Baptists Backing away from Bush?

[Jayne B]

Will Bush's push to bring out the 'Christian' vote backfire?

Baptists Pissed Over Bush Campaign Ploy
By Staff and Wire Reports
Jul 3, 2004, 08:47
Email this article
Printer friendly page


The Southern Baptist Convention, a conservative denomination closely aligned with President Bush, said it was offended by the Bush-Cheney campaign's effort to use church rosters for campaign purposes.
"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.

-Identify another conservative church in your community who we can organize for Bush.

-Recruit 5 people in your church to help with the voter registration project.

-Talk to your pastor about holding a citizenship Sunday and voter registration drive.

The Rev. 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."

The Rev. 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."


http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4777.shtml

[toolman846]

This situation points up a phenomenon that most politcal candidates seem not to be aware of. Why spend all those big bucks knocking down your opponent with negative ads, and also generating adverse reractions to your own campaign. Just sit back, run a few "Look at me. Ain't I cute? I'm the best guy." type ads, and wait for your rival to shoot themselves in the foot. Happens EVERY time!

Of course, the TV station owners wouldn't like it, what with losing that big windfall in campaign ads, and all.

:D

[Silver]

All of the Baptists that I know here in the Bible Belt are still supporting Bush.

[thaanatos]

1) it is conceivable that many churches will find this campaign ploy unacceptable and will not participate in it....
2) at election time the voters, including Christians, still have to choose between the available candidates and the platforms they push....will Kerry put forward a platform that encourages Christians to support him?

[ninjalooter1701]

All of the Baptists that I know here in the Bible Belt are still supporting Bush.
This may make them mad, but it's far from driving these conservatives into the Kerry camp.

[suedanim]

Baptists and those other Christians that live in the Bible belt are not the only Chistians in the US. Here in the NE corner of WA, gw is not so popular among Christians I have learned. To some he is seen more as the antichrist.

I don't think its fair to assume that Christians, in general, by default are 1) conservative 2) vote Republican 3) cannot be liberals. Baptists on the other hand... especially Southern Baptists you could probably stereotype as Republican. Southern Baptists are probably the best sheeple in the US, since they not given to independant thinking so much.

JMO!

[GunnyL]

Southern Baptists are probably the best sheeple in the US, since they not given to independant thinking so much.

Seems to me I am far more prone to independent thought and far lessa sheeple than one who believes every anti-conservative statment made just because it's anti-conservative, regardless the subject.

I could easily make the same statement concerning the phenomenon of ultra-liberalism in the NW that is by far the worst I have ever encounted anywhere in this country. Y'all just follow the fanatical leftist lemming in front of you; yet, you have the nerve to call someone else a "sheeple?" Puh-lease.

[tolivr]

I wouldn't worry too much about whether Christians will be voting Republican. USA Today, and other news outlets reported last month that there is a definite correlation between church attendance and voting preferences:

More than once a week 68% Bush, 32% Kerry;
Once a week 58% Bush, 42% Kerry.


Bush will carry the Christian vote, and they will turn out to vote for him. Thye have little choice as those who are sincere and dedicated to their Christian faith find the Democratic Platform, and many prominent Democrats, are diametrically opposed to their Christian beliefs.

By the way, I know more than a few very intelligent Southern Baptists.

I never voted for him, but Jimmy Carter was one the last time I checked.

[ninjalooter1701]

Would you remind us which of those Christian Beliefs that Bush is standing up for?

[jpn of Seattle]

Southern Baptists are probably the best sheeple in the US, since they not given to independant thinking so much.

How can you say that about people who dismiss evidence like The Grand Canyon and instead believe that the Earth was created 4,000 years ago last Thursday?...because that's what they have been taught.
Or about people who conveniently forget their own puberty and believe that people born gay "choose" a homosexual preference...because that's what they have been taught.

[tolivr]

Would you remind us which of those Christian Beliefs that Bush is standing up for?

Compare the Democratic Platform and Republican Platform on the issue of abortion. Most people who are devoted Christians are prolife, and the killing of over one million innocent unborn children every year is of paramount importance to many of them.

[tolivr]

How can you say that about people who dismiss evidence like The Grand Canyon and instead believe that the Earth was created 4,000 years ago last Thursday?...

I know quite a few Southern Baptists, and none of them believe the world to be only 4000 years old.

[ninjalooter1701]

Would you remind us which of those Christian Beliefs that Bush is standing up for?

Compare the Democratic Platform and Republican Platform on the issue of abortion. Most people who are devoted Christians are prolife, and the killing of over one million innocent unborn children every year is of paramount importance to many of them.
Yes yes, the one-issue voters, the ones who don't mind going to war on bullshit pretenses, the ones who don't mind letting "the poor" starve, the non-sheep you mention, the strong pro-lifers. Not sheep, just "one issue voters..."

[tolivr]

Yes yes, the one-issue voters, the ones who don't mind going to war on bullshit pretenses, the ones who don't mind letting "the poor" starve, the non-sheep you mention, the strong pro-lifers. Not sheep, just "one issue voters..."

Indeed, how ignorant to allow one issue to dictate your choices in an election. These modern abortion "one issue" prolife voters are almost as pathetic as those previous "one issue" voters so foolshly obsessed with slavery in the 1850's and 1860's. And what of Lincoln? From reading his Senatorial and Presidential campaign speeches, one would think slavery was the only issue he cared anything about, and the only issue that dictated his vote. You're right, he was a fool. God save us from such single minded politicians and voters.

[thaanatos]

actually I have heard from a lot of one issue voters lately....they all shout the same thing..."HE AIN'T BUSH!!"

[ninjalooter1701]

actually I have heard from a lot of one issue voters lately....they all shout the same thing..."HE AIN'T BUSH!!"
Anyone But Saddam!

NOTE: GWB hasn't said "Osama Bin Laden" in public for 14 + months.

What do you think of the "Anyone But Saddam" Strategy, including a NO EXIT plan strategy?

[thaanatos]

What do you think of the "Anyone But Saddam" Strategy, including a NO EXIT plan strategy?

shucks, Ninja....couldn't tell you what I think of them....why don't you tell me what they are, then I will give you my opinion.....

[ninjalooter1701]

What do you think of the "Anyone But Saddam" Strategy, including a NO EXIT plan strategy?

shucks, Ninja....couldn't tell you what I think of them....why don't you tell me what they are, then I will give you my opinion.....
I would give them your opinion, but I can't shove my head up my ass as far as yours is. Perhaps Rush could coach?

Teach us, perhaps, how God/Jesus teaches us that Saddam is our enemy?

[GunnyL]

I know quite a few Southern Baptists, and none of them believe the world to be only 4000 years old.

Yeah, me included. The original statement by Seattle was one born of ignorance. I don't know many Christians at all that believe the things they are accused of on this board.

[ninjalooter1701]

I know quite a few Southern Baptists, and none of them believe the world to be only 4000 years old.

Yeah, me included. The original statement by Seattle was one born of ignorance. I don't know many Christians at all that believe the things they are accused of on this board.
If the world is not 4000 years old, is the Bible not to be interpreted literally?

[GunnyL]

Do we have to go through this AGAIN, ninja?

That is the only weapon you anti-Christians have .... literalizing every word to say what you want it to. It proves nothing except that you excel at literalizing everything you read. Knock yourself out.

[ninjalooter1701]

Do we have to go through this AGAIN, ninja?

That is the only weapon you anti-Christians have .... literalizing every word to say what you want it to. It proves nothing except that you excel at literalizing everything you read. Knock yourself out.
Literalizing everything I read....which, of course, includes many Christians.

BTW, Gunny, I remember your accusations towards me, of taking quotes from a "Christian hater" Bible, when I showed how they had all been from a KJV Bible. I notice you didn't continue in that thread. Interesting.

[GunnyL]

What's interesting is that you took your version of the King James Version off the net. I took mine from a Bible I've had since I was 4. Older than you and older than the net, in its original prose.

That bullshit you posted was obnviously an anti-Christian translation that made up entire meanings to statements that do not exist in the original.

So, I rejected your argument as uneducated and biased.

And Ninja ... when a debate is going nowhere, I don't "run" anywhere. I just quit beating my head on the wall and find something more interesting.

[ninjalooter1701]

What's interesting is that you took your version of the King James Version off the net. I took mine from a Bible I've had since I was 4. Older than you and older than the net, in its original prose.

That bullshit you posted was obnviously an anti-Christian translation that made up entire meanings to statements that do not exist in the original.

So, I rejected your argument as uneducated and biased.

