Bush Opponents Kicked Out of Church
 

Just saw this on the news. I think it's just being reported locally right now.

Minister ex-communicates members for not backing Bush

The Associated Press

The minister of a Haywood County Baptist church is telling members of his congregation that if they're Democrats, they either need to find another place of worship or support President Bush.

Already, the Reverend Chan Chandler has ex-communicated nine members of East Waynesville Baptist Church. Another 40 members have left in protest...

...One former church member says Chandler told some of the members that if they didn't support George Bush, they needed to resign their positions and get out of the church, or go to the altar, repent and agree to vote for Bush.

Another article:

Church members say they were kicked out for being Democrats

By Andre A. Rodriguez
STAFF WRITER
published: May 6, 2005 6:08 pm

WAYNESVILLE – Nine members of a local church had their membership revoked and 40 others left in protest after tension over political views recently came to a head, church members say.

Some members of East Waynesville Baptist Church voted the nine members out at a recent scheduled deacon meeting, which turned into an impromptu business meeting, according to congregants.

Chan Chandler, pastor of East Waynesville, had been exhorting his congregation since October to support his political views or leave the church, said Selma Morris, a 30-year member of the church.

“He preached a sermon on abortion and homosexuality, then said if anyone there was planning on voting for John Kerry, they should leave,” she said. “That’s the first time I’ve ever heard something like that. Ministers are supposed to bring people in.”

hmm. You know this opens the door for that church to lose their nonprofit status.

no kidding.

wow, last time i checked we lived in america -- you know, where people have the freedom to believe what they want and the freedom to associate with people they want to.

who does this guy think he is?

Wow, I think I would leave just because the preacher was doing that to other people, even though I did support Bush. You can't do that! Next thing you know, he'll be forcing all those who die their hair to leave because it's not "Godly." Well crap, I guess I'd have to find somewhere else!

A related issue:

Rep. Walter Jones of N.C. have introduced a measure that would allow clergymen endorse a candidate from the pulpit while still maintaining the church's tax examption status.

Read the Legislation Here (PDF warning)

Way to go on separation of church from state:rolleyes:

This is why some churches should be taxed. The Word of Bush has no place in the house of God.

There are folks out there that believe that church interfering in the state was something that the founding fathers intended.

Just saying..

Reverend Says It's a Misunderstanding

Rev.: Political Ousters a Misunderstanding By PAUL NOWELL, Associated Press Writer
48 minutes ago

WAYNESVILLE, N.C. - 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.

Nine members said they were ousted during a church gathering last week by about 40 others because they refused to support President Bush. They attended Sunday's service with their lawyer and many supporters.

Chandler noted their presence in his welcome to the congregation, saying, "I'm glad to see you all here. ... We are here today to worship the Lord. I hope this is what you are here for."

But Chandler's statement and his welcome didn't convince those members who were voted out that things would soon change, and some called for him to resign.

This made it's way to the news in north texas just yesterday.. interesting how he is now singing a different tune..

I saw it over here on the news today. It was National News, not the local stuff, but still.

He probably didn't wan't to loose his nonprofit status.

I'm not surprised.

I don't agree with the action but why should we be up in arms about it?

I remember many a times Sen. J. Kerry and Sen. J. Edwards along side of Rev. Sharpton and Rev. Jackson having many things to say about their political views in church services. So much so that it was called into question about the regualtions about church speaking. There is a difference when they attend their own church or at least the same denomination but Sen. Kerry is far from free will or southern baptist.

I think this is the same. When I go to church I don't want it to be political but it seems churches have been used in this manner for some time.

Separation of church and state.

Regarding, Jackson and Sharpton; it's true that they praised their political affiliations in their services but did they threaten or tell people to leave their services and/or churces if they didn't support a certain candidate? There's a difference there. The pastor of the church has every right to voice whatever opinion about whichever candidate he supported. When members have their memberships threatened or revoked a serious problem is at hand.

It's almost like my fraternity. Most of my brothers supported a certain candidate and a certain political party while I chose to support another. I was one of the few that went the other route and if the fraternity threatened to make me conform, well there would be a serious problem there.

Separation of church and state is only used for one side's advantage.

