Is this how it all starts?

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

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.

AP Story:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=736238

Video:
http://www.dembloggers.com/story/2005/5/5/212240/7757

-- Modified on 5/6/2005 11:53:27 PM

This is pure. Give me the bottom line. Is this congregation pro Bush, Kerry, or Gagne (I’m Dodger partial). Come clean. If a congregation has an agenda – lay it out. Good for them. Ride whatever spirit moves you. I’m deathly afraid of  people that hide their agendas. In any event, friends of b18Uty know how to reach me, birk your quips

they still think of blacks as 3/5 a person.

church does not want to associate with those that do not share his views on the president. Time will tell whether he destroy the church because of his actions, history says that he will. The nine people and many of the forty that left can found their own church. Protestant churches came about because of members of the catholic church that parted ways with that churches leaders because of doctrinal or political differences.

No, religion is primarily about IRC 501(c)(3) non-profit classification.   This seems a clear violation to me.

I absolutely agree that a church has the right to expel members over anything, including the color of their eyes, or socks.  But if they do so over political beliefs, then the IRS has the duty to revoke their non-profit status.  

So they re-organize and learn to be more discreet.  Better that non-profit categorization be eliminated from the IRC altogether, I suspect.

The founding fathers installed the separation of church and state into our Constitution because many of them had seen and were wise to the damage that church meddling in politics can cause. This more than any other reason is why I think that the pastor is making a grevious mistake that will come back to haunt him and the church that he thinks he is protecting.
Our country was started because of freedom of religion and freedom of thought issues. Some of the big religions in the country such as Mormonism got started because of a yearning to practice one interpretation of belief in a god without dealing with the restrictions of those that believed differently.

in the U.S. Constitution.

The first amendment restricts government interference in religion. It also applies ONLY to the Federal government (although I believe there is now legislation prohibiting religious tests for non-federal public office. The Supreme Court introduced the concept of Separation of Church and State into judicial interpretation for the first time in 1947. It cited a letter from Jefferson in 1802 that contained the phrase “wall of separation between church and state” that he used to re-describe the First amendment.

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State'." from 1947 Supreme Court

It has since been re-interpreted many times in several ways.

While I don’t agree with this church’s (or pastor’s) “apparent” decision (and I have heard that they have since revised or clarified their actions), I’m not sure that it is illegal. 501(3)(c) seems a little unclear in this regard. It mainly prohibits the use of non-profit money for political purposes. There are all sorts of church doctrine that could be classified as political.

BTW, the first amendment had NOTHING to do with the church meddeling in politics. It had EVERYTHING to do with politics meddeling in the church.

-- Modified on 5/9/2005 8:38:07 PM

You don't like these folks discriminating against others based on political affiliation, then why turn around yourself and discriminate against southerners based on other arbitrary (not to mention misguided, derogatory, and false!) criteria?

Go ahead and have a problem with the individuals and their actions. I absolutely agree that the preacher is completely out of line here. But trash-talk against an entire region isn't necessary.

Abbey Marie

Yeah, like religious pukes are so fucking tolerant in the rest of the country. Your racial remark, I'll just ignore.

to do with politics meddeling in the church. What is a pastor that favors a particular political view and press that on the congregation? I do not care whether the viewpoint is liberal or conservative or in between, he does not have that right.
Thanks for the history lesson, though.

his "right" to do it is not prohibited by any law I am aware of.

Private organizations have the responsiblity to self regulate these circumstances. The congregation (as previously pointed out by others) will end up voting with their feet, or if they attain sufficient numbers will oust their own pastor.

If the government said "You MUST be a member of church ???????, or lose your citizenship" that carries a much stronger penalty than a local religious leader saying "you must support political party ???? or no longer participate in THIS congregation."

The only comparable analogy would be if the pope announced that you must support political party ????? or be excommunicated from the Catholic church. Even at that, the penalties are not comaparable.

