Eli Sanders has got the scoop on Slog:
May 24, 2006
Dear Church Leader:
We saw in the news media last week that organizers of Referendum 65, a proposed ballot initiative, have focused on working with churches to get enough signatures to place it on the state ballot. As the leader of a church that holds services on school district property through a building use permit, it’s important that you understand the legal restrictions on activities that take place on public property in order to protect your organization.
In fact, under Washington state law, the facilities of a public agency, i.e., the Lake Washington School District, may not be used directly or indirectly for the purpose of assisting a campaign for election of any person to any office or for the promotion of or opposition to any ballot proposition (RCW 42.17.130). Our attorneys have advised us that collection of signatures on any proposed ballot initiative on school property is a violation of that law, as campaigning for any candidate for elected office would be. Therefore we cannot allow your organization or another organization at your invitation to come onto district property for any efforts that would assist a political campaign of any kind.
While we have worked with political organizations that use our facilities to ensure their understanding of these restrictions, I recognize that we have we may not have made these requirements clear to other users groups. We will be adding this restriction to the building use guidelines so that it is clearly spelled out. Since we do not know if churches that use our schools may be participating in this event, we wanted to bring this concern to the attention of all churches using our facilities. I appreciate your cooperation on this issue, for the protection of both of our organizations. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Sincerely,
Janene Fogard
Deputy Superintendent
Lake Washington School District
Rev. Ken Hutcherson’s Antioch Bible Church was caught red handed last Sunday, canvassing for signatures on school property, which prompted the district to send the above letter to his and 7 other churches to which they rent space. Sanders wonders…
Could opponents of R-65, which would repeal Washington’s new gay civil rights law, go to court (or to state elections officials) and demand that all signatures collected on school grounds be invalidated? And if the Lake Washington School District alone has eight churches renting its facilities, exactly how many school districts state-wide have churches renting facilities from them, and how many of those churches collected R-65 signatures on public school property during Referendum Sunday?
I’ve been told the statute prohibiting political activity at tax exempt churches is “murky”, but the legal issues surrounding public schools are cut and dry. This is at very least a violation of the state’s public disclosure laws, subject to exactly the kind of complaint the Evergreen Freedom Foundation frequently files against teachers.
If these churches want to become so involved in enacting law, you’d think they’d at least have the decency to follow it.
I believe this actually means that the school district broke the law. But in any case, good job digging up the revelent RCW.
On second thought, if that really is the text of the RCW, it’s probably un-enforcable. As the letter quotes it, that law would imply that no campaiging or demonstrations for or against legislation could occur on school grounds or for that matter on the grounds of the state capitol. No more politicians visiting schools, or teachers gathering in front of the capitol to support an initiative supporting schools.
Wouldn’t it be fun if the ACLU stepped in to defend these churches?
Having a church on public school ground is an insane idea to begin with.
So it violates state public disclosure law — i.e. RCW 42.17.130 — for a public agency to make its facilities available for a political purpose (at least one which would promote a campaign for public office or ballot measure)? Even if the public agency rents its facilities at a fair rental value on an equal basis to all takers? REALLY?
King County Democrats
Legislative District Meetings
Monthly LD Meetings
5th LD Democrats
3rd Wednesday
King County Library Admin.
960 Newport Way NW, Issaquah
45th LD Democrats
1st Wednesday
Redmond Community Center
16600 NE 80th St., Redmond
46th LD Democrats
3rd Thursday
Olympic View Elementary School
425 NE 95th St., Seattle
48th LD Democrats
3rd Wednesday
Stevenson Elementary School Library
14220 NE 8th St., Bellevue
http://www.wuxx.com/kcdems/LDMeetings.aspx
LOOKS LIKE I NEED TO FILE A LOT OF COMPLAINTS WITH THE PUBLIC DISCLOSURE COMMISSION!!!
