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.

[AlAyeti]

ST88,

This thread is about a Pastor removing evil people from his congregation not about taxing Christians to shut them up.

It's tough to address the real "topic" because I would have to bring up Christiany things. Tough to do with a non-Christian.

What those Democrats or Democrat supporters are, well, supporting, is incarnate evil. Just look at Ted Kennedy and think of the young woman who died while he swam away from her. Yet, Democrats in Massachusetts (of course) keep reelecting this degenerate.

Taxation of Christians or any "religion" is something the founders did not want. I have the ACLU and Doctor Michael Newdow to prove that the attack on Christians and Christianty is happening. You are mistaken about my being wrong about that.

Jefferson may have been wrong about the Gospels and Jesus, but seperation of church and state means seperation of church and state. But you see (Well, I see) Satanic forces at work making sure that the voice of reason and truth cannot and will not be heard or tolerated.

Now Sodomy is a constitutional right and Christians are intolerant bigots. Man, I'm not all the "End-Times" freaked-out, but the writing is on the wall.

Trust me when I say that I think Republicans may be far more evil than a non-Liberal Democrat but they hide it far better than Democrats do. Except for evil people like Schwartzenegger.

I take the measure of a man when he voluntarily speaks. I don't go around questioning believers. I figure if they are brave enough to walk into a Church they have to have something going for them. Once the make their position on Christ clear than a decision can be made. If Democrats would see or at least look at the truth of abortion for convenience and the attack on the family by unjustifiably redefining marriage to mean chaos, then I would have few issues with Democrats. But there agenda of Pederasty and destruction of normality is too much for me.

I assert that Paul taught they way I am presenting Christianty. Jesus was a practicing Jew as well. I do not fear being wrong as any reading of the Biblical texts agrees with my opinion of what it means to be against the Church. Sodomy and family are well defined. Whether you want to go with Ezekiel's point of view about Sodom or the two Angels risking being raped by men while they rescued Lot, my point of view about sexual licentiousness ruling the choices made by Democrats finds solid Biblical evidence.

Like I wrote before the Democrats sicken me with there lies to promote the sexualization and enslavement of the poor and our children. And I am not alone in the growing numbers of people, Christian or not, that are seeing the same thing about the "Left."

That is why I agree that the Pastor (the topic subject) did what was right.

[youngborean]

But the original article said the pastor implied that if his congregants didn't support Bush, then they were expelled. No political party can capture the Dynamic of Christianity, especially considering there is limited consensus within any church. There are as many outward problems with the Republicans as the Democrats, especially this organization. They have spent more than any ruling party in history, and how much has gone to "pure and undefiled religion"? I am afraid that Christians have to go with the party that most closely suits their world view. Undoubtedly they will have to compromise at some point with any party they choose. And as Romans says "whatever is not from faith is sin", therefore some polictical party will have an element of sin, because no party runs completely on faith. You are implying that it was right to not tolerate evil (i.e democrats), but this pastor said it is evil to not support Bush. They are very different things.

[micatala]

What those Democrats or Democrat supporters are, well, supporting, is incarnate evil. Just look at Ted Kennedy and think of the young woman who died while he swam away from her. Yet, Democrats in Massachusetts (of course) keep reelecting this degenerate.

I see. One guy who does something wrong and the whole party is evil incarnate. Looks like fallacious thinking to me. Using this logic, nearly any group with more than a few dozen people would be evil incarnate.

Taxation of Christians or any "religion" is something the founders did not want. I have the ACLU and Doctor Michael Newdow to prove that the attack on Christians and Christianty is happening. You are mistaken about my being wrong about that.

Again, argument on the basis of isolated examples. Are their individuals and groups that 'attack Christianity?' Yes. So what. Christianity is still the majority religion in the U.S. and in many ways a dominant paradigm, although one that is not completely well-defined since there is significant diversity within the Christian community on a whole host of issues.

Like I wrote before the Democrats sicken me with there lies to promote the sexualization and enslavement of the poor and our children.

Al, you've made this charge repeatedly, but I would have to say it is a bunch of baloney. If you are referring to democrats' stance on homosexual rights issues, in my view, they are simply trying to see that a group of citizens who have been truly oppressed (unlike Christians in the U.S.) get their constitutional rights, the same as anybody else. As I have noted before, homosexuals in this country have been abused, killed, denied equal access to jobs, housing, and legal recourse, etc. etc. They should have the same access to their right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as any other citizens. I am not a democrat, but I would say that there efforts to promote fair treatment of this group is a lot more Christian than the efforts of others to demonize and persecute them.