One other post I recall seeing somewhere (not sure if it was TER or elsewhere), the first ammendment addresses the role of GOVERNMENT in the rights of speech and religion. It DOES NOT touch on private organizations (such as churches). The first ammendment says congress shall make no laws, it says nothing about organizations or businesses. The meaning has been enhanced to include government funded entities as well (such as state colleges). Since the so-called separation clause prohibits government involvement in religion, you could say that this church is actually protected from federal enforcement of any first ammendment prosecution.

This is not a first ammendment right, although it might be classified as a form of discrimination.

Well, of course it's discrimination.

And what's wrong with that?  We have the free-speech/free-association right to discriminate.  The Constitution only bars certain forms of discrimination BY THE GOVERNMENT.  It protects the right of private organizations to discriminate (e.g., the Boy Scouts against homos as scout leaders).

to the stupidity of the above bigotted comments.

Wholesale condemnation of entire groups of people based on the actions of a few is stupidity of the highest order.

My apologies to those who I offended.

BK



-- Modified on 5/10/2005 5:41:18 PM

The Lord's justice was swift. The pastor resigned in shame today.

Just because people figure out a new way to describe our government doesn't mean the description isn't valid.

Most of the Bill of Rights was lifted from what Jefferson wrote in creating the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia.  If he wrote about a "wall of seperation" then I take it, he knew what he meant.  

With the establishment clause, you can't successfully make the case that the first amendment has nothing to do with "the church" (which one, BTW) meddling in politics.  "respecting the establishment of religion" sounds like a description of "the church" taking over and making those "other churches" illegal, or at least, second class. To describe the process: "the church" becomes political, becomes a part of the government, takes over the government and interferes with the rest of the "other" churches. When it's understood like this, any religious declaration mixed with government power looks like a menace. Including, BTW, an atheist declaring that God doesn't exist.  

Does it occur to you that using the term "the church" might indicate that you're already amiable to establishing a new State church-- because, really, "the Church" doesn't exist. Unless you're choosing one.

Do all rights imply their opposite then?  Does the right to life imply a right to die after all?  Does the right to not incriminate oneself imply an equal and opposite right to do so?  And which one of those should the government guarantee?  Which ever one is convenient, maybe?

This can't be correct, James.  You can't derive a right not to associate/assemble from a right to associate/assemble.  If rights cover both, it's a contradiction, which means the concept is false.  

Maybe you could derive it from the 9th Amendment, one of those yet unknown rights, but you can't say it's implied in the First Amendment. You also don't have the right freely disassociate, from say, the state you live in, or the United States, and then refuse to pay its taxes and follow its laws.  

I also don't think the Founders would have recognized non-association as a right.  To exclude is to create factions, and we know what they really thought of that.

Also, rights such as the right to liberty definitely apply to the people as well as the government. Kidnapping is essentially a violation of the right to liberty.

And when Lincoln ended slavery, he wasn't aiming that at the government.  But you may have some issues with Lincoln, I take it.

The "wall of seperation" phrase is under attack as being an inaccurate principle because it's not the specific term used in the constitution.  There are other phrases like this that are well accepted principles, "seperation of powers" being a specific case.

