Posted on 07/02/2004 8:36:00 PM PDT by Kerberos
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- President Bush, seeking to mobilize religious conservatives for his reelection campaign, has asked church-going volunteers to turn over church membership directories, campaign officials said on Thursday.
In a move sharply criticized both by religious leaders and civil libertarians, the Bush-Cheney campaign has issued a guide listing about two-dozen "duties" and a series of deadlines for organizing support among conservative church congregations.
A copy of the guide obtained by Reuters directs religious volunteers to send church directories to state campaign committees, identify new churches that can be organized by the Bush campaign and talk to clergy members about holding voter registration drives.
The document, distributed to campaign coordinators across the country earlier this year, also recommends that volunteers distribute voter guides in church and use Sunday service programs for get-out-the-vote drives.
"We expect this election to be potentially as close as 2000, so every vote counts and it's important to reach out to every single supporter of President Bush," campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said.
But the Rev. Richard Land, who deals with ethics and religious liberty issues for the Southern Baptist Convention, a key Bush constituency, said he was "appalled."
"First of all, I would not want my church directories being used that way," he told Reuters in an interview, predicting failure for the Bush plan.
The conservative Protestant denomination, whose 16 million members strongly backed Bush in 2000, held regular drives that encouraged church-goers to "vote their values," said Land.
"But it's one thing for us to do that. It's a totally different thing for a partisan campaign to come in and try to organize a church. A lot of pastors are going to say: 'Wait a minute, bub'," he added.
The guide surfaced as a spate of opinion polls showed Bush's reelection campaign facing a tough battle. (Poll: Sending troops to Iraq a mistake; Interactive: Poll questions and responses)
A Wall Street Journal/NBC poll showed Bush running neck-and-neck with Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry among registered voters, 47 percent of whom said they now believed the president had misled Americans about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
The Bush campaign has also been spending heavily on television ads, only to see the president's approval ratings slump to new lows.
Stanzel said the campaign ended the month of June with $64 million on hand.
He had no figures on how much Bush has raised in June.
At the end of May, Bush had raised $213.4 million and spent all but $63 million.
The latest effort to marshal religious support also drew fire from civil liberties activists concerned about the constitutional separation of church and state.
"Any coordination between the Bush campaign and church leaders would clearly be illegal," said a statement from the activist group Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
So where IS Kerberos?
T'was once a country, peace-loving and free. Once the king was gone, the country adopted the most Biblically based Constitution, in that time, or since. That country is no more. The renowned commentator Paul Harvey spoke of this nation, a period in it's history, and it's plight. The end did not come suddenly. It took about 50 years to accomplish. The overthrow was not accomplished to instill Christian values. The overthrow was not accomplished by a non-Christian people or nation.
The very first word in the forward of their Constitution, God, indicates the country was not The United States of America, who's own Constitution makes no mention of God. No, quite the opposite is true. The decedents of Christians settlers from the United States overthrew the Kingdom of Hawaii.
Here's a link to that original Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii. No where in history is there a more Biblically based Constitution.
To hear the commentary of Paul Harvey, in which he describes this period of our "Christian" history, which he describes as "the shadowy realms where U.S. foreign policy shakes hands with the devil", go here: Paul Harvey.
Of all the ironies the history of Hawaii presents, the religious fortunes cannot be overlooked. With the overthrow, the native Hawaiian population discarded their Christian faith, and demolished their churches to once again embrace gods and goddesses from their past.
So I wonder, why when you search for Christian failings, and they have occurred, do you look only outside our history?
"Afraid of people who are instructed according to Jesus Christ? So afraid that you want to put strictures into the free society and nation of America and prevent their ability to communicate and organize however they choose?"
In the future you might want to first try understanding the argument prior to making a response.
"So where IS Kerberos?"
In terms of what?
In terms of answering the questions asked of you here on this thread.
The United States of America, who's own Constitution makes no mention of God.
Yes indeed, The Constitution of the United States of America does mention God; it even refers to the personal relationship with God brought about through Jesus Christ and depicts Him as sovereign over them.
Hawaii
Thank you. I've studied the history of Hawaii for a respectful few moments. Hawaii was horribly abused, largely by the children and grandchildren of honest missionaries who loved the Lord, by "wolves in sheeps clothing" as the Word describes, and by greedy warlord-type industrialists. America should have not tolerated this, just as they should have not tolerated our abuses of the Philippines in 1925.
So I wonder, why when you search for Christian failings, and they have occurred, do you look only outside our history?
btts, you have yourself, accurately described who between the Hawaiians and her oppressors, who showed themselves to be Christians. Thank you. There may have been those who will be granted salvation at the Judgment among Hawaii's oppressors, but only if they are found repentant.
"If anyone says, 'I love God,' yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen."
One must discern between what is done with a group who calls themselves a "church," and the Church. The way to find the Church, usually, is to look for the people who honor Jesus Christ in word and deed, not merely in "fathers, masters," or "teachers." And if the later are manipulating the former for power and gain, they are hardly showing themselves as Christian. (Matthew 23).
Now, in the case of a presidential campaign freely gathering the names of people of any association which allows freedom of its members to communicate outside of that association (and I pray all associations may) there is neither any illegality nor sin. Or, when did we lose the freedoms of speech or of assembly?
So, look for what "the real people" are doing; they are usually coming close to doing what people should really do, in a republic. Then, see if they are honoring the nation. In this case, if you want to see what the Church is doing, look for those who pay close personal attention to the Scriptures of the Lord.
Actively gathering free people's names for the communications of political campaigns is one of America's virtuous activities. Preventing this is, well, it's just not Christian.
The Carl Sagan/Norman Lear/Madalyn Murray-O'Hair-style of secular humanism does not get a boost from this.
Thank you so much for the ping to your excellent post!
Then you must not know much because in the whole scope of the universe much in unknowable....and as to what is or is not...I sub,it that most of that is perceotion. After alll, from your posts on other threads, I conlcude that you are of the belief that there is a theocracy brewing in the US....and yet here you claim to believe nothing....Logically inconsistent
"I conlcude that you are of the belief that there is a theocracy brewing in the US....and yet here you claim to believe nothing....Logically inconsistent"
If that is your conclusion, then you did not understand my posts.
"in terms of answering the questions asked of you here on this thread.
And to what question our you refering. I am sure there are some post I missed.
Would the folks who think there's nothing wrong with this feel exactly the same if the sentence instead read as follows?
Senator Kerry, seeking to mobilize religious voters for his reelection campaign, has asked church-going volunteers to turn over church membership directories, campaign officials said on Thursday.
Oop, "reelection" should actually be "election".
He already does, IMO.
IMO, your faux concern is contrived, I guess you feel the same way about getting advertisements in your snail mail.
"apparently you have forgotten what you wrote"
No I have not forgotten what I wrote, but I have written many things. You failed to mention which post you were referring to. Try turning the camera on yourself once in a while however uncomfortable you may find the experience.
"Your exact words at the very first post....Oh I understood you exactly and precisely.
Then if you understood me exactly and precisely how is it that you have a question?
"Senator Kerry, seeking to mobilize religious voters for his reelection campaign, has asked church-going volunteers to turn over church membership directories, campaign officials said on Thursday."
No, you misunderstand how it works. Subverting principles that so called conservatives support is only acceptable when it serves their purposes. When it serves other peoples purposes it is a moral outrage and an affront to God.
Please make a note of it.
In had no question you maroon... Imade a comment you made comments back...Since dialogue is of no interest to you I will no longer play. Too bad your efforts and being erudite haven't worked
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.