Nov Election, Candidates Aside...

[Ragoczy]

Not specifically. As I said in an earlier post, I would finance all campaigns from a pool of funds donated voluntarily by any entity that cares to. That would include church groups, corporations and individuals. No tax revenues, although the funds could be collected similarly to the Presedential Election Campaign Fund donation from your tax form.
But the funds would be parcelled out equally among the candidates, with no one campaign getting more than any other. That allows the voters to elect the person they feel is most qualified, rather than the one with the most money for ads. This same fund could pay for the TV time for public access. Naturally, some non-partisan group would have to handle this. One of those bumps I mentioned.

And the next bump would be, which candidates? I'd be extremely hesitant to donate if I knew an equal amount of my donation was going to go to Cynthia McKinnie (sic) and her insanity. I'd be okay with my donation going equally to Obama and McCain, much as I despise one of them (guess which ), but at least they're legitimate candidates. So who/how decides which of everyone who'd like to run for President gets a share?

True in theory, but if it were true in fact there would be no censorship of the networks. In fact, there are always some good and valid reasons to abridge free speech. Try shouting FIRE in a crowded theater and see how far you get with a free speech defense.

Well, I fundamentally disagree with FCC regulation of content. I agree with licensing, as a necessary traffic cop to keep the signals from overlapping and I agree with government access requirements, under eminent domain, but I'm strongly opposed to FCC oversight of content.

The "fire!" example is fundamental to Constitutional law -- your right to swing your arm ends at the other guy's nose. Meaning that when your exercising a right infringes on the rights of others, that's when it's abridged. For instance, you can picket a business on the public right-of-way, but cannot go on the business' property because it's private property.

There's no infringement on another's rights if I buy time on a network for political speech.

I agree that their objective includes the tax structure, as well as the propagation of laws which will benefit the corporations over the individuals. This is the very kind of action which needs to be curtailed.

Can I just point out that corporations are individuals? There's no Jabba-the-Hut-looking creature out there that's called a corporation -- corporations are owned by individuals.

True, people live their lives based upon their religious training, among other things. That includes candidates. The religion of anyone in this country should not have anything to do with their ability to hold office. Theoretically. In practice, though....
But what I'm concerned with is those ministers/priests/rabbis/whatever who use the pulpit to put forth a political position. To my mind, doing that negates the right of the church to claim tax-free status. And when the churches become actively involved in a campaign, including through the donation of money to their candidates, that violates the constitution. If a priest/minister/whatever wants to make speeches as an individual, that's fine. Let him do it on the street corner soap box like any other person, without his religious trappings.

How does it violate the Constitution? Why doesn't the free exercise of religion mean that my church can support a particular candidate we, as the congregation, believe best represents us? How is that any different than any other group supporting a candidate?

'course I'm not sure how that would work, because I don't attend church and, being an Apathetic Agnostic, it'd be a really weird service ...

"Does anybody know if there's a god yet?" "No."
"Does anybody care yet?" "No."
"Okay, see you next Sunday."

[Thorne]

Can I just point out that corporations are individuals? There's no Jabba-the-Hut-looking creature out there that's called a corporation -- corporations are owned by individuals.

Corporations are entities, certainly. And individuals may be corporations. But corporations, as an entity, is not a citizen and does not have a right to vote. Individual citizens, even those who are corporations, do have that right.

How does it violate the Constitution? Why doesn't the free exercise of religion mean that my church can support a particular candidate we, as the congregation, believe best represents us? How is that any different than any other group supporting a candidate?

I never said that the members of any church, nor their minister, could not support a candidate. But using that church as a means of promoting any candidate, or of promoting or opposing a referendum is getting close to infringing on the separation of church and state. Why should a church be allowed to promote someone for election to public office, but if someone in public office tried to promote someone to be minister of the church, wouldn't they would scream separation? Besides, I never meant they shouldn't be allowed to, just that they should lose their tax-free status if they do.

An example is happening right now in my home town. There is a referendum on the ballot to allow Sunday liquor sales in restaurants, primarily because of the tourist dollars that could be gained. The local church leaders, naturally, are dead set against it, and aren't shy about letting everyone know it. They are using their positions as religious leaders to fight a non-religious issue. But if the state stepped in and declared, for example, that all churches were required to say the Pledge of Allegience at the beginning of all services, they would scream separation.

'course I'm not sure how that would work, because I don't attend church and, being an Apathetic Agnostic, it'd be a really weird service ...

"Does anybody know if there's a god yet?" "No."
"Does anybody care yet?" "No."
"Okay, see you next Sunday."

LOL! I didn't know there was another one out there! I've been using that title for years!