and rather than give you a legal brief, I would suggest you go to Findlaw.com and research the issue yourself.
Of course, your intellectualoid pretensions are laid naked when you suggest that I am pro-slavery, which is a ridiculous slander, but characteristic of the tactics of the uninformed far Left.  Perhaps our Moderator could explain why yours is an appropriate comment, particularly if, as I suspect, you were allowed to cast your aspersion, while mine might not make it.
And no, not all rights imply their opposite, at least as miscast by you.  Thus, the government's duty to protect the right to life against interference by outside forces (i.e., abortion, murder, euthanasia) is distinct from the so-called "right to die," though I'm not sure what you mean by that.
And of course, the right against self- incrimination does not interfere with one's right to confess to a crime, if one so chooses without coercion.  We do allow defendants to plead guilty, after all.   You create a series of false dichotomies, when your opposite is not the opposite at all (right to life v. right to kill, for instance).
Of course, I'm correct about the freedom to associate implying the right to refuse to associate.  It's in decades of Supreme Court decisionmaking.  As to the notion that "To exclude is to create factions, and we know what they really thought of that," I would refer to you Madison's Federalist No. 10, in which he discusses the "problem of faction," noting that its "causes are sown into the nature of man," and concluding that the Constitution only seeks to control its effects.  Unless, of course, you're claiming to have superior knowledge about "what they really thought" to which we are not privy and which is contrary to their actual comments.  Wouldn't surprise me, though.
And as for whether "the Founders would have recognized non-association as a right," I'll merely quote Jefferson (granted, not a Framer) who, in a letter to Madison (the "wall of separation" comment is in a similar source), commented about the tyrannical character of forcing an individual to contribute even "three pence" for the "propagation of opinions which he disbelieves."  It's the quotation which has been repeatedly cited favorably by the Supremes.
Soooo, you really don't know what you're talking about.  The State cannot interfere with the church's determination of who is properly a member, even if that determination is, as here, ill-advised.

I think it's wrong if you receive tax breaks.

I do not understand 80% of what you write. For the 20% of what I do understand the meaning, I still cannot fathom the fabricated reasoning.

James86 seems to be doing a wonderful job of interpreting your thoughts. I must defer to him for further clarification and rebuttal. Sorry.

...and no, the phrase that "you probably have some issues with Lincoln, I take it," wasn't meant to suggest that.  I meant it in terms of his asserting the federal government over the States, and your view about States rights are well-known.

I will confess, though, that I wonder if you take the possibility of regression back into a slave society seriously enough, or if evidence indicating this regression would even bother you.  

Slavery existed all through human history.  There's every reason to believe that our society could regress back into it, just from ill-considered policies.

More about this after some rest.    

-- Modified on 5/12/2005 9:46:50 AM

And the slanders just keep on coming.

BTW, I note that you didn't (probably because you couldn't) refute the substance independent of the rejoinders to your slanders.

And separately....

in your construction, only politically acceptable charities deserve tax breaks.

Thanks for another fascist moment brought to us by the far Left.

I think this preacher was wrong.  Apparently, so does most of his congregation, as he's now resigned.  Nevertheless, discrimination (you know, the same kind you practice when you choose a thin provider over a BBW, or a blond over a brunette) is about choices, and private institutions should be permitted to make them, no matter how ill-advised.  Just like Catholics should be permitted to decide who is Catholic.  The problem with the far Left is that it has become so nihilistic that its instinct for destruction of the conventions of society has now extended even to the desire to destroy the plain meaning of language.

-- Modified on 5/13/2005 7:17:04 AM

the comment wasn't stupid at all.

It was, to anyone who "gets it", an excellent twist of the knife in the backs of hypocritical idiots (i.e. "blue state" elitist fuck-wad "morans").

Monkey Assassin stands with the BK Man.

Reon't apologize

Hey, primate killer, or is it killer primate? BK was apolgizing to those of us who live in the blue states who are not elitist fuck wad morons, or is it morans, no it's morons, Moran played on Happy Days. The comment wasn't stupid , but it was a generaliztion of an entire region, not the specific assholes to whom he was referring to.

On behalf of all the blue state non-elitist fuck-wads,. I accept BK's apology. BTW MA not all blue staters are bible thumping intolerant religious pukes. Just like not all red staters are wimpy, sniveling socialists.

His arguments hve surface logic, but no depth.

In a literal sense, he's saying that there are two sides to a viewpoint (if there's an up, there must be a down, for every high there's a low, etc.)

Where he loses credibility is the analysis of the arguments. Take his position about right to life and right to death. He is correct that if you have a "right to life", there is an implied right to death. However, he has neglected to address the meanings, relying on confusing logic and verbose observations that have no merit.

