Reader comments
Churchgoers should be politics-doers

Good grief! Why are you addressing churchgoers? Isn't there enough religious posturing in politics already? I wonder how many times churches have violated the laws that regulate a 501(c)(3). Those laws obviously don't include ballot issues.

Great advice anytime but especially now. As a Mormon AND a Democrat (not necessarily in any specific order ;-)) I believe it is our religious obligation to be politically active. And while some might think that encouraging more Mormons to be active might increase the Republican numbers - in Utah and elsewhere - I think quite the opposite is true. I have found that in my east coast ward there are many who share my beliefs lining up with the Democratic Party but who are reluctant to voice those opinions among friends who are more typically Republican. I, on the other hand, have no problem doing so and I believe it would be revealing how much more balanced (although admittedly not completely balanced) our ward population would be in policitics if ALL members became politically active and vocal. Thanks for your timely advice.

Social tyrants can stay at home and shake their finger at the Faux News Channel.

Ron Paul's latest fundraiser shows that liberty-lovers across the land are working hard to put real American values back in the White House.

Kevin, apparently you didn't even read the article before posting a response to it, perhaps groggy from waking up so early.

The article spells out why it addresses church-goers. The LDS church, while vaguely encouraging political participation, specifically forbids official church involvement in politics, so members of the church in trying to live by that request do not get involved. We generally associate with the people in our stakes and wards, so for a political meeting with my neighbors and associates, I'd be inviting people from my ward...that's who I know, except that we're not supposed to have ward-sponsored political activity. Like the article says, it comes down to confusion about what is or isn't appropriate and how to invite people to your house or where else can you hold the meeting. You can't have it at the church, which is where we're most used to having all our meetings because that would look like the church is sponsoring it, so you have to arrange for a school or someone's house that is big enough for whoever is coming...confusing and inconvenient.

As for beer at polling places, add free ice cream as an option too and participation will skyrocket.

Political participation is one of those trickey that we all feel we should do more of, but also get told a lot that it is best left to the experts. Does it really benefit anyone to hold up a sign for 4 hours at a saturday?
For a time, in the last century, jury duty came up as an annoyance and the voter list was the data field for the jury pool. Feeling slightly put out not voting instread gave blood regularly about every two months. Years went by and new procedures, the voting list was no longer used for juror polls so voting once again became active.

Between the two, I saved more lives and accomplished more good giving blood than voting. And no one ever cheated my blood by fudging the record.

Food for thought.

Wayne Perry - Kudos to you for giving blood. It's a great thing to do and really isn't that big of an inconvenience. Plus you get all the cookies and juice you can handle! ;-)

But voting is important as is serving on a jury. They all take time from our lives but are part of the small price we pay for living in a free and open society. Besides, isn't it nice to be away from work sometime? Public service - service to the public whether by private citizens, elected officials or government workers is a noble effort.

Kevin,
You do not know your history. The reason that section (501)c (3)was added to the tax code was so that a democratic congress critter who was running for reelection in the 1950's could legally silence his critics. They were for the most part baptist ministers who would talk/preach about his activities from the pulpit. So to silence them, he quietly as possible got the (501) c(3) section added to the tax code. This congress critter, by sneakiness, violated the first amendment prohibiting the freedom of speech and/or the free exercise of it. Since then every time a pastor/minister seems to endorse a candidate for office, the separation of church and state fanatics go crazy. Will it get repealed? No.
Too many current congress critters are worried that a lot of mainstream protestant churches will speak out against them.
The name of this not so honorable congress critter?
Lydon Baines Johnson.

Dear I,

Groggy yes, but I read. I don't buy the premise that "adherents wrongly construe that ban as an impediment to their own political participation." I don't buy it because this state and country are run by posturing churchgoers. Political religiosity is the rule of the day.

Dear Jim III,

Thanks. Interesting. I say let the churches be free to do what they want. But let them pay taxes if they want to specifically influence laws and constitutions.

Kevin,
Using your logic, the American Revolution would have never happened. For it, in part, was preached from the pulpits of various churches in that day and time.
In todays world in instant messaging, TV and newspapers, information is quite quickly passed around. 230 years ago, the people of this nation could not get together so easily. It was a time of working from dawn to dusk. Too many people today have no real concept of what life was like. Some people could read and write real well, a lot of people could not. So, in order to get information, they had to wait until they had a reason to get together and go over the issues of the day. That meant the word from the pulpit was mixed with a religious message, so be it.
If the tax section (501) c (3) was in effect during the 1770's a lot of ministers would have been thrown in prison or even maybe executed along with some of the members of their church. The revolution would not have happened.
All in all Lyndon Johnson violated the 1st amendment by creating (501c(3) so he could silence his critics.

I think this is a really interesting article. Although I've never known my church to inhibit political participation, I can see where the confusion arises. Kudos to Kirk Jowers for a great article and a swift kick in the rear!

Right idea. Wrong group to motivate. Almost universally one of the functions of churches is dictating behavior to members. Church leaders have no choice but to espouse those dictates for all humans or they would be considered hypocritical. As such "churchgoers" are led to believe that they know "the right" and should demand that "right" of nonmembers. I wouldn't say that all church goers feel that need. Yet the responses to this article illustrate that some certainly do.

Being the esteemed student of politics that Mr. Jowers is, I am surprised that he is not instead taking this momentous opportunity to draw the attention of this state to current affairs. They are a perfect illustration of just what a bunch of "churchgoers" involving themselves in politics can mean to a candidate or minority portion of society.

I am sure many of those Utah citizens, especially gays, who are drastically outnumbered by local "churchgoers" currently have big wide grins on their faces and are saying, "Now you know how it feels."

I found Mr. Jowers editorial troubling the first time I read it and reread it to find out why. An essential component to democracy is the art of compromise while religious doctrines tend to be absolute. I belive that is what Bill is talking about when he talks about the wrong group to motivate. "I" comment that the only people he knows are in the ward and who else would come to mass meetings makes some sense in the Salt Lake community I grew up 50 years ago but not today. The practice of having mass meetings in private homes is a bad idea and deserves to change.