Baptist Church Excludes Democrats

[perfessor]

http://www.wlos.com/

I don't get it. Didn't Jesus ply his trade among tax collectors, prostitutes, and other "sinners"?

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.

So my question for debate: Should the East Waynesville Baptist Church lose its tax-exempt status?

I say they should, since the pastor has turned the church into an arm of the Republican party.

[ST88]

Back on track . . .

Christian Pastors should indeed protect their flock.

If the New Testament is to be the guide that the Baptist Minister used then, he did the right thing.

It is far past the time when the logs in the eyes of the church be removed. Now human beings are sold as commodities to heal the swicnesses of the rich and famous. If Sodom and Gomorrah was more about mistreating the defenseless, then we are due for the visit of two Angels as soon as Bush leaves office.

I hope the Pastor of that church realizes that the Neo-Con views held by many "Bush voters" are as heinous as the licentiousness and cruelty spawned by the kinds of Neo-Liberal people that supported Kerry and his crew, that the Pastor kicked out of his church.

I find myself in the odd position of agreeing with AlAyeti. Every church and religious group should consistently apply its belief system to its membership. Those people who find themselves at odds with the belief system of any particular church or religious group should not be there. Churches should not encourage hypocrisy. A careful reading of the teachings attributed to Jesus would lead one to belive that hypocrisy is one of the sins he has most strongly condemned. Churches that accept members and financial support from those who are there for 'social' reasons and do not accept the dogma of that church should be very ashamed.

I agree that AlAyeti has a point here about church membership. Too many people feel that being a member of a religion is the same as being a member of a political party. There are Republicans who are pro-choice even though the party is officially pro-life; and there are Democrats who are free-traders even though the official position to is to support unions. But religions aren't about coalitions exerting power in a legislative body (which is why pro-choice Republicans are tolerated), they are about personal views of their relationship to their god. With this comes rules about the relationship. Like McCulloch said, if you can't accept the rules, get out of the pool.

The only issue here, however, is whether or not a church is legally able to endorse one political position or party over another. Of course, no one is going to march into the pulpit and put duct tape over the minister's mouth. But this church must be prepared to accept the legal consequences for adopting such a stand. The church can't accept the system of laws that allowed it to be a tax-free entity, and then break those laws and expect no legal consequences.

[AlAyeti]

The First Amendment was written long before the IRS existed.

And Christ and His followers, existed long before the experiment of American ideological freedoms were put into practice.

The Government can do nothing towards anything said in a Church.

The Pastor was doing what a good Pastor should do.

[ST88]

The First Amendment was written long before the IRS existed.

I'm not sure why the chronology of which institution came first matters. We are a cumulative and supercessionist culture. Slavery predated everything in the U.S., but it's gone now. The IRS is responsible for regulating monetary gains and losses. There are laws that govern this process. Freedom of speech and practice of religion is not an absolute. You are not allowed to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, and you are not allowed to slaughter your neighbor's animals for ritual purposes.

The U.S. grants the privilege of being a tax-free charity to religious institutions. This privilege can be altered and the institution can even be sanctioned if it charity doesn't follow the rules.

And Christ and His followers, existed long before the experiment of American ideological freedoms were put into practice.

Are you an advocate of returning to British rule?

The Government can do nothing towards anything said in a Church.

The freedom of speech rule does not cover someone who incites others to violence. In this way, someone who speaks in a church is covered no differently from anyone who speaks in a public or private square.

Personally, I would argue that barring Democrats from attending a particular church is effectively labeling them anti-Christians. This could be argued to be libel and slander in many communities. But even if it isn't, the tax free status of the church is waived if it engages in political activity. Why? Because political advocacy is heavily regulated, and money needs to be accounted for. Otherwise, churches -- generally recognized as promoting TRUTH to a nation of those so disposed -- are just a political arm of the Republican party, something that they should either pay for or else disclose the finances of.

The Pastor was doing what a good Pastor should do.

So it's the job of a pastor to promote hatred, intolerance, and discrimination? If so, they should call up the ACLU to help protect their rights to discriminate. They might have get in line behind the KKK, however.

ed: toned down rhetoric

[AlAyeti]

The ACLU is Pederasty driven. Any Christian using the ACLU would not find any help from above.

