Dear Anonymous 12:41, Here is a quiz: Which is a more egregious violation of the separation of church and state? (A) Democrats holding a candidates' forum in the community room of a church or (B) Republican president George W. Bush creating, through his first executive order, The Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Actually, considering that "Initiatives" has been changed to "Parrtnerships" the forum would seem to be exactly what the Republicans had in mind.
SEEC rules say 501c3 non profits can potentially loose that status by being. 501c4's are public interest groups that can only be 50% political - the co host listed. Odd for a church to have a political forum, odd that each campaign isn't noted as paying for forum. Church's can rent space to political groups if they do so in a non partisan way with all parties given the same rate, many choose not to as to not tread into ambiguous territory - maybe that's what the poster was inferring if the church is a non profit.
I'm quite sure the Democratic Town Committee rented the space from the church. It was neither sponsored by the church, nor did the church endorse the candidates or the content of the meeting. It was a Democratic candidate forum open to any member of the public who wanted to attend.
5 comments:
Looking forward to seeing everyone! Joe Ganim isn't coming? Hmmm...
Separation of church and state doesn't matter if you're a Democrat.
Dear Anonymous 12:41,
Here is a quiz: Which is a more egregious violation of the separation of church and state? (A) Democrats holding a candidates' forum in the community room of a church or (B) Republican president George W. Bush creating, through his first executive order, The Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Actually, considering that "Initiatives" has been changed to "Parrtnerships" the forum would seem to be exactly what the Republicans had in mind.
SEEC rules say 501c3 non profits can potentially loose that status by being. 501c4's are public interest groups that can only be 50% political - the co host listed. Odd for a church to have a political forum, odd that each campaign isn't noted as paying for forum. Church's can rent space to political groups if they do so in a non partisan way with all parties given the same rate, many choose not to as to not tread into ambiguous territory - maybe that's what the poster was inferring if the church is a non profit.
Anon 2:23
I'm quite sure the Democratic Town Committee rented the space from the church. It was neither sponsored by the church, nor did the church endorse the candidates or the content of the meeting. It was a Democratic candidate forum open to any member of the public who wanted to attend.
Post a Comment