US Church excommunicates Democrats

Re: Re: Re: Re: US Church excommunicates Democrats

CaveDave said:
...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...

...(at least that's what I think I meant to say, but it's late and i'm sleepy)
Dave
Click to expand...

Sorry about that. (get some sleep! :) ) I struggle with the quote feature. It does not lend itself to responding to posts line by line. Other times it just adds too much empty space and it is distracting.

I do appreciate csense's pov, but it seems naïve. The US government arrayed an army against the Mormon church in the 1800's over the issue of polygamy. If there was ever a notion that religions could do whatever they wanted, it died over 150 years ago.

The reality of 'separation of church' and state seems more nuanced than how it exists as an ideal.

Congress passed acts forbidding polygamy in 1862, 1882, and 1887. In the attempt to enforce them, civil liberties were infringed upon and some Mormon church properties were expropriated. In 1890 a church edict advising members to abstain from the practice of polygamy was ratified, and civil rights and church properties were restored.
linky
Click to expand...
 
crimresearch said:


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

Even though the result of his actions may have political consequences, You're going to have a very hard time demonstrating that his motives were political, rather than moral. It's not easy to cross that line. It may seem obvious to you, but proving it is an entirely different matter. I personally don't know what his motivations were, but, as I said before, so long as he is working within the tenets, principles, doctrines, by-laws, or what have you...then I don't have a problem with it, and neither should anyone else, especially the government...which I would think is very, very, cautious as to who they pull 501 status from.

No matter how distastefull you might find his actions to be, If you think making a judgement in this case is easy, then think about this:

You have two candidates running for office in a given district. One clearly supports abortion, and the other does not. Does this mean that the church, for fear of reprisal from the government, should refrain from making their moral position known...as in so doing, political consequences are likely to occur, since a postion that opposes what they consider to be immoral, has the net effect of opposing a particular candidate.

Do you think in this scenario, that the church should lose their 501 status.
 
csense said:
Even though the result of his actions may have political consequences, You're going to have a very hard time demonstrating that his motives were political, rather than moral.
Click to expand...

Not really. "Democrat" is a political, not moral, term. Were he to excommunicate anyone who is pro-choice, that would be moral.
 
Reverend Chandler now says it was a misunderstanding.

Frankly, this behavior doesn't need to be prohibited by law, as dozens of members quit over the ejection of nine members.

But I would like to ask: What was the misunderstanding? Who said something that was misinterpreted? Who said anything they didn't mean at the time?

It wasn't a misunderstanding, it was a mistake. And a big one at that.
 
Question said:
Not really. "Democrat" is a political, not moral, term. .
Click to expand...

Democrat is also a noun, and neither of which speak to motive.

Are you saying though, that a church, or religious organization, does not have the right to expel members of a group whose expressed ideology is in conflict with their principles, however distasteful you may personally find it?
 
csense said:
Democrat is also a noun, and neither of which speak to motive.
Click to expand...

A word's part of speech is enough to discount it from learning about someone's motives? How odd.

csense said:

Are you saying though, that a church, or religious organization, does not have the right to expel members of a group whose expressed ideology is in conflict with their principles, however distasteful you may personally find it?
Click to expand...

I said nothing of the sort. I simply pointed out your fallacy.

However, as for my personal feelings on the matter, I agree with most of the above posters - an organization has every right to expel members for any reason they see fit, so long as my tax dollars aren't supporting them.
 
A word's part of speech is enough to discount it from learning about someone's motives? How odd.

What the hell is a word's part of speech....

If you're asking if the defintion of the word speaks to motive, then again, no, it doesn't.



I said nothing of the sort. I simply pointed out your fallacy.

Look, it's been fun but, this going nowhere.
 
It would be so nice just to take that tax exempt status from all of the churches. What a stupid waste of money.
 
csense said:
Even though the result of his actions may have political consequences, You're going to have a very hard time demonstrating that his motives were political, rather than moral. It's not easy to cross that line. It may seem obvious to you, but proving it is an entirely different matter. I personally don't know what his motivations were, but, as I said before, so long as he is working within the tenets, principles, doctrines, by-laws, or what have you...then I don't have a problem with it, and neither should anyone else, especially the government...which I would think is very, very, cautious as to who they pull 501 status from.

No matter how distastefull you might find his actions to be, If you think making a judgement in this case is easy, then think about this:

You have two candidates running for office in a given district. One clearly supports abortion, and the other does not. Does this mean that the church, for fear of reprisal from the government, should refrain from making their moral position known...as in so doing, political consequences are likely to occur, since a postion that opposes what they consider to be immoral, has the net effect of opposing a particular candidate.

