It Begins: Dems "Excommunicated" From Church? [updated w/ VIDEO]

[Ed]: This thread is unwiedly. I've started a new thread here with action items.

For those that thought that there has not been a full scale war lanched against liberals; for those who didn't take the radical right's promise to "eradicate liberals" seriously, I present to you, Exhibit A:  East Waynesville Baptist Church has just kicked out all its Democratic members.

Yes.  You read that right.  If you didn't vote for Bush, you had to "repent your sin".  And finally, they figured why deal with the liberal sinners at all..

From libnnc over at DU:

"One of the local women who got excommunicated said on TV that it was like a cult. Another man who got excommunicated said that the rest of the congregation stood up and applauded as the Democrats were told to leave."

The news report has been confirmed by others on that thread. The broadcast @ 11 pm on WLOS will run the story again.

I'm still waiting for the link to the story, it was apparently just breaking news on TV.  The story should pop up here soon.

This isn't a "culture" war, people.  This isn't some sort of political game.  This action merely foreshadows what is to come: the radical religious right seeking to impose a theocracy upon this nation.  Purge the liberals from society.

Welcome to the Blue Scare. Welcome to Grade-A, government-sanctioned McCarthyism against liberals and against anyone who doesn't embrace their distorted worldview. Here is the face of the American jihad.

Update [2005-5-5 21:18:55 by georgia10]:: Here is the contact info for the local TV station, for those who want further confirmation:
WLOS, NC Phone Numbers: 828-684-1340
800-288-8813
News Hotline: [phone]
News Email: [e-mail]

Update [2005-5-5 21:36:52 by georgia10]:: The broadcast of the story has been confirmed by 1, 2, 3, 4 different people. Additionally, as OrangeClouds115 points out below, some has also posted on LiveJournal that 8 people she knows were kicked out of this church for being Dems.

Update [2005-5-5 23:15:29 by georgia10]:: VIDEO HERE.

Thanks to DU's Spiffarino for setting up the hosting and the rest of the DUers for getting the story out and putting it online.

Please, download onto your own servers, try hosting it yourself, etc.
Synposis: The minister said if you supported John Kerry or the Democratic Party, you are against the Church. 9 members said the minister led the charge to excommunicate them because of issues of abortion and homosexuality.

He said they had to repent and agree to vote Republican. 40 other members resigned in protest.

•  WOW.

  Holy Crap, I am floored.
  Thank You, Georgia, as I think this is one of THE most important diaries of the day.
  We need to get ready to meet them on their playing field, people.  It's going to get ugly.
  ~Lissy

  by JessicaDrewSW on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:04:31 PM PST

  •  We need to get it on the media

    National attention. It's Schiavo, Part II. And it will repel many people--and open their eyes. I'm talking about the people who think that "Christians" refers to them, not knowing the fundies believe they're damned heretics.

    Start with the least-GOP-owned folks.

    The Daily Show
    http://www.comedycentral.com/help/questionsCC.jhtml
    Keith Olberman
    [e-mail]

    Add your own suggestions.

    by Smallbottle on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:03:35 PM PST

    •  Use this e-mail for Keith:

      [e-mail]
      I've actually gotten results with this e-mail.
      

      by blueohio on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:39:34 PM PST

      •  Keith went back to tabloid

        again.
        Last I looked, most of the show was about the runaway bride.

        by kentclark on Fri May 06, 2005 at 05:00:24 AM PST

        •  haven't seen KO in a while

          but given the "Extending the debate" diary that kos posted, i won't be a snob about KO covering "baser" news (please read, recommend).

          as for this story:  I LOVE IT!!!

          C'MON!  we need more churches & right wingers to do this!  

          i mean if this doesn't prove to moderate Republicans & Americans that the right wing is going to far -- IF THIS DOESN'T ALIENATE THE RIGHT WING, NOTHING will & we should all move to Canada anyway!

          i see this as another Terry Schiavo incident -- where the right extended itself too far & displayed it's extremism & insanity in ALLLLLLLll it's ugly colors!

          POUNCE ON THIS BABY!!!  this is as good as Dobson attacking sponge bob squarepants!

          Bush, What Price Did You Pay?

          by krazypuppy on Fri May 06, 2005 at 07:43:00 AM PST

          •  Great diary

            Thanks for the link !

            by kentclark on Sat May 07, 2005 at 06:38:43 AM PST

      •  Take away their tax-exempt status.

        They're not a church any more, they're a political organization.

        What they did is flat-out ILLEGAL.  A church in New York state lost their tax-exempt status for far less. And they were stupid and arrogant enough to think no one will challenge them on it.

        Let Barry Lynn know about this!

        by Phoenix Woman on Fri May 06, 2005 at 05:50:06 AM PST

        •  I don't think the tax-exempt thing is that simple

          The IRS regulations say that the church cannot engage in "any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."  What the New York church did (running a newspaper ad against Clinton) clearly violates that.