Public agencies don’t have a problem renting meeting rooms to Republican organizations either:
King County Republicans
Find My District Meeting
5th District
Meeting Information
Fourth Wednesday of the Month at 7:00pm
Issaquah Police Headquarters
130 E Sunset Way, Issaquah
31st District
Meeting Information
Third Thursday of the Month at 7:00pm
Auburn City Hall
25 West Main, Auburn
41st District
Meeting Information
Third Tuesday of the Month at 7:00pm
Bellevue City Hall
11511 Main St, Bellevue
43rd District
Meeting Information
Third Tuesday of the Month at 7:00pm
Seward School
2500 Franklin Ave E, Seattle
45th/39th District
Meeting Information
Call or e-mail Dollie for day and time
L.E. Scarr Resource Center
(Lake Wash. School District Headquarters)
16250 NE 74th St, Redmond
http://www.kcgop.org/district_meetings.html
Public agencies don’t have a problem renting meeting rooms to Republican organizations either:
King County Republicans
Find My District Meeting
5th District
Meeting Information
Fourth Wednesday of the Month at 7:00pm
Issaquah Police Headquarters
130 E Sunset Way, Issaquah
31st District
Meeting Information
Third Thursday of the Month at 7:00pm
Auburn City Hall
25 West Main, Auburn
41st District
Meeting Information
Third Tuesday of the Month at 7:00pm
Bellevue City Hall
11511 Main St, Bellevue
43rd District
Meeting Information
Third Tuesday of the Month at 7:00pm
Seward School
2500 Franklin Ave E, Seattle
45th/39th District
Meeting Information
Call or e-mail Dollie for day and time
L.E. Scarr Resource Center
(Lake Wash. School District Headquarters)
16250 NE 74th St, Redmond
http://www.kcgop.org/district_meetings.html
Wait a second — Lake Washington School District also rents space to the 45th District Republicans. Just like the Bellevue School District rents space to the 48th District Democrats.
The 45th District Republicans, like every other district party organization, regularly invites candidates for public office to speak at and campaign at their meetings. I have spoken at their meetings several times myself while running for office. And they even plot strategies to elect Republican candidates and promote/oppose various ballot measures.
So why is the Lake Washington School District allowing the 45th District Republicans to engage in politics in rented school district facilities, but prohibiting Reverendum Ken Hutcherson — whose church pays a helluva lot more to rent its facilities than does the 45th District Republicans — from engaging in politics?
It certainly isn’t because of any difference in political beliefs. The 45th District Republicans and Rev. Hutcherson have nearly identical political beliefs. And I am sure that nearly every one of the 45th Dist GOP PCO’s shares Rev. Hutcherson’s position on R-65 and HB 2661 — it is a very conservative group of people.
What is the main discernable difference between the 45th District GOP and Rev. Hutcherson?
COULD IT BE THAT REV. KEN HUTCHERSON IS BLACK?
Is there any other reason why Lake Washington School District is discriminating against Rev. Ken Hutcherson, other than the color of his skin?
AND THE FOLLOWING IS OUTRAGEOUS …
Guess where the Washington State Democrats are holding their 2006 convention, which is set for June 2 and June 3?
YAKIMA CONVENTION CENTER — a City of Yakima public facility!
http://www.wa-democrats.org/convention.php
They’re having a campaign banquet for Maria Cantwell there on June 2, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. ($65 per person) and a breakfast for U.S. House candidates there on June 3, 2006 at 7:00 a.m. ($20 per person).
Can someone PLEASE tell the City of Yakima to enforce state law, and stop the DEMOCRATS from doing ANYTHING to promote any CANDIDATE for public office, or doing ANYTHING (pro or con) relating to any BALLOT MEASURES?
DARCY BURNER — CAMPAIGN FINANCE CRIMINAL?
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
5:45pm
Darcy Burner Fundraiser
Please Join
Congressman Rahm Emanuel
Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
At a fundraising reception for
Washington’s Democratic candidate
in the Eighth Congressional District for the
U.S. House of Representatives
Democratic Strategy
To Take Back Our Country
$25 Bronze – $50 Silver – $100 Gold
Community Center at Mercer View
8236 SE 24th Street
Mercer Island, WA
http://www.45thdemocrats.org/Eventlist.php
The Community Center at Mercer View is owned and operated by the City of Mercer Island:
http://www.ci.mercer-island.wa.....NavID=1951
http://www5.metrokc.gov/report.....0124049018
GOLDY — are you going to withdraw your endorsement of Darcy Burner? By your own definition, she is a law-breaker. Or at least will definitely be a law breaker by next Tuesday. Can you convince Darcy Burner to cancel her May 30, 2006 fundraiser at the Community Center at Mercer View? If you can get Darcy Burner to cancel this fund-raising event, and also to post a pledge on her campaign website that she will not campaign (or allow others to campaign on her behalf) in any way on any public property (including school property, city property, county property, state property, etc.), for the entire duration of her campaign (or November 7, 2006, whichever comes first!), then I will personally donate $100.00 to Darcy Burner’s campaign. I will even make this donation through NutRoots Endorsed if it will make you happier. :)
If Darcy Burner attended one year of law school, and made straight A’s, don’t you think she could at least read the text of RCW 42.17.130 and be able to obey the law?
I think Richard hs you all by the nuts……also, there is an issue of tenant rights…..these spaces are being rented, in all cases renters have rights to quiet and unfetttered use.
