Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Democrats

Journal Cy Guy's Journal: Baptist Church in NC Excommunicates Democrat members 21

Journal by Cy Guy

I wish I was making this up. Not being picked up by the major media yet, but it was covered by a local TV station (humorously - a Sinclair owned affiliate). I am re-posting the full text of the story they have on it since it is short, and there is no permanent link for it.

Religion and Politics Clash
Religion and politics clash over a local church's declaration that Democrats are not welcome.

East Waynesville Baptist asked nine members to leave. Now 40 more have left the church in protest. Former members say Pastor Chan Chandler gave them the ultimatum, saying if they didn't support George Bush, they should resign or repent. The minister declined an interview with News 13. But he did say "the actions were not politically motivated." There are questions about whether the bi-laws were followed when the members were thrown out.

(posted at 7:30am, 5/6/05)

Naturally the Left of the Blogosphere is in total uproar over this. But it seems to me that regardless of your politics you should be up in arms about a political test for religion just as you should about a religious test for politics.

UPDATE: 3:30 PM

Unfortunately it seems like journalists other than bloggers are giving this a pass so far. Which I think is quite shameful. But at least it has been now picked up by the AP State newswire in NC:

Minister ex-communicates members for not backing Bush

UPDATE 10:30 PM 5-7-05
Well the MSM has at least covered the story and the latest news is that the members that were kicked are considering suing. Via Google News I found an interesting take on the story from the "Biblical Recorder" a newspaper that has been covering the Baptist Church in NC since 1833. Here is that article in its entirety:

Church removes members for political views, deacon says
By Steve DeVane
Managing Editor

A Baptist deacon says he and eight other members of East Waynesville Baptist Church were removed from the church roll because they disagreed with the pastor's political views.

Frank Lowe said he had been a member of the church for 43 years. He said the pastor, Chan Chandler, said he wanted the church to be a politically active church, and that anyone who disagrees with his views should leave.

Chandler could not be reached for comment.

WLOS-TV in nearby Asheville reported that Chandler declined an interview but said, "the actions were not politically motivated."

The controversy at the church reached a high point the Monday night, May 2, when the pastor invited all church members to a deacons' meeting. Lowe said at the beginning of the meeting, the pastor said anyone who didn't agree with his political views should leave.

Lowe said he, his wife, Thelma and seven others left. The pastor then called the church into conference and congregation voted to terminate the membership of those who left, Lowe said.

Among those dismissed were three deacons, he said.

Church member Janet Webb who was at the meeting declined to say what happened during the meeting, but said that Chandler is "a man of God who only preaches against sin and to win people to Jesus Christ."

Church member Bill Rash, who has been attending the church for about 29 years, said he stayed through the meeting, but has since resigned from his positions and decided to leave the church. He said another church member initially asked if all church members could come to the altar, pray together, forgive each other and get on with the Lord's business.

Chandler responded by saying if those who disagreed would repent, then they could get on with the Lord's work, Rash said. The pastor said if they weren't going to repent they should leave, Rash said.

That's when Lowe and the others left.

After they left, the remaining members voted to take their names off the roll, Rash said everyone voted for the measure except he and his wife, who didn't vote.

The remaining members decided that if another church wrote for the letters of those who left, East Waynesville would reply saying they had left in bad standing. Members also discussed changing the church bylaws to state that all members had to sign a statement saying they supported the pastor's political views, Rash said.

During the last presidential election, the pastor said that anyone who was supporting John Kerry should repent or resign from the church, Rash and Lowe said. The pastor offered to hold the door for them to leave, Lowe said.

Lowe said he usually votes Democratic while his wife votes Republican.

The pastor "says my political views support abortion and homosexuality, therefore that would be enough to turn me out of the church," Lowe said. "I am not - positively not - for either one."

If indeed Chandler's pulpit statement was made before the November election and did not indicate he was speaking only for himself, it would be a "pretty clear" violation of Internal Revenue Service rules against political endorsements by churches, said Brent Walker, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (BJC). That could lead the IRS to revoke East Waynesville Baptist Church's tax-exempt status.

Some members of Congress have been trying to do away with that restriction, led by Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.). He has introduced a version of the Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act in every session of Congress since 2001. Although the bill has not passed, it continues to receive strong support from many conservative Christian groups.