The right to life argument puts forward the belief that unborn children/fetuses should not be aborted. Those who support right to life contend that abortion is essentially murder. If you accept the concept that a fetus is a person, then yes abortion could be considered murder. The argument that the right to life validates is that the unborn child/fetus cannot make informed decisions about it's right to live or die and that it is proper to err on the side of caution and allow the child to live. In a similar vein, the governor of IL commuted all those sentenced on death row to life in the belief that it was better to permit the guilty to live instead of killing an innocent. I applaud his motive, but I am equally dismayed that he had to resort to that decision.

The so called right to die is a misnomer. ANyone has the right to die, it's the method used to commit the death that is in question. If you jump from the top of a 20 story building-you'll die. If you jump in front of a moving train-you'll die. If you take a gun, put it in your mouth, and pull the trigger-the odds are pretty strong you'll die. And you won't be prosecuted for killing yourself. If someone tries to "help" you, that's another matter. Consider all the ruckus recently with Schiavo. Those who are truly HONEST will admit that she did not CLEARLY express her deires to not be kept alive. The hearsay testimony was not the same as a living will, nor any written instructions to the contrary. Instead, the courts relied on testimony about how she had once mentioned something and some other testimony that she would not have wanted to live such a life. If this had been a criminal case, would there have been a conviction? I doubt it. But we had weeks of finger pointing and self-appointed experts here at TER trying to say what was best. In the end, Zinaval's point is moot because the courts ruled in her hsubands favor and she was allowed to die.

As a side note, neither of these so-called rights are guaranteed in the Constituition.

James also was dead on when he pointed out the absudity of the position about self incrimination. You are protected by the Constitution from being coerced into confession. But there is nothing that says you cannot voluntarily confess.

A great deal of these perceived one sided rights tha Zinaval harped on have arisen because of the necessity to insure that people do not have their rights abridged. You have that right against self incrimination, and the police will go to great lengths to protect that right, not because you don't have a right to incrimnate yoursefl-rather to preserve the legitimacy of the investigation and court case. It would be too easy for OJ to walk into the police station and say I killed them both, only to have his attorneys claim that OJ was not provided adequate warning about the right against self incrimination.

As I made it plain in my post.

And I need it again tonight.  I'll see to this in the morning.

So, let that plain statement go over your head too, as the last one.  I guess you're just too worked up by all my slanders to have noticed it.

If I'm getting tax breaks...zzzzz..

Well, at least on the point of freedom of association or dis-association.  The importance of constitutional rights, particularly the Bill of Rights, is to guarantee freedom to the people from government control or interference.  People can be as bigoted or pig-headed as they want as long as they don't use government benefits to discriminate in ways the government (representing the people as a whole) deems illegal (i.e., race, sex, religious persuation and maybe soon sexual orientation).

"and rather than give you a legal brief, I would suggest you go to Findlaw.com and research the issue yourself."

I thank you very much for that reference to findlaw.com.  I will have a lot of use for that. However, in the midst of this argument, it wouldn't be very timely for me to do the research.  I point out, however, that you haven't made a counterargument or attempted a rebuttle with this. You simply referred to an authority, without even a summarization.  I won't be surprised when I find that gross errors in and disregard for logic never deter lawyers when its inconvenient, including the ones who rule on the laws.        


"Of course, your intellectualoid pretensions are laid naked when you suggest that I am pro-slavery, which is a ridiculous slander, but characteristic of the tactics of the uninformed far Left.  Perhaps our Moderator could explain why yours is an appropriate comment, particularly if, as I suspect, you were allowed to cast your aspersion, while mine might not make it."

James, about slandering your good TER handle, if I believed your outlook were moral, or sane, or logical, or compatible with rights, or even supportable from their own point of view, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

You didn't answer this from my post in the tread below where I directly mentioned slavery. ("With Federal Cash, Religious Group Builds Power,"post: "But James...")  I said dissolving labor unions was a good way to re-introduce slavery. It was indirect. I meant the notion to resonate with you James.  It was aimed at your thinking, not at undercutting your good handle.  It seems to have hit a sensitive cord, all right, though not the one I intended. You've yelped.  