I thought the issues was discrimination? I think the old issues with churches and how non believers feel about them is a canard.
I supported the gay rights bill and wil work to keep it.
I do not believe in God, and would indeed tax churches, but feel political activity is very proteced free speech.
Gets tacky and complicated …….
Oh for crying out loud, Harold. Pope has merely demonstrated his propensity to twist facts and cite irrelevancies. Do you want to lose a court case? I’d say hire Richard Pope. Look, the churches were CANVASSING for votes on school property. The other organizations cited by the brilliant legal mind of Dicky Pope were renting space on school grounds to conduct MEETINGS.
If you don’t see a difference here, you’re as thick-headed as Richard.
Let Mr. Pope file his complaints.
It will be fun to see how many he wins thus time.
Who cares about Pope’s complaints. If this is THE Richard Pope, his political success rate is zero for 102389.
As for the illegal activity – I saw it and captured it on video. But it doesn’t require a read of WRS. Instead, what I saw over and over was two churches endorsing political candidates while talking about their move to discriminate against gays. And that violates the law in so far as their IRS tax exemption goes. And I am turning all this over to the IRS so they can make a decision. My goal is to see these churches hurt where it counts, in the pocketbook.
You can bet that if there is anything to the violation of WRS, hypocrites like Pope will only be complaining about Democratic violations, expecting that republicans are entitled to a free pass.
Just want to mention that there’s not one shred of proof that the person posting under the name RIchard Pope here is the same person listed as a member of the Wash. bar.
If they are on a political campaign doesn’t it invalidate a church’s tax exempt status? I thought it did.
Red Herring. While the school district is welcome to persue the enforcement of any and all restrictions it places on the use of its property, perhaps the larger point looms.
Dominionist fucks like Hutcherson feel their religion is ABOVE the law. (It is the old “Does the Pope Crown the King?” arguement) The government that protects their rights is the one that they plan on overthrowing to establish a Christian Nation.
Time to: Tax all Churches
Look for an enterprising group of Satanists or Wicca who want to schedule services in the public school using the same rooms as Hutcherson. (The cleansing ceremonies alone would be worth it!)
Is Richard Pope manic depressive? Why else would he be writing such screeds in the middle of the night?
Well as Stephen Colbert says, its the Big Pope’s by Little Pope that makes him do it….
Richard over stated his point (he seems to be taking his queues from JCH,) but his criticism of the Lake Washington School District’s letter is not unfounded. If political parties carry out their activities within the bounds of the law, it is hard to understand how attorneys could conclude that Hutherson had broken it.
The activities are meetings in either case. Canvassing for signatures occurs routinely at political party meetings, too.
I wonder what the nature of the “work” LWSD does with parties. Sounds more like CYA to me.
Goldy points out the potential of public disclosure law violations. There may be the difference there, political parties are known for political activity, churches (most of them, anyway) are not.
But maybe the point should be at most the public disclosure laws may have been breached.
Goldy and Gang what you say only applies to government employee’s and not to Church’s or their congregation using the said facilities. They are using their rights given to them in the United States Constitution. The School District is being paid for the use of these facilities and it is not a public donation to the church or any of its members. Your point is now void. Read below and correct any of my points of view.
Amendment I
The United States Constitution, Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/def.....=42.17.130
RCW 42.17.130
Forbids use of public office or agency facilities in campaigns.
No elective official nor any employee of his office nor any person appointed to or employed by any public office or agency may use or authorize the use of any of the facilities of a public office or agency, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of assisting a campaign for election of any person to any office or for the promotion of or opposition to any ballot proposition. Facilities of public office or agency include, but are not limited to, use of stationery, postage, machines, and equipment, use of employees of the office or agency during working hours, vehicles, office space, publications of the office or agency, and clientele lists of persons served by the office or agency: PROVIDED, That the foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply to the following activities:
(1) Action taken at an open public meeting by members of an elected legislative body to express a collective decision, or to actually vote upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order, or ordinance, or to support or oppose a ballot proposition so long as (a) any required notice of the meeting includes the title and number of the ballot proposition, and (b) members of the legislative body or members of the public are afforded an approximately equal opportunity for the expression of an opposing view;
(2) A statement by an elected official in support of or in opposition to any ballot proposition at an open press conference or in response to a specific inquiry;
(3) Activities which are part of the normal and regular conduct of the office or agency.
klake’s not wrong. Did I really say that?
The school district’s lease with the church probably spells out this restriction, and the church could fight it as an unfair restriction on their tenant rights, however they probably wouldn’t want to fight because winning onthe landlord tenant issue could well lose them their 501(C)(3) status.
