What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Campaigning For Specific Candidates In Church? Ok? (1 Viewer)

Campaigning For Specific Candidates In Church? Ok?

  • Total voters
    88
Joe Bryant said:
Not a "get out and vote". But a "vote for this candidate" message distributed at scale to be played during church services.

https://twitter.com/evamckend/status/1449510191079301122?s=20
Click to expand...
Doesn't your link say after service?

I don't like a lot of similar things (selling stuff, questionable charity stuff, pot luck dinners ;)  ) that happen before or after services, so I wouldn't be thrilled about this either but after service is not in the same universe as during service.

ETA:  See below - I misread this.  Sorry!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NorvilleBarnes said:
Of course it is. A church is a church 24/7. There's nothing magical about being before, during, or after service. 
Click to expand...
Church facilities are routinely used for all kinds of non church purposes including those that have nothing to do with the congregation.  

But that isn't what matters.  A church service in the facility is most certainly different from the social events that the congregation engages in within the same building. 

 
I voted totally not ok. Have always felt that way and was particularly angry when I heard a service I attended last October where the minister said despite obvious serious character flaws in one candidate you have to vote for him because he supports pro life.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
AAABatteries said:
Would some of you be ok with this if the tax exemption was taken away?
Click to expand...
Not if I attended a church that practiced it. As a non-churchgoer, let them alienate their own if that's the direction they choose. 

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Doesn't your link say after service?

I don't like a lot of similar things (selling stuff, questionable charity stuff, pot luck dinners ;)  ) that happen before or after services, so I wouldn't be thrilled about this either but after service is not in the same universe as during service.
Click to expand...


More than 300 Black churches across Virginia will hear from Vice President Kamala Harris between Sunday and election day in a video message that will air during morning services as part of an outreach effort aimed to boost McAuliffe.

In the video, first obtained by CNN, Harris said her time growing up in Oakland's 23rd Avenue Church of God taught her it was a "sacred responsibility" to "lift up the voices of our community."

"I believe that my friend Terry McAuliffe is the leader Virginia needs at this moment," says Harris, before praising McAuliffe's "long-track record of getting things done for the people of Virginia."

Harris implores congregants to vote following church service. The McAuliffe campaign has embraced "Souls to the Polls," block-party style events featuring top campaign surrogates after church near polling locations, to drive voter turnout.

I think the video airs during service, but asks voters to physically go to the polls after service is over.

I do think this is slightly different than a pastor imploring someone to vote based on religious beliefs i.e. this is not leaning on someone's faith during church services to vote for a particular candidate because of that faith.  But, it is clearly a targeted message to vote for a particular candidate.  I would have preferred this was a simple get out the vote message - encouraging people to vote, even in this setting, I think is acceptable.

 
Sinn Fein said:
More than 300 Black churches across Virginia will hear from Vice President Kamala Harris between Sunday and election day in a video message that will air during morning services as part of an outreach effort aimed to boost McAuliffe.

In the video, first obtained by CNN, Harris said her time growing up in Oakland's 23rd Avenue Church of God taught her it was a "sacred responsibility" to "lift up the voices of our community."

"I believe that my friend Terry McAuliffe is the leader Virginia needs at this moment," says Harris, before praising McAuliffe's "long-track record of getting things done for the people of Virginia."

Harris implores congregants to vote following church service. The McAuliffe campaign has embraced "Souls to the Polls," block-party style events featuring top campaign surrogates after church near polling locations, to drive voter turnout.

I think the video airs during service, but asks voters to physically go to the polls after service is over.

I do think this is slightly different than a pastor imploring someone to vote based on religious beliefs i.e. this is not leaning on someone's faith during church services to vote for a particular candidate because of that faith.  But, it is clearly a targeted message to vote for a particular candidate.  I would have preferred this was a simple get out the vote message - encouraging people to vote, even in this setting, I think is acceptable.
Click to expand...
Okay, my bad in that I read it wrong.  Sorry @Joe Bryant!   I didn't really like it after either, but find it worst during a service.  That being said what church services look like varies a lot and there are lots of things that happen during services that my old traditional self dislikes including video boards to begin with in the sanctuary.  But times change.   While a church needs to be in the community it serves getting its hands dirty in many ways I still don't want it (my church at least) getting muddied by getting this deep in politics.

