• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

US Church excommunicates Democrats

Random

Illuminator
Joined
Jul 24, 2001
Messages
4,193
In case you hadn’t heard, East Waynesville Baptist Church in North Carolina has apparently excommunicated all of its Democratic members. Apparently, voting for John Kerry is a mortal sin. Really breaking news right now, so it hasn’t hit the mainstream news yet, but there is a link to a lefty site talking about it here.

(Posted in both Politics and Religion forums because I belive it applies to both)

(edited to fix link)
 
Random said:
In case you hadn’t heard, East Waynesville Baptist Church in North Carolina has apparently excommunicated all of its Democratic members. Apparently, voting for John Kerry is a mortal sin. Really breaking news right now, so it hasn’t hit the mainstream news yet, but there is a link to a lefty site talking about it here.

(Posted in both Politics and Religion forums because I belive it applies to both)

(edited to fix link)

It's probably not worth a discussion until it's been verified by reliable sources... and besides, the Baptist's have a very, very loose structure compared to other Christian sects. Whoever's running that particular pastorage is almost certainly acting in isolation and without any conclave approval.

Stupid human tricks. :)
 
Random said:
In case you hadn’t heard, East Waynesville Baptist Church in North Carolina has apparently excommunicated all of its Democratic members. Apparently, voting for John Kerry is a mortal sin. Really breaking news right now, so it hasn’t hit the mainstream news yet, but there is a link to a lefty site talking about it here.

(Posted in both Politics and Religion forums because I belive it applies to both)

(edited to fix link)

Pardon my skepticism, but I'm going to have to see a real source before I believe such a story.

Of course, if it is true, then the church leaders are adopting a very Biblical stance - after all, most of the religious leaders that Jesus met were sanctimonius a-holes, too.
 
ranson said:
WLOS tv (link) has a blurb on it now.

Yes, this does count as a second source, but I am still not convinced. I want a news source that knows the difference between bylaws and bi-laws.

There are questions about whether the bi-laws were followed when the members were thrown out.
 
Random said:
In case you hadn’t heard, East Waynesville Baptist Church in North Carolina has apparently excommunicated all of its Democratic members. Apparently, voting for John Kerry is a mortal sin. Really breaking news right now, so it hasn’t hit the mainstream news yet, but there is a link to a lefty site talking about it here.

(Posted in both Politics and Religion forums because I belive it applies to both)

(edited to fix link)

I saw that on ABC news the other day. Whatever happened to separation of church and state?
 
Re: Re: US Church excommunicates Democrats

c4ts said:
I saw that on ABC news the other day. Whatever happened to separation of church and state?

:confused:

What does the constitutional restrictions on government have to do with what a church can or can't do with its members?
 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7769149/

Hey, front page msnbc. Well they can look like stupid hicks for a while.

(At least Arizona's Governor vetoed our stupid legislature's attempt to allow pharmacists to not fill prescriptions unless it met with their moral values.)
 
Re: Re: Re: US Church excommunicates Democrats

pgwenthold said:
:confused:

What does the constitutional restrictions on government have to do with what a church can or can't do with its members?

Tax breaks, IIRC.

I suspect that you can't keep the tax exempt status, if you actively campaign for a specific candidate from the pulpit....and apparently this went on before and during the election..
 
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=120703,00.html

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax.
Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including the presentation of public forums and the publication of voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity.

In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not constitute prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner. On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that: (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.
 
You can highlight those sections all you want, but I don't think you quite understand what an enumerated constitutional right means.

Though I'm not endorsing what they did, but, so long as they do it within the purview of their principles, doctrines, or whatever...your objection is not only untenable, but borders on government intrusion, or, as many of you like to toss around, the seperation of church and state.

You might want to think very carefully at the implications of what "some" of you here on this thread are endorsing yourselves.
 
csense said:
You can highlight those sections all you want, but I don't think you quite understand what an enumerated constitutional right means.

The constitutional right is to free speech, not tax-exempt status. They can advocate whatever they want. We all can. They just may have to start paying their way. There are plenty of organizations that don't have tax-exempt status. The government isn't "intruding" on them. It's simply not granting them special favors.
 
This isn't about freedom of speech, is about the free exercise of religion, and you can not limit the ability of the church to speak on moral issues. Not only would it be absurd, but it would be unconstitutional.

You have no argument here. Period.
 
You can highlight those sections all you want, but I don't think you quite understand what an enumerated constitutional right means.

