US Church excommunicates Democrats

[Random]

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 (http://www.blah3.com/article.php?story=20050506040704788).

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

(edited to fix link)

[ranson]

Goodbye, Tax-exempt status.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Random
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 (http://www.blah3.com/article.php?story=20050506040704788).

(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. :)

[ranson]

WLOS tv (link) (http://wlos.com) has a blurb on it now.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by Random
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 (http://www.blah3.com/article.php?story=20050506040704788).

(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.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by ranson
WLOS tv (link) (http://wlos.com) 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.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Random
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 (http://www.blah3.com/article.php?story=20050506040704788).

(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?

[shecky]

I first saw this story here. (http://newsobserver.com/news/ncwire_news/story/2378881p-8756854c.html)

I agree. Goodbye, Tax-exempt status.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by c4ts
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?

[Kopji]

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.)

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
: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..

[Kopji]

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.

[csense]

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.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by csense
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.

[csense]

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.

[Kopji]

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?

[Kopji]

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 (http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/y2k/tax_churches.htm)

[CaveDave]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
: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?

Originally posted by pgwenthold
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[QUOTE][i]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.

[i]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

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by csense
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.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by csense
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?

[Kopji]

Originally posted by CaveDave
...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

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 (http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/us/A0861733.html)

[csense]

Originally posted by crimresearch


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


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.

[Question]

Originally posted by csense
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.

Not really. "Democrat" is a political, not moral, term. Were he to excommunicate anyone who is pro-choice, that would be moral.

[gnome]

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.

[csense]

Originally posted by Question
Not really. "Democrat" is a political, not moral, term. .

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?

[Question]

Originally posted by csense
Democrat is also a noun, and neither of which speak to motive.


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

Originally posted by csense

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?

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.

[csense]

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.

[rebecca]

It would be so nice just to take that tax exempt status from all of the churches. What a stupid waste of money.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by csense
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.

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.

[Question]

Originally posted by csense

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


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

Originally posted by csense

Look, it's been fun but, this going nowhere.

So I see.

[apoger]

Religious fervor inspires intolerance... SHOCKING! Simply shocking! How could this ever happen? ;)

[csense]

Originally posted by Question
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



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.

[pmurray]

Originally posted by csense
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?

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.

[crimresearch]

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

[csense]

Originally posted by crimresearch

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


Naaaah.


Context Crim, context.

As the good skeptic I know you are, surely you must realize that context is everything.

[crimresearch]

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?

[csense]

Originally posted by pmurray
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.

It can if the particular candidate's moral position...and thus by extension the members...is in conflict with their principles.

[csense]

Originally posted by crimresearch
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?

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.

[gnome]

Originally posted by csense
It can if the particular candidate's moral position...and thus by extension the members...is in conflict with their principles.

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.

[csense]

And you can seperate the ideology from the candidate, how.....

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by csense
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.

Then you've completley lost me...I thought we were talking about *this* specific Wayneseville case, and the current law regarding such matters.

How is describing legal principles hypothetical?

[gnome]

Originally posted by csense
And you can seperate the ideology from the candidate, how.....

By asking the congregation to affirm their ideology instead of their voting habits. The exact same ideology may lead two people to cast different votes, depending on whom they believe more.

[CaveDave]

Originally posted by Kopji
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 got some sleep, and thanks for understanding. :) I agree that the quote feature needs work. I got used to usenet-style quoting, and this is hard to operate.

Originally posted by Kopji
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.

Even though I disagree with all religion, I think any private organization should be able to select their own members and set their own rules, as long as coercion is not used to force member's compliance (in other words, they are free to leave) and that their actions don't violate the rights of outsiders. I think they should pay taxes, though.

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

It is certainly a complex subject, but I don't like the government interfering in private affairs.

Dave

[CaveDave]

Originally posted by rebecca
It would be so nice just to take that tax exempt status from all of the churches. What a stupid waste of money.

I agree mostly, with the one possible exception of money that goes directly to charitable causes. Let them pay taxes on their expensive buildings and properties.

IMHO :)

Dave

[gnome]

Originally posted by CaveDave
Even though I disagree with all religion, I think any private organization should be able to select their own members and set their own rules, as long as coercion is not used to force member's compliance (in other words, they are free to leave) and that their actions don't violate the rights of outsiders. I think they should pay taxes, though.

100% agreement. If they want to pay taxes, they can enforce whatever asinine rules they want.

Edited to add: Also as long as they do not rely on direct government funding. Or a government corporate charter. Or government contracts.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by CaveDave
I agree mostly, with the one possible exception of money that goes directly to charitable causes. Let them pay taxes on their expensive buildings and properties. For the record, taxes on North Carolina property are imposed under state law and assessed locally. The N.C. General Statutes exempt from property tax property used for religious purposes, and it's not clear that conduct resulting in a loss of a federal tax exemption would necessarily make an organization ineligible for a N.C. property tax exemption.

Also, it's worth noting that a church that loses its federal income tax exemption will not necessarily end up paying any income tax. Certainly, donations to the church will no longer provide a deduction for the donor, but since property acquired by gift is ordinarily excluded from the definition of gross income for IRS purposes, the church would not pay taxes on such donations.

[crimresearch]

Which would seem to make it *less* likely that this incident would rise to the level of the government interfering with freedom of religion, should they rescind the Waynesville church's federal tax exemption.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Which would seem to make it *less* likely that this incident would rise to the level of the government interfering with freedom of religion, should they rescind the Waynesville church's federal tax exemption. Precisely. In fact, at least one circuit court has previously made essentially the same point.

[Question]

Originally posted by csense
I am curious though why you seem to think the grammatical classification of a word would infer motive.


Now you're attacking your own arguments? Wow, this is too easy.

Originally posted by csense
Democrat is also a noun, and neither of which speak to motive.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
:confused:

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

Evidently the church seems to think it should not be that way.