 
Amen. Now that service is over I'd like to talk about the upcoming election.

:lmao: . The lengths some people will go in their heads to defend this crap. 

 
If it's illegal, then I'd say "Totally Not OK". If it is legal, then I'd move to "On the Fence". Like others have said, I would personally not be member of a congregation that did this. But, in order to be anything other than "On the Fence", I'd need to spend much more time determining why those are my personal feelings. I'm pretty confident this is neither on the level of "I wish they'd sing different songs in church" nor the other end of things like "They deny Jesus is the Messiah" but I honestly don't know where it lands. All I can say is that I'd be really uncomfortable with it but won't reach a conclusion about whether I think it is ok for others to do this without personally studying this a lot more.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Okay, my bad in that I read it wrong.  Sorry @Joe Bryant!   I didn't really like it after either, but find it worst during a service.  That being said what church services look like varies a lot and there are lots of things that happen during services that my old traditional self dislikes including video boards to begin with in the sanctuary.  But times change.   While a church needs to be in the community it serves getting its hands dirty in many ways I still don't want it (my church at least) getting muddied by getting this deep in politics.
Click to expand...


No worries, GB.

 
Being as honest as I can I say for me it is further proof of the folly of man to rely on god in the first place. Doesn't matter a wit imo if a church wants to invest in political candidates or causes during work hours as a church is just another place for like minded people to gather and find community. Preach and teach is ok with me. As for any legal issues with allowing this, don't know and don't really care.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
tonydead said:
Amen. Now that service is over I'd like to talk about the upcoming election.

:lmao: . The lengths some people will go in their heads to defend this crap. 
Click to expand...
I’m honestly trying to come up with a legitimate reason as to why a church should not have the freedom to endorse a candidate for office. Now whether or not it’s a good idea to, or in keeping with the church’s theological mission, is another matter, but what is the argument against why they should be legally prohibited from doing so?  If the local Catholic Church wants to endorse the pro-life candidate for mayor, why should the law prevent them?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bigbottom said:
I’m honestly trying to come up with a legitimate reason as to why a church should not have the freedom to endorse a candidate for office. Now whether or not it’s a good idea to, or in keeping with the church’s theological mission, is another matter, but what is the argument against why they should be legally prohibited from doing so?  If the local Catholic Church wants to endorse the pro-life candidate for mayor, why should the law prevent them?
Click to expand...
Dunno, a much better question for sure than whether it's before or after services.

Now I take a look at it though, going to start my own religion.  No property tax, no sales tax, gains from investments exempt.  No income tax from businesses they own that further the religion.  Clergy can deduct their parsonage (house).  I was thinking Home Depot for a retirement gig, but screw that, this religious gig would be great for making sure I don't  have to give any money at all to the government.  

Buy a house and a barn in Northern Idaho where every other billboard is a religious church ad.  Those folks have it figured out.    :thumbup:

 
Roger Sterling said:
No. But I think churches should pay taxes and then I'd be fine with it.
Click to expand...
I view these as two separate issues. First, I'm in favor of removing the tax exemption period, or at the very least some sort of a better audit process. My reasons for that have nothing to do with this issue (promoting a candidate), though. Second, I don't have a problem in theory with a church advocating for a particular candidate. Priests in the church I grew up in always did it.* The church essentially delves into all spheres of one's life and tells one how to live, so I don't see why politics should be any different. I would person find it annoying if the church I belong to did this now but I interpreted the OP's question to be more of a law and policy question. With that in mind, seems like political promotion is par for the course and in line with what churches do.

*I always found it counterintuitive that while the priests would concede that the democratic candidate stood for more of the way that the Bible  (New Testament) advocated for treating others, that the abortion issue overrode any other and we were told it was our "duty" to vote for the Republican candidate. 

 
bigbottom said:
I’m honestly trying to come up with a legitimate reason as to why a church should not have the freedom to endorse a candidate for office. Now whether or not it’s a good idea to, or in keeping with the church’s theological mission, is another matter, but what is the argument against why they should be legally prohibited from doing so?  If the local Catholic Church wants to endorse the pro-life candidate for mayor, why should the law prevent them?
Click to expand...
you mean from a legal perspective?  I'd agree with you 100%.

 
tonydead said:
Dunno, a much better question for sure than whether it's before or after services.