Yes, there is also an effort on the part of some democrats and others to change people minds with regards to their views of homosexuals, similar to efforts in the past to gain acceptance for blacks. You may disagree with this, but there is nothing untowards or (in my view) evil about this.

Back on topic. I would agree with others that the pastor certainly has a free speech right to say what he wants. However, the issue is taxation, not free speech.

[AlAyeti]

Micatala,

It is about the Pastor kicking out evil people. Taxing the Christians is a means to intimidate and silence them.

I gave examples that really exist and you spun that into isolated cases. Pelosi and ______. Fill in the blank of fifty Democrats. Kennedy is just a good example to find an evil person blatantly reelected by Democrats. The ladies from California are just as bad.

The Gay Agenda is clear. "NOW," They want to get to "Questioning Youth" and have declared their intentions boldly! "Questioning Youth" are now a cultural class. There is a declared war for our childrens minds and just as importantly their bodies. You know, the king of Sodom "Bera," after being rescued by Abraham (in the Bible) didn't care so much for "stuff" stolen from his palace, he wanted back "the persons." It's just creepy. And no way is it "allegorical." As we see later, Sodom was not the Salvation Army.

The Pastors actions towards the Kerry-supporters stained by Neo-Liberalism, has its foundation in what the Democrats are allowing to happen to our children and the condition of the poor under Democrat ideology. Ever been to neighborhoods around Washington DC? You know, the consituency the re-elected a crack smoking mayor. A virtual totalitarian regime of Democrat liberals, but you don't want to be there at dark.

Do the math.

Anything I say to you about you comparing sexual deviant acts and people who purely define themselves by those sexual acts and actions, towards Africans mistreated, murdered and enslaved by Muslim's, Christians, Hindu's, Atheists, Arabs, French, Spanish, English, or any other kinds of people, would cross the lines to a personal attack on you. Bringing up the condition of the poor in Liberal-Democrat cities is where my toungue would fly as well!


Micatala: "Again, argument on the basis of isolated examples. Are their individuals and groups that 'attack Christianity?' Yes. So what. Christianity is still the majority religion in the U.S. and in many ways a dominant paradigm, although one that is not completely well-defined since there is significant diversity within the Christian community on a whole host of issues."

Me: Isolated examples? You mean the thousands of individual attacks on one-kind of Christianity by the ACLU and freaks like Newdow? Newdow alone is attacking every single Christian in America. And both you and I know that. Why dance around? What was the name of that atheist woman who denigrated and harrassed Christians for decades?

Isolated like that? Because that is exactly how I am using isolated as well. But, just one, let alone thousands of individual examples add up to discrimination at least and persecution most probably.

The ACLU? The employees that work there, Democrats or Republicans? Or better yet, Conservatives or Liberals? Their agenda is quite easy to see. Sex of children, OK. Protecting children, illegal. A Christians idea of children comes directly from the mouth of the Lord. Do some research. The Gospels take just a few minutes to read. Everything you will ever need to know about Christians, or more accurately the followers of Christ, is easily understandable in the Gospels.

Democrat equals Sodom and Gomorrah. Republican equals rich land owner. So "youngberean" is to be taken seriously.

But even a rich man can shed his money and do the right thing. Tough though it may be. Jesus was buried in a rich man's tomb, and killed by people like Liberals.


The Pastor in question was exercising good sound Biblical judgment.

[MagusYanam]

Everyone gets taxed, AlAyeti, even atheists. No need to turn a system that's been around since the beginning of civilisation as we know it into some kind of anti-Christian conspiracy theory - that definitely goes against empirical facts.

Also, not all Democrats are pro-abortion or pro-gay marriage. I am one of those Democrats. Abortion is definitely a bad thing, but we can't outlaw it: to do so would be to plunge this country into something like the Prohibition, only worse. Abortions happened even when there weren't federally-funded doctors who performed them, so what good will outlawing it do? It certainly won't make abortion go away. I say we just remove federal funding for abortion, since abortion wasn't an issue before then, and for the most part it's federal funding for abortion that conservatives oppose.

Gay marriage is also a tough issue. I don't think the society is ready for such a massive change, and if it is to take place it should be carefully scrutinised at every step and take place gradually (if it is to take place at all).

The reasons I am a Democrat are a.) Democrats are the only ones who give half a damn about making sure businesses don't rape the economy and rape the environment, b.) the Democratic party is the only one which takes kindly to Christian pacifism and principles of non-aggression, c.) the Democrats at least pretend to be interested in what happens to the lower classes of society and d.) only the Democratic candidates were ever against the war in Iraq.