Rev. Sharpton and Rev. Jackson do not voice their political views for just anyone, only the canadites who have them on their payroll. That is campaigning and is not allowed in churches and like organizations. It wasn't just the Rev. Super Duo it was both Sen. as well in many baptist churches rallying the troops and where was the news coverage for those politically incorrect events?

So, if it is OK for one why not the other? Separation is what should happen but doesn't always happen. Both events should not take place but they do and to me they are equally as wrong.

Hey, I'm not saying that Sharpton and Jackson are right. I don't agree with them campaigning in churches either. But as I previously stated, I haven't heard any stories about them threatening members of their churches to either support their candidate of leave the church. So there is a difference between what they were doing and what this other pastor did. Again, neither party in either situation is right. Yet the pastor in the latter situation went beyond supporting the candidate. He put certain church goers in a very compromised situation.

Please don't continue this as another "the other side argument." Neither party is right in either situation. But unless Sharpton and Jackson also threatened people to support their guy or leave, that argument is baseless (for this situation).

In any event, separation of church and state or not, this church either needs to lose their tax exempt status or find a new pastor.

I'm sorry but we will disagree that this is just another example of what happens on both sides.

The church in question is no worse than Rev. Sharpton and Rev. Jackson going to places of worship in order to get votes, set up transports back and forth to the polls, and info on how to vote for the "right" choice; all the while collecting checks from the "right" canidates.

At least this current preacher had enough gumption to say what he thought, not what he got paid to say, and didn't try play on the ignorance of the congregation to get his paycheck.

At least the congregation was smart enough to stand up for themselves and do something about it.

I rarely enter into discussions here, but I just wanted to add that I have worked in Advance and Scheduling as well as Finance. (We processed invitations from anyone who extended them and filed them away in order by date. The higher ups then chose which to accept based on time, venue, etc.) I would say that around 90% of all invitations we processed made it clear that both candidates were invited. NEVER did the candidate I worked for ever pay to attend the services. If they did, you would find the donation under disbursements on Tray.com.

Tray.com is a wonderful resource that you should check out. It gives out the donor information in detail.

But, my point is: Any campaign donation has to be disclosed. So, keep in mind that when candidates visit houses of worship THEY HAVE BEEN INVITED. I think if they showed up randomly and wanted to speak to the congregation to garner votes, it would be one thing. But, I don't see any issue if the congregation itself has said, "Please come and talk to us. Tell us what you stand for." It is not a money-making event for either side. If that was the case, you'd either see money coming in or money going out to or from a church.

If members of a church rally together and set up GOTV (get out the vote) events, that's one thing. If a preacher of a congregation says vote my way or get out, that's a whole 'nother thing. It's one thing if members fellowship by setting up grassroot efforts in a candidate they believe will help them preserve their way of life and faith. It's another if the church leadership is forcing them out for not agreeing with them.

I'm not disagreeing with you on this point. I stated that I understand both sides are wrong for performing church campaigns. But I'll state it again, neither side is right.

But I don't see the vision in comparing a Sharpton or Jackson campaign at a chruch as opposed to this North Carolina pastor telling people to "vote for Bush or repent." To me, that's a difference and I'll again state that neither side was correct in any action but the latter took it a step further.

But then again I have an open mind on the subject and I just read an MSNBC.com article stating that the IRS is or has investigated over 60 churches and other non-profit orgs regarding election campaigns from the last election. I'm sure related to both "sides." And I'd support the removal of any official/pastor/preacher, etc of any of these orgs, no matter political affiliation.

Regardless of the church and state thing, regardless of "sides" here, you posed the question as to why people are getting up in arms about this? (Or to that extent). To answer that question it is against rules set by the IRS to perform politicking by tax-exempt groups. (As this is related to this thread, not any issue regarding Sharpton or Jackson or anyone else.)

I thought "separation of church and state" was more concerned with keeping religion out of the government, and not the other way around.

I can't say I'm bothered by what this pastor is doing. I mean, if you don't like it, find another church. What's the big deal? I think he's an ass, but that's a different issue.

For some people, their local church and pastor are the center of their life. Some don't have the option of going to another church (transportation issues, etc.). It's like a second home, and for them to be told they're not welcome at that second home would probably be tremendously upsetting.

I agree with you on your first point though; at least that's the way I understood it.