They’re two distinct issues, but from a pragmatic standpoint their intertwined.
oops I mean THEY’RE intertwined..
I think David Wright called it on post #2. The concern of LWSD is for itself.
From the photos, the signature gathering was taking place outside of the gym. The gym is the space Antioch Bible Chruch must rent for the meetings. The hallway outside is public space that anyone can use who has access to the school grounds, whether connected to or attending the Antioch proceedings, or not.
LWSD could be accussed of violating the law if it allowed their grounds to be used for political purposes, thus the letter.
I recall from my attendance at legislative district caucuses in local schools, that we were told not to post campaign materials outside of the meeting areas.
In fact, under Washington state law, the facilities of a public agency, i.e., the Lake Washington School District, may not be used directly or indirectly for the purpose of assisting a campaign for election of any person to any office or for the promotion of or opposition to any ballot proposition (RCW 42.17.130).
Mr. Pope, What part of the statue due you not understand? Open Meetings okay. Campaigning for a candidate or ballot initiative illegal.
No elective official nor any employee of his office nor any person appointed to or employed by any public office or agency may use or authorize the use of any of the facilities of a public office or agency, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of assisting a campaign for election of any person to any office or for the promotion of or opposition to any ballot proposition.
LWSD must curtail such illegal activity, except in the spaces they rent to Antioch. If they don’t LWSD is breaking the law.
“I think Richard has you all by the nuts……also, there is an issue of tenant rights…..these spaces are being rented, in all cases renters have rights to quiet and unfettered use.”
That is just plain wrong. Use is fettered all the time. i.e. pet restrictions, occupancy restrictions, single purpose leases, zoning restrictions etc. If I rent an apartment I could not say use it as whoreshouse. Not only would I violate my lease by using it for a commercial purpose but I would brake the law. Now leasees have the right to quite enjoyment of the property free from interference by the landlord, but that is a different notion then unfettered use.
As for this case. In 1973 the attorney general argued that it was not improper to allow such use
http://www.atg.wa.gov/opinions.....3_026.html
Basically other parts of the RCW allows for schools to provide space for all sorts of activities, including political activity. It seems what 42.17.130 is designed to prevent is the public body actively promoting one side. Providing space for anyone who asks is not seems as promoting. In other words to ‘assist a campaign’ requires that some benefit be conferred which is not available to the other side. In this case the opposition could if it so desired request space and hold a meeting. What is more interesting would be whether opposition could stand out side of hutch’s meeting and protest. My hunch would be yes
I should note that the AG based its analysis on the fact that it is normal conduct of schools and I would add community centers, to make avialalbe space for political purposes. The later part about that activly promoting one side is not in the AG’s opinion.
29
ALL WRONG —
GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR BUTT, GIGGY GAGGY GIFFFY
Praying and talk of politics are very protected and quiet uses.
The most fundemental rights of our citizen democracy are at play here. Who can say what where ahd how…. to churches …. and any other entitiy.
Despite the feeling that these fundies are horride homophobes, anyone who thinks they will surrender their rights with out a giant fight to the Supreme Court is foolish.
As Rev. H now says in an email to supporters — “the war is on …. and he has a deck stacked with many Aces.
Free speect in its largest sense, political and religious speech, and rights of association, to petition, and tenants rights. ALL of these under attack from the commies and queers of greater Seattle.
Great funraising appeal for the right wing legal foundations
Watch this all balloon to national story.