I gave you my guess as to your real outlook about slavery, and fine tuned it two posts ago, to where it was the best and honest description. But in all truth, James, that was just my guess.  I'm not obligated to think the best of you.  And in this anonymous setting, I'm not obligated to honor your good name (or handle) either.  As far as I know, you're real view about slavery is even worse than what I expect.  

And it would be an error for me to expect the best from a social conservative with 34 escort reviews. (And don't call that a slander or out of bounds.  It's the only thing I know about you for a fact, and is more than I want to know, BTW.) Anybody should assume that at the core you are quite different from your public face, even here, behind your handle.  


"And no, not all rights imply their opposite, at least as miscast by you."

Strange twisted statement, I almost feel sorry for it.  You say I miscast it, but you agree, and you agree by saying no. You demonstrate why the root word for attorney is the same one for tourniquet-- literally attorney means one who twists words. (I don't know if that was ever a compliment.)  You've certainly put them on the rack for torture here. It's practically a work of modern art.

I'll translate it to read that you grudgingly concede in principle that a right does not imply its opposite.  Therefore, the right to exlude is not implied in the right to assemble/associate.  

So, from this agreement, what I've been saying follows: the government has to protect the right to assemble, but does not have to protect the right to exclude, as the latter would be an interest rather than a right.  

Unless, of course, it's one of the 9th amendment rights. It might be.    



-- Modified on 5/13/2005 10:40:11 PM

-- Modified on 5/13/2005 11:03:03 PM

-- Modified on 5/14/2005 8:57:48 AM

... the government's duty to protect the right to life against interference by outside forces (i.e., abortion, murder, euthanasia) is distinct from the so-called "right to die," though I'm not sure what you mean by that.
And of course, the right against self- incrimination does not interfere with one's right to confess to a crime, if one so chooses without coercion.  We do allow defendants to plead guilty, after all.   You create a series of false dichotomies, when your opposite is not the opposite at all (right to life v. right to kill, for instance)."

False dichotomies when the words are mis-applied like this, yes.  What I actually meant about self-incrimination is that if you have a right to self-incriminate equal and opposite to your right not to, then the government is free of the promise to honor your right not to self incriminate.  Hence, the government forcibly compelling you to incriminate yourself can then be presented as a protection of your rights.  Same with the right to life:  It can then give you its opposite, death, or any suffering short of it and can still present it as a "protection."  That is what I meant.  

The fact is, the rights and their antipodes are not equal and opposite.  What if the Bill of Rights had been written referring to the opposite of our rights: you have a right to shut up always and print nothing, Congress will let you know which religion is proper, you have a right to be solitary, you have a right to incriminate yourself, you have a right to a trial by secret tribunal with unknown charges by an unknown accuser... nobody would ever read those to mean the opposite.  

Therefore, I'll reiterate on this, there is no logical inference of a right to exclude from a right to assemble.  

BTW, I brought it up, but I'll put it to rest here.  It's rather ridiculous to talk of a "right" to incriminate yourself.  Of course, you are free-est in life to screw yourself every which way, and your real rights aren't important if you're doing that. Your rights really become important when you don't intend to self-incrimate, but you're coerced into doing it.  A lot like your right to assemble, the government doesn't have to guarantee your right to be solitary-- simply because when you're solitary, the government has all the power over you.


"Of course, I'm correct about the freedom to associate implying the right to refuse to associate.  It's in decades of Supreme Court decisionmaking."  

I did say above that the crippling strictures of logic have never dissuaded our legal system from coming out with bad ideas. The legal system was lifted hook, line and sinker from England, who we supposed to be overthrowing.

Logic has only been systematized for 100 years, where jurisprudence has been around far longer.  You again refer to authority, and I will admit, since the courts are an authority, my hand is weaker.  However, you haven't demonstrated my view as wrong, you've only pointed out that yours is aligned with the powers that be. And you've only referred to these arguments vaguely and have left them in the debate unseen.  So, its an argument from arbitrary authority and power, not from anything logical or correct, or even right.

