Posted on 07/27/2004 8:40:23 AM PDT by prairiebreeze
WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- The head of the Christian Seniors Association (CSA) has asked U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft to investigate reported harassment of churches in Kansas and Missouri.
CSA Executive Director James Lafferty said that the Mainstream Coalition (web site) has more than 100 volunteer members who are "monitoring" sermons at targeted churches.
Lafferty, who said he initially learned about the situation through an Associated Press article, has delivered letters to U.S. Attorney General Ashcroft and to the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division asking that federal agents be dispatched to Kansas and Missouri to observe the coalition's activities against churches there.
"Churches in those states are being strong-armed and pushed around because of their beliefs," said Lafferty in a press release. "We want those religious citizens to get the protection they are promised in the Constitution. It is time somebody pushed back at the liberal bullies. This is harassment, pure and simple. Churches in Kansas and Missouri which oppose homosexual marriage go to the top of the coalition's target list for some 'monitoring.'"
In a recent interview, Lafferty said, "We are hoping that [the Justice Department] will take a look at what it going on in Kansas and Missouri and take whatever steps are necessary to protect the religious liberties of people in this state. [This activity] sounds sort of Nazi-ish. It is very unAmerican and particularly from people who claim to be defenders of liberty and choice. They are really trying to intimidate religious people."
Lafferty charged the Mainstream Coalition with having a "very definite political leaning."
"They point with pride to their board being active in ACLU and left of center groups," Lafferty explained. "They are very liberal and anti religious and come at it from a very definite point of view, and we believe they are not the sort of objective good government people they pretend they are."
However, the executive director of the Mainstream Coalition had a different perspective. Caroline McKnight said she saw developing in her community something of great concern to her: "An escalation on the part of the religious community to get into [politics] in a way they never had before."
In an apparent attempt to make sure churches toe the legal political line, the Mainstream Coalition obtained addresses for every church in the community -- about 400. According to McKnight, the group had done this before but on a smaller scale.
McKnight said in a letter to churches, "We are well aware we are coming into difficult [political] times, and we encourage your participation in the democratic process. Have candidate forums and do voter registration drives. However, other things may be more questionable and we urge caution. Because we have become concerned over this we will be randomly sending our members to worship in your church."
According to McKnight, the Coalition asked for volunteers willing to worship in a church other than their own. This was with the idea of reporting back to the Coalition about any activities they felt were crossing the lines-such as actual endorsement of candidates -- an activity prohibited by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
"It was a happy kind of thing on our part," McKnight said. "We have not found anything that was remotely objectionable because we educated the people on what to look for. A clergy person can say almost anything except vote for or vote against [a particular candidate]. A lot of people are unaware about how broad the parameters are for clergy. A candidate can [even] appear as long as the other one is given the opportunity."
McKnight said the potentially negative fallout of what her group did occurred to her but only "in some degree."
Dr. Jerry Johnston, pastor of the First Family Church of Overland Park, Kansas (web site) was not at all happy about the monitoring activities of the Mainstream Coalition. He said McKnight's apparent lack of concern about the ramifications of her group's activities was very revealing.
"It shows you how out of step and out of touch the Coalition is with issues that mean a great deal to people of faith and the majority of Americans," Johnston said. "When you start redefining marriage ... you're out of touch."
Johnston said that McKnight's passion over this issue is fueled at least in part by a fear that the influence of the Mainstream Coalition is fading.
"The growing churches in Johnson County are evangelical and Bible believing," Johnson said. "Everyone associated with the Mainstream Coalition is on the left side of the political spectrum. There is nothing mainstream about the Mainstream Coalition. They need to be censored. [This activity] was so Orwellian and Nazi-esque."
McKnight's zeal also springs from a concern about the 40 TV stations we're on and our 3,000 members and our reputation in the community," Johnston said. "They were concerned about the effect."
He added, "What [McKnight] did was further energize us to do a thorough job. [We have seen] how ridiculous her rhetoric is."
McKnight defended her actions saying, "Rev. Johnston is an uncommon man of God. ... Whatever we did was not a huge deal in conjunction to what Johnston did."
It would have been one thing, she said, to have one, two, ten, or even 20 clergy who wanted to influence politics -- but to have so many all led by one person was something quite different. That person, she said, was Johnson.
McKnight explained that when the Kansas legislature defeated a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, Johnston began distributing a voters guide containing background information on incumbent state legislators from the area.
According to McKnight state legislators did not see the need for such an amendment.