I suppose you are right regarding the separation of church and state but I guess I view it as one in the same. I think I was viewing this as religion influencing politics. The guy is entitled to his political views but it just doesn't sit right with me if he tells people to pretty much "put up or get out." I suppose they could go to church somewhere else but what if they've been part of that church for several years?

Even still, the bigger issue is in regards to the tax-exempt status of churches and the rules regarding politicking in the church. Honestly, if they want to be a pro-Bush church, let them. But they shouldn't be granted tax-exempt status. Let them pay taxes on their member fees/donations, on their property, on their fundraisers.

Anyway, let's talk football, where are your Bears going to be at this Year Valky?!?!

Hm, kicking some Packer butt, I suppose.

You know, I hate you sometimes! You Broncos get all up on my Chiefs. Your Bears stick it to my packers. You leave me with nothing, nothing I say!

Sucks to be from Wisconsin, eh? ;)

This pastor is a genius.

Due to the exposure he received from this, expect him to be inking some book deals, as well as receiving some rather nice honorariums for speaking engagements at churches, schools like Oral Roberts University, etc.

Also, expect him to become a "Fox News Contributor".

My understanding of American History is that the founding fathers came to the New World to escape government persecution -- especially religious persecution -- so it is my belief that they wanted to keep government out of religion.

If they were alive today, they might feel the opposite.

I don't like it either way.

The church and state issue will go on forever...tax status cannot be revoked b/c of what the Preacher has said. He is really just a figure head and there is a council that runs the church and if they don't agree then they remove the preacher and go on.

can't congregations ask for a new ministers?

Very true.

And if that is the decided route (I guess the man resigned), then it means that it was a deal and someone cared. Which I believe answers the question you posed?

ETA: Actually if the pastor had decided to stay their tax status could be drawn into question and investigated. And from what i gather if the members that were told to leave or repent do not feel comfortable going back to the church for reasons regarding the rest of the church membership, their tax status could again be called into question. So Technically they couldn't lose their tax status because of what this man said but they could lose it if it was investigated due to the aftermath of the situation.

Although I highly doubt it will happen.

I bet the pastor followed the Grand Old Party's suggestion to "send your Church Directory to your State Bush-Cheney '04 Headquarters or give [it] to a BC04 Field Rep"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun30.html

Isn't the above both ethically and legally wrong? I mean Canada or the UK don't have any formal seperation of church and state - but a church providing personal information to a political party is a violation of both privacy and election laws (even in Northern Ireland were unfortunately faith and politcs are alomst one and the same)

I thought that the same would apply in the US too... doesn't it?

Didnt He Recant and say it was a misundestanding and now they are back in the Flock of Fs!

Think I will become a Preacher Man and get tax breaks too!

The Church of get down get funky and what be happening!

But NOBODY WAS KICKED out of that church for disagreeing. There is a difference.

Maybe no one was kicked out but churches being used for political gain is the same for me. If I was in church and the Rev. duo along with Sen. Kerry and Sen. Edwards came in, using my church, organizing my congregation to and from the polls I would not think that would represent the church in any way or my feelings. I know it wouldn't happen in my church so I don't have to worry about it but in any case where you worship isn't a political area to be used by either side.

Anyway, no one was kicked out.

:rolleyes:

Nobody was THREATENED with being kicked out when Kerry and Edwards came there. You're wasting your time trying to make this the SAME issue.

Plus, Kerry and Edwards showed up to campaign. THAT Minister was campaigning for Bush when he probably be better served preaching about the lord.

we can agree to disagree all day.

no one was kicked out in either situation and both situations should not have happened.

If my church asked democrats to campaign I would feel threatened to voice my opinion b/c the church has already taken a side. And futher more it may not be right of the preacher but churches are not allowed to be used for campaigning.

go ahead say what you wish this is my last post on the subject

That post is simply lacking any logical thought whatsoever. There is no law prohibiting churches from inviting speakers to their congregation. Churches make that decision for themselves.
Surely you aren't speaking for every congregation in the U.S. as to whether or not they allow candidates to come and speak.

I said I wouldn't post again.....I hope these work! Many more can be found on the subject. There is a difference b/w speakers and on the election route with paid contributors during an election.

This really is the last time I hope

www.camlc.org/press-278.html

www.wibw.com/news/headlines/860747.html