Jesus and His folowers are persecuted for preaching the truth. Democrats legalize abomination and lies. Republican are honest greedy people. I wouldn't let them off the hook either if I was a Pastor.

The Pastor did the right thing on Biblical grounds.

I would say that Christians are being discriminated against on far more grounds than the people they insult with their "words." Look at the way you frame "libel and slander." I can see the writing on the wall for the future of American and "Western" Christianty.

The hatred and intolerance and discrimination are being meted out to Christians by law at an alarming rate. By Democrats. "Political Correctness" can only force silence of Christians when they are martyred.

The Pastors math is correct at who he needs to protect his flock from.

Congress shall make NO laws. . . in regards to religion. Plain english.

Intersting you didn't mention Bill Clinton and Jesse Jackson politically stumping in churches AS the ARM of the Dmocrat party.

Interesting.

[ST88]

I would say that Christians are being discriminated against on far more grounds than the people they insult with their "words." Look at the way you frame "libel and slander." I can see the writing on the wall for the future of American and "Western" Christianty.

It's true that I have my suspicions that among Christians there would be outrage at being called "un-Christian". But I don't think you have anything to worry about as far as the decline of American Christianity goes.

The hatred and intolerance and discrimination are being meted out to Christians by law at an alarming rate. By Democrats. "Political Correctness" can only force silence of Christians when they are martyred.

How do you feel about paying people not to work? This Republican administration has passed the largest farm subsidy bill in history. What about using churches as political fund-raising avenues? I believe Christ himself had something to say (and throw) about this. If you're looking for Christ, He ain't in either party.

The Pastors math is correct at who he needs to protect his flock from.

Does he allow members of the Green Party or the Libertarian Party or the Socialist Party? What about independents or undeclareds, how can he tell who the enemy is if they won't label themselves?

Congress shall make NO laws. . . in regards to religion. Plain english.

Except that your "plain English" is using the wrong words. The correct phrase is "establishment of religion". And, once again, regulating religious institutions has nothing to do with closing down churches because of what is being said or who is being tossed out. They are free to do so. But then, as an avowed political organization, they must pay their taxes.

Intersting you didn't mention Bill Clinton and Jesse Jackson politically stumping in churches AS the ARM of the Dmocrat party.
Interesting.

Last I heard, Mr. Clinton wasn't the head of a church. And as for Mr. Jackson, he's been an advocate for higher taxes for years. He is subject to taxes for his political activities -- and, of course, he's gotten into trouble for not paying them in the past. So these two personnages are not relevant except to prove my side of the argument. Thank you for bringing them up.

[AlAyeti]

ST88: ". . . But I don't think you have anything to worry about as far as the decline of American Christianity goes."

This thread points to the danger poised and ready to pounce on Christian Churches, that want the same rights to the First Amendment as anyone or anything else.

Though truly I do not worry about the further decline of Christianty. It's going to get worse. The Bible is trustworthy.

You spun the Clinton/Jackson comparison. Once either guy walks into a churchand starts their anti-Gop diatribe then the churches they stand in are guilty of being a political meeting. Which is totally alright by me.

The Democrats use pulpits every bit as much as Republicans. It is just that the Bible does not support Democrats. They get huffy and choose to silence Christians in the right (correct).

Once a person "declares" that they are anti-Christian and unwilling to repent, then they need to be asked to leave a Christian Church. If they are sly and hide and no one knows they approve of murdering children for convenience and support Sodomy, then there is not much that can be done.

The Pastor did what a good person should do. Unless, he did not give them a chance to repent.


"How do you feel about paying people not to work? This Republican administration has passed the largest farm subsidy bill in history."

You're kidding right? The Democrats pay drug addicts to stay addicted and even give them free needles.

Poor example.

Drug addicts and other degenerates are a burden and dangerous to society.

Farmers keep us all alive. Keeping them and their bills paid is certainly where I would rather see my tax dollars go, then to fund the hedonism that seems to be the goal of the Democrat party. They speak about the "poor" but in New York, California and Massachusetts - all dens of Democrat-Liberal iniquity - only the richest people can afford to live there. The median price range for homes in those states makes me think it is time to start building guillotines in all three states.

