Alphecca

Both Parties Woo Churches

The New York Times has an article today about how the Bush campaign is looking to conservative church denominations to help turn out the vote. Here's a quote:

Many conservative pastors bristled at the notion that they are being enlisted by a campaign, instead describing their voter registration efforts as fulfilling biblical obligations.

"They know that to a degree they are a target of candidates and campaigns, and there is this natural tendency to say, we need to insulate ourselves," said Kerry K. Messer, a Southern Baptist layperson and founder of the socially conservative Missouri Family Network. "I see it more as a grass-roots movement. People are starting to say, we have got this figured out. These are the bad guys, we are the good guys, why is it that we can't talk about this at our local church?''

But the Bush campaign is doing everything it can to encourage those grass-roots efforts. Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's top political adviser, has often said he believes that four million fewer conservative Christians turned out to vote than he projected in the 2000 election, almost costing Mr. Bush the presidency, and the campaign is determined not to let that happen again.

So the Bush campaign sent Mr. Reed to recruit pastors at the annual meeting of the conservative Southern Baptist Convention. According to campaign memorandums, it has asked "people of faith team leaders" to help identify thousands of "friendly congregations" around the country. It asked religious outreach volunteers to petition their pastors to hold voter registration drives, and to speak on behalf of the campaign to Bible studies and church groups.

The campaign has asked volunteers to send in copies of congregational directories for comparison with voter registration rolls - a move some conservative religious leaders have denounced as a violation of the privacy of the church and its members.

I also don't have a problem with outsiders speaking in or "lobbying" church groups. If Bush supporters want to pass out "voter guides" then let them.

Democrats are doing the EXACT same thing. From the Billings Gazette yesterday:

Through values-laden language, grass-roots organizing and Kerry's increased discussion of his own faith, the Democrats are attempting to show that the party's presidential ticket reflects religious principles, pointing to their platform on health care, poverty and the environment.

The Kerry campaign - which has three staff members assigned as liaisons to various denominations - is aiming to create "People of Faith for Kerry" groups in every state. And it recently launched community service projects to bring together Kerry supporters with strong religious beliefs.

"I think the Democrats are clearly becoming wiser about opening a dialogue with the religious community," said Jim Wallis, a progressive evangelical leader who addressed an interfaith luncheon at the Democratic National Convention in Boston.

So neither group should suddenly try to claim the high-road. Unfortunately, in the past, both have. Lawyers for both Republicans and Democrats have filed suit in years gone by to have various churches' tax-exempt status revoked by the IRS for endorsing candidates. Look for that to happen this year too in what is becoming the norm in politics; litigation.

It's all hypocrisy of course since both sides are suing to stop the other side from doing the same things they do.

On a related note, I think that if a pastor espouses positions that a congregant disagrees with, that person should simply change churches. Or -- as many do -- shrug and say, well I disagree and not make a fuss about it. I'm sure there are a lot of Catholics who sit through pro-life sermons that believe in keeping abortion legal. John Kerry comes to mind...

I occasionally visit a local gay-men's social center a few towns away where everyone (except me) is lockstep on the Kerry bandwagon. I simply ignore it. As the election approaches, I may stop going for awhile to avoid it. That's my choice.

I'm not sure of the real point of this post other than that in the NY Times article, the writer went out of his way to talk about how Republicans are using churches to get out the vote, yet he only included one lone sentence about how Democrats do the same thing. As if the Times feels that somehow Republicans are subverting the political process.