CBC Announces Connection of Church and State – Congressional Black Caucus to use churches for voter registration campaign

Yet another example of the hypocrisy of the leftist progs.  Imagine what the headlines would read if the Republican Party announced how it was going to use churches to register and eductate voters?   The left would be demanding retreat and threatening tax-exempt status revocation for any church or minister who would engage.   

Yet, it’s ok to blur the line between Church and State when it fits the agenda of the progs.

WASHINGTON — The Rev. Dr. Franklyn Richardson longs for the old days, when all it took was Sunday sermons by African-American ministers to fire up their flocks to get registered and vote in local, state and federal elections.

“In the past, all we had to do was encourage people to register,” said Richardson, the senior pastor of the Grace Baptist Church of Mount Vernon, N.Y., and Port St. Lucie, Fla., and the chair of the Conference of National Black Churches. “Now it’s a different animal.”

African-American churches, historically at the forefront of the nation’s civil and voting rights efforts, are grappling this election year with how to navigate through the wave of new voting-access laws approved in many Republican-controlled states, laws that many African-Americans believe were implemented to suppress the votes of minorities and others.

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus and several hundred clergy leaders from the Conference of National Black Churches are scheduled to hold a summit Wednesday in Washington to discuss the new laws, their potential impact on African-American voters and how churches can educate parishioners, help them register and help get them to the polls on Election Day to prevent any significant drop-off from 2008.  (read more)

This entry was posted in Dem Hypocrisy, Racism, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to CBC Announces Connection of Church and State – Congressional Black Caucus to use churches for voter registration campaign

  1. mwsomerset says:

    Not only do churches provide a place for like minded people to worship..they also serve as community meeting places. Churches have been educating its flock on a variety of issues for centuries. ….this isn’t anything more than educating one’s congregation about the new voting laws that have been enacted in one’s state so they can fulfill their constitutional right to vote. Why would anybody object to helping to enable people to be patriotic citizens and vote?


    • ctdar says:

      Awww come on haven’t you heard of the 1st Amendment & how it regards the separation of Church & State?
      Here’s a refresher:
      “The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.”


    • tnwahm says:

      I have no problem with black churches being involved politically. What I object to is the double standard and hypocrisy. As stated in the comments; if the Sourhern Baptists made this same statement; the libs like you would be screaming “seperation of church and state” right?


      • mwsomerset says:

        No, I wouldn’t be screaming that….since that is not what seperation of church and state actually means….I was raised in a Southern Baptist Church in a small town and there were all kinds of programs at our church for everybody that were of a nonreligious nature We had sewing circles, mother’s day out…….there were books clubs, garden club…all held in the church…since it was the biggest building in the town no doubt. I don’t have a problem with faith based programs either. Not all “libs” think alike…just like all conservatives don’t..there are degrees ….I am more of a moderate liberal, I even own a gun, and think the death penalty is appropriate in some cases.


        • tnwahm says:

          Forgive me for assuming that you specifically would have a problem with it. Here is just one link about the outrage that SD references below over Rick Perry and his prayer event. This is about a lawsuit that was filed. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/13/religious-freedom-group-sues-gov-perry-over-planned-all-day-prayer-event/


          • mwsomerset says:

            Tis ok…..the reason I come to this conservative site is to get differing opinions…I don’t subscribe to any ideology 100%. I have liberal and conservative tendencies…it just seems I am more liberal than conservative. I remember the hoopla over Rick Perry and the Prayer service….and it seems it was not being funded by the tax payer so it really didn’t have anything to do with the “state.” That group who was suing was doing so more because they opposed “religion” rather than trying to promote a liberal ideology. Liberals are religious as well, conservatives don’t have a monopoly on God.


      • tnwahm, the substative reason for posting the thread was exactly the point you picked up on. Selective liberal outrage, ie. hypocrisy.

        I totally support the right of any religious organization to be involved in the political life of their constituents/parishoners, and believe that church leaders have every right to engage their flocks in discussions of the “big picture”. The term “seperation of church and state” has been hijacked by the left as a tool to advance their goals of division and divisiveness.

        One only has to look at the legacy media outrage when Rick Perry joined a “call for prayer event” in TX. The progs were up in arms spouting off about religion and politics MUST be kept as far apart as possible in order to have wholesome, by their definition, ideology.

        However, when it suits their agenda the outrage is set on the shelf so they can support the very same behavior they were disparaging just months ago. Yes, hypocrisy is the kindest way to define their action.


  2. Wasn’t the “Moral Majority” disciples of Jerry Falwell & Pat Robertson? All political parties are rotten to the core and the churches are simply control mechanisms to keep people divided and conquered. The right crooks when through this in the 80’s and now it’s the democratic crook’s turn.


    • Sharon says:

      “Wasn’t the ‘Moral Majority’ disciples of Jerry Falwell & Pat Robertson?” Jerry Falwell simply applied the term “moral majority” to an existing group of Americans who did not have a particularly visible profile in political conversations of the day. He did not create any such group. Those who were part of this pre-existing group certainly were not “disciples of Jerry Fall and Pat Robertson.” That’s just silly.

      What groups are you including in “the churches?” On what do you base your assertion that the churches are simply “control mechanisms?”


  3. John Gault says:

    “African-American ministers, elected officials and civil rights advocates are especially concerned about photo ID laws. The Brennan Center study found that more than 21 million Americans don’t have government-approved photo identification. The NAACP estimates that about 25 percent of African-Americans nationwide don’t the proper documentation to meet some ID requirements. And, according to the Brennan Center, 15 percent of voters who earn less than $35,000 a year don’t have government photo ID.”

    Shocking, if true.
    Political activity by non-profit status churches is restricted by law. I’m sure Holder will enforce strict compliance.


    • tnwahm says:

      Forgive me if I doubt any stat that the NAACP tries to claim. I’m on my phone, so don’t have the link handy, but there are studies that dispute those stata. The same individuals that claim they don’t have photo id are the same individuals that have to have it to sign up for SS benefits.


    • Omar says:

      Wow…then I wonder how they get their credit cards, automobiles and smart phones. Hmmmm…..I always needed a photo to get mine. I don’t know about all states, but here in Illinois, if one wants to get welfare, they MUST have a state issued photo ID card. I’m just scratchin’ my head over the alleged amount of people without proper identification.


  4. rjp says:

    The same individuals that claim they don’t have photo id are the same individuals that have to have it to sign up for SS benefits.

    And DHS “benefits”.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s