bylaws and their application for exempt status to the IRS.
I once worked for a 501(c)3 where the people who started it got three of their buddies to serve as a BOD. Then, they made themselves “employees” of the organization and went after grant money. They skimmed the “admin” money and paid it to themselves as salary, approved by their sham BOD.
Nice work if you can get it. They are millionaires now and the 501(c)3 no longer exists.
The whole damn 501 section needs to be re-examined and after changes have been made, the code needs to be enforced.
BTW, before germie starts in on the Clintons again, FOUNDATIONS are a different class altogether. They MUST distribute certain portions of their income and/or assets.
Sorry, Vaughn, didnt mean to overstep here. The whole 501 thing is very complicated. I once headed up an organization that was a FOR PROFIT owned by a NON PROFIT that was affiliated with Labor Unions.
The reason the for profit had to be established was because the 501 was origionally organized under an obscure section that ONLY allowed them to take in money from labor unions.
Other companies wanted us to help them do similar things, but we couldnt take their money, and we couldnt use our money to help them either.
so… the for profit was set up so we could do consulting for other companies and have them pay us for it.
Just another loophole to be exploited. Some of the OLDER 501’s have morphed over the years. Their missions have changed, their operations have changed, but they still operate under antiquated regulations.
Of course, we have more important things to worry about right now, but this section of the IRS code is due for a SERIOUS overhaul!
Thanks Ksfarm for you help and clarification… the only one of those I am totally familiar with is the 501(c)3… naturally because of what I do, and where I do it… LOL Thanks much for the input!!
As long as you are all OK with an organization such as Focus on the Family or Anytown Community Church setting up a dummy organization such as these PAC’s I don’t think we have anything to argue about.
I suspect not MrK… as long as Dobson, et al, and Anytown Community Church have actually DONE such a thing… Which I suspect is the root problem with the original question you raised about Dobson’s freedom of speech…
MrK, the example given by ksfg did not involve a 501(c)(3). As I read 501(c)(3) and the attendant regs, the organizations you mention, assuming they are 501(c)(3) orgs, could theoretically set up a PAC so long as none of the organization’s own funds are used to either set it up or to fund it, and none of the BOD or officers of said organizations served in any capacity with the PAC, etc., a burden I’m sure they could not meet. It’s the use made of the funds donated that entitles an organization to its peculiar status under the applicable code section/regs.
ksfg, no problem; you and I are in total agreement concerning the need to clean up the entire portion of the Code dealing with nonprofits, exempt orgs, etc., including but not limited to 501(c), among other things.
And, MrK, should the particular organizations of which you post decided setting up such a PAC is important to them, then they are free to so do, at the expense of losing their (presumed) 501(c)(3) status. I am sure the organizations could find another subsection of 501(c) under which to operate, the difference being that the donations to them would no longer be deductible by the donors for federal income tax and estate tax purposes; and, depending upon the property tax exemption laws of the state(s) in which they are sited, loss of such exemption as well.
Well, I feel pretty confident that the catholic church in Hill City doesn NOT have a PAC.
heheheheheheheh
And even if it did, I think it crosses boundries to pass out anti gay petitions DURING THE SERVICE and then pressure worshipers to sign it.
I guess that is what Cindy Duckett was refering to when she said church goers get their “motivation” every Sunday.
A turd by any name smells the same. Apologies to roses….
501(c)3’s dont automatically get property tax exemptions. It depends on the use of the property.
Ksfg is also correct in her brief overview of the rules governing private foundations, which are substantially different from those governing 501(c) orgs in general. BTW, any nonprofit established is presumed to be a private foundation under the Code until/unless it obtains a determination of its tax exempt status by filing Form 1023 (501(c)(3)) or Form 1024 (all others under 501(c) together with certain other organizations); a recognized church, BTW, is not required to file the Form 1023, but should do so, IMHO, to clearly establish its status.
True as to property tax exemptions in Kansas, Ksfg; I used to be familiar many years ago with some other state’s laws which differed a bit from Kansas, so I will limit my comment to Kansas.