None of these goals are evil - in fact, all of them are admirable. But if I were a Baptist, I wouldn't be able to set foot in this church because, what? Because I'm an environmentalist? Because I think the Iraq war was a bad and ill-considered idea? Because I think that social justice includes some consideration of the distribution of wealth? What the heck kind of church throws someone out on these matters of conscience?

By the way, Jesus was killed by the Romans, who were in no capacity anything like the liberals of today. They were violent, destroyed their own economy through lack of regulation and frequently oppressed and enslaved the lower classes and ethnic minorities (think the Judaeans, the Iceni, the Carthaginians, the Thracians et cetera). Of course, the entire argument is ludicrous because it reeks of anachronism. You can't judge historical societies by today's standards, that renders context absolutely meaningless. And as every historian knows, context is everything.

[AlAyeti]

M-Y, "By the way, Jesus was killed by the Romans, who were in no capacity anything like the liberals of today. They were violent, destroyed their own economy through lack of regulation and frequently oppressed and enslaved the lower classes and ethnic minorities."

That is almost a perfect description to what is happening today in Liberal America. Except, the Liberals are regulating death, enslaving the poor and addicted and pricing the lower class out of every liberal dominated city in the country. Sodom and Gomorrah whether Lot's Abraham's or Ezekiel's.

New York, San Francisco, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, blah, blah, blah, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. The Democrats are the party of Nero and Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius, blah, blah, blah etc., etc..

Jesus would have been just as executed by Liberals but probably in the womb. An unwed mother is not the place a child finds a bright future in Democrat legislation!

But, certainly as soon as Jesus told the woman caught in the act of adultery to "Go and sin no more," the ACLU would have sued Him for discrimination and civil rights violations, with the "Reverend" Jesse Jackson leading a march against the Lord.

The Democrats and Liberals would be quick to pass laws about adultery not being an actual valid condition or position to "judge." OOPS! They already have huh? And even Sodomy has fallen to the Liberals and while they pass laws to sexualize our children, their lawyers are working feverishly to outlaw Christians. How did the Bible know?

Can you say End Times? Just around the corner are two Angels making their way down mainstreet USA. And of course seeing the exact same kind of people they saw in Sodom.

Why is it, every time I use the plain label of "sexual deviant behavior," everyone posts a reply about my views on homosexuality? I just mean deviant sexual behavior, plain and simple. Unnatural is unnatural, no matter by who, what, or where the parts are misused.

There is no "historical context" to a God that lives outside of time.

This Pastor has empirical proof for knowing what a Democrat is and does. And a Bible that told him who, what, where, when and how. "Contextually."

[MagusYanam]

That is almost a perfect description to what is happening today in Liberal America. Except, the Liberals are regulating death, enslaving the poor and addicted and pricing the lower class out of every liberal dominated city in the country. Sodom and Gomorrah whether Lot's Abraham's or Ezekiel's.

No shades of grey for you? I already told you where I stand on abortion and gay marriage, and Democrats as well as Republicans are highly divided over these issues, and there are no easy solutions, no quick fixes. Even my idea of removing federal funding from abortion could have some unforeseen consequences.

And you keep using anachronism in reverse. You can't make comparisons between the Romans and the modern world (at least on a moral basis), because that would be ludicrous. Completely different systems of values, completely different cultures. There is no comparison - you just have hold of a Roman boot and are trying to make it fit your political enemies, only it doesn't.

Besides, how are 'liberals' (again with the generalisations) enslaving the poor and addicted? 'Liberals' were (and are) the ones trying to stop tobacco companies from doing just that. The War on Drugs is mostly a Clintonian idea (at least, that's what most libertarians will tell you) carried out by the Clinton Administration. Liberals are overwhelmingly in favour of gun control and against the death penalty (and divided over abortion), holding the most consistent pro-life platform. Housing ain't cheap in Newport, true, but it's plenty cheap in the liberal bastions of Madison, Wisconsin and Ithaca, New York (just ask my parents!). That's just the facts, ma'am.

Jesus would have been just as executed by Liberals but probably in the womb. An unwed mother is not the place a child finds a bright future in Democrat legislation!

I'm going to repeat this as often as I have to - Democrat does not equal pro-abortion. Stick it to Planned Parenthood if you have to, just be sure that you know what the heck you're talking about.

The Democrats and Liberals would be quick to pass laws about adultery not being an actual valid condition or position to "judge." OOPS! They already have huh? And even Sodomy has fallen to the Liberals and while they pass laws to sexualize our children, their lawyers are working feverishly to outlaw Christians. How did the Bible know?