          This, while it may be much more offensive to the sensibilities, is different.  There's no campaign going on now, and from the story the only candidate mentioned was John Kerry, who's not a candidate for public office on any Georgian ballot.

          The implication that people could be reconciled if they promised to vote Republican might get the church in more trouble than kicking Democrats out post-election, but only if: (1) the IRS wants to revoke their status, and (2) the regulations that cover individual candidates extend to parties as well.  I strongly doubt that (1) will happen unless the media pressure is amazing (not likely, as the media seems to have declared a moratorium on political coverage post-election), and it may well be that condition (2) is also lacking.

          However, someone who did this was very likely not too quiet before the election either, and so this calls for some of that famous dkos member research...

          by fizbin on Fri May 06, 2005 at 06:40:21 AM PST

          •  And TX tried to un-exempt a UU Ch.

            It was Carol Keyton Strayhorn/Rylander (I can never keep Scotty's Mom's current surname straight), TX State Comptroller, who tried to deny state tax-exempt status to a Unitarian Universalist church (in Fort Worth?) that had been in existence over 80 years or so.  The state subsequently reversed and the church kept its status - - but the basis was something about some official questioning if it was "really a church" or some such.  It was only straightened out in Austin.

            BTW, other than the bishops trying to deny Communion, has anyone heard of any Catholic parishes following what these NC Baptists did?THAT would be a big deal.  I believe that nearly all pastors avoid this, even if they try to influence parishioners on individual issues.  That said, the Ladies Sodality or Altar Society or the K of C might have members who set the tone for those who join - -but that goes on anywhere.

            Still, "ex-communicating the Democrats" in the congregation is just a bit much.

            by tom 47 on Fri May 06, 2005 at 08:16:57 AM PST

            •  I think...

              The controversy was whether UUC was really a RELIGION since it basicly believes that all religions are valid and doesn't exclude any faiths from it's membership.

              SO I guess something that doesn't have it's own DOGMA isn't considered a religion in TX.

              by DawnG on Sat May 07, 2005 at 07:20:32 AM PST

    •  Its a very good wedge issue

      The idiot preacher has played right into our hands. I agree the media needs to do a story on this, but i hope it waits till Monday.

      by Redst3 on Fri May 06, 2005 at 03:29:07 AM PST

      •  Call Barry Lynn!

        Americans United for Separation of Church and State

        518 C Street NE, Washington, DC 20002
        Telephone [phone]; Facsimile [phone];

        E-mail: [e-mail]
        

        by Phoenix Woman on Fri May 06, 2005 at 05:56:54 AM PST

      •  They won't.

        When even NPR has turned right, who's going to do it?

        by Bulldawg on Fri May 06, 2005 at 07:16:45 AM PST

  •  hey, all you western NC progressives

    that I see here on this post, please contact me. I live in Asheville and I am trying to build a coalition/network of district-wide progressives.

    We need to come together for strength, for organizing. Perhaps we can organize a rapid response network for situations just like this.

    by roonie on Fri May 06, 2005 at 05:00:38 AM PST

  •  hey, all you western NC progressives

    that I see here on this post, please contact me. I live in Asheville and I am trying to build a coalition/network of district-wide progressives.

    We need to come together for strength, for organizing. Perhaps we can organize a rapid response network for situations just like this.

    by roonie on Fri May 06, 2005 at 05:00:53 AM PST

  •  VIDEO Mirrored Here

    .wmv file:
    
    Click Here
    
    .rm file:
    
    Click Here

    by Buckeye BattleCry on Fri May 06, 2005 at 05:52:06 AM PST

    •  Correcting 2nd link

      Shit! Hit preview and still managed to screw it up Click Here

      by Buckeye BattleCry on Fri May 06, 2005 at 05:53:45 AM PST

•  Those kicked out...

  ...should go nuclear. Sue the church, go after its tax-exempt status, etc, etc. Don't take it lying down.

  Any ideas on what we can do to help?

  by eugene on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:06:12 PM PST

  •  Definitely should go after their tax exempt status

    I would call the fire marshall and make sure all their paperwork is correct...every door shuts properly, every smoke detector/alarm works, fire extinguishers work, etc.  Call the health department to make sure their kitchen (if they prepare food) is OK.  

    Just a couple things...All important things in God's eyes I would say--safe buildings and safe food.

     

    (-6.75, -3.85)

    by mapKY on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:22:03 PM PST

    •  Heck,

      Call the BATF...check for weapons, like 50 caliber rifles.

      The Health Department should definitely check for contaminated Kool-Aid.

      These people are KKKultist.

      by ex republican on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:31:02 PM PST

    •  Totally!

      Churches can be stripped of their taz exempt status is they engage in partisan work!!! (Not that churches deserve tax-exempt status to begin with, but that's another matter)

      by EsotericallyInclinded on Thu May 05, 2005 at 10:13:31 PM PST

      •  Telling

        parishoners to vote a certain way or leave certainly seems like a political activity.  It verges on voter coercion, which might be illegal even for organizations which were not subsidized throughh tax-exempt status.

        by Cache on Fri May 06, 2005 at 12:03:44 AM PST

        •  It doesn't "verge" on

          voter Coercion.  It IS voter coercion.  How much more coercive can you get?  "Vote Republican or burn in hell for eternity!"

