[Prudence]

I suppose there's a difference between preaching the church's position on issues and preaching the church's position on specific ballot measures. Likewise, there's a difference between a priest/minister/pastor discussing with a congregant why that congregant will not be receiving communion and making that denial the lead story on the evening news. And there's a difference between holding a voter drive and having a voter drive for only one party.

What I object to is what seems to be a current trend that goes beyond saying "this is religion x's view on issue y" and is now full-on endorsement of specific candidates. (Of course, the kinds of churches that do this have probably always done this, they just get bigger press now.) I also don't like churches that tell their flock not to read certain books, watch certain movies, engage in certain hobbies, etc.

(I'm so tired I'm not expressing well.) I think there's a line of advocacy that gets crossed in some cases. There's an issue locally about some conservative talk show hosts that were banned from some on-air activities prior to the up-coming election. I don't listen to talk radio any more, so I can't confirm this, but allegedly they went beyond airing their views on their show, which I would support, and started using their on-air time to do things such as on-air fundraisers for particular campaigns. The courts here said that crossed the line and amounted to the station donating airway time that had a value, and the value exceeded campaign donation limits. I'm not articulating this well. Talking about the issues is the purpose of the talk show and as such is (and should be) protected. Running an on-air telethon is providing a specific service to a specific political campaign and falls under campaign finance guidelines. Does this make any sense?