POT:KETTLE< HYPOCRITES
Anti-religious zealots and hypocrites who don’t object when the likes of John Kerry and Al Sharpton and Bill Clinton and Al Gore and Jesse Jackson and Jimmy Carter campaign in churches are feigning outrage that others dare to do the same thing:
But A Trip Down Memory Lane Shows A Rich History of Democrats Preaching To The Choir
Democrat Presidential Campaigns Hit The Church Circuit
1996 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
In The Final Weekend Of The 1996 Presidential Campaign, President Clinton Made A Campaign Stop At A Methodist Episcopal Church. “It’s 8:53 a.m., and Bill Clinton has chosen to spend the last Sunday morning of the 1996 campaign in the pulpit of St. Paul’s African Methodist Episcopal Church.” (John Aloysius Farrell, “‘Hired hand’ president seeks renewal,” The Boston Globe, November 4, 1996)
Then-Vice Presidential Nominee, Al Gore Campaigned In Churches In The 1996 Election. “After spending the past few days campaigning for congressional candidates, Vice President Al Gore refocused his efforts yesterday on the Democratic presidential ticket in visits to four black churches.” (Ann Scales, “Gore Campaigns In Black Churches,” The Boston Globe, November 4, 1996)
In 1996, Hillary Clinton Touted Her Husband’s Presidential Candidacy At A Church In Florida. “Beneath the benevolent stained-glass gaze of Christ the Lamb of God, Hillary Rodham Clinton is campaigning in St. Paul’s AME Church, promoting, among other things, the philosophy of . . . midnight basketball.” (Mary Voboril, “Campaign Helpmates / Hillary’s Florida Tour,” Newsday, October 10, 1996)
2000 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
Presidential Candidate Al Gore Campaigned In Black Churches During The 2000 Election. “A week before he debates Bill Bradley at Harlem’s Apollo Theater, Vice President Al Gore squeezed in Sunday services at not one, but two, black churches. ‘Let us march on ‘til victory is won,’ he preached.” (Sandra Sobieraj, “Gore Visits 2 Black Churches In NYC,” The Associated Press, February 13, 2000)
Vice-Presidential Candidate Joe Lieberman Campaigned In African-American Churches During The 2000 Election. “Lieberman came under criticism by the Anti-Defamation League, which sent him a letter on Aug. 28 after he had made statements supporting the role of religion in public life while campaigning in an African-American church.” (Lori Silberman Brauner, “On Lieberman’s Use Of Religion In Campaign, ADL Takes It On The Chin,” New Jersey Jewish News, September 7, 2000)
2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
Presidential Candidate John Kerry Used Scripture To Criticize President Bush At A Church In 2004. “John Kerry cited a Bible verse Sunday to criticize leaders who have ‘faith but has no deeds,’ prompting President Bush’s spokesman to accuse Kerry of exploiting Scripture for a political attack. Kerry never mentioned Bush by name during his speech at New North Side Baptist Church, but aimed his criticism at ‘our present national leadership.’ Kerry cited Scripture in his appeal for the worshippers, including James 2:14, ‘What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds?’ ‘The Scriptures say, what does it profit, my brother, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?’ Kerry said. ‘When we look at what is happening in America today, where are the works of compassion?’” (Nedra Pickler, “Bush Campaign Blasts Kerry’s Bible Quote,” The Associated Press, March 28, 2004)
In June 2003, Then-Presidential Candidate John Edwards Made A Campaign Stop To Attack President Bush At A Church. “Presidential hopeful John Edwards criticized President Bush for his policies on taxes and terrorism in a campaign stop at a black Pentecostal church Sunday.” (Arnie Stapleton, “Edwards Criticizes Bush Policy On Taxes, Terrorism,” The Associated Press, June 1, 2003)
Democrat Senate Candidates Campaign In Churches Across The Country
1996 ELECTION
Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) Visited Churches Across Michigan With Vice President Al Gore During The 1996 Campaign. “Detroit Mayor Dennis Archer and U.S. Sen. Carl Levin, favored to win his fourth term Tuesday over Republican Ronna Romney, joined Gore at several stops. . . . Levin, who visited six churches including the four with Gore, said every vote will matter Tuesday.” (Tina Lam, David Mchugh And Dawson Bell, “Candidates Push For Turnout Churchgoers Get Last Pitch For Support,” The Detroit Free Press, November 4, 1996)
2000 ELECTION
Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Campaigned In Six Churches In One Day During Her 2000 Senate Race. “Mrs Clinton, who spent more than eight hours at six separate church services yesterday in an attempt to mobilise the black voters who overwhelmingly support her campaign, has released a new advertisement accusing Mr Lazio of abandoning breast cancer sufferers by voting to deprive them of money for treatment.” (Molly Watson, “Hillary On The Warpath,” The [London] Evening Standard, November 4, 2000)
2002 ELECTION
In 2002, Top Democrat Strategist Donna Brazille Said Democrat Campaigns Delivered Flyers To Churches. “Democrats put their hopes in a large turnout of key constituencies, blacks and members of union households among them. . . . Donna Brazille, a consultant to the Democrats, said the turnout effort this year includes paid radio advertisements, flyers delivered to churches over the weekend, and recorded messages from Bill Clinton, Bill Cosby and others that are dialed by computer into millions of targeted households.” (David Espo, “Election Scramble Heads For Decision,” The Associated Press, November 4, 2002)