And Ninja ... when a debate is going nowhere, I don't "run" anywhere. I just quit beating my head on the wall and find something more interesting.'
Gunny, I posted my links to the Bible, for you to verify, they weren't from "hater sites" as you claimed. You can reject it as unbiased as you like. More likely, your "King James Version" was flawed."
That bullshit you posted was obnviously an anti-Christian translation that made up entire meanings to statements that do not exist in the original.
Tell you what, I'll repost it, and you can "find something more interesting" later on...."

[jpn of Seattle]

That bullshit you posted was obnviously an anti-Christian translation that made up entire meanings to statements that do not exist in the original.

Since the King James Version was written approximately 2100 years after the original Old Testament was written, is an English translation from Latin, which was a translation from Greek, which was a translation from Hebrew and Aramaic, it's pretty darned hard for us 21st Century English-speakers to speak intelligently about the "original meaning."

[GunnyL]

More likely, your "King James Version" was flawed."

I think I addressed this. My Bible would be less flawed than any later version with some American's twist added to it. Yours was in modern English meaning later version.

So, if a version were flawed, it would be yours.

Tell you what, I'll repost it, and you can "find something more interesting" later on...."

Knock yourself out. I'm going to bed. I guess what I said about beating my head against the wall didn't take, huh?

Let me try this one instead ... you will rarely find me posting in religious threads unless I take personal offense to something, or someone posts a blatant mistruth. I usually leave it to more knowledgeable people than myself to respond to.

I don't like debating religion. It serves no purpose. Nothing you or any other anti-Christian has ever said has altered my faith one bit. You're waisting your time, and since I'm not selling anything, so am I.

Why are you insisting on picking a fight where there is none?

[ninjalooter1701]

othing you or any other anti-Christian has ever said has altered my faith one bit.I'm a Christian. I just think that American churches have crapped on christianity.

[thaanatos]

If the world is not 4000 years old, is the Bible not to be interpreted literally?
do me a favor, Ninja....as one biblical scholar to another.....show me texts from the Bible that, taken literally, tell us the world is precisely 4000 years old......

[thaanatos]

I don't like debating religion. It serves no purpose.
I, on the other hand, thrive on it......lets get on with it, Ninny.....

[ninjalooter1701]

I don't like debating religion. It serves no purpose.
I, on the other hand, thrive on it......lets get on with it, Ninny.....
You've already demonstrated to all of us your thorough incompetence in the area.

[ninjalooter1701]

If the world is not 4000 years old, is the Bible not to be interpreted literally?
do me a favor, Ninja....as one biblical scholar to another.....show me texts from the Bible that, taken literally, tell us the world is precisely 4000 years old......

Precisely? Indeed, where did * I * say precisely?

I'm not gonna look up some fundamentalist belief. Go look up the works of "Jack Chick" or some other retard like yourself.

[thaanatos]

You've already demonstrated to all of us your thorough incompetence in the area.
well, shucks, Ninny....here I am giving you an opportunity to do it again.......I would think you would be excited with the prospects......

no need to be precise, just get us in the rough, general area of 4000 years......

I mean, come on.....you say the Bible cannot be taken literally because the world is more than 4000 years old....that must mean the Bible, taken literally says it isn't more than 4000 years old, right?.....and you are a biblical scholar and all, you should be able to point out to me where it says that, right?

tell you what, I will make it easy for you......lets just talk about the first three chapters of the Bible.....that should give you plenty of time to go and read them.....fifteen minutes tops and you should be able to run through it a couple of times......that brings us all the way from God creating everything, to God throwing Adam and Eve out of the garden......now, tell me in clear and simple terms.....how much time does the Bible say passed between the first verse of Chapter 1 and the last verse of Chapter 3? Its gotta be there, right? I mean, if the Bible says that the world is not more than 4000 years old, there must be something in those first three chapters somewhere, right? Please help me, Ninny....I need input from your scholarly mind........

[ninjalooter1701]

I mean, come on.....you say the Bible cannot be taken literally because the world is more than 4000 years old....that must mean the Bible, taken literally says it isn't more than 4000 years old, right?.....and you are a biblical scholar and all, you should be able to point out to me where it says that, right?

I know that it's tough for you, so I have posted a link. Here's a link to Google and a search that's already made for you.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=biblical+age+world&btnG=Google+Search

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dp-age-bible.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_date.htm

You can read them yourself, perhaps have someone (a small child) help you with the more difficult parts.