I wouldn’t describe evangelicals and catholics as the same at all.This incident in Hill City sounds alot like a non binding resolution to me. LOL
MrK — With your last comment, I QUIT!!! LATER ALL!!
ksfarmgrrl: “Yeah chas, and then contrast that with the catholic church in Hill City that passed around an anti-gay petition to be sent to legislators.
It was passed around the congregation TO BE SIGNED DURING THE SERVICE!!!!!!!
One of my friends was there when it happened, and she was VERY uncomfortable with people watching to see IF she signed it.
She didnt.
She also hasnt been back to church since then.”
Chas responded: “Well, Ksfarmgrrl… Then that is just the kind of atrocity I am talking about… Challenge that church’s 501(c)3 status… Such an activity should NEVER be condoned or practiced during ANY worship service… BTW, I am clergy, and I have a HUGE problem with such a thing!!”
While such activity is undeniably horrible and should be condemned, it doesn’t violate the church’s tax exempt status. Churches can officially endorse referenda and lobby legislatures to pass or oppose legislation. They just can not endorse candidates. For example, the congregation of my church voted unanimously to oppose the ugly so-called Marriage Amendment to the Kansas Constitution.
These people must be watched closely and fought against the second they move on anything. They are the most dangerous people in the USA- far more dangerous to the country than all the Islamo nutcases in the world. Religious nuts of any faith are dangerous but there are many of these nutcases and they are all organized. And they are coming for your rights!
“I’m not even a Christian -but even I can see that those who oppose Christians do so for the VERY reason they, themselves, want to be excused.”NOTE- This is NOT about Christians! I am a Christian and the majority of us practice our faith and value freedom nor do we try to force our moral and religious views on others using the force of law. There is a difference between religious nutcases and Christians.
I agree Ken.
Kev, p-mom – I use the term ChristIST for those who would force their beliefs upon others. Similar to IslamIST who are much different from Muslims I know. The Muslims I know make no effort to make me follow their beliefs – and they better not!
Kev:Please clarify your definition of Religious Nut Cases.thank you!
Religious nutcases are folks that are not content to keep their religious views in their private lives- hearts and homes. They wish to use the force of law in order to try and force others to accept their view of God whether it is “blue laws” that force everybody to accept Sunday as the Sabbath (and it is really Saturday by the way) or “creation theory” in which they want to force everybody to accept their theory on how life evolved. You will find that most of these people spend lots of time in the Old Testament. Like I said, if people want to have certain religious views- such as “we can’t have a blood transfusion”, fine with me. You can lay in the ER and die of you wish. I don’t care. But if you try to force that view on a 5 year old child, the law has a right to intervene.
KsAgnostic — Yes, you are right… I believe the key in your argument is that the CONGREGATION voted… Motion/Second, VOTE… duly called meeting… Denominations also do such things in their jurisdictional meetings… What was done in the Hill City church was not done in a duly called, business meeting of the Church… but passed around to individuals… There seems to be a difference there…
Kev what you fail to realize is that not just religious ‘nutcases’ as you refer to them but also many who are not practicing Christian feel that life is sacred and should be protected. I have the same feeling about that viable baby that is killed either inside the womb or out of it as you do about that 5 year old in an ER.
I believe in birth control just not after conception. I find it ironic that the very people on here who preach tolerance everyday are the most intolerant of any of the posters. You can predict every post they put out. Think demo party line dogma and they line up behind it in lockstep. I don’t want to take any freedom from any citizen but I feel that I have the right to voice my opinion just as other on this blog do without the name calling and vulgar language some on here use.
Tolerance is a two way street.
Chas there are groups that have tables set up at our church also. They are not endorsed from the pulpit but it is announced that they are available. They have been for such diverse things as signing up for CPR training, signing up to donate blood, signing a petition to give status to the unborn fetus of a pregrant murder victim, etc.. No pressure was put on anyone to sign, you were free to walk on by and nobody grabbed your arm.
I find with all this talk of 501(c)3s that no one has mentioned that the infamous MoveOn.org has invested a great deal on money in Haliburton stock. Isn’t it ironic that such a hated corporation as this is used to raise money for the libs and they think that is alright. Kinda of like Al Gore suckling the tobacco plants and then crying because his sister died of lung cancer.
Hypocracy is alive and well on both sides of the aisle.
Chas I believe you challenged MrK to show you where J Jackson from the pulpit endorsed a candidate. See Below:
“What the Rev. Jesse Jackson did in last week’s New York Democratic primary was to instill an almost religious fervor for the act of voting—and specifically voting for him—in blacks. Campaigning to the edge of physical exhaustion, orating in as many as five churches a day in New York City’s ghettos, at the end literally marching hundreds of parishioners from a Harlem church to a nearby polling place, Jackson inspired an outpouring of black voters without precedent in the Empire State. An estimated 270,000 blacks cast ballots, easily double the turnout for the Carter-Kennedy primary in 1980. According to various exit polls, anywhere from 84% to 92% of them pulled the voting-machine lever for Jackson, well exceeding the percentages he drew in earlier primaries in Illinois and the South.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,954235,00.html
I believe you will find many more instances where the democrats have campaigned from the pulpit that the GOP. I am surprised that as a minister you are so ill informed on this subject.
As I have said this happens on BOTH sides of the aisle.
A good policing of the pulpits would put a stop to it. The IRS needs to take down one big names moron and the rest will get their act together. No preacher is worth a toot without money.
The black people of this nation are so screwed politically. Jackson and Sharpton are unsuited for visionary leadership. I find them to be enablers and blamers. There is not one white person alive in this country who ever owned slaves. It if weren’t for the behavior of blacks (thug life) I wouldn’t really have a negative opinion. I don’t even give a shit except when I see black youth emulating thug culture – then I lock my door and wish for their demise.
Ksgrm — After reading that 23 year old TIME magaziner article twice, I cannot see anywhere in that account where his speaking at a church was anything more than a push for VOTER TURNOUT… I would hope that ANY church leader would encourage church members to get out and VOTE… I did NOT see in that article where Jackson asked any of those people to vote for HIM specifically…
IF he would have done that, back in that political environment, it would have been headline material… He might have spoken in 5 different churches in one day, but if he is speaking for people to GO VOTE, what can be said against that??
And, YES, I would condemn him for going into a church and asking for people to vote for HIM!!
IF you find a specific reference to Jackson actually asking for people to vote for HIM, please make a reference to it, ok??
Chas if the following doesn’t tell you what was happening then I guess you just don’t want to hear. A wise man will listen. An unwise man will put up barriers and not learn. This might have been an old story but you and I both know that the same thing happens today. Substitute Al Gore and the Buddist temple in California in the 1996 race.
“According to various exit polls, anywhere from 84% to 92% of them pulled the voting-machine lever for Jackson, well exceeding the percentages he drew in earlier primaries in Illinois and the South.”
Sorry Ksgrm — Sounds like circular logic to me…
Sort of like this: Man goes to church, and hears sermon on the evils of illicit sex.. Man hears sermon, leaves church, and goes out and kills 3 hookers..
Man’s lawyer argues that the Preacher is responsible for the killer’s actions.. True, or False??
And yes, such things do happen.. And yes, some have claimed it would be the Preacher’s message that inspired the killings.
If you agree with that logic, then I can easily see how you can believe a speech by Jesse Jackson on going out to vote, could inspire those listeners to vote for HIM…
Otherwise, please come up with a new argument.. Thanks!!
“KsAgnostic — Yes, you are right… I believe the key in your argument is that the CONGREGATION voted… Motion/Second, VOTE… duly called meeting… Denominations also do such things in their jurisdictional meetings… What was done in the Hill City church was not done in a duly called, business meeting of the Church… but passed around to individuals… There seems to be a difference there… ”
It doesn’t matter how a church comes to a position on an issue, they can do so and not lose their tax exempt status. By the same token, it doesn’t matter how they might decide to endorse a candidate for office, they can’t do so without jeopardizing their tax exempt status.
Catholic churches are a bit more top down in their management than most other churches, particularly Unitarian Universalist.
I am a Conservative Christian. I do not get my “marching orders” from the pulpit every Sunday. Because I have Christian values, does that make me a fanatic? I can make up my own mind on the issues, and do not need others to form my ideals. I think most are feeling abandoned by the Republicans…not just Christians.