I'm no Republican but Democrats sicken me with their shallow hidden agenda of sexual needs dictating everything they do. I wouldn't sit next to one in my own church. Unless the had already repented.

It seems clear to me that Sodom and Gomorrah need to move over and make way for the third in the series "America" to take center stage.

[ST88]

ST88: ". . . But I don't think you have anything to worry about as far as the decline of American Christianity goes."

This thread points to the danger poised and ready to pounce on Christian Churches, that want the same rights to the First Amendment as anyone or anything else.

Legally, you are on the incorrect side of this argument. Legally, everyone has the same first amendment rights to say just about whatever they want. The regulation of taxes is what is at issue. Causing a church to pay the tax they would owe for being a political entity does not amount to a first amendment violation.

You spun the Clinton/Jackson comparison. Once either guy walks into a churchand starts their anti-Gop diatribe then the churches they stand in are guilty of being a political meeting. Which is totally alright by me.

And taxes should be paid accordingly.

Once a person "declares" that they are anti-Christian and unwilling to repent, then they need to be asked to leave a Christian Church. If they are sly and hide and no one knows they approve of murdering children for convenience and support Sodomy, then there is not much that can be done.

So you believe it is not possible for a Democrat to be a good Christian. That's fine. If you represent yourself as the administrator of a church, and say this to your "members" in an official speech or action then you are a political organization. That's what this whole debate is about.

The Pastor did what a good person should do. Unless, he did not give them a chance to repent.

I find it interesting that good people can demonize all Democrats without getting to know any of the people who are Democrats. And here I thought Christianity worked on a case-by-case basis, encouraging personal relationships with their God.

You're kidding right? The Democrats pay drug addicts to stay addicted and even give them free needles.

If this were a thread on Republicans vs. Democrats, I would point out that there are Republicans who support free needle exchange. But there is no holier than thou that Republicans can claim.

Farmers keep us all alive.

So why are there tobacco and sugar subsidies? Rice and cotton subsidies for farmers in water-starved areas? The vast majority of farm subsidies go to corporate farms to buttress prices. It's something we pay for twice -- once in taxes for the subsidy, and again in inflated prices at the store. Sorry, this is probably irrelevant to the topic.

Keeping them and their bills paid is certainly where I would rather see my tax dollars go, then to fund the hedonism that seems to be the goal of the Democrat party. They speak about the "poor" but in New York, California and Massachusetts - all dens of Democrat-Liberal iniquity - only the richest people can afford to live there. The median price range for homes in those states makes me think it is time to start building guillotines in all three states.

Hey, that's good. Dens of Democrat-Liberal iniquity. Now we're demonizing entire states, nevermind that California is home to some of the most right-wing conservatives in the nation. Or that all three states currently have Republican governors. I also find it interesting that you are interested in what government allows its people to do. Shouldn't a person's personal actions be between that person and h/h god? Why does government have to get involved? Why do you wish the government to enforce church rules? Yet, this, too, is irrelevant to the topic.

I'm no Republican but Democrats sicken me with their shallow hidden agenda of sexual needs dictating everything they do.

If you think it's a hidden agenda to allow people the freedom to wallow in their own iniquity, you should get that log out of your eye. It's an open agenda.

It seems clear to me that Sodom and Gomorrah need to move over and make way for the third in the series "America" to take center stage.

That what this is really all about, isn't it? You think you're going to be dragged down with the God-displeasing multitudes because you are participating in the same government that allows these things. Don't you think that God would be more discriminating than that?

In one passage that Scripturally allows the Pastor to ban whoever he wants to from his church: 1 Corinthians 5:9-13, Paul also says that judgments must only be within the community.

For what have I to do with outsiders?

Why do you think this is? What is it about judging outsiders that Paul finds so objectionable?

But again, back to taxes: political activity will be taxed differently from religious activity.

[AlAyeti]

ST88,

Yours is the best topic reply I have read to date.