You keep saying this, but you have yet to provide us with one link to a piece of legislation (passed or in the making) that legalises pedophilia or that outlaws Christianity. In fact, adultery is still illegal in many states, so you don't have much empirical grounding there. Unless you wish to provide some examples?

This Pastor has empirical proof for knowing what a Democrat is and does. And a Bible that told him who, what, where, when and how. "Contextually."

So let's see it already! Let's see this supposed 'proof' that tells a pastor to kick out all the environmentalists and pacifists and people who give a tinker's damn about the fate of the working poor.

[Dilettante]

Magus Yanam wrote:

By the way, Jesus was killed by the Romans, who were in no capacity anything like the liberals of today. They were violent, destroyed their own economy through lack of regulation and frequently oppressed and enslaved the lower classes and ethnic minorities (think the Judaeans, the Iceni, the Carthaginians, the Thracians et cetera).

Magus, (OK, this is a digression) I beg to differ. You are judging the Romans too harshly. What about their impressive achievements? Roman roads were still in use in 19th century England and Roman law was far superior to Anglo-Saxon common law. You wouldn't call the main building in Washington DC a Capitol without the Romans. Besides, you would not be able to write "et cetera" if it hadn't been for the Romans. The Romans offered the possibility of naturalization to foreigners, something which the ancient Greeks never did. Have you been inside the Pantheon at Rome? As penance for defaming the Romans, you should read "I Claudius" by Robert Graves.

[MagusYanam]

You are judging the Romans too harshly. What about their impressive achievements? Roman roads were still in use in 19th century England and Roman law was far superior to Anglo-Saxon common law. You wouldn't call the main building in Washington DC a Capitol without the Romans. Besides, you would not be able to write "et cetera" if it hadn't been for the Romans. The Romans offered the possibility of naturalization to foreigners, something which the ancient Greeks never did. Have you been inside the Pantheon at Rome? As penance for defaming the Romans, you should read "I Claudius" by Robert Graves.

I did judge the Romans rather harshly, didn't I? I'm sorry that I came off as offensive or overly critical, but I must admit I'm no big fan of expansionist empire in any flavour, Roman, British, American or otherwise. What you say is true, that the Romans did offer us many improvements, not to mention the Code of Justinian (Eastern-Roman) and Latin as the basis of our scientific vocabulary. These are indispensable blessings. I won't, however, lay off on the Romans' imperial tendencies, especially as regards the Brythonic peoples. I'm a big fan of Chinese culture and philosophy (as you've probably noticed), but that doesn't mean I approve of their imperial policies toward the Tibetans or the Weiwu'er.

This actually reminds me a bit of Life of Brian, if I may be allowed a moment of self-deprecation: 'What have the Romans ever done for us?'

'Well, they gave us roads, sanitation, education...'

'But besides all that, what have the Romans ever done for us?'

By the way, I'll check out 'I, Claudius' at the nearest opportunity.

[micatala]

[quote'"AlAyeti"]
I gave examples that really exist and you spun that into isolated cases. Pelosi and ______.

[/quote]

I went back through most of this thread and found no such examples. Can you point them out? All I have seen is blanket statements that democrats are evil because of abortion and homosexuality. You haven't distinguished between democrats that do or do not support the policies you object to, or whether you are referring to a party platform plank or what. Is Harry Reid an evil democrat? He is avowedly pro-life. I don't know his position on homosexual rights.

Fill in the blank of fifty Democrats. Kennedy is just a good example to find an evil person blatantly reelected by Democrats. The ladies from California are just as bad.

Again, you are making a blanket statement. What fifty democrats? What did the ladies from CA do to qualify as evil?

There is a declared war for our childrens minds and just as importantly their bodies.

To what SPECIFICALLY are you referring? As far as I can see, you are making hysterical unsubstantiated statements, or statements that are so vague and hyperbolic that it is hard to understand where you are coming from.

Are you referring to statements like this from the National Association of School Psychologists? Here, they are promoting non-discrimination against sexual minorities because of the fact that many kids face discrimination, bullying, abuse, etc. They are concerned for the safety of the kids, something you have said you are also interested in.

Advocating that homosexuals be afforded the same rights and protections as all citizens is NOT promoting evil, or licentiousness, or even 'sexual deviation' however it is defined. It is simply doing unto others what you would have them do unto you.

Are you referring to the democratic party platform. On the second to last page you will find a short statement supporting equal responsibilities, benefits, and protection for gay and lesbian families. Nothing more.