[Ragoczy]

Corporations are entities, certainly. And individuals may be corporations. But corporations, as an entity, is not a citizen and does not have a right to vote. Individual citizens, even those who are corporations, do have that right.

Corporations are legal fictions. They own nothing, so any action taken against a corporation is taken against the individuals who own that corporation -- whether a single owner or millions of stockholders. This is the myth of "corporate taxes" -- they don't take money from a "corporation", they take it from individuals ... either by lower profits for the shareholders (who, in the US, are likely to be average, middle-class folks with 401Ks) or as increased costs to the individual consumer.

I never said that the members of any church, nor their minister, could not support a candidate. But using that church as a means of promoting any candidate, or of promoting or opposing a referendum is getting close to infringing on the separation of church and state. Why should a church be allowed to promote someone for election to public office, but if someone in public office tried to promote someone to be minister of the church, wouldn't they would scream separation? Besides, I never meant they shouldn't be allowed to, just that they should lose their tax-free status if they do.

There is no such thing as "separation of church and state" in the Constitution. In fact, the word "separation" appears nowhere. I'll wait while you check ...

There is an establishment clause in the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

So where does it say that churches can't support or endorse a candidate? Where does it say that the government can prohibit them from doing so? The answer is that it doesn't.

"Separation of Church and State" was a phrase first coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State

Can you honestly read the full context of Jefferson's use of the term and believe that his intent was for the State to limit the Church? That he would condone the State telling a preacher that he can't express an opinion from the pulpit of his own church?

That phrase was then misused in a Supreme Court ruling and it's been downhill ever since. There are people who actually think the phrase is in the Constitution.

Why should the church be able to express an opinion on an election but the State can't put a preacher in the pulpit? Because the Constitution isn't about limiting the rights of the church, it's about setting forth and limiting the powers of government. The individual, in the person of a preacher in the pulpit of his church, which is private property, should not have the intrusive, police-powers of government used to tell him what he may and may not say.

The misuse of "Separation of Church and State" is one of the things this country should be ashamed of.

This growing absurdity is one of the reasons I'm no longer a member of the ACLU -- yes, I was a card-carrying, dues-paying member of that organization for over a decade. They left me behind when they stopped being about protecting Constitutional rights and started being about promoting a left-wing agenda.

One of the reasons for my leaving was an instance where a high-school valedictorian had her speech censored. The topic of her speech was what had inspired her to work so hard that she earned the honor of being valedictorian -- one of the things that did so was her personal faith. The school denied her the right to say this.

Now this wasn't the school forcing all the kids to pray. It wasn't a school employee in a position of authority over the students proselytizing. It was a student, in time she earned to express her personal opinion, talking about what inspired her -- not preaching, not proselytizing, but simply saying, "My faith in Jesus Christ inspired me to work hard."

It's okay, last year, for a student to talk about Barack Obama in his speech, because he was (rightly so) inspired by Obama's success to work hard himself, but being inspired by religious faith is verboten? A personal political opinion is okay, but a personal religious one isn't?

How is telling a teenager she can't say she was inspired by her faith not "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"?

It doesn't stop there -- in schools all over the country, students are told they can't wear a religious symbol on a necklace, can't bring a personal Bible to school to read in their free time, can't form a group to pray before class, can't even talk to their friends about religion. All of this in the name of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

"Hi, we're from the government and we're going to protect your religious freedoms by telling you what you can't do."

An example is happening right now in my home town. There is a referendum on the ballot to allow Sunday liquor sales in restaurants, primarily because of the tourist dollars that could be gained. The local church leaders, naturally, are dead set against it, and aren't shy about letting everyone know it. They are using their positions as religious leaders to fight a non-religious issue. But if the state stepped in and declared, for example, that all churches were required to say the Pledge of Allegience at the beginning of all services, they would scream separation.

And they'd scream rightly. The whole basis is that the People have absolute rights and the Government has limited power.

Now, I don't agree with blue laws -- don't like them, think they're stupid -- but that church leader's opinion, expressed to his congregation, in their church or homes or even on the public street, is none of the government's damn business.

"Congress shall make no law ..." -- "Shut up, there's a law."

Now, please keep in mind that this rant is brought to you by a self-described Apathetic Agnostic. I don't have any religious faith, I'm just not arrogant enough to deny the possibility and join the Church of Atheism. And, ultimately, I dislike organized religion.

But its a fundamental right in this country that's being eroded, slowly, surely and, make no mistake, deliberately -- the conversation that caused me to send my ACLU membership card back with instructions that they could fold it until it was all sharp corners and then stick it someplace inconvenient left me with no doubt of that.