In 2002, Former Democratic Congressman And General Secretary Of The National Council Of Churches Bob Edgar Touted Democrats’ “Below The Radar Screen” Efforts To Reach Churches. “But more liberal activists may be working just as hard to contact a voter base affiliated with churches or synagogues. ‘My guess is that the progressive forces are working very actively, a lot more than we might expect,’ said the Rev. Bob Edgar, a former Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania and general secretary of the National Council of Churches. ‘It’s below the radar screen of national observers.’ (Larry Witham, “Religious Activists Spar Over Voters Guides,” The Washington Times, November 2, 2002)
In November 2002, Senator Max Cleland (D-GA) Campaigned In Churches. “Gov. Roy Barnes and Sen. Max Cleland worked churches with large African-American congregations — a key constituency for Georgia Democrats. ‘The right to vote has been paid for by folks who shed their blood on the battlefield,’ Barnes told parishioners at Big Miller Grove Baptist Church in Lithonia. ‘If you sit back and don’t vote, you don’t have the right to complain.’” (Rhonda Cook, “Election 2002: Parties Plead For Turnout,” November 4, 2002)
In November 2002, Senate Candidate Ron Kirk (D-TX) Spent Significant Time In Churches. “[Ron] Kirk [D-TX] made appearances at three large, predominantly black churches in Houston and later at Antioch Baptist Church in San Antonio.” (Macarena Hernandez, “Counting Down To Tuesday,” San Antonio Express-News, November 4, 2002)
In A Single Weekend, Kirk Visited A Half-Dozen Churches. “With four weeks until Election Day, Ron Kirk is spending his Sunday mornings quite literally preaching to the choir. The Democratic U.S. Senate candidate visited a half-dozen African American churches during an East Texas campaign swing last weekend to remind congregants, choir members and pastors that he’s running for office.” (Gary Susswein, “In Senate Run, Kirk Puts Focus On Faithful,” Austin American-Statesman, October 9, 2002)
In November 2002, Senator Jean Carnahan (D-MO) Campaigned In Churches. “Mrs. Carnahan campaigned Sunday in black congregations around St. Louis, noting that the latest Zogby poll showed her strength among black voters. ‘They say in the paper, I read today that if the lines in the African American community on Election Day are brisk, Jean Carnahan will win,’ she said at New Northside Baptist Church.” (Scott Charton, “Talent Urges Rural Voters To Offset City Political ‘Machines,’” The Associated Press, November 3, 2002)
In November 2002, Senate Candidate Bob Clement (D-TN) Campaigned In Churches. “Shelby County Mayor A C Wharton and former congressman Harold Ford Sr. led Democratic candidates Phil Bredesen and Bob Clement from black church to black church Sunday to boost Democratic turnout in Shelby County on Election Day.” (James W. Brosnan, “Clement, Bredesen Tour Black Churches,” The [Memphis] Commercial Appeal, November 4, 2002)
In December 2002, Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) Campaigned In Churches. “On Sunday . . . [Senator Mary Landrieu] visited black churches in Baton Rouge with Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., former chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.” (William M. Welch, “Parties Battle For One Last Senate Seat In Louisiana,” USA TODAY, December 4, 2002)
2004 ELECTION
In November 2004, Senate Candidate Betty Castor (D-FL) Campaigned In Churches. “Mel Martinez spent Sunday campaigning with President Bush while Betty Castor visited black churches and ended her day campaigning with Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry. An upbeat Castor visited two black Baptist churches in Daytona Beach Sunday morning before heading her campaign bus back to Tampa for an afternoon cookout with her volunteers and a scheduled late-night rally with Kerry.” (Brian E. Crowley And Larry Lipman, “Castor Campaigns With Kerry; Martinez Rallies With Bush,” The Palm Beach Post, November 1, 2004)
In October 2004, Senate Candidate Barack Obama (D-IL) Spoke To Churchgoers In Chicago. “Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Alan Keyes slogged toward the finish of their U.S. Senate race Sunday, visiting churches on Chicago’s South Side and exchanging fire over abortion, same-sex marriage and terrorism. . . . ‘The reporters say I’ve been lucky,’ Obama told churchgoers Sunday. ‘But they got it wrong. I’ve been blessed.’” (Mike Robinson, “Obama Brushes Off Keyes ‘Histrionics’ In Final Hours Of Senate Race,” The Associated Press, October 31, 2004)
During His Senate Campaign, Oklahoma Candidate Brad Carson (D-OK) Spoke At A Church. “[I] rarely turned down any chance to make the case for my own candidacy and that of my fellow party members. After all, wasn’t Daniel blessed for braving the lion’s den? As I arrived at the church, my wife and I were given the church bulletin, which outlined the weekly selection of hymns and Bible readings. On the back of the bulletin, atop the blank space reserved for copious note-taking during the sermon, was the heading: ‘wwjv? pro-life or pro-death?’ (I favored the partial-birth abortion ban but opposed overturning Roe v. Wade.) . . . After the morning rituals, the pastor called me to the stage, and we engaged in a lengthy discussion about abortion, homosexuality, ‘liberal judges,’ and other controversial matters.” (Brad Carson, “Vote Righteously!,” The New Republic, November 22, 2004)
Why is it that whenever a Democrat speaks before a religious audience, he is “reaching out,” but when a Republican does it, he is “divisive?”