[thaanatos]

Interesting list, Ninnypoo.....except didn't see the number '4000' on any of them.....

shall we come to the conclusion, then, that you are incapable of ever crafting an argument in support of your claims? (By the way, I came to that conclusion long ago....)....or do you want some more time to prepare one.....

[tolivr]

Since the King James Version was written approximately 2100 years after the original Old Testament was written, is an English translation from Latin, which was a translation from Greek, which was a translation from Hebrew and Aramaic, it's pretty darned hard for us 21st Century English-speakers to speak intelligently about the "original meaning."

This is rather easliy proven incorrect by a simple study of the Dead Sea Scrolls, conclusively dated to 2000 years ago. They contain all the books of the OT except Esther. Here's what one of many scholars have said of those documents and the integrity and accuracy of the modern Bible.

Some charge that the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts, having been copied and recopied by hand over many years, contain a plethora of scribal errors that have altered significantly the information presented in the original documents. As such, we cannot be confident that our English translations reflect the information initially penned by biblical writers. However, the materials discovered at Qumran, commonly called the Dead Sea Scrolls, have provided impressive evidence for both the integrity of the Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts of the Old Testament and the authenticity of the books themselves.

I invite you do conduct a search on the Dead Sea Scrolls and discover for yourself exactly how accurate out modern translations of the Bible are.

[ninjalooter1701]

Interesting list, Ninnypoo.....except didn't see the number '4000' on any of them.....

shall we come to the conclusion, then, that you are incapable of ever crafting an argument in support of your claims? (By the way, I came to that conclusion long ago....)....or do you want some more time to prepare one.....
Actually, I can't remember, in this discussion, who said "Four thousand," but it's a rough number.

[thaanatos]

ctually, I can't remember, in this discussion, who said "Four thousand," but it's a rough number.

Well, let me refresh your memory on at least one who said it......

If the world is not 4000 years old, is the Bible not to be interpreted literally? - ninjalooter1701

are you working on that argument? If not, I guess we can respond....yes, the Bible can be interpreted literally even if the world is not 4000 years old......

[ninjalooter1701]

Southern Baptists are probably the best sheeple in the US, since they not given to independant thinking so much.

How can you say that about people who dismiss evidence like The Grand Canyon and instead believe that the Earth was created 4,000 years ago last Thursday?...because that's what they have been taught.
Or about people who conveniently forget their own puberty and believe that people born gay "choose" a homosexual preference...because that's what they have been taught.
You mean like when I reference JPN here?

This is just yet another example of your vast stupidity. I was quoting someone else. Sometimes your stupidity and blindness amaze even me. This is one of those times.

[thaanatos]

if you choose to defend SeeLittle's claims as well, feel free......but at the very least I expect you to defend your own.....have at it.......

[ninjalooter1701]

if you choose to defend SeeLittle's claims as well, feel free......but at the very least I expect you to defend your own.....have at it.......
I did defend my viewpoint: It was a quotation that I made. If that's too difficult for you, I won't be shocked, but hey, maybe a 3 year old could help you out.

[GunnyL]

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

Quote:
Since the King James Version was written approximately 2100 years after the original Old Testament was written, is an English translation from Latin, which was a translation from Greek, which was a translation from Hebrew and Aramaic, it's pretty darned hard for us 21st Century English-speakers to speak intelligently about the "original meaning."


This is rather easliy proven incorrect by a simple study of the Dead Sea Scrolls, conclusively dated to 2000 years ago. They contain all the books of the OT except Esther. Here's what one of many scholars have said of those documents and the integrity and accuracy of the modern Bible.

Quote:
Some charge that the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts, having been copied and recopied by hand over many years, contain a plethora of scribal errors that have altered significantly the information presented in the original documents. As such, we cannot be confident that our English translations reflect the information initially penned by biblical writers. However, the materials discovered at Qumran, commonly called the Dead Sea Scrolls, have provided impressive evidence for both the integrity of the Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts of the Old Testament and the authenticity of the books themselves.


I invite you do conduct a search on the Dead Sea Scrolls and discover for yourself exactly how accurate out modern translations of the Bible are.

Tolivr ...

