Alaska Politics Blog : Going to church

Alaska Politics Blog

This is the place to talk about Alaska politics -- state, local, national. Public life in the Last Frontier has probably never been more interesting than right now -- the governor as candidate for vice president, the broad and still-evolving corruption investigation, a big election, powerful members of Congress under scrutiny, and the usual hardball Alaska politics. Come here for news, tidbits and information, and join the discussion. Keep your comments civil and on point. Avoid personal attacks. Do not use profanity. Posts that violate the Terms of Use will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be banned.

Contributors

Erika Bolstad

Erika Bolstad covers Alaska issues, including the congressional delegation, from Washington, D.C., for McClatchy Newspapers. Before joining the bureau in 2007, she spent seven years as a reporter at the Miami Herald, where she covered politics, government and the state legislature. E-mail Erika at ebolstad@adn.com.

Sean Cockerham

Sean Cockerham writes about Alaska state politics. He spent three years based in Juneau for the ADN before joining the Tacoma News-Tribune to write about Washington state politics. He went to Iraq twice for the News Tribune, and previously wrote about Alaska government and politics for the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. E-mail Sean at scockerham@adn.com

Kyle Hopkins

Kyle Hopkins covers politics and other stories for the ADN. He covered the 2006 campaign for governor, has blogged extensively about Alaska politics, covered Anchorage city government and was a reporter based in the Mat-Su. He grew up in Southeast Alaska and previously was a reporter at the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner and Anchorage Press. E-mail Kyle at khopkins@adn.com

Features

SECTION

Alaska political corruption

The FBI raided state legislatures offices in Aug. 2006, and the fallout since has been epic in Alaska's political world.

Going to church

Posted by Alaska_Politics

Posted: August 24, 2008 - 2:15 pm

From Sean Cockerham in Anchorage--

Most of the Alaska congressional candidates hobnobbed this morning at the Anchorage Baptist Temple's Candidate Sunday. It's a traditional event, considered by many politicians a must-stop for last minute support before Tuesday's election.

They listen to Jerry Prevo, who introduces them to the congregation, and then there's a meet and greet in the lobby after the service.

U.S. Rep. Don Young stood in the middle of the lobby, shaking hands with a jovial grin and a "Hey how are you! Good to see you!" Nearby, Young's campaign staffers had a table with those "I'm a Young Man" and "I'm a Young Woman" buttons. Mike Anderson, Young's chief of staff who is working on the campaign, said the campaign feels like it's pretty much done what it can before the voting. Young himself was planning to do a little more campaigning in Anchorage then head up to Fort Yukon, where he'll vote.

Young said he's not sweating the results.

"The Lord will take care of it. I'm not really concerned one way or the other. I'm working very hard, we're doing everything that we can," he said.

Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell was standing just a few feet away from Young in the lobby. He was having longer, quieter conversations with people, but not shaking as many hands as Young. State Rep. Gabrielle LeDoux, running against Young and Parnell in the Republican primary for the U.S. House seat, was also was there.

But the real star seemed to be Sen. Ted Stevens, judging by the reaction when Prevo introduced him.

All he had to do was say, "I'm Ted Stevens and I'm running for re-election. This is my wife.." and the congregation (which was supposed to hold off on clapping) interrupted him with loud applause.

Dave Cuddy, running against Stevens in the Republican primary, also got some claps. "That's my dog," the guy sitting behind me at the church said when Cuddy was introduced.

Vic Vickers wasn't there.

But other Senate Republican primary candidates were there: Jerry Heikes, Michael Corey, Rick Sikma came. So did AIP U.S. Senate candidate Bob Bird and Libertarian Frederick David Haase.

Not too many Democrats this year, although U.S. House candidate Diane Benson was there, as was state Rep. Max Gruenberg, and maybe some state legislature hopefuls that I didn't recognize.

Benson, sounding a little hoarse, told me she's running on just a few hours sleep. Benson said she'd earlier been at Shiloh Baptist for an 8 a.m. service. "That's a great way to wake you up," she said.

There was a slew of state legislators and would-be legislators at the Anchorage Baptist Temple service.

Most candidates just said their name and that of their spouse when Prevo introduced them, but Republican state Rep. Bob Lynn got some applause when he took it further.

"I am pro-life and I believe in marriage one man and one woman!" he said.

login or register to post comments

61 August 26, 2008 - 6:19am | leowassilie

Prevo's congregation

in room 602 in the Baranoff took a little break until after the elections.

They decided the Baptist Temple was a better place for now.