Now I take a look at it though, going to start my own religion.  No property tax, no sales tax, gains from investments exempt.  No income tax from businesses they own that further the religion.  Clergy can deduct their parsonage (house).  I was thinking Home Depot for a retirement gig, but screw that, this religious gig would be great for making sure I don't  have to give any money at all to the government.  

Buy a house and a barn in Northern Idaho where every other billboard is a religious church ad.  Those folks have it figured out.    :thumbup:
Click to expand...
You could be the next Joel Osteen if you try hard enough.

 
bigbottom said:
I’m honestly trying to come up with a legitimate reason as to why a church should not have the freedom to endorse a candidate for office. Now whether or not it’s a good idea to, or in keeping with the church’s theological mission, is another matter, but what is the argument against why they should be legally prohibited from doing so?  If the local Catholic Church wants to endorse the pro-life candidate for mayor, why should the law prevent them?
Click to expand...
Agree 100%. I'm not at all interested in seeing the government tell a church what it can and cannot say. Similarly, I'm not at all interested in churches being given wide berths to shelter pre-tax dollars. 

 
tonydead said:
Dunno, a much better question for sure than whether it's before or after services.

Now I take a look at it though, going to start my own religion.  No property tax, no sales tax, gains from investments exempt.  No income tax from businesses they own that further the religion.  Clergy can deduct their parsonage (house).  I was thinking Home Depot for a retirement gig, but screw that, this religious gig would be great for making sure I don't  have to give any money at all to the government.  

Buy a house and a barn in Northern Idaho where every other billboard is a religious church ad.  Those folks have it figured out.    :thumbup:
Click to expand...
They call that "pulling an Osteen".

ETA: Dang Woz beat me to it.  :lol:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
you mean from a legal perspective?  I'd agree with you 100%.
Click to expand...
Here is one:

As a tax-exempt organization, a church is subject to a federal law passed in 1954 (popularly known as the Johnson Amendment) prohibiting 501(c)(3) organizations from becoming engaged in any political campaign activity. The law prohibits non-profit organization from engaging in activities that “participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.”.

The Johnson Amendment does not require a church to completely refrain from anything deemed “political.”  For example,  a church may engage in voter education practices—including providing forums for candidates to discuss their views—and may even distribute voter guides. But it must do so in a non-partisan fashion. The provision of a forum can’t be made in a way that is directly connected to official church functions, particularly if it shows bias in favor of (or against) a given candidate. Such bias might be shown by, for example, only inviting a favored candidate to the forum the church is holding, favoring one of the candidates in opening remarks at such a forum, or by doing political fundraising at the forum. Questions at the forum must be formulated and presented by an independent, nonpartisan panel, and must cover a wide range of issues, not just hot-button religious or political topics.
Click to expand...

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
They call that "pulling an Osteen".
Click to expand...
I don't understand this reference.  I never paid attention to these types, but Wiki says Joel was a son of a Southern Baptist pastor.  It seems he's been in this gig his entire life.  That's much different that pulling a Tonydead who would only be doing it for tax purposes.  

 
bigbottom said:
I’m honestly trying to come up with a legitimate reason as to why a church should not have the freedom to endorse a candidate for office. Now whether or not it’s a good idea to, or in keeping with the church’s theological mission, is another matter, but what is the argument against why they should be legally prohibited from doing so?  If the local Catholic Church wants to endorse the pro-life candidate for mayor, why should the law prevent them?
Click to expand...
Apparently nothing. This Johnson Amendment is just inconsequential fluff that churches and politicians so inclined ignore. 

 
I see four ways to answer the question:

  1. Is it okay legally?  - My belief is that it is not supposed to be legal, but I'll defer to the legal minds to correct this general understanding.  
  2. Should it be okay legally?  - @bigbottom's answer seems to cover it
  3. Should a random church do such things (assuming legal)?  -  Sure.  To each their own.
  4. Should my church do such a thing?  If it is during the service I'm likely looking for someplace else to go or have a few extras hours on Sundays.   If it is before or after the worship service then it is like a few other things that happen during these times that I'd skip out on.
 
thriftyrocker said:
Didn't know about specific cases until googling. Re-googled, and found this with some of the transcript

https://www.christiantoday.com/article/trump.campaign.makes.final.play.for.evangelical.votes.with.pence.video/99802.htm
Click to expand...
Trump won the election because of the Christian Nationalist movement.  It's also what reared its ugly head on January 6th. 