You stole my answer ... damn ... what do I do now? :lol

[thaanatos]

I did defend my viewpoint: It was a quotation that I made. If that's too difficult for you, I won't be shocked, but hey, maybe a 3 year old could help you out.

you really don't know how to do it, do you....... :eyes

[jpn of Seattle]

Tolver wrote:
This is rather easliy proven incorrect by a simple study of the Dead Sea Scrolls, conclusively dated to 2000 years ago. They contain all the books of the OT except Esther. Here's what one of many scholars have said of those documents and the integrity and accuracy of the modern Bible.
Good point. I had forgotten about that.

[GunnyL]

Everytime I start to dislike you Seattle, you go and do something like this. For what it's worth, I'm impressed that you can admit to being wrong.

[ninjalooter1701]

if you choose to defend SeeLittle's claims as well, feel free......but at the very least I expect you to defend your own.....have at it.......
For oh about the fourth time, I was QUOTING HIM. Take it up with HIM. Have fun being dense and literal....

[GunnyL]

For oh about the fourth time, I was QUOTING HIM. Take it up with HIM. Have fun being dense and literal....

Okay. You were quoting Seattle. That's nice. :eyes

[ninjalooter1701]

For oh about the fourth time, I was QUOTING HIM. Take it up with HIM. Have fun being dense and literal....

Okay. You were quoting Seattle. That's nice. :eyes
You're leaps and bounds ahead of Thaanatos.

[thaanatos]

If the world is not 4000 years old, is the Bible not to be interpreted literally?
okay, so we are clear on this, Ninja? It is okay to interpret the Bible literally even though the world is not 4000 years old? Glad we got that error resolved........ ;)

[ninjalooter1701]

If the world is not 4000 years old, is the Bible not to be interpreted literally?
okay, so we are clear on this, Ninja? It is okay to interpret the Bible literally even though the world is not 4000 years old? Glad we got that error resolved........ ;)
You can interpret your Bible how you like. 4000/12000 + 6 days or whatever you like. Feel free to let your stupidity run boundless!

[thaanatos]

You can interpret your Bible how you like.
ah, thank you for your permission...I feel so much better about it now.....and feel free to continue to make statements you cannot back up.....I need to keep in practice pointing out your errors......

[ninjalooter1701]

You can interpret your Bible how you like.
ah, thank you for your permission...I feel so much better about it now.....and feel free to continue to make statements you cannot back up.....I need to keep in practice pointing out your errors......
Thaanatos, you're incapable of distinguishing between a citation and a direct assertion of fact. Good luck, you'll need it.

[thaanatos]

Thaanatos, you're incapable of distinguishing between a citation and a direct assertion of fact.
I know....it is such a burden to bear....perhaps you can help by making it clear when you post, which it is you are attempting.....

[ninjalooter1701]

Thaanatos, you're incapable of distinguishing between a citation and a direct assertion of fact.
I know....it is such a burden to bear....perhaps you can help by making it clear when you post, which it is you are attempting.....

Sure thing. Next time I will put the text that says "quote:" in shiny special education colors just for you!

[thaanatos]

ah, but that isn't enough....what you need to do is type in the following words.....

"I am quoting this simply because I have learned to do a cut and paste and not because I endorse anything herein, or even particularly understand what it means........."

that way your intent will be clear......

[ninjalooter1701]

ah, but that isn't enough....what you need to do is type in the following words.....

"I am quoting this simply because I have learned to do a cut and paste and not because I endorse anything herein, or even particularly understand what it means........."

that way your intent will be clear......
You mean like you've done in the above posts in this thread? You do understand the difference between "referring to something" and "endorsing something," don't you? You do understand that you are chastizing me for some action that you do yourself...

No, you don't.

[thaanatos]

You do understand that you are chastizing me for some action that you do yourself...

oh no, Ninnie....it could not be that you and I are doing the same thing.....we couldn't possible have achieved common ground so soon, I have not even begun to understand how your mind works yet.....and I am not chastizing you....I merely seek to understand you.....it is so difficult at times......

[thaanatos]

ou do understand the difference between "referring to something" and "endorsing something," don't you?

I think so, let me run this by you so we can see if I understand it clearly.....

when you posted "If the world is not 4000 years old, is the Bible not to be interpreted literally?"

what you meant to do was 'refer to' what SeeLittle said....you wanted us to notice that he had posted something.....

but you didn't intend to 'endorse' what he said....you didn't want us to think that you agreed with him that some people think the world is only 4000 years old......and you didn't want us to think you agreed that people might be wrong to interpret the Bible literally......

in other words, you simply wanted us to notice that you had read SeeLittle's post......

does that about cover it?