Only GOD will hear this time instead of those pesky little buggers hiding in the wall.

60 August 25, 2008 - 11:58pm | staufen

excuse me, Lord, is any of dat derr

political activity done taking place frum inside one of dem religiously exempt non-profit properties?

PS: shhh, they think theys the only ones in heaven

PREVO OUGHTA SAY SOME MEA MAXIMA CULPAS!

Surely St. Peter has an entry in his book for Don Young, riverboat captain: Hands-on congressman in the Marianas Islands in the backrooms with those cute little Asian seamstresses? ... Checkmark in the YES box.

Forgive me Father, for I have sinned, and sinned, and sinned... but I did it for Alaska! -- DY.

59 August 25, 2008 - 11:54pm | Alaskamarine

Baptists

While I agree there needs to be a separation between church and state, I cannot believe how you can blame the worlds problems on the baptists. Lest we forget the Salem witch trials, the Inquisitions, the Muslim extremists, the terrorist groups which claim to be for Buddhist monks in Tibet, the Catholic church sex scandals, and on and on. The same case can be made for almost any religion or denomination. What we need to remember is that whatever we believe we are still human and we all make mistakes and do the wrong thing at times. Blaming the Baptists for our problems is like blaming any one member of Congress for passing a bill you don't like. You simply can't do it. Everyone plays a part for better or for worse.

August 26, 2008 - 7:18am | Diogenes_lamp

sounds to me like...

They are reaping what they sowed....You can't wallow with the pigs and then complain about how you smell.

58 August 25, 2008 - 10:25pm | wtj

Hey!I've an idea!Why don't we just vote for Baptists?Better yet-

Let's elect a Baptist Minister!.....Oh...yeah....
We did that........
Didn't work out too well, did it?

Jimmy Carter should remind EVERYONE how badly religion and government mix.

August 25, 2008 - 10:54pm | LilysDaddy

Worst President; worst ex-President, too

Don't believe that?

"During his four years in the White House, he presided over the worst economic downturn since World War II, allowed a bunch of thugs to seize our embassy and our citizens, and supported Philippine dictator Fernando Marcos, Pakistani General Zia al Huq, Saudi King Faud and many other dictators. But Jimmy Carter was a much better president than he is an ex-president.

"In fact, Jimmy Carter holds the hands-down record for being the worst ex-president the United States has ever known. His post-presidential meddling in foreign affairs has cost America dearly, both in terms of international credibility and international prestige."

Oh, and he's a Baptist, too. Coincidence, I'm sure.

August 25, 2008 - 11:01pm | Gus_Davis

Minister

I thought he was talking about Robert Hayes.

August 26, 2008 - 12:03am | staufen

Twilight Zone

how the heck could she forget about Dubaya?

Or that Carter's team was working on a Tripartite System of Human Rights ... that the Corporatocracy had to trash ASAP in order to prevent People from having the say over governments.

Just like they trash Gerald Ford because he vetoed hundreds of bills.... insulting the Lords of Congress with the very thought of a question like "What the heck do the People need this darned new law for?"

Inconvenient presidents are not the worst ones. They just excite (incite?) the history writers who work for the worst ones, the groupies that get to write the cover-up stories.

August 26, 2008 - 5:49am | Gus_Davis

Self-Appointed National Pastor W?

Gees its surely been a while since I checked up on Whitehouse.Org , Department of Faith or the Landover Babtist Church Websites.

I missed out on a chance to win the Free Christian Vacation with George Bush!

57 August 25, 2008 - 10:04pm | Vroomfondel

And exactly how is this surprising?

So a bunch of gladhanding leeches go pandering at Prevert's Death Star. Yawn. If there was a voting block of 4,000 cabbage worshipers who invited local politicians to their nutter den, Stevens, Young, Benson, et al would be there too.

56 August 25, 2008 - 8:55pm | auroragrl

Bob Lynn

Congratulations to Bob Lynn for being pro-life and pro-marriage!! :) It takes a lot of courage to proclaim those principles these days.

August 25, 2008 - 9:20pm | crbypass

Courage, my hiney. I am

Courage, my hiney. I am completely pro marriage. I just don't care who the parties getting married are. That just takes decency, not courage. It takes serious lack of respect for other humans to tell them they can't marry who they like. Well, a lack of respect, and a serious self-importance delusion.

55 August 25, 2008 - 7:53pm | Alaskamarine

letter

Here is the letter from Thomas Jefferson in case anyone is interested.

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

54 August 25, 2008 - 7:48pm | Alaskamarine

Church and State.

