posted June 05, 2004 12:19 AM            

I bet you feel like God now JW, don'tcha?

I only wish that I can find the thread that has to do with Bush, manipulation, religion, illegal distribution campaign procedures and "The Great Divide",because I got something here that contrasts to that little article about tax exemptions of churches and campaign fraud from no other then:YOURS TRUELY!

...and that all along, Paras was indeed... was right!

But of course JW, I have my faith in you! I'm sure you'll be able to find that article again somewhere in Newsmax.

In the meanwhile,get to read this little piece,from one of those far left petty notions that you feel people have no right into listening to, called "news sources"!

That's right JW, how dare the people of America get inside information without Dubya's permission! I say send them to Ashwits as a tourist attraction,that will teach his partner(Osama Bin Laden)a lession that he'll soon never forget!

--------------------------------------------

Bush Campaign Seeks Help From Congregations

DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK, The New York Times

The Bush campaign is seeking to enlist thousands of religious congregations around the country in distributing campaign information and registering voters, according to an e-mail message sent to many members of the clergy and others in Pennsylvania.

Liberal groups charged that the effort invited violations of the separation of church and state and jeopardized the tax-exempt status of churches that cooperated. Some socially conservative church leaders also said they would advise pastors against participating in such a partisan effort.

But Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for the Bush administration, said "people of faith have as much right to participate in the political process as any other community" and that the e-mail message was about "building the most sophisticated grass-roots presidential campaign in the country's history."

In the message, dated early Tuesday afternoon, Luke Bernstein, coalitions coordinator for the Bush campaign in Pennsylvania, wrote: "The Bush-Cheney '04 national headquarters in Virginia has asked us to identify 1,600 `Friendly Congregations' in Pennsylvania where voters friendly to President Bush might gather on a regular basis."

In each targeted "place of worship," Mr. Bernstein continued, without mentioning a specific religion or denomination, "we'd like to identify a volunteer who can help distribute general information to other supporters." He explained: "We plan to undertake activities such as distributing general information/updates or voter registration materials in a place accessible to the congregation."

The e-mail message was provided to The New York Times by a group critical of President Bush.

The campaign's effort is the latest indication of its heavy bet on churchgoers in its bid for re-election. Mr. Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, and officials of Mr. Bush's campaign have often said that people who attended church regularly voted for him disproportionately in the last election, and the campaign has made turning out that group a top priority this year. But advisers to Mr. Bush also acknowledge privately that appearing to court socially conservative Christian voters too aggressively risks turning off more moderate voters.

What was striking about the Pennsylvania e-mail message was its directness. Both political parties rely on church leaders — African-American pastors for the Democrats, for example, and white evangelical Protestants for the Republicans — to urge congregants to go the polls. And in the 1990's, the Christian Coalition developed a reputation as a political powerhouse by distributing voters guides in churches that alerted conservative believers to candidates' position on social issues like abortion and school prayer. But the Christian Coalition was organized as a nonpartisan, issue-oriented lobbying and voter-education organization, and in 1999 it ran afoul of federal tax laws for too much Republican partisanship.

The Bush campaign, in contrast, appeared to be reaching out directly to churches and church members, seeking to distribute campaign information as well as ostensibly nonpartisan material, like issue guides and registration forms.

Trevor Potter, a Washington lawyer and former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, said the campaign's solicitation raised delicate legal issues for congregations.

"If the church is doing it, it is a legal problem the church," Mr. Potter said. "In the past, the I.R.S. has sought to revoke and has succeeded in revoking the tax-exempt status of churches for political activity."

If a member of the congregation is disseminating the information, however, the issue is more complicated. If the congregation had a table where anyone could make available any information whatsoever without any institutional responsibility or oversight, then a member might be able to distribute campaign literature without violating tax laws. But very few churches have such open forums, Mr. Potter said. "The I.R.S. would ask, did the church encourage this? Did the church permit this but not other literature? Did the church in any way support this?"