Do you think in this scenario, that the church should lose their 501 status.
Click to expand...

In the legal sense, the old 'You can't know what I was thinking' defense has been tried. And the answer is, that under the law, intentions can be inferred from actions.

So if a 501K recipient tells its members 'Vote for candiate X, but if you vote for candidate Y we will kick you out of our group', it is irrelevant as to whether they were against Candidate Y for political, religious, or other reasons.

They have met the elements of the offense, in that they *behaved* in a partisan manner...and the law can punish behavior.

If the accused claims intent other than what can be reasonably inferred from behavior, they have to back that up in court, to a reasonable standard.

Now if the group say 'You have to be against abortion to stay in our group', and one of the candidates is opposed to that view, there should be no penalty for coincidence.

Obviously there will be grey areas in between, that may require threshing out, but does anyone really think that is the case in Waynesville?

Specifically mentioning the candidates by name leaves room for doubt as to partisan intent?


Naaaah.
 
Religious fervor inspires intolerance... SHOCKING! Simply shocking! How could this ever happen? ;)
 
Question said:
I'm guessing English isn't your first language. Here, most English speakers learn this term in the first grade or so: http://www.answers.com/topic/part-of-speech
Click to expand...

Well, that explains it, since I haven't been in the first grade in a very long time. I am curious though why you seem to think the grammatical classification of a word would infer motive.

Tell me, which one of these does it for you:

Noun, pronoun, verb, adjective, adverb, preposition, conjunction, interjection

Take your time.
 
csense said:
Are you saying though, that a church, or religious organization, does not have the right to expel members of a group whose expressed ideology is in conflict with their principles, however distasteful you may personally find it?
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll have a go.

No one is entitled to tax-exempt status. Tax-exempt status is granted to charitable institutions, and it is granted to churches on the grounds that a church is (suposed to be) a non-profit entity that serves the community. Of course, this is not really the case anymore. But the fiction remains.

In any case, an organisation that gets involved in poliutical advocacy is not a charitable institution, it is a political advocacy institution.

This preacher is entitled to say anything he wants in regards to who people should vote for. This church is allowed to have whatever members it wishes (what about racism?). But when it throws out people for not voting for a particular candidate, it's not a charitable instutution anymore and is not entitled to the tax-breaks given to charitable institutions.
 
Sounds like somebdody sat this pastor down and explained the facts of life to him, tax exempt status-wise...

"Calling it a "great misunderstanding," the pastor of a small church who led the charge to remove nine members for their political beliefs tried to welcome them back Sunday, but some insisted he must leave for the wounds to heal.

The Rev. Chan Chandler didn't directly address the controversy during the service at East Waynesville Baptist Church, but issued a statement afterward through his attorney saying the church does not care about its members' political affiliations.

"No one has ever been voted from the membership of this church due to an individual's support or lack of support for a political party or candidate," he said....."

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050508/APA/505080604
 
crimresearch said:

Specifically mentioning the candidates by name leaves room for doubt as to partisan intent?


Naaaah.
Click to expand...


Context Crim, context.

As the good skeptic I know you are, surely you must realize that context is everything.
 
Then why did you cut my words out of the context given in the original post?

Did you really think that no one would scroll up and see that I gave the context *four* times?
 
pmurray said:
But when it throws out people for not voting for a particular candidate, it's not a charitable instutution anymore and is not entitled to the tax-breaks given to charitable institutions.
Click to expand...

It can if the particular candidate's moral position...and thus by extension the members...is in conflict with their principles.
 
crimresearch said:
Then why did you cut my words out of the context given in the original post?

Did you really think that no one would scroll up and see that I gave the context *four* times?
Click to expand...

Relax....you're much too quick to lock horns with people.

The only thing you offered was hypothetical context. Wer'e talking about a real situation in which context is lacking. Honestly Crim, this type of attitude is beneath you.
 
csense said:
It can if the particular candidate's moral position...and thus by extension the members...is in conflict with their principles.
Click to expand...

This in effect requires its members to be one-issue voters... what if someone was anti-abortion, but voted for Kerry because they thought Bush's foreign policy was even more un-Christian than abortion?

From a legal standpoint (with respect to the organization's status as a tax-exempt religion), it makes sense to me to allow ideological requirements but disallow candidate requirements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom