| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2004/7/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:31151 Activity:insanely high |
7/2 Bush stoops to yet another new low. Hits up churches for names,
money, and votes: http://tinyurl.com/34v27
\- if you think this is a new low, you need to check your
altimeter.
\_ How is this any different than the DNC swapping donor
lists with unions and NPR?
\_ Unions pay taxes, churches do not.
\_ how about separation of church and state? unions have
always been political. NPR probably has an axe to grind
for republicans trying to silence an independent point-of-
view. Just shows how low Bush will go to be the prez.
\_ There is no such notion of 'separation of church in
state' in the Constitution. It is a contrivance of
leftist judges during the first half of the 20th
century. NPR receives federal funding, exclusive
of other news organizations.
\_ Duh, like the founders had things all figured out.
Take some civics lessons to know that the constitution
is a living document that can add rights and protections,
though, the "right" wants to abuse even the constitution
to limit certain people's rights - not even taken in
account the un-patriotic patriot act. sheesh.
\_ The document is not *living*. It says what it says and
has provisions for change. This is not the same as
*living* which really means "we make it say what we
want it to say".
\_ You are an idiot. I say this without malice, I just
think you should know. -cuhdz
\_ I think you are a cock-sucker. I think you already
know. Probably from spending too much time down
there in the "Bush"-es.
\_ Yes there is provision to change to Constitution. Its
It's _/
called an Amendment, and there are 17 of them. And
guess what else - judges were not designed as part
of the Amendment process, contrary to
what you see today.
\_ You mean like the dems' political rallies IN CHURCHES?
\_ thank you. jesus fucking christ this is a dumb thread.
it makes me ashamed to call myself a democrat. of
course democrats campaign in churches all the time.
Didn't anyone notice that one of the candidates in the
primary race was a reverend? hello?
\_ Dems=good, republicans=EEEVIIILL, everything repubs
do is bad. You are not being a good little CA dem.
if you think further than this.
\_ well, I don't live in California, so maybe that's
my problem. Where I live, the parties actually
get things done together from time to time.
\_ !!!! WHERE DO YOU LIVE?! I WANT TO GO THERE!
SEND HELP! --CA resident
\_ so. you want to move to a state with less
retarted politics, huh? ok, i'll give you
directions. get out a compas. go any
direction other than south or west, and you'll
be there.
\_ Can't your state just invade and bring
democracy to California? The weather is
so nice here. Democracy is the only thing
we're missing.
\_ California suffers from excess of
democracy, among other things. -- ilyas |
| 5/24 |
|
| tinyurl.com/34v27 -> www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/07/02/politics1853EDT0699.DTL "I'm appalled that the Bush-Cheney campaign would intrude on a local congregation in this way," said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. "The bottom line is, when a church does it, it's nonpartisan and appropriate. When a campaign does it, it's partisan and inappropriate," he said. "I suspect that this will rub a lot of pastors' fur the wrong way." The Bush campaign defended a memo in which it sought to mobilize church members by providing church directories to the campaign, arranging for pastors to hold voter-registration drives, and talking to various religious groups about the campaign. Other religious organizations also criticized the document as inappropriate, suggesting that it could jeopardize churches' tax-exempt status by involving them in partisan politics. Campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said the document, distributed to campaign staff, was well within the law. "People of faith have a right to take part in the political process, and we're reaching out to every supporter of President Bush to become involved in the campaign," Stanzel said. One section of the document lists 22 "coalition coordinator" duties and lays out a timeline for various activities targeting religious voters. By July 31, for example, the coordinator is to: * Send your church directory to your state Bush-Cheney '04 headquarters or give to a BC04 field representative. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the effort "is a shameless attempt to misuse and abuse churches for partisan political ends." Lynn said his organization would be "watching closely to see how this plays out in the pews." Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, a Washington advocacy group that has been critical of the Christian right, said the document was "totally inappropriate." "We are alarmed that this initiative by the Bush-Cheney campaign could lure religious organizations and religious leaders into dangerous territory where they risk losing their tax-exempt status and could be violating the law," Gaddy said. Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, said "efforts aimed at transforming houses of worship into political campaign offices stink to high heaven." None of those groups, however, has been as supportive of the Bush administration as the Nashville-based Southern Baptists. Bush spoke to the Southern Baptists' recent national convention, by video link, for the third year in a row. Outgoing SBC President Jack Graham called the president "a man of personal faith whose leadership is great for America." On Friday, Land said: "It's one thing for a church member motivated by exhortations to exercise his Christian citizenship to go out and decide to work on the Bush campaign or the Kerry campaign. It's another and totally inappropriate thing for a political campaign to ask workers who may be church members to provide church member information through the use of directories to solicit partisan support." |