Maybe I do have a future in your politics. Although you slid by Clinton and Jackson so fast you may be a politician already. Democrats get to stump in churches and Republicans do not get the same unchallenged freedom. It is a fact.

Going of-topic while using an analogy and weaving it back on topic to make a point is not non-sequitur, but very apporopriate to bring your position into a better light. This isn't AM radio where the commentator is trying to trip anyone up.

I believe that Christian Pastors who tell their congregations that evil exists far more in the words and deeds of a Democrat is well-placed in the sermon. No different than the two Angels trelling Lot to get the h - - - out of Sodom. Do you want to silence Christian sermons?

Virtually ever book in the Old and New Testament is about insulting someones choices and actions. That is the sermon almost ever single week. Intolerant people like in the Gay Agenda want to come into Churches and stop that. They should not only be asked to leave but forced to stay out by the police.

If they want to embrace the Biblical message of repenting and following the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, come on in and let's be family. If not, then kill us, imprison us or shut up. But Christians will not submit to the government telling us what we can and cannot say. The Romans tried that years ago. And of course the Muslim's and communist Chinese ARE killing, imprisoning and silencing Christians as we write.

Christians (and others) know all too well that taxation is the first step to a non-violent attack on the freedom of American Christians.

I cannot and will not ever support a pro-abortion, anti-traditional marriage Neo-Liberal politician. Bye-bye Democrat. Arnold Schwartzandwhatever, in California is not a good man. I want to keep to the path of truth and there are degenerates like Arnold in the GOP as well.

I teach Paul and Christian perspective exactly like you present Paul as doing. That means there shouldn't be unrepentent modern Democrats and "Neo-Liberal" Republicans in a Christian Church.

This is a Republican-Democrat issue. Why hide from the fact? Christians are responding to the incessant attack from Democrat and Neo-Lib politicians day in and day out. I'm not happy with the GOP-Evangelical connection, but I understand it.

It was the position and I'm sure the sermon of the Pastor in question.

Your view on farm subsidies if accurate prove my point of not trusting Republicans any more than Democrats. But there is no denying that the GOP does not denegrate and harass Christians like the Democrats do.

We all know why the Christians fear the Democrat agenda. They barely survived it under Nero.

[AlAyeti]

1) AlAyeti wrote:
I'm no Republican but Democrats sicken me with their shallow hidden agenda of sexual needs dictating everything they do.

2) ST88 wrote:
If you think it's a hidden agenda to allow people the freedom to wallow in their own iniquity, you should get that log out of your eye. It's an open agenda.

3) AlAyeti wrote:
It seems clear to me that Sodom and Gomorrah need to move over and make way for the third in the series "America" to take center stage.

4) ST88 wrote:
That what this is really all about, isn't it? You think you're going to be dragged down with the God-displeasing multitudes because you are participating in the same government that allows these things. Don't you think that God would be more discriminating than that?

/ / /

I wanted to respond to this separately.

1) Sexual freedom drives every word of a Democrat politician. They speak about the poor while enslaving them to a life of hedonistic licentiousness and addiction to Democrat Neo-Liberal ideology. The "agenda" is Pederasty driven plain and simple.

2) I do not lie to ensnare children for my pleasure. Democrats who promote abortion for convenience and allow the dismantling of "Family" do lie with ease. The same to enjoy and seek the sexualization of our children. My log is long gone from my self-justifying licentious eyes and sexualizing children was never there! But instead of seeing the carnage and death caused by Democrat law makers, Democrats redefine words to fit "Political Correctness." They simple paint the log in their eyes a new color.

3) Not only Sodom and Gomorrah, but the world of Noah, compared to our American cities, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Biblical stories are fact. Christians realize that all of the debating about theology doesn't cahnge what is happening outside our very doors. Empirism is a grinding fact about the accuracyof the Bible.

4) We ARE being dragged down with the God-displeasing multiples because they tax us to save their lives to continue their sexual perversions. I am more than willing to come out of Sodom but where do I go? America IS Sodom or Gomorrah from coast to coast, from TV channel to channel, from radio station to radio station. If I object and try to fight against that, the men of the land pound on my door demanding to be let in! Right?

If I am effective at driving these degenerates back into the darkness, they force their "values" on my children in school classes starting before they can read and write. No?

Please tell me if all of my position is not actually happening as you read this post?

Christians have an accurate and fair perspective on all of this because they know all too well about the morally-carcinogenic lifestyle religiously promulgated by Democrats, that most are still suffering the consequences of!

Christians do not want to continue to suffer from exposure to hedonistic political and sexual sickness at least within their own churches.

But alas, this thread proves that Christians are far from being paranoid and the threat to their health and safety is very real indeed.

Just listen to a Democrat on the five O'Clock news. That you (must) have to as a Christian in the world is bad enough, but certainly not in the church.

I want to meet that Pastor some day. Hopefully this side of heaven.

[ST88]

Yours is the best topic reply I have read to date.

Well, thanks there, sir.

Maybe I do have a future in your politics. Although you slid by Clinton and Jackson so fast you may be a politician already. Democrats get to stump in churches and Republicans do not get the same unchallenged freedom. It is a fact.

They both get to do it. Bush can speak at Bob Jones University all he wants.

I believe that Christian Pastors who tell their congregations that evil exists far more in the words and deeds of a Democrat is well-placed in the sermon. No different than the two Angels trelling Lot to get the h - - - out of Sodom. Do you want to silence Christian sermons?

Of course not. If you want to point someone out as evil, fine with me. Show me what they have done and I'm there with you. Are lumberjacks evil? Perhaps anaesthetists? Hey, go with it. You should know, however, that political speech and political fundraising have rules of their own. There are organizations that are not allowed to say certain things in political commercials that they fund. These rules are well known and well accepted (though not always followed -- and then sanctions are handed out).

Christians (and others) know all too well that taxation is the first step to a non-violent attack on the freedom of American Christians.

Thank you! Thank you! Sweet feathery light! For actually addressing the topic, I am tempted to donate some tokens to you. Of course, you're wrong, but that's beside the point.

As a self-employed freelancer, my income is taxed at a different rate from someone who works for a company and gets W2 income. W2 incomes are taxes at a progressive rate that -- as far as I can remember -- goes from 0% to 38% depending on how much you make. It isn't a sliding scale, there are cutoff amounts. However, self-employeds get taxed at rates that are effectively 28% higher than the rates of W2 workers. Why do they tax us so differently and at higher rates? Is it because they are trying to squelch our freedom to do what we wish with our lives? No, of course not. The rationale as I understand it is that I am both a company and an individual, and so I must pay taxes for being both. If I were the employee of another company, not only would I have to pay payroll taxes (or have them withheld), but the company I work for would have to pay taxes on income also. If I am both the company and the employee, I should have to pay both.

Why is this relevant? Because establishment of or enforcement of a tax has nothing to do with limiting freedom of speech or action. The government requires taxes in order to operate. They take a percentage of the economic activity gained on its soil. If something has been granted immunity from taxation, then we can assume there was a reason (maybe not a good reason, but a rationale, nonetheless). There are rules for this. Break the rules (and get caught) and you pay. Simple.

I cannot and will not ever support a pro-abortion, anti-traditional marriage Neo-Liberal politician. Bye-bye Democrat.

How do you take the measure of a man if you don't ask? Some people are one-issue voters. Many Democrats favor Medicare expansion and even single-payer healthcare, something Republicans treat like the moral equivalent of letting a diseased badger loose in a kindergarten class. Essentially, you are asking these people who mostly share your views to rescind their voting patterns in order to keep membership in your church. Well, excuse me if I call this voter intimidation. We shall inflict the Puritan shunning cenermony on you if you don't vote like me.

I teach Paul and Christian perspective exactly like you present Paul as doing. That means there shouldn't be unrepentent modern Democrats and "Neo-Liberal" Republicans in a Christian Church.

I'm sure you mean your Christian church.

But there is no denying that the GOP does not denegrate and harass Christians like the Democrats do.

Sure, I deny it. The GOP has re-interpreted Christianity to the point where the only Christians are fundamentalists. So non-fundamentalist Christians are either silenced by confusion or bullied into silence.