I agree with those here who claim the separation of church and state was intended to protect the church from the government, but what is intended and what is reality are two different things. The United State Senate has a chaplain. Meetings are opened with prayer. The same happens on the state level as well by the way. If we look to where the phrase separation of church and state derives, we can see it was used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Church which sent him a letter asking him to clarify the relationship between church and state. In a perfect world there would be true seperation but as with all personal convictions, putting those aside is far easier said than done.

53 August 25, 2008 - 7:36pm | DecemberRain

Is there a Valley equivalent of ABT?

Just wondering.

August 25, 2008 - 10:05pm | LilysDaddy

You betcha,

the Holy Church of the C³ meets at Lyda's house every Sunday morning, 9:00am sharp. All gather to listen to the gospel of the Constantly Complaining Coven, as preached by wee andy.

Sinners and Palin-bashers welcome. Oh, remember, cash only for the collection plate. You know: checks can be traced.

August 25, 2008 - 11:17pm | DecemberRain

LOL

August 25, 2008 - 11:03pm | AKRM5

I'll give you credit....

....that was a pretty good response.

52 August 25, 2008 - 7:30pm | Emperor

Prevo Politics

Prevo has long been a major player in Anchorage/Alaska politics. He has raised untold amounts of dollars and delivered untold number of sheep to the polls to vote as they are directed. Look to see how many of the politicians under investigation, indicted and convicted have been supported by the Prevo clan.

And just a thought:

Religion is a personal matter. It should have NO PLACE what so ever in ANY level of government. Religion is about how you conduct yourself, it should have nothing to do with how others conduct their lives.

You have freedom of religion, allow me freedom from religion.

August 25, 2008 - 7:39pm | akgen

hoorah!

51 August 25, 2008 - 7:02pm | akgen

Annoy pervert and think for yourself...

OMG I mean: Annoy Prevo and think for yourself...
(I'm sure I'll be forgiven if someone flags me...)

Once I met a geologist who claimed to of been raised in that 'temple'. My dad asked him if he saw the face of God in fossils.

50 August 25, 2008 - 6:51pm | eschermie

Beware

Just one more show as to how much political pull that Jerry Prevo and company have over this State! Be very aware!

BTW - I agree with Gus.

August 26, 2008 - 6:22am | leowassilie

Gus

or Gustavus?

49 August 25, 2008 - 4:25pm | greyghost

The indicted

and the investigated get rousing church applause. How special.... Does that not strike you as strange?

Seems rather hypocritical, don'tcha think? Do these people normally go to this particular church? If not it is just more pandering to the sheeple.... and the sheeple will eat it up.

August 25, 2008 - 6:22pm | Gus_Davis

No Kidding..

Babtist Church or RICO enterprise?

August 25, 2008 - 7:04pm | DecemberRain

Riiiico suave!

(Earworms to all!)

48 August 25, 2008 - 3:55pm | Daltonfamily01

politicians

I am a religious person and I do not believe in all of the "seperation of church and state" ideas presented.

However, I do not believe that a politician should be preaching from the pulpit or presenting their views on politics. Church is the place that we go to worship God and our savior. The chapel should be a place where we are educated about the teachings from the scriptures.

We are asked to set aside 1 day per week to give thanks to our creator and to worship him. If the religious leaders wish to set up another day for a meet and greet for politicians - fine. But to use this day to forward political agendas on whichever side, is disrepectful to our Lord.

August 25, 2008 - 7:01pm | DecemberRain

Right on, Dalton Family.

47 August 25, 2008 - 3:45pm | danfaganskid

Theocracy anyone?

I say we secede from the Union and and hereunto for make Alaska a theocracy

46 August 25, 2008 - 3:01pm | donny_f

The Separation of Church and State

Many people have been saying in this blog that religion should not have a voice in politics because of the separation of church and state written in the U.S. Constitution.

The first amendment reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

In fact, you will not find the words “separation of church and state” anywhere in the Constitution. What the first amendment did was to guarantee that the government would not establish a state religion. It can’t tell you which church to go to or that you even have to go. Also the government cannot deny you your right to exercise your religion.

The first amendment does not say that religion can’t participate in politics. Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Mormons, Atheists, etc all have the right participate in the political process and to have their values recognized just like any other American.

There is nothing wrong with a church teaching its values and encouraging its members to vote. Nor is there anything wrong with a church giving all candidates a fair chance to talk with people at the church. Whether a candidate decides to attend is up to them. Just like any other lobby, interest group, or voting bloc, religion does have a place in American politics.