It's certainly ok if people want to vote their religious values.  The problem is when those values are twisted or supersede our democratic and constitutional values.   

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
I see four ways to answer the question:

  1. Is it okay legally?  - My belief is that it is not supposed to be legal, but I'll defer to the legal minds to correct this general understanding.  
  2. Should it be okay legally?  - @bigbottom's answer seems to cover it
  3. Should a random church do such things (assuming legal)?  -  Sure.  To each their own.
  4. Should my church do such a thing?  If it is during the service I'm likely looking for someplace else to go or have a few extras hours on Sundays.   If it is before or after the worship service then it is like a few other things that happen during these times that I'd skip out on.
Click to expand...


For #1, it is prohibited by law if they are a 501c3 tax exempt organization.  If they do violate the rules, they lose their 510c3 tax exempt status.  But the tax law specifically exempts churches, mosques and synagogue from having to be 501c3 organizations to be tax exempt.  So technically, there is no enforceable law to prevent a church from endorsing a candidate. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
The left typically labels many organizations as Christian or White Natiinalists, who clearly are not.  But it does make a good boogeyman argument for Democrats to keep their voters on the plantation. 
Click to expand...
This is based on polling where those categorized as Evangelical voted for Trump by a significant margin.  The stats  Trump's platform was about Christianity and Nationalism. Virtually everyone I know who identifies as Christian not only voted for Trump, but parroted the same anti-globalist, anti-immigrant, pro-Christian rhetoric. Do they identify as Christian Nationalists?  Probably not, but if it looks like a duck...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Captain Cranks said:
This is based on polling where those categorized as Evangelical voted for Trump by a significant margin.  The stats  Trump's platform was about Christianity and Nationalism. Virtually everyone I know who identifies as Christian not only voted for Trump, but parroted the same anti-globalist, anti-immigrant, pro-Christian rhetoric. Do they identify themselves as Christian Nationalists?  Probably not, but if it looks like a duck...
Click to expand...
Then I would suggest that the circle of people you know is not terribly representative of the population of people who identify as Christians. Using just one demographic as an example (and the one referenced in this thread), 79% of Black Americans identify as Christian. And 90% of Black voters voted for Biden (compared to 8% for Trump).  
 

Edit:  Maybe, when you said “Christian,” you meant to say “Evangelical Christian.”

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bigbottom said:
Then I would suggest that the circle of people you know is not terribly representative of the population of people who identify as Christians. Using just one demographic as an example (and the one referenced in this thread), 79% of Black Americans identify as Christian. And 90% of Black voters voted for Biden (compared to 8% for Trump).  
Click to expand...
Well, I purposely left race out of it, but if you want me to label it how I truly feel, I'd call it White Christian Nationalism.  

 
Joe Bryant said:
Not a "get out and vote". But a "vote for this candidate" message distributed at scale to be played during church services.

https://twitter.com/evamckend/status/1449510191079301122?s=20
Click to expand...


I wonder if she thought much about those church days and faith and ethics/morals when she was dating a married Willie Brown ?

I voted totally ok -  why restrict the ability of people to talk/discuss/be involved in political things?   If churches want to do it - why not? Not much of a churchly thing, IMO, but who am I to try and regulate ? that's up to them - not me

 
bigbottom said:
Captain Cranks said:
This is based on polling where those categorized as Evangelical voted for Trump by a significant margin.  The stats  Trump's platform was about Christianity and Nationalism. Virtually everyone I know who identifies as Christian not only voted for Trump, but parroted the same anti-globalist, anti-immigrant, pro-Christian rhetoric. Do they identify themselves as Christian Nationalists?  Probably not, but if it looks like a duck...
Click to expand...
Then I would suggest that the circle of people you know is not terribly representative of the population of people who identify as Christians. Using just one demographic as an example (and the one referenced in this thread), 79% of Black Americans identify as Christian. And 90% of Black voters voted for Biden (compared to 8% for Trump).  
 