Though I'm not endorsing what they did, but, so long as they do it within the purview of their principles, doctrines, or whatever...your objection is not only untenable, but borders on government intrusion, or, as many of you like to toss around, the seperation of church and state.

There is absolutely nothing in the constitution that says political OR donations should be a tax deduction. If there is, please point it out and I will sincerely apologize.

When God is reduced to becoming merely a FACADE for a political agenda, they should forfeit their right to government SUBSIDY in the form of tax deductions. Otherwise, any fund raising group at all can claim to be a 'religion' and avoid taxes.

A time stamped prediction though... This group will be disavowed by major religious groups and they will be the ones to demand their tax exemptions be removed or the situation corrected. This is because they already walk a fine line on political agendas. This is clearly over that line. They will happily cut these guys off to save their own necks. Maybe Bush will even go on TV to say how much he values separation of church and state yadda yadda.

My opinion? Remove all religious credits and deductions by the government. Then churches will be unfettered to teach whatever they really want. That's the honest thing, right?
 
The established religions have prospered in an environment that is maintained through the taxation of others for such simple things as street upkeep, courts of law, police and fire protection, or any of the many other services that the public pays for. It is we the people, who are assuring that religious associations can perform their functions, while they are exempted from the same obligation. They have been granted an exclusion, that is based on the erroneous concept, that religion is a non-profit enterprise. Anyone who believes religion is not profitable and exists solely as a distributor of myth and magic, has not looked recently at the vast resources and property that churches have acquired as non-profit organizations.

food for thought
 
Re: Re: Re: US Church excommunicates Democrats

pgwenthold said:
:confused:

What does the constitutional restrictions on government have to do with what a church or any other private group can or can't do with its members?

Absolutely, any group, however wierd, should absolutely be allowed to pick and choose who belongs to them.

quote: (unatributed--from Kopji's post:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can highlight those sections all you want, but I don't think you quite understand what an enumerated constitutional right means.[/B]

And you do? You seem to believe that constitutional rights somehow prevent private organizations from passing rules that only pertain to their members. Is this true?

pgwenthold said:
Though I'm not endorsing what they did, but, so long as they do it within the purview of their principles, doctrines, or whatever...your objection is not only untenable, but borders on government intrusion, or, as many of you like to toss around, the seperation of church and state.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kopji wrote:
There is absolutely nothing in the constitution that says political OR donations should be a tax deduction. If there is, please point it out and I will sincerely apologize.


When God is reduced to becoming merely a FACADE for a political agenda, they should forfeit their right to government SUBSIDY in the form of tax deductions. Otherwise, any fund raising group at all can claim to be a 'religion' and avoid taxes.

A time stamped prediction though... This group will be disavowed by major religious groups and they will be the ones to demand their tax exemptions be removed or the situation corrected. This is because they already walk a fine line on political agendas. This is clearly over that line. They will happily cut these guys off to save their own necks. Maybe Bush will even go on TV to say how much he values separation of church and state yadda yadda.

My opinion? Remove all religious credits and deductions by the government. Then churches will be unfettered to teach whatever they really want. That's the honest thing, right?[/B]


Hey, I apologise for this mixed-up quotation: I tried to keep it straight, but with Kopji's Quote-as-Post style and other problems, i've lost track of who said what.

What I intended to say had to do with the rights of ANY group to choose what their membership fronts to the world, even if it is offensive to others.
(at least that's what I think I meant to say, but it's late and i'm sleepy)

Dave
 
csense said:
This isn't about freedom of speech, is about the free exercise of religion, and you can not limit the ability of the church to speak on moral issues. Not only would it be absurd, but it would be unconstitutional.

Requiring organizations to pay taxes does not "limit their ability to speak on moral issues". It merely means they can't do it for free.


You have no argument here. Period.

Are you the Lord God, then, that you can make flat declarative statements like this and make them stick? Get over yourself.
 
csense said:
This isn't about freedom of speech, is about the free exercise of religion, and you can not limit the ability of the church to speak on moral issues. Not only would it be absurd, but it would be unconstitutional.

You have no argument here. Period.


How exactly has the government stopped this church or this preacher from speaking?

And do you seriously believe that citing religion makes someone exempt from the legal code?

If this preacher had ordered his congregation to kill someone, would 'freedom of religion' cover that?

Then why should he be free to break other laws from the pulpit?

The law on getting tax exempt status requires anyone to refrain from partisan political activism while wearing the tax exempt hat.

Where in the Constitution does it say that Congress shall make an appropriations law respecting this particular religious establishment?

And hasn't Intro to Civics been beaten to death on this forum before?
 

Back
Top Bottom