However, many groups that support the separation of church and state have strongly opposed the bill, including the BJC.

Lowe said he and his wife have been invited to other churches since the meeting. He expects they'll start attending somewhere else, but wouldn't rule out an effort to "retake" the church.

Another church member, Selma Morris, said she believes the vote to remove the members isn't valid because the church bylaws weren't followed.

The bylaws say a called meeting should be announced on Sunday morning. The meeting Monday was announced at the Sunday evening service, she said.

The bylaws also say a called meeting should be held two weeks after the announcement, according to Morris. The meeting was held the next night.

Morris said she wasn't at the meeting, but would have walked out with the others if she had been there.

"I can't support that," she said.

UPDATE: 12:00 5/9/05
At services Sunday morning, the good Reverend tried to call 'no harm, no foul' and welcome back the members that had been taken off the roll, but not all are coming back enthusiastically.

FINAL UPDATE / CONCLUSION? 9:30 AM 5/11/05:
Pastor Accused of Running Out Dems Quits!

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Baptist Church in NC Excommunicates Democrat members More

Baptist Church in NC Excommunicates Democrat members

Comments Filter:
  • bi-laws
    ... instead of by-laws? Sounds like a gay Baptist Church would want to kick out rhe Repugs, not the Dems.

    Hey, its all good. I was excommunicated years ago, before it was "in fashion" ... nice to know I'm in good company :-)

  • If the Democrats would just become as progressive on the issue of life as they are on the issue of poverty. Heck- if the party as a whole did that, they'd beat the Republicans all hollow- because Republicans fail utterly on the subject of poverty.
    • Would you please stop using code words? I would hardly call the Republican Party "progressive" on "life" what with their death penalty fetish and their willingness to kill however many Iraqis are necessary to get cheaper gas while standing around staring into space during the genocide in Darfur.

      Just come out and say that in your opinion the Democrats need to surrender on the abortion issue and stop feeding me BS lines about how respectful of "life" my former party is.

      • I didn't say the Republican Party WAS progressive on life- I said that the Democrats need to be MORE progressive on life issues.

        That doesn't mean surrendering on abortion being legal- that means using the Republican party's obession with abortion to reduce the need for it in progressive ways.

        A few good examples are universal health care, housing and urban development, education, and food stamps. If we could guarantee EVERY mother that she'd be able to raise her children without fear, going to good school
    • Bullshit, even if the Democrats were more rabidly pro-life than the Republicans this sort of shit would still happen. The point is no matter how much the Democrats try to out-troglodyte the Republicans on social issues, the Democrats will still be the ENEMY that must be destroyed.

      The other problem is what is left of the Democratic base will either stay home or go off to another party. If the Democrats purge the pro-choice types, the femininists, the gays, and the minorities there just ain't a whole lot to
      • Bullshit, even if the Democrats were more rabidly pro-life than the Republicans this sort of shit would still happen. The point is no matter how much the Democrats try to out-troglodyte the Republicans on social issues, the Democrats will still be the ENEMY that must be destroyed.

        I said PROGRESSIVE, not REGRESSIVE. Regressive tactics like making abortion illegal for the poor (because as we all know, even when abortion is illegal people like George W. Bush can still pay a lot of money and have it done) do
        • Yeah- but they'd gain the 60 million Catholic working people who actually care about BOTH the poor AND see abortion as genocide of the marginalized. People who USED to vote Democratic before Roe V. Wade screwed up American Politics.

          Something like the Republican Party gaining many millions of racist votes when they abandoned their support for civil rights? Becoming the thing you wish to destroy does not appear to be "victory" to me. To paraphrase Monty Python, senile pederasts making moral pronouncements i

          • True enough- but GurpenFuhrer would also excommunicate Pat Robinson, Bill Donohue, and Deal Hudson. The stupid thing is that everybody in America thinks Pope Benedict XVI is conservative- and he is- but rather that means that he'd support the Republican Agenda (when the only thing even vaguely Catholic about the Republican Agenda is maybe abortion- but they don't go nearly far enough with encouraging life).
            • I judge the man by his acts -- and his interference in the last presidential election is an indication that he sees the Christian Taliban and their agenda as his friends. I also remember that the German Cardinals backed Corporal Schickelgruber back in the day, because his party would provide "order" that the godless leftwingers wouldn't. Ditto for autocratic tyrants in Latin America. Ratzinger was responsible for the supression of Liberation Theology as a movement within the Catholic church, after all.