Mr. Bernstein, the e-mail message's author, declined to comment. Mr. Schmidt, the campaign spokesman, said the e-mail message only sought individual volunteers from among the "friendly congregations," not the endorsements of the any religious organizations or groups.

"The e-mail is targeted to individuals, asking individuals to become involved in the campaign and to share information about the campaign with other people in their faith community," Mr. Schmidt said. "Yesterday, a liberal judge from San Francisco overturned a partial-birth abortion ban which banned that abhorrent procedure. That is an example of an issue that people of faith from across the United States care about."

He said that the Pennsylvania e-mail message was part of a larger national effort. The number of congregations mentioned - 1,600 in just one state - suggests an operation on a vast scale.

But even some officials of some conservative religious groups said they were troubled by the notion that a parishioner might distribute campaign information within a church or at a church service.

"If I were a pastor, I would not be comfortable doing that," said Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. "I would say to my church members, we are going to talk about the issues and we are going to take information from the platforms of the two parties about where they stand on the issues. I would tell them to vote and to vote their conscience, and the Lord alone is the Lord of the conscience."

The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of the liberal Americans United for Separation of Church and State, argued that any form of distributing campaign literature through a church would compromise its tax-exempt status. He called the effort "an absolutely breathtakingly large undertaking," saying, "I never thought anyone could so attempt to meld a political party with a network of religious organizations."

In a statement, Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, a liberal group, called the effort "an astonishing abuse of religion" and "the rawest form of manipulation of religion for partisan gain." He urged the president to repudiate the effort.

In a statement, Mara Vanderslice, director of religious outreach for the Kerry campaign, said the effort "shows nothing but disrespect for the religious community." Ms. Vanderslice continued: "Although the Kerry campaign actively welcomes the participation of religious voices in our campaign, we will never court religious voters in a way that would jeopardize the sanctity of their very houses of worship."

How many congregations or worshippers will choose to cooperate remains to be seen. In an interview yesterday, the Rev. Ronald Fowlkes, pastor of the Victoria Baptist Church in Springfield, Pa., said he had not seen the e-mail message but did not think much of the idea.

"We encourage people to get out and vote," Mr. Fowlkes said, but as far as distributing information through church, "If it were focused on one party or person, that would be too much."

06-03-04 11:55 EDT

posted June 05, 2004 02:05 AM            

You don't give paras much credit do you Ozone? Not nearly as much as I do. First off Ozone, the thing that would embarrass paras would be to find out he was wrong about something he believes in strongly. But paras doesn't believe he's wrong about what he believes. Even if he did find himself on the wrong side of an issue, paras would just come out and say so, unlike you Ozone. He certainly wouldn't go back and delete all his posts for that reason.

Let me help you out here Ozone since my memory seems to be better than yours. The issue came about because paras posted that religious organizations were some of the biggest campaign contributors, along with major corporations. I knew that isn't true because churches and religious organizations are organized as 501 tax exempt organizations who may not campaign for persons seeking political office or campaign for issues or participate in issue advocacy and I posted a case where a church had lost their tax exemption for doing so. In fact Ozone, religious organizations had only contributed about $900,000 for the election and those religious organizations were probably not tax exempt.

Now Ozone, what was paras right about all along ---specifically?

Do you know the difference between congregations and churches Ozone?

The email from the Republican campaign said nothing about distributing campaign literature in a church, didn't say anything about having a church endorse the President or any other candidate. In fact, the emails were sent to "individuals".

"Mr. Schmidt, the campaign spokesman, said the e-mail message only sought individual volunteers from among the "friendly congregations," not the endorsements of the any religious organizations or groups."

"We plan to undertake activities such as distributing general information/updates or voter registration materials in a place accessible to the congregation."

A place accessible to a congregation is not necessarily a church Ozone. Could be an individual's home, business, Elks or Lions Club or any other organization's meeting hall.

Further, it would not be against IRS rules for a church to permit literature to be distributed, even on church property as long as it didn't advocate any issue, political party or candidate. Voter registration or distribution of voter registration forms is not against IRS rules either.

posted June 05, 2004 09:01 PM            

con·gre·ga·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (knggr-gshn)
n.
The act of assembling.
A body of assembled people or things; a gathering.

A group of people gathered for religious worship.
The members of a specific religious group who regularly worship at a church or synagogue.
Roman Catholic Church.
A religious institute in which only simple vows, not solemn vows, are taken.
A division of the Curia.

church ( P ) Pronunciation Key (chűrch)
n.
A building for public, especially Christian worship.
often Church
The company of all Christians regarded as a spiritual body.
A specified Christian denomination: the Presbyterian Church.
A congregation.
Public divine worship in a church; a religious service: goes to church at Christmas and Easter.
The clerical profession; clergy.
Ecclesiastical power as distinguished from the secular: the separation of church and state.

tr.v. churched, church·ing, church·es
To conduct a church service for, especially to perform a religious service for (a woman after childbirth).

adj.
Of or relating to the church; ecclesiastical.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English chirche, from Old English cirice, ultimately from Medieval Greek krikon, from Late Greek kriakon (dma), the Lord's (house), neuter of Greek kriakos, of the lord, from krios, lord. See keu- in Indo-European Roots.]

--------------------------------------------

You know what JW, you are sooooo right,I've shoud have known! Bush is not targeting the church buildings, he's targeting all those who just happen to worship in a church.

That's kind of waiting at the very doors of the church(for the people to come out),so the Bush Administration personel can chase them all to they're cars as they are leaving,with pamphlets of Twiggy's rhetoric and risking a good thing for the one's who believes in God,for the Administration's success,but better yet,now they get to target those people at they're homes(over the internet) as junk e-mail,right?

Ain't that the same thing JW?

posted June 06, 2004 12:44 AM            

Apparently, you think having religious beliefs bars one from voting, holding public office or being a member of the federal judiciary. Certainly that is the opinion of the democrat party.

I think you're in for a very big surprise in November Ozone.

posted June 06, 2004 10:54 AM            

It also states in the Bible that the seven main churches will turn they're backs on God and find themselves being tricked into doing the work of Satan instead,in the name of Christ(of course) and that they will not come to realizaion of it until all the "signs of the times of the end" will be completed as according to plan from Jesus himself! Only one of those churches will turn back to God,the rest will be damned(making up six)of Satans head lieutenants!

No JW,what will surprise me is that humanity will rise above themselves and manage to stop these things from happening that the Bible has foresaw!

posted June 06, 2004 11:34 AM            

Ozone, most of the time you don't make any sense at all. Who the hell said the war in Iraq has a thing to do with God, or that taking out Saddam was carrying out God's will? Not me, not the President, not Rumsfeld, not Rice, not Powell, not anyone in the Bush administration.

posted June 06, 2004 12:22 PM            

quote:

---

please tell me who you think the Devil or his surrogate is on Earth right now.

---

I don't know what you mean JW by that,but if you state your question a little better,then maybe I'll give you a proper answer. Otherwise, I have no clue into what you are talking about.

quote:

---

What the hell does any of that have to do with people who have religious beliefs being restrained from expressing them by speech, by voting, by advocating candidates or by advocacy for or against issues? What has any of that got to do with dimocrats attempting to keep anyone off the federal benches who have any religious beliefs whatsoever?

---

It has everything to do with it,when it comes to using the congregations as for asuming a sponsorship for any election,give and take Bush wins another four years and those churches loses they're tax exemption!
"Killing two birds with one stone" is no problem for the Devil to utilize for himself. Yeah,but when it comes to voting in general per individual,without the stating of they're congregation is great. Then why would Bush have to target the congregation in the first place?

quote:

---

Ozone, most of the time you don't make any sense at all. Who the hell said the war in Iraq has a thing to do with God, or that taking out Saddam was carrying out God's will? Not me, not the President, not Rumsfeld, not Rice, not Powell, not anyone in the Bush administration.

---

"Two partners lying to the public as enemies at the same table",dude!

But your right JW,not anybody of the Bush Adiminstration said it was that way,it was God that said it!