Edit:  Maybe, when you said “Christian,” you meant to say “Evangelical Christian.”
Click to expand...
I don't think it's accurate to suggest Christian Nationalists drove his support.  I think Nationalists did, absolutely and there were Christians who identify in that group.  Being in the south, I saw patches of this, but it wasn't universal.  I know a larger portion of Christians who rejected Trump on ethics/morals alone even though they agreed with some of his political positions.  I DO believe many of them just threw up their hands and voted for him "lesser of two evils" style.  I'm hoping this group sees the error of their ways and resist him as an option in the coming primary and do more to promote other candidates.

 
Completely against what is going on with regard to the videotaped messages during services. However, I voted On the Fence, as I could see a situation where a parishioner was running for office and I don't think I'd have a problem with the clergy or church administration supporting that. 

File this as one of the many reasons I don't go to church anymore. I would also fully support removing tax-exempt status for all churches and religious organizations, right now.

 
I realize the more liberal white Christians on this board are going to take exception with my label.  I understand not all Christians are Nationalists or voted for Trump, but there is a large majority of white Christians in this country who support that agenda, whether they accept the label or not.  The same people who are/were disgusted by his behavior (and trust me, I heard that qualifier many times) were also thrilled that he put being Christian back in the fore, whether he was sincere or not.  

 
Herb said:
Completely against what is going on with regard to the videotaped messages during services. However, I voted On the Fence, as I could see a situation where a parishioner was running for office and I don't think I'd have a problem with the clergy or church administration supporting that. 

File this as one of the many reasons I don't go to church anymore. I would also fully support removing tax-exempt status for all churches and religious organizations, right now.
Click to expand...
Several years ago at the congregation I'm a member of, another member was running for a local position. A friend of the candidate, who is also a member of the congregation, sent an email to the whole church supporting the candidate, letting people know that help is needed to help campaign, and implied that it is God's will for this person to win. Apparently this person's email didn't just go to a list of people in their personal contact list. I guess they somehow got the full list of contact information for all members of the congregation and used that. Later that day, the church leadership sent an email saying that mass emails to the whole congregation should be for church related matters and only sent from church staff and leadership. They also expressed that they understand that some members are excited about this person running for office, but that this type of communication is not typical and not the way it should happen.

That event really stands out in my experience because I've heard almost nothing about politics "from the pulpit" over the nearly 40 years I've attended this congregation. There are a lot of congregations where politics just doesn't enter the church's message.

 
Captain Cranks said:
I realize the more liberal white Christians on this board are going to take exception with my label.  I understand not all Christians are Nationalists or voted for Trump, but there is a large majority of white Christians in this country who support that agenda, whether they accept the label or not.  The same people who are/were disgusted by his behavior (and trust me, I heard that qualifier many times) were also thrilled that he put being Christian back in the fore, whether he was sincere or not.  
Click to expand...


Thanks. I'm kind of fascinated with labels and generalizations.

Is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_nationalism popular?

For the bolded above, do you have some data to support your claim that a "Large majority of white Christians are Christian Nationalists"?

What is the number? When I hear "large majority", I think upwards of 75%. Do you think it's higher than that?

 
bigbottom said:
Oh, come on. Now you’re just trying to be provocative. 
Click to expand...
I’m not. What I wrote IS provocative; I admit that, but I honestly think that way. 
There is a concerted movement to disenfranchise black voting in southern states. This means that, just as in the heyday of the Civil Rights Movement, blacks need to use every tool at their disposal, including their churches, to combat this new discrimination. If that means campaigning for certain candidates, so be it. 

 
timschochet said:
I’m not. What I wrote IS provocative; I admit that, but I honestly think that way. 
There is a concerted movement to disenfranchise black voting in southern states. This means that, just as in the heyday of the Civil Rights Movement, blacks need to use every tool at their disposal, including their churches, to combat this new discrimination. If that means campaigning for certain candidates, so be it. 
Click to expand...
It seems all churches do this if they choose. There isn’t a reason to distinguish between black and white churches.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Punxsutawney Phil
Uber Files
Replies
0
Views
178
Punxsutawney Phil
Punxsutawney Phil
GordonGekko
Axios: Democrats Fear MAGA Republican Kari Lake Could Be Arizona's Next Governor (10/21/22 01:52 PST)
Replies
18
Views
781
Snotbubbles
Snotbubbles
GordonGekko
The Official Katie Porter (HOR/D-CA45) And Her "Whiteboard Of Justice" Appreciation Thread (10/24/22 17:34 PST)
Replies
2
Views
318
GordonGekko
GordonGekko

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top