              Why

              • Because you're only looking at half of his acts. You've failed utterly to notice the left wing things that he's done: Kicked the Society of St. Pius X out of the church for keeping the Latin Mass. Signed a joint declaration with the World Lutheran Federation ending the mutual anathemas of the Council of Trent after 500 years. Made great inroads in healing the Orthodox-Roman schism of 1090- to the extent that a major aim of the Papacy of Benedict XVI will be the end of that schism. He was a major playe
        • I said PROGRESSIVE, not REGRESSIVE. Regressive tactics like making abortion illegal for the poor (because as we all know, even when abortion is illegal people like George W. Bush can still pay a lot of money and have it done) don't work for starters- just look at prohibition or the abortion rate in Mexico.

          So how would a Democratic "pro-life" position be different? Most who claim to support "pro-life" public policies think abortion should be made illegal. Any restrictions on abortion at all fall mostly on
          • So how would a Democratic "pro-life" position be different? Most who claim to support "pro-life" public policies think abortion should be made illegal. Any restrictions on abortion at all fall mostly on the poor. Anyone who can afford to travel for an abortion will still be able to get one.

            We don't have to imagine- we already have two examples from the 1930s and 1940s. The first is the "Bill of Ecconomic Rights" that FDR tried to get passed during the 1930s. And the second is the Universal Declaration o
            • We don't have to imagine- we already have two examples from the 1930s and 1940s. The first is the "Bill of Ecconomic Rights" that FDR tried to get passed during the 1930s. And the second is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights- a resolution passed by the UN at the urging of Elaenor Roosevelt. Both included a right to life- and both included the most obvious way to end most abortion- a separate economy for motherhood and childhood. Support for families so that they don't have to choose between handiphob
              • I'm for all of this, but I wouldn't limit access to abortion for those women who choose to have one.

                The crux of "safe, legal, and rare" is that everyone have access to family planning and the resources they need should they choose to raise children.

                Family planning is a hard one because of the history- most of the early "family planners" were really anti-poverty eugenicists trying to wipe out the so called "poverty gene". Even today, there's a huge stigma against having children- so much so that we nee
              • While I agree and support the idea of providing proper support to those who choose to have children I'm against the idea of forcing anyone to have an unwanted child, no matter their reason for not wanting it.

                It finally occured to me what I can't reconcile with Democratic ideals in this situation. The standard ideal of the Democrats ecconomically is that people shouldn't be punished unduly for events that are out of their control. Is it the child's fault that s/he is unwanted? Isn't the problem in the p
  • There are more religious conflicts in the US than in Jerusalem.
    • I agree, if I was excommunicated, that would definitely be a sign that my church wasn't all it was cracked up to be and that I wouldn't want to be a part of them. Screw em.

      So are we going towards the Ireland model? Instead of protestants and catholics, we'll have "good christians" versus everyone else?

      LMAO, now since I'm a good American, I'll have to think up a revenue model so when we cross that bridge, I can cash out in style!

  • Sadly, this doesn't surprise me. And I do think it's politically motivated - in the sense that the Republican Party supports a plethora of religious friendly legislation and President Bush is the head of the Republican Party (by default).

    I do understand and respect the minister's motivation, but can't condone his actions.
  • But it seems to me that regardless of your politics you should be up in arms about a political test for religion just as you should about a religious test for politics.

    No, the two situations are completely different. The government is paid for by my taxes, and I don't have much choice about that, so I care what the government does. I don't go to the church in question, nor do I support it financially in any way, so I don't really care what they do.
  • Earlier this week the press was up in arms that Arnold Schwar* was planning to introduce legislation to blow up the moon. One side benefit would be that women whose menstrual cycles were governed by the moon would bitch and moan less.

    http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/movies/news/n6 894.htm [nypost.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

The hardest part of climbing the ladder of success is getting through the crowd at the bottom.

Close