Furthermore, if you can dissent from the onerous obligation of taxes, levied by your legally elected Congress, and spent on social programs also legally adopted into law, I can dissent from the law the court has passed down here.  

"As to the notion that 'To exclude is to create factions, and we know what they really thought of that,' I would refer to you Madison's Federalist No. 10, in which he discusses the "problem of faction," noting that its "causes are sown into the nature of man," and concluding that the Constitution only seeks to control its effects."  

Yes, seeks to control its effects, and since you haven't noticed, that supports my argument, not yours.  As a historical note, it is very well known that the founders were dismayed and even despaired as factions developed among them after they worked hard to create a system that would "minimize" it.  Things got so contentious, that many thought that they had failed with the constitution. They were classically educated, and knew how much blood had been spilt by the Greeks and Romans due to factions. This is a matter of record, James.  There's no argument with it.

"Unless, of course, you're claiming to have superior knowledge about 'what they really thought' to which we are not privy and which is contrary to their actual comments.  Wouldn't surprise me, though."

So, now your smearing me for arrogance. This is simply a low-blow James, and you complain about slander.  I don't claim to have superior knowledge about it. I only refuse to acknowledge people as superior to me only because of the fact that they are dead.

Let Madison into the debate, marshall his writings out. I will respect the fact that his work was central to the conception of this country, and he was there to witness to the events of its founding, but I won't fall into awed silence about his word being the last word. These were just human beings, remember.  Madison and the rest of the founders weren't capable of knowing the implications of the principles that they established 230 years later.  No human being can be.  I'll debate them as I do anybody else's words, and I won't be ruled by the dead.    


"And as for whether 'the Founders would have recognized non-association as a right,' I'll merely quote Jefferson (granted, not a Framer) who, in a letter to Madison (the "wall of separation" comment is in a similar source), commented about the tyrannical character of forcing an individual to contribute even "three pence" for the 'propagation of opinions which he disbelieves.'"  

I wish you didn't *merely* do that because the connection of this fragmented quote to subject here looks  very weak. This is disappointing, because this broken quote looks to be the closest you've come to forming a real counterargument.  You've given me a leg and a wing, and you're calling it a chicken. "Wall of seperation" and "seperation of powers" are clear and concrete, concepts and they refer to things specifically in the Constitution.  This quote mumbles about something about a detail the Founders (and indirectly, Jefferson) forgot to put in the constitution.    


"It's the quotation which has been repeatedly cited favorably by the Supremes. Soooo, you really don't know what you're talking about.  The State cannot interfere with the church's determination of who is properly a member, even if that determination is, as here, ill-advised."

Again, all you've said is that the powers that be support you, and I say that's just the score of yesterday's game. You haven't even presented any of their arguments, even paraphrased, you just expect me to fall into silence from awe at the superior power behind you.    

Sooo, James, if you could call social programs voted on by your legally elected Congress illegal and immoral, I can have my own dissent over a different branch of government. Ironically, as Conservative and Liberal, we seem to have switched sides.  Your beef is with Congress; mine is with the court.

And as for practice of discriminating, it isn't always, or even  usually a right.  And it's not one protected under the First amendment when it is.    

I've only had a message removed from here once, and that was one that I had second thoughts about anyway.

Please read my current posts.

I wasn't arguing, as you say "correctly" that a right to die is implied in a right to life.  I was arguing the very opposite,  the absurdity of the notion.  I was illustrating the contradiction of it.  I chose the "right to life" example just to see if James would argue that the "right" to have your life protected is equal to your "right" to have it taken away, since I know James is anti-choice.  

However, if he argued against it this right to life/death duality, it would mean he cannot infer the opposite of a right from an actual bonafide right. This is my point, the theme of this sub-thread.  He's acknowledged that a right to exclude is is not implied in the mention of a right to associate.

So, I must have been arguing incorrectly, Bird.  

from opposing counsel.  To a man, they've lost to me in court.