During last year’s presidential election, not only did Democratic candidate John Kerry repeatedly campaign at churches, he even quoted scripture to criticize President Bush. While quite literally preaching from the pulpit, Sen. John Kerry opened his Bible to take a shot at “our present national leadership,” lecturing the congregation, “The Scriptures say, what does it profit, my brother, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?”
Sen. Hillary Clinton, back when she was still First Lady, once visited a Florida church to push her disastrous health care plan during the service. Around the same time, Sen. Clinton actually had a meeting with several Roman Catholic cardinals and bishops to tout her health plan.
My colleague Sen. Diane Feinstein, the senior senator from California, recently visited a Los Angeles church and actually gave a sermon on “values” to the congregation. She denounced President Bush’s plan to strengthen and save Social Security as a threat to seniors, and actually called out to the churchgoers, “Will you help me?” Amazingly, this happened just a few days ago, while she and other Democrats were attacking Frist for doing far less.
Bill Clinton barnstormed the country’s churches in his 1992 and 1996 presidential campaigns and in 2000 for then-Vice President Al Gore and for his wife’s New York senatorial campaign. Hillary Clinton herself touched down in half a dozen churches in just one day during that Senate race — while at the same time accusing her opponent of abandoning breast cancer victims. What happened to turning the other cheek, Senator?
Plenty of examples right here in Kentucky can be found as well. A year and a half ago, Democratic candidate for governor Ben Chandler went to a forum at a Louisville church expressly for the purpose of rallying voters. In 2002, congressional candidate Jack Conway spoke at least 20 times in churches to boost his campaign, several times with Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel of New York in tow. At one of those churches, this very paper quoted a pastor as saying he would “drag people to the polls if necessary” to vote for Conway.
And during last year’s presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee hired a Kentucky minister as “director of religious outreach.” Unfortunately for Democrats, she resigned less than two weeks after taking the job when it was revealed that she favored removing the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance.
Is this the kind of separation of church and state that liberals and the elite media so proudly stand up for?
Jesus Harold. By your logic If I rent a house in a residencial neighborhood I can turn it into a mega-church. Hell I could rent an apartment and turn it into a nightclub.
If you notice I agreed with you that under the law there does not seem to be a prohibtion on getting the signatures. However blanket statments like leasees can use the property as they wish are completly wrong. A lease is not a fee, it is governed by the terms of the lease and of course the law.
If it’s against the law it should stop. Period.
Two Things:
1. Did they unlawfully collect these signatures knowingly and with malicious intent? If so then the the appropriate admnidtrative and legal action(s) should proceed.
2. If the signatures were for a different initiative, say, mandatory recycling of TVs, computers and microwave ovens, this wouldn’t be an issue. It would be just as illegal. Therefore:
My double standard meter is lighting up with the needle deep in the hypocritical zone
The good Rev. needs to have his tax free status reviewed by the IRS. They sure jumped all over the churches in So Cal for just speaking out against the Iraq War. You know, because Jesus was such a military man himself.
@16: Point well taken. Whichever “Richard Pope” is posting here matters not. “They” all consistently claim to be attorneys, and allude to other past actions undertaken by “the real” and\or ephemeral Richard Pope.
I wonder if agency status applies in this instance?
goldy,
Wanna join me in auditing the political content of sermons at Mt Zion Baptist church? Don’t you think they’ve had a few voter drives going on there
I’ve actually attended, and the political language (aka pro dem) is pretty strong and plainly spoken….
naw, you can’t attack your allies…
1. 1. Did they unlawfully collect these signatures knowingly and with malicious intent? If so then the the appropriate administrative and legal action(s) should proceed.
2. If the signatures were for a different initiative, say, mandatory recycling of TVs, computers and microwave ovens, this wouldn’t be an issue. It would be just as illegal. Therefore:
My double standard meter is lighting up with the needle deep in the hypocritical zone
Commentby Jack Burton— 5/25/06@ 12:57 pm
Jack you are playing on words and what they did was not illegal, but was within the law. If the School District did not want to deal with the problem, then they should not rent to any organization not just to the politically correct parties. I like this expression to describe your response, “Sophistry n. misleading but cleaver reasoning” one of Donnageddon new words but it really fits your arguments.
Lets us first note and agree that Richard Pope’s arguments are laughable. There is a difference between meetings and campaigning (he may want to ask Kirby Wilbur and John Carlson about this, as they have been schooled on it). No one says you cannot discuss political ideas, you just can’t campaign. As Mr. Pope well knows, both federal and state elected officials cannot campaign or fundraise from their offices, but they most assuredly can discuss politics. The good reverend can give homophobic homilies all he wants, and no one can do anything about it. Now, if any of those Republicans or Democrats were phone banking from school property, he might have an argument, but anyone can meet and discuss ideas there.
As to the signatures, if the people collected them not knowing that they were in violation of the law, then the signatures should be good. You don’t want to punish people who signed in good faith. Of course, if you take Stephan Sharansky view of the law, this is fraud, but in reality, they acted in good faith and their actions should be allowed to stand.
As to whether you can prevent the gathering of signatures in the church, as long as the rule is applied neutrally, then, yes, you can. The Church doesn’t get any special rights (and isn’t it interesting that apparently the good reverend has found a grant of “special rights” he is in favor of?) just because it is a church. No one is forcing them to use a public school as their house of worship, and if they are not happy with it, the reverend and his flock can give up a little of their money and build their own church. If they want to use the school, fine, like anyone else they can, but they have to play by the same rules.
From everything we know, the policy is being applied neutrally. Now that the church and the good reverend is on notice, they should cease and desist. If they have any problems with that, they should build their own church.
The 45th District Democrats held their legislative district caucus on April 22, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. at Redmond High School, which is another Lake Washington School District property.
Various Democrat candidates campaigned at this event. Many gave campaign speeches to the delegates and/or had tables set up to distribute campaign literature.
The same law applies (or does not apply) to the 45th District Democrats and the Antioch Bible Church. RCW 42.17.130 covers “the purpose of assisting a campaign for election of any person to any office or for the promotion of or opposition to any ballot proposition”.
It would be one thing if the Lake Washington School District simply had a screwed-up interpretation of RCW 42.17.130. As I have pointed out, other government agencies — including King County, the cities of Auburn, Issaquah, Redmond, Yakima, and Mercer Island, as well the Seattle and Bellevue School Districts — believe it is perfectly okay to rent their facilities on a non-discriminatory basis to be used for these sorts of political purposes.
But the Lake Washington School District is blatantly discrminating. It is okay for the Democrats to rent a school for the express purpose of assisting the campaigns of their candidates. But they don’t want Christian fundamentalists to engage in any political activity whatsoever.
Some people believe that the right to give a speech is constitutionally protected, while gathering petition signatures somehow does not enjoy any constitutional protection.
Here is the 1st Article of Amendment to the United States Constitution:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
BOB here – still flirting with the cute Latino guy at the grocery store.
Above — Harold is 100 per cent correct.
This issue is really framed by the rental status of the property. When you rent, your conduct vis a vis free speech and worship and political anything —- those rights cannot be dictated by any landlord, or the state itself.
And the admonitions about no campaigning are related to the school district itself — NOT the tenant. Constitutional issues trump all the well intended agnst of people who don’t like Eyman or the fundies.
Prediction, Goldy and gang are wrong. The Stranger is a rumor mongering rag sometimes and anybody can talk about and gather signatures of any petition to the government any where and any time they damn well fucking please.
Ever the ugly minons of the Bad Rev. Hutch.
Now, the task really is to cease all the parroting and posing and go to work to keep the anti discrimination law on the books. Send some money to Washington Won’t Discriminate, and…..
VOTE — yes, APPROVE Ref. 65……… in Nov.,
Richard at 41:
So, by your analysis of the First Amendment, I can rent out a school auditorium and show porn? Cool to know.
Come on, you claimed to have gotten good grades in law school, you know better than that. You can place neutral time and place restrictions on speech. You know very well if you wrote a test answer giving the analysis you give above, you would be laughed out of class. And you know no judge would fall for it.
Beyond that, you are mixing apples and oranges. A Democratic or Republican caucus is no different from the church electing its presbytery. It is an internal function of the body. However, campaigning (which is the nub of this argument), is different. It has nothing to do with the practice of the church. The church and/or political parties can do their internal politics to their hearts content, but just as the Republican’s cannot set up a phone bank at a school, just as a congressman cannot fund raise or campaign from his or her office, the church cannot campaign on public property.
Again, there is an easy solution. If the church wants to take part in a campaign, they can do so on their own property.
Oh please, please, pleeeeeeaaaaaassssseeeee sue them!
I want you to sue every single church like this, I want you to do it loudly, I want you to get press coverage, I want you to be on every news show talking about it, I want every single person in Washington to know about it.