August 25, 2008 - 4:39pm | dipperftatech

You need to re-read the First Amendment

Congress Shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...
Respecting an establishment of religion means giving "respect" to a particular religion, faith, or belief. That means that religious doctrines and teachings cannot be forced upon the general population. It also means that no religious institution can be given a special status (i.e. there is no "state church"). By extension, there is to be no official state belief. This is the "freedom FROM religion" clause.

...nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof
You can't be prohibited from practicing the religion of your choice, or no religion at all. This is the "freedom OF religion" clause.

Every court decision in modern times understands both parts of the first sentence of the First Amendment to mean there is a separation of church and state. Without such a separation, there can be no religious freedom and we might as well be a Christian version of Iran.

August 25, 2008 - 4:55pm | donny_f

We are actually in agreement

I agree with all your points, except that it is impossible to have complete "separation of church and state." As long as people of faith are allowed to vote and speak freely there will always be an interaction between church and state.

It is up to the courts to interpret what level of interaction is constitutional. i.e. the government cannot establish/promote one religion over another, it cannot force anyone to participate in religion, nor can it deny folks the right to practice thier religion or speak freely.

August 25, 2008 - 5:34pm | Glory_to_God

Public square versus private building.

If the location is owned by the taxpayers, then religion can be silenced by the government. If the location is owned by a private entity, then religion cannot be silenced by the government. A public school is an example of a location owned by the taxpayers. A private school is an example of a location owned by private entities. Politicians are not owned by the government, so they can practice religion in a private location. Even private entities can prohibit you from practicing religion on their own property. There is one way you can practice religion in the public sector and that is by applying the fruit of the Spirit. Why? Because there is no law against the fruit of the Spirit. Reference: But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. (Galatians 5:22-23)

August 25, 2008 - 7:05pm | DecemberRain

In the Valley, one of the

In the Valley, one of the dance studios couldn't perform at a public school because it was public.

Is the APT owned by the public if it doesn't pay taxes?

August 25, 2008 - 7:58pm | Glory_to_God

No, because it is a nonprofit organization.

Nonprofits provide a service to the community that is deemed beneficial by the government and therefore they don't have to pay taxes. For instance, a nonprofit receives money and uses the money to feed the hungry, to cloth the naked and to provide shelter for the homeless. Nonprofits are suppose to take part of the burden off the taxpayers and off the government.

August 25, 2008 - 8:06pm | Gus_Davis

Community interest

Like John Ashcroft does.

Spending $8,000 to 'cloth the naked.'

August 25, 2008 - 3:46pm | akchris64

Using A Place of Worship...

...however blasphemous it is; is fine with me. Mr Prevo should then loose his tax exempt status.

August 25, 2008 - 4:03pm | donny_f

You have a good point

I'll agree with you under this condition: if it can be proven that he did not invite all the candidates or that he specifically told his membership to vote for a particular candidate while acting on behalf of ABT. If this is the case, ABT is breaking the rules and there should be some consequences.

Perhaps a hefty fine for such an infraction would be a more appropriate punishment for the first offense before revoking a tax exemp status though.

August 25, 2008 - 3:26pm | AKvet

Someone seems to be misleading you...

Actually, the separation between church and state is very clear. The court cases that have sprung as a result of First Amendment challenges have very clearly found that there is to be no participation bewteen state and Federal politics and churches, and vice versa. The establishment portion of the separation clause is very clear in it's intend, based on the writer; that the Federal government cannot participate in any religious activity, because the Constitution views religion as an individual issue and the Constitution holds that individual rights are supreme. The Constitution, and it's wall of separation, was designed to completely hold politics and religion separate, allowing for no interaction between the two. This is exactly what was found in the court cases that have reviewed the separation issue, when presented.

August 25, 2008 - 3:43pm | donny_f

Re: Someone seems to be misleading you...

You are right that the courts have ruled to keep government from over stepping its bounds into religion. All that I am saying is that any view whether it be religious, political, ideologic, etc should be given the opportunity to be expressed during the political process. To deny this right to anyone is to deny the freedom of speech.

Your point that the government cannot participate in any religious activity is not quite accurate. I'll give the example of the military chaplaincy. The Supreme Court has upheld that if the government does not provide this service it is effectively denying soldiers thier right to practice thier religion.

In some cases, there is nothing wrong with the government interacting with religion. The government just may not promote one religoin over another (establishment clause) and it can not deny you of your right to worship in your own way if you choose to.

August 25, 2008 - 4:07pm | AKvet

I think I see where you are going...