She said, "Same sex marriage is not allowed in the state so why do we need an amendment?"
Johnston said, "Everybody knows that is false [and] all it takes is one judge to strike that down [and allow same sex marriage]. They hide behind that party line excuse and it doesn't stand up. Ultimately we need a federal marriage amendment."
Johnston's guide makes it clear that his church is not endorsing candidates -- rather just providing information about their voting record on issues of importance to conservatives and evangelical believers -- something permissible under the IRS guidelines for churches.
However, Johnston raised the ire of the radical civil libertarian group Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (AU).
Quoting from the Kansas City Star, AU commented about Johnston's voters guide, saying, "The Rev. Jerry Johnston of Oakland Park, Kan., recently organized a group of local clergy to argue that churches must get more involved in politics. Upset about the Kansas legislature's defeat of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, Johnston began distributing a pamphlet containing background information on incumbent state legislators from the area. If [legislators] had supported the amendment against gay marriage, the word YES appeared by their picture. If they voted against it, the word NO appeared."
McKnight said that Johnston's current version of the voters guide has been modified, and she is appreciative, but "the original version was questionable."
However, Johnston said nothing about the document is different.
"It has been amended in that it now includes the Missouri representatives but no verbiage has been doctored or sanitized," Johnston said. "And after the defeat of the federal marriage amendment we added the voting record of the U.S. Senate on [that issue]."
Something ominous and nasty about these people.
I am curious - if a church has a sign out from that it is open to all and someone from this group attends a service and notes what is said - how is that a criminal act?
Do truly religious people generally pick their churches "randomly"?
The left is getting more weirdly chilling by the day.
Follow Kerry, Edwards, Jesse Jackson, the two Hillaries and all other national Dems to every single congregation of the Left.
That's where you'll find illegal campaign actions.
From the people who won't stop bitching about HUAC 50 years after the fact...
Michael Medved has the leader of these "snitches" on the radio yeaterday, she claimed to be a moderate, or whatever, but she was clearly a shill for the lib agenda.
"how is that a criminal act?"
Im not sure it is, but there is something a little unnerving about it. Seems a little intimidating.
Well, I do not think what they are doing is illegal. It's just tacky and hypocritical. There's also a lot of interesting implications in the whole thing. Basically, they are saying that Christians are not "mainstream." Kind of lets you know where they are coming from, doesn't it. And there rbaid opposition to protecting marriage certainly doesn't make them "mainstream." Further, I do not think that is the legal name of their organization.
Boortz asked Je$$e Jackson about this yesterday, about how it was bad for white churches to urge their congregations to be political, but it was ok for black churches to do it, and Jack$on said it was because blacks were under slavery for (insert # here) years and then Jim Crow laws for (insert # here) years, so it was ok for them to do that.
?????
"Monitoring" is hardly a threat. What other evidence is there of criminal activity?
Because they are invited to worship, not to monitor, harass and gin up lawsuits.
Restaurants invite everyone, but they invite everyone to come in and eat, not to take a table, order a tapwater and follow the maitre'd around, taking notes everytime he opens his mouth.
The intent is clearly to harass, and through this harassment to creating a chilling environment for free speech and freedom of religion.
It's not illegal at all. I think it's kind of funny. They are going to have to hear the truth at least once in their sorry lives. LOL! I do think they intend it to be intimidating. It's not. But that's their intention. They are very ugly people.
I wonder what the Left would say if we tried to sit in at a mosque and take notes on what was preached there...
The criminal act is the tax code itself. There -- that is the vile suppressor of free speech in the pulpit.
The lawsuit thing is ulta-tacky. But it's still not illegal. The big problem is that the media around here are on their side. If the media were neutral, then a little sunshine would set things straight and keep all of it in perspective. We have HORRIBLE media in Kansas, especially Kansas City.
What if they simply had a pocket recorder and transcribed the sermon later? That isn't disruptive to the service.
Restaurants invite everyone, but they invite everyone to come in and eat, not to take a table, order a tapwater and follow the maitre'd around, taking notes everytime he opens his mouth.
Funny, but food reviewers order, eat, take notes and then critique the restaurant.
Exactly. Or worse, what if we sat in at liberal churches, especially black churches. We would be called racists.
Well, a church could just refuse the tax-exempt status. I will agree that the laws against politicking from the pulpit aren't enforced against liberals - but it isn't a crime to go to a service and note what is said there.
Let them come, maybe they'll hear the word of God for once in their lives.
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.