Well, It Worked In 04....Why Not?

GOP to target Christians for 06 elections.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021701978.html
from JoeUser Forums


Many people have scoffed at the idea that Republicans used issues like gay marriage to mobilize Christians to vote for them in the 04 elections. It appears that it may be their strategy to maintain their grip on Congress in 06 as well.

In N.C., GOP Requests Church Directories

By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 18, 2006; Page A19

The North Carolina Republican Party asked its members this week to send their church directories to the party, drawing furious protests from local and national religious leaders.

"Such a request is completely beyond the pale of what is acceptable," said the Rev. Richard Land, head of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.

During the 2004 presidential race, the Bush-Cheney campaign sent a similar request to Republican activists across the country. It asked churchgoers not only to furnish church directories to the campaign, but also to use their churches as a base for political organizing.Link

In addition, Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) has promised to revive the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage...just in time to get people riled up about the issue for the election. The amendment received only 48 votes last time it was brought to a vote, well short of the number required to send it to the house and then on to the 50 states.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Monday he plans a vote in early June on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, a move likely to fail but sure to spark a fiery election-year debate.

Frist, a Tennessee Republican, told CNN he's planning the vote for the week of June 5 because he wants to deal with the issue "as early as possible" before the Senate calendar fills up in a busy election year.
Link

I don't really mind them winning on real issues, but obviously this isn't a real issue. It's only another measure by the GOP to polarize the nation even more.
republican
4,373 views 9 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
There's nothing really wrong with it, frankly. People of a given religion are no different than people of any other unified group with a particular set of values, like PETA, the ACLU, etc. People have gotten the idea that religious people can't take part in government and still remain religious.

There's nothing that says they can't, though. The government can't compel or dissuade you from worshipping God. You can't have a state-run religion, or a state-prohibited one. There's nothing that says we can't enact laws that reflect our moral heritage. Most of the ones we have already do.

So if Christians decide to band together and become a political force to be reckoned with, good for them. They've sat quietly and been battered around the head and shoulders by groups like NOW and other PACs that often oppose their views.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree 100%. I even remember different groups trying to "ban" Christians from being allowed to vote a couple years ago. Sure, they said it was all in jest....but really....dems and liberals are fearful when the "moral majority" starts to wake up.
Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm not saying that they shouldn't take part in the political process. I also agree that they have every right to choose a candidate that they feel represents their values. However, I don't like the way the GOP has been going about it, by introducing bills/potential amendments that have religious overtones with the sole purpose getting them riled up. If it were a valid issue that truly had potential to become law, that would be different.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm not saying that they shouldn't take part in the political process. I also agree that they have every right to choose a candidate that they feel represents their values. However, I don't like the way the GOP has been going about it, by introducing bills/potential amendments that have religious overtones with the sole purpose getting them riled up. If it were a valid issue that truly had potential to become law, that would be different.


All is fair in love and war. And as you can see politicians love war. (And I don't mean Iraq, I mean between each other)

I have to agree with baker as well.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
All is fair in love and war.
Agreed, therefore, tax the hell out of religious institutions.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't have a problem with Republican Candidates requesting their supporters supply them with church directories, after all, they have every right to request whatever legal services they can get out of their volunteers.

However, I would have a HUGE problem if one of the members of my congregation or religion gave our congregation directory to any candidate (regardless of party affiliation). Why? Because our church has a policy against doing it. We also have a policy against using any church facilities or properties for campaigning. We are, however, strongly encouraged to take part in the political process, vote and even run for office if we have the opportunity.

If a church organization had no such policy against it, I don't see a problem with it. I also don't see a problem with church organizations encouraging their members to be active for and agaisnt legislation that goes against our personal and religious beliefs... but the line there is much more fine.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
We are, however, strongly encouraged to take part in the political process, vote and even run for office if we have the opportunity.


Very reasonable, as long as they don't lobby you after you're elected.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
" Agreed, therefore, tax the hell out of religious institutions."


If we must have such punitive taxation force on us, hell yeah. I don't think religious organizations need to be exempt in any capacity beyone charity. Calling many of them "non-profit" is a farce. Careful, though, I have a feeling if you look hard at a lot of lefty activist organizations you'll find they aren't much better.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Very reasonable, as long as they don't lobby you after you're elected.


True. I think the contrasts between Sen. Hatch and Sen. Reid are pretty good examples that the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints leave the politics of the members to ourselves. ;~D