The US Supreme Court has actually never heard a case involving the Chapaincy, but there was a case in that was heard by a US Circuit Court, Katoff. That case brought to light the obvious friction between the establishment and the excercise clauses of the First Amendment's separation of church and state doctrine. The Katoff case passed on the exercise clause but failed on the establushment clause. In fact, the current test for separation issues is the Lemon test, and the Lemon Test would now fail the entire Katoff argument. In Katoff, the court found that the exercise clause trumped the establishment clause, thus requiring the Army to form religious bodies to satisfy the exercise needs of the soliders who requested religious services. The court did not disregard the separation doctrine, but used an alternative (the exercise clause trumping the establishment clause) to find an answer that satisfied the current test. Now, the Lemon Test is used and since there have been no challenges to the legal question, there has been no reason to revisit the Chaplaincy issue. The best case to understand the total separation intent written into the Consitution is probably Everson. In Everson, the Supreme Court found that establishment clause was superior to the exercise clause. This provided an opinion that included language such as, "nor the Federal government can, openly or secretly, participate in the afffairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa". Also, this decision found that, "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall separation between Church and State' ". The court used the rights of the individual as the basis of their answer and to come to this conclusion. they found that the rights of the individual clearly supported the idea of the establishment clause and clearly defended the exercise clause.

August 25, 2008 - 4:30pm | donny_f

Thanks

Great points. You brought back painful memories of my law class in college when you brought up the lemon test.

My intent with the discussion was to show that we should always look to the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. I think it is widely mis-interpreted when folks say there should be absulutely no interaction between church and state. The freedom of religion/speech are there so that every American can have a voice, but many people use the separation clause to try and stifle opposing view points.

The reality is that every American has the right to have thier voice heard regardless of religion or ideology. In that regard, religious views are permitted in the political discourse (church interacts with state). When the debate is done our representatives vote, and the courts get to determine if the law/policy is constitutional (lemon test/establishment clause).

My big point is that everyone at least gets to participate including the faithful.

August 25, 2008 - 4:35pm | AKvet

I agree!

Yes, yes, yes. I too believe that the Constitution gets thrown around by everyone when convienent, not when truthful or just. There are also two, and sometimes more, answers to Constitutional questions, and sometimes basic doctrine gets clouded in politics. I believe that the clouding can be minimized by establishing basic doctrine that identifies certain exact, precise functions...the ability to participate in religion and politics separately is an example of what I think we both are talking about...just in different terms. Good discussion though! Takes me back as well, and yes, painfully.

August 25, 2008 - 3:10pm | Diogenes_lamp

wow...

Now go study your history...it's a bit deeper than that.

August 25, 2008 - 3:28pm | donny_f

Re: wow...

Please help me out then...

The words "separation of church and state" were orginally written in a letter by Thomas Jefferson. He was in Paris at the time as part of his duties as Sec. of State and had not actually read the Constitution yet; he had just been told about it. Regardless, his words were taken out of context and by no means is a memo by Thomas Jefferson a better legal document than the Constitution, our founding document.

If you could explain how my reading of the first amendment is wrong I would appreciate it. I would prefer to know the truth.

August 25, 2008 - 4:39pm | Diogenes_lamp

Sorry Donny...

I'm not about to argue this question with you. The "out of context" statement warns me that you have filled your head with revisionist history by some of the bible based self-styled historians. I've wasted enough time on this subject in the past. It's a long story and if you haven't read enough primary historical documents or studied enough history...there is no use.
Here is a sampling of why the founding fathers stayed clear of religion:
"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth." Notes on Virginia 1785, Thomas Jefferson

"Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest luster; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy". ...Memorial and Remonstrance 1785 James Madison.

I know I suppose that these are taken out of context too. It goes on and on...the reasons why we have this separation. End of argument...Believe what you want to believe.

45 August 25, 2008 - 2:59pm | danfaganskid

Jerry Prevo's Temple of Doom

I am an old carmudgeon and i am running in house distric 007:(

August 25, 2008 - 3:30pm | LilysDaddy

Is a "carmudgeon"

anything like a rusted-out 1978 AMC Pacer, with holes in the floorboard?

Owned one of those once.

August 25, 2008 - 7:08pm | DecemberRain

Leddimbe! He's Dan Fagan's

Leddimbe! He's Dan Fagan's Kid!

44 August 25, 2008 - 2:11pm | desaerica

And another thing...

while I'm at it. Don't any of you that are sent to blog by Prevo dare to say, "If any of you are without sin, let him cast the first stone." 'Cause if any of you do, what you'll get from me is: thunk, plink, plink.

Search Jobs | Place an employment ad