          Fuck that.

          by Bulldawg on Fri May 06, 2005 at 07:20:13 AM PST

          •  I hear you barking

            The thing I like to do with these types is call them anti-freedom.

            Clearly, they are against freedom to marry or have a (currently) safe, legal abortion.

            I paint them into a corner that is anti-American in nature, then solidify my argument with this logic...

            "The problem with my approach is that there can be too much freedom, that's liberal by definition.  The problem with yours is that it limits freedom...so who's more 'american'?"

            Who's more American, a liberal like Paine or a conservative like Bush?

            by quartzite on Fri May 06, 2005 at 07:57:21 AM PST

  •  Here's the IRS line to report it

    here.

    Although, personally, I'm going to wait to get some more facts before I take action.  Just to be sure.

    by georgia10 on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:27:55 PM PST

    •  bad strategy

      The IRS is not going to care and the bushes are running the media as well as the government.  The only thing to do is to reach people.
      Infiltrate their churches and take over.

      by TeresaInPa on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:35:24 PM PST

      •  well...

        ...remember, the government is a heck of a lot of people, many of them liberal democrats.  Only a handful are actually in the administration.

        Yeah, the administration might try to influence an investigation.  But I sure wouldn't write off this avenue.  This is pretty eggregious, and a public stink would make inappropriate influence on the part of the Bushies very difficult.

        by Jonathan on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:02:57 PM PST

      •  you're not serious, right?

        

        infiltrate this bunch?; like, infiltrate the folks in Deliverance? ..aaaaaaaaahhhhhhh I don thin so.

        by seesdifferent on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:30:02 PM PST

        •  'Squeal like a pig!'

          Poor Ned Beatty.  Took years for his career to recover from that.

          by Bob Johnson on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:40:26 PM PST

          •  Hell,

            ...It took ME years to recover from it.

            by seesdifferent on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:11:49 PM PST

        •  So, so unproductive

          Deliverance again?  Sigh.

          by LetsGoVandy on Thu May 05, 2005 at 10:54:17 PM PST

          •  who cares?

            I'm a Georgia mountain boy, and that shit is as real as urban violence. Deliverance jokes are funny as hell. Now squeal like a pig for me.

            by paraphrase on Fri May 06, 2005 at 07:53:38 AM PST

        •  Yeah, bad call.

          I grew up just down the road from this place in Hendersonville, NC.
          A bunch of progressives trying to infilitrate their church would stick out like a bicycle in a NASCAR race.

          The non-slanted brow and lack of tobacco stained skin would give you away in a second.  

          by rightwrong on Fri May 06, 2005 at 10:26:25 AM PST

      •  I've worked for the IRS

        I was a contractor for the IRS.  I signed up voters at their voter registration table.  The brass may be Shrub appointees, but the rank and file mostly checked "D" on their voter registration cards.  AFSCME.

        Folks who work at the IRS look at numbers.  They know which party is in favor of going after tax cheats, and which party wants to curtail auditors' ability to chase delinquent corporations who try to hide their money offshore.

        Don't worry about infiltrating the IRS.  They like to play by the rules and tax fairly, if the brass will let them.

        by Nina Katarina on Fri May 06, 2005 at 06:42:40 AM PST

    •  also

      try the state's bureau of revenue since they deal with taxes too.

      by Cedwyn on Thu May 05, 2005 at 10:17:46 PM PST

    •  On being tax exempt

      To put some Reality Based punch behind your very true statement...

      IRS Exemption Requirements"

      I am quoting the first section here:

       

      Exemption Requirements

      To be tax-exempt as an organization described in IRC Section 501(c)(3) of the Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for one or more of the purposes set forth in IRC Section 501(c)(3) and none of the earnings of the organization may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate at all in campaign activity for or against political candidates.

      Now, I'm sure someone could quibble over "influence legislation" and "campaign activity", but I think a gutsy tax lawyer could make a darn good case.  

      by chassit on Thu May 05, 2005 at 10:20:31 PM PST

      •  Huh.

        OK, I have NO idea how that became a link to Microsoft.  Let's try again.  

        IRS Exemption Requirements

        by chassit on Thu May 05, 2005 at 10:24:16 PM PST

        •  I'll tell you why

          I looked at the URL referenced in your first post, and it contained http:// twice.  That's an automatic redirect to the Beast, as they seem to have registered that domain.

          by thephotoman on Fri May 06, 2005 at 06:51:01 AM PST

        •  How that became a link to Microsoft

          You use Firefox, and you began your link with "http://http//www.irs.gov". (probably a result of typing part of the url and cut-and-pasting it).  For example, This is not a link to google.

          So the end result is that you were linking to a site called "http".  Now, in Firefox, when you give it a site name that doesn't exist, