At what point did Karl Rove calculate that George W. Bush must win the religious right in order to get re-elected? Against common sense and good presidential precedent (think FMA), Team Bush has been promising them heaven and earth.
Of course, no mere mortal gives and gives without asking in return eventually:
The Bush-Cheney reelection campaign has sent a detailed plan of action to religious volunteers across the country asking them to turn over church directories to the campaign, distribute issue guides in their churches and persuade their pastors to hold voter registration drives. Campaign officials said the instructions are part of an accelerating effort to mobilize President Bush's base of religious supporters. They said the suggested activities are intended to help churchgoers rally support for Bush without violating tax rules that prohibit churches from engaging in partisan activity."We strongly believe that our religious outreach program is well within the framework of the law," said Terry Holt, spokesman for the Bush-Cheney campaign.
But tax experts said the campaign is walking a fine line between permissible activity by individual congregants and impermissible activity by congregations. Supporters of Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, charged that the Bush-Cheney campaign is luring churches into risking their tax status.
I abhor mixing religion and politics. There are few things on this earth less spiritual than politics in my opinion and the closer the two come together, the more those in the church make bad decisions for their congregations. These kinds of instructions would undoubtedly irk Jesus Christ, if his response in the temple were anything to judge by:
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."
Pastors and priests should be free to offer guidance on particular contemporary issues, interpreting God's will for a confused congregation, and allowing a candidate to address the church is fine, so long as the offer is extended to both parties, but they should stop short of endorsing any candidate, let alone turning the church into a local headquarters for an campaign.
Maddening. I think he wants to push these churches way over the edge just to gain from the politics of any calls to tax them.
Posted by: carpeicthus | July 01, 2004 at 01:11 PM
In other news, John Kerry is a witch! Burn him!
(Actually, I doubt the archdiocese touches this with a ten foot pole.)
Posted by: Katherine | July 01, 2004 at 02:25 PM
Actually, I doubt the archdiocese touches this with a ten foot pole
Unfortunately, that's not an option. If the archbishop does not respond within 40 days, the case is kicked up to the Vatican. That would not be a good thing.
Posted by: Dave Schuler | July 01, 2004 at 02:31 PM
It is maddening carpeicthus. But I don't blame the Administration, I blame the frauds renting out their pulpits.
Posted by: Edward | July 01, 2004 at 04:12 PM
Religious war on American soil within 5 years ... with bloodshed.
If they keep opening these cans of worms and forcing the religious issue, all of the Obsidian Wings in the world will not return us to civility until the matter is settled for good.
Posted by: JohnThullen | July 01, 2004 at 04:51 PM
"Religious war on American soil within 5 years ... with bloodshed."
No doubt led by the triumphant armies of Elvis Resurgent on one side and the Heavenly Lagomorphic Legions of the Martyr Harvey on the other - at least, up until the Butternut Comet collides with the earth and turns the seas to instant pudding.
Hey, if we're going to talk about low-probability scenarios let's go all out, eh? :)
Posted by: Moe Lane | July 01, 2004 at 05:03 PM
Excommunicating Kerry for heresy would not be a declaration of religious war. It's completely within the Church's rights. It's not like they're planning to burn him at the stake--that was a Monty Python quote. It would just be really, really, dumb.
Posted by: Katherine | July 01, 2004 at 05:14 PM
IMO, the heresy suit against Kerry is of absolutely no significance whatsoever in his presidential campaign. But it might be important for the Roman Catholic Church in the United States.
Posted by: Dave Schuler | July 01, 2004 at 05:36 PM
The Catholic Church would do well to collate any heresy suit against Kerry with their relative silence on the lifestyle of the Kennedy family over the past 60 years.
Posted by: Edward | July 01, 2004 at 05:44 PM
O.K. I retract the prediction. I apologize.
My mother had a rule that we shouldn't discuss religion, politics, or sex at the dinner table, because these subjects were liable to cause the instant pudding to be thrown against the wall.
It is perfectly within the Church's rights to excommunicate Kerry for heresy and it is perfectly within Cheney's rights to tell whomever he wants to g- f--- themselves and then say it made him feel good.
I'm just saying that a few more charges of heresy here and a few more f--- y--s there, and pretty soon we have a recipe for butternut comet and instant pudding and I hope I'm not seated near the pudding because it will be thrown and dinner, as my mother feared, will be ruined.
Posted by: John Thullen | July 01, 2004 at 05:50 PM
volunteers are to "send your Church Directory to your State Bush-Cheney '04 Headquarters or give [it] to a BC04 Field Rep"
I would be seriously pissed if people in my church started handing out the church directory to an outside organization, whether or not I was inclined to support it.
There are few things on this earth less spiritual than politics
Yes and no. Churches across the spectrum want to see their mission furthered by our political leaders, whether that means fighting off those evil homosexuals or fighting for more state aid for the poor and needy. And while I get squirmy whenever a sermon or talk gets too close to a political statement, in our progressive church, there's no question where the pastors and most of the congregation stand. The plans described above are notable for making the religious-political connection so blatant, but the wall between the two isn't so very high even now.
Posted by: kenB | July 01, 2004 at 06:00 PM
and dinner, as my mother feared, will be ruined.
There is a very good reason why the Founders believed in the separation of church and state, and the spectacle of a bad Methodist claiming support for his anti-Christian policies (you know, if you're going to ask "What would Jesus do?" I don't think "Let's bomb the Middle East!" is going to be the answer) and trying to get the Catholic Church to condemn his opponent as a bad Catholic... well, if it weren't so serious it would be almost as amusing as a butternut comet.
Mmmm, butternut.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | July 01, 2004 at 06:06 PM
Edward:
The Catholic Church would do well to collate any heresy suit against Kerry with their relative silence on the lifestyle of the Kennedy family over the past 60 years.
That is very nearly precisely my point. The Church hierarchy has been very, very quiet on some basic issues of faith and morals for quite a long time. I believe that the political impact of any of this is zero on net.
But this issues is, IMO, of a piece with the Church's sexual abuse scandal. Silence intended to cover up scandal has made a greater scandal.
Posted by: Dave Schuler | July 01, 2004 at 06:11 PM
I enjoyed the segue to the HRCC, I'm not sure what it had to do with the original post. Notwithstanding, the separation of church and state has nothing to with the issue at hand.
So a question, has a black church ever lost its tax status when a Democrat took to the pulpit to make a speech.
I didn't think so and therefore, I believe you have the answer to your question. That is, the church, itself, is not involved in politics but a member of its congregation is. Those tax experts didn't happen to be Democrats did they?
On Kerry and Roman Catholicism, the Curia isn't speedy and it granted Kerry's an annulment so I wouldn't really worry.
Posted by: Timmy the Wonder Dog | July 01, 2004 at 06:32 PM
Speaking seriously, not that I'm a Catholic, but from all I know of the Catholic church hierarchy they are quite politically savvy enough to recognize when someone is trying to run a number on them. In short, Katherine's right: I doubt the archdiocese will touch this sleazy case with a 10 foot pole, and if it gets kicked up to the Vatican, they'll find some way of not touching it with a 100 foot pole. Or 30.48 meters, if they've gone metric.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | July 01, 2004 at 06:36 PM
"Religious war on American soil within 5 years ... with bloodshed."
Oh, quite.
And when you wake up one morning to find a naked Discordian swinging a rubber chicken at your cat, you will know it has begun.
Posted by: sidereal | July 01, 2004 at 07:06 PM
"...and pretty soon we have a recipe for butternut comet and instant pudding and I hope I'm not seated near the pudding because it will be thrown and dinner, as my mother feared, will be ruined."
And so I stand properly rebuked for my snark - but when the image of a sea of pudding comes upon one, you have to go where it leads you... :)
Posted by: Moe Lane | July 01, 2004 at 08:04 PM
Moe:
And so I stand properly rebuked for my snark - but when the image of a sea of pudding comes upon one, you have to go where it leads you... :)
You're led by an image of a sea of pudding? This is worse than I thought. An earlier Moe was led by a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night and that seemed bad enough...
Posted by: Dave Schuler | July 01, 2004 at 08:24 PM
Actually, when you refer to the "religious right", you are already referring only to those who would not vote for a Democrat anyway, due to abortion. I'm sure that you probably meant the "religious", which includes many more individuals (not necessarily religious).
Posted by: Deagle | July 01, 2004 at 09:35 PM
"At what point did Karl Rove calculate that George W. Bush must win the religious right in order to get re-elected?"
November 10th, 1988.
"I abhor mixing religion and politics. There are few things on this earth less spiritual than politics in my opinion and the closer the two come together, the more those in the church make bad decisions for their congregations."
Fair enough.
"Pastors and priests should be free to offer guidance on particular contemporary issues, interpreting God's will for a confused congregation, and allowing a candidate to address the church is fine, so long as the offer is extended to both parties, but they should stop short of endorsing any candidate, let alone turning the church into a local headquarters for an campaign."
Okay, this I don't understand. You're entitled to your preference, of course, but on what basis do you issue instructions as to what any particular religion, sect, or religious person "should" do anything at all?
I make it a point to never instruct someone as to what their religion "should" do, myself. You needn't share such a policy. You are entitled to instruct the Pope, the Chief Rabbi of England, the Dalai Lama, of whomever you want as to what you think they "should" and shouldn't do.
I'm just very curious as to on what basis you think they "should" listen to you or follow your instruction. On anything regarding how they conduct their religion, religious practices, or anything at all. Could you explain, please, Edward?
Another way to put this is: "they should stop short of endorsing any candidate, let alone turning the church into a local headquarters for an campaign."
Okay. Why? Beyond your personal preference, that is.
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 01, 2004 at 10:13 PM
Moe, sometime we'll exchange recipes for butternut comet; I have one that incorporates an intergalactic chipotle puree.
Sidereal, I've served a rubber chicken or two, but you're late, I've already apologized (I think?) for overstepping.
Timmy the Wonder Kibbitzur doggy (something is mispelled, probably "mispelled"): So I say the churches, black and white, shut up; whaddya say?
Posted by: John Thullen | July 01, 2004 at 11:11 PM
"There is a very good reason why the Founders believed in the separation of church and state...."
Sure. Since when did this mean that religious people, including religious authority figures, aren't entitled to have, express, and act upon, political opinions?
The First Amendment limits what government can do, not what religion can do.
This shouldn't be news to anyone, so I'm a bit surprised to see such Viewing With Alarm.
I mean, another way of looking at this is that you're equally declaring that, for instance, churches and synagogues had no right to meddle in politics by being active in the civil rights movement. Shocking entanglement! How dare they! Violation of separation of church and state!
And they certainly had no right to speak out against the Vietnam War! Outrageous!
And how is it those Quakers can be so traitorous as to say that Fellows should not fight in our wars, anyway? Who gave them the right to have political opinions?
Oh, wait, isn't that "free speech" thing in the First Amendment applicable to, you know, religions?
(Yes, we also limit this by laws declaring that churches and such lose tax-exempt status if they endorse a candidate, but personally I don't hold with them having tax-exempt status in the first place, because I don't think government has, under the First Amendment, the slightest business ruling on what is and isn't a religion.)
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 02, 2004 at 02:21 AM
So I say the churches, black and white, shut up; whaddya say?
Why should they?
Posted by: Timmy the Wonder Dog | July 02, 2004 at 07:52 AM
I enjoyed the segue to the HRCC,
No segue, Timmy, I wrote Pastors and Priests in the opening post and have no reason to assume these instructions only went to nonCatholic churches (do you?).
So a question, has a black church ever lost its tax status when a Democrat took to the pulpit to make a speech.
Er...candidates of both parties are invited to speak in churches. I see nothing wrong with that. It's turning the social room into a stamp-licking workshop I object to. It's having the church leader imply (while he/she's providing spiritual guidance) that God wants his flock to vote one way or the other I object to. One speech does not amount to selling the pulpit. Encouraging the congregation to volunteer for Bush/Cheney '04 does.
Posted by: Edward | July 02, 2004 at 09:57 AM
"Why should they?"
They shouldn't. Neither will I cease yelling "Shut up"!
Eventually, we have pudding on the wall. Let's go for it.
Posted by: John Thullen | July 02, 2004 at 10:03 AM
I hereby declare that 'pudding on the wall' shall henceforth be the Official ObWi In-Joke Code Phrase* for 'the [referenced situation] has spun out of control'. So it be said; so it be done.
Moe
*Subject, of course, to ratification by my esteemed cobloggers.
Posted by: Moe Lane | July 02, 2004 at 10:21 AM
pudding on the wall!! Hear. Hear!
Posted by: Edward | July 02, 2004 at 10:34 AM
Alternatively, a code word for when a group of bloggers and commenters with nothing better to do are pudding on a show. :>
Posted by: Catsy | July 02, 2004 at 10:41 AM
Pudd up or shudd up :)
Posted by: John Thullen | July 02, 2004 at 10:48 AM
Not to be impatient -- if you'd like to say you'll come back to it later in the weekend, or whenever, or that you feel no need to discuss it further, that's fine, of course -- but I was wondering, Edward, if you'll be explaining some time why the First Amendment doesn't apply to religious people, including religious leaders, and why you oppose -- if you do -- churches and synagogues having been active in the civil rights movment, and the anti-war movement?
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 02, 2004 at 06:17 PM
As I said, not to be impatient, three days later, four days after first asking, but I'm looking further to learning what you're talking about, Edward.
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 05, 2004 at 03:34 PM
Another way to put this is: "they should stop short of endorsing any candidate, let alone turning the church into a local headquarters for an campaign."
I must admit I'm curious to know why... surely it's up to individual ministers to interpret (however correctly or not) to what extent their remit to guide followers of their Faith extends? Frustrating though that may be at times.
Posted by: James Casey | July 05, 2004 at 03:59 PM
The Catholic Church would do well to collate any heresy suit against Kerry with their relative silence on the lifestyle of the Kennedy family over the past 60 years.
Wow. Total agreement with Edward, yet again. If it happens twice in a week, though...
My own personal opinion? Churches are composed of (hard as it may be to believe) people, whose free speech rights are guaranteed by the Constitution. If the ACLU (just to pick an organization, dunno if ACLU even has membership requirements) were to threaten to eject Bush for espousing civil-rights policy that run counter to the intent of the organization, more power to them.
Not to say that some churches aren't involved in political manipulation. Mine isn't, really, but the Catholic Church is nearly incapable of abstaining from such activities.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | July 05, 2004 at 04:21 PM
The Catholic Church would do well to collate any heresy suit against Kerry with their relative silence on the lifestyle of the Kennedy family over the past 60 years.
Of course, not speaking out on one doesn't make them wrong to speak out on another. Less credible, I won't argue with. But not automatically wrong. And of course that the Kennedy issue is not quite as, well, 'now', could be another argument - are we talking about philandering, by the way? I don't think that matters of sex are as important as abortion (for debate or whatever), and I think the Catechism of the Catholic Church agrees with me on that (at least in terms of excommunication).
the Catholic Church is nearly incapable of abstaining from such activities.
True. The Catholic Church has some pretty absolutist, black and white views on things, and it would be a bit weird if they didn't speak out (which has happened at times, goodness knows), so no one should be that surprised when they do.
Posted by: James Casey | July 05, 2004 at 04:45 PM
Slarti! You're back! I've missed you.
What?
I'm just saying.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | July 05, 2004 at 05:29 PM
Jesurgislac:
Been busy, then been on vacation. Back from vacation, into the fire. I've missed this, truly. Thanks for the welcome.
James Casey:
I'd suggest there's a distinction between speaking one's mind and coercion. The fact that the church hadn't said much publicly about Kerry's politics until now suggests the latter.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | July 05, 2004 at 05:40 PM
I'd suggest there's a distinction between speaking one's mind and coercion.
Most certainly.
The fact that the church hadn't said much publicly about Kerry's politics until now suggests the latter.
Or that the views of Kerry didn't have quite as much potential influence before.
Posted by: James Casey | July 05, 2004 at 05:44 PM
Or that the views of Kerry didn't have quite as much potential influence before.
Exactly. Which makes the involvement of the Church political more political than theological.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | July 05, 2004 at 10:53 PM
I'm being slow here, and unclear what you guys (welcome back, also, Slarti) mean by "coercion" here: are you suggesting that the Church is attempting to coerce Kerry (certainly the Church's use, in general, of excommunication, or refusal to administer the mass, or other such sanctions, might seem to fit into the category of "coercion," in a non-physical sense, but "coercion" in that sense is hardly always something inherently condemnable; for instance, as a liberal, I have no problem with the State attempting to "coerce" people not to steal or murder, and even to pay their income tax); or are you referring to the Church attempting to "coerce" voters? (Which would seem an inaccurate usage, so far as I can see at the moment.)
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 05, 2004 at 10:57 PM
After 3 beers and having repaired a mangled CDROM drive and installed a wireless network card in my 7-year-old's computer (imagine that, ten years ago), the best answer I can come up with is yes.
Maybe tomorrow something more specific will occur.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | July 05, 2004 at 11:47 PM
Slarti said:
Exactly. Which makes the involvement of the Church political more political than theological.
Well, possibly, but not definitely - what I had in mind was more along the lines of potentially more damage being done by Kerry's potentially greater influence. Not that I'm saying that will be the case, but I'd say that's a good argument to get more involved if the Catholic Church believes that.
Posted by: James Casey | July 06, 2004 at 04:41 AM
This is my point, James. If it was purely a theological issue, Kerry's opinions would have gotten him in trouble quite a bit sooner. Not saying everyone who expresses opinions contrary to Papal decree get in trouble, but certainly those opinions would get him exposure enough to have gotten the attention of the Church years before now. If it were purely theological, that is.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | July 06, 2004 at 03:46 PM
I still don't know... you've got to draw a line somewhere, because obviously there aren't enough priests to go around telling everyone off for everything. I don't think it's pushing the argument to say the Church drew a line recently. But that's personal conjecture, of course.
I think I see what you mean, but does that have to mean it's political? Does wanting to stop someone persuading a lot of people to do something one considers is wrong become political just because the person in question is a politician? I mean, were Kerry a non-political celebrity I think the same thing would occur.
Maybe not, though. Conjecture. You may be right. But I wouldn't say it's a cert.
Posted by: James Casey | July 06, 2004 at 05:17 PM
This sounds like it is more of a violation of privacy than any of the current trivialities making headlines.
Posted by: Paul Hitman | July 10, 2006 at 04:39 PM