Poll: For or Against?

[CCQdobhran]

[/url]http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c ... .2931:[url]

[/url]http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c ... .2357:[url]

Would you like to see congress pass these two bills?(both are closely related)

Or are you against them?

In laybeasts terms, they would allow a church(or other house of worship.) to offer politcal backing to a politcal canidate that is running for office w/o risk of the IRS scolding them(the church/house of worship) and removing their tax-exempt status.

[/url]

[Ironpaw]

I have to say that I don't trust politicians as a rule, but then I don't think that churches should be penalized for assisting a canditate, especially a small time candidate for a local position. However, like most things, this can be perverted and used to fund illicit things. So in short, I'd prolly vote against it, but then I'd have to look more into it.

[Rowan Bristol]

I'd have to disagree with it, on a few points.

The first would be that there are certain religious institutions with a more than ample bankroll. We already have a difficult enough time trying to keep obscenely large war chests from happenning. If, for example, the Chicago Archdiocese started giving financial support to candidates, there would be no way to compete on a financial level.

Second, it mars the division between church and state. To have a religious institution bankroll a candidate gives permission to a direct link between church policy and law.

Finally, why would any religious institution want to soil themselves by attatching their name to a politician? Politicians are known for an...excess of humanity. Whomever takes that money represents that faith, as surely as someone who takes money from any special interest group. Any action taken by the politician would reflect on the faith and vice versa.

That's my two cents.