"I don't have a problem with advocating voting but ... " S2 #1,414
Based perhaps on emotion, my position is quite similar if not identical. BUT !
In the interest if ideological purity, rigid regard for separation between Church & State suggests that's not pure. Why?
We already know, by example of congressional districting, populations attending a particular church may be likely to disproportionately favor one candidate, or one party over another.
That's a two-edged sword. There are Republican-leaning congregations as well as Democrat-leaning ones. BUT !!
"Two wrongs don't make a right." cliché
" I do have a problem with churches trying to influence the way someone votes. And that includes statements like "you should vote because if you don't XXX will likely win"" S2
Not sure if mine is a blind guess, or a suspicion grounded in some legitimate observation:
Even if not explicit, there's potential for non-subtle cues, even if not an explicit candidate / party endorsement. Obvious example:
The Democrat candidate campaigns on improving childcare services.
The Republican candidate campaigns on tax cuts. In neither case is a specific candidate or party named.
Result:
Those attending the Democrat-leaning church are told to register & vote, because of the importance & need of improved childcare services.
Those attending the Republican-leaning church are told to register & vote to promote our god-given right of Liberty, and strengthen the separation between Church & State by weakening the State by reducing its $revenues (& incidentally thereby leaving church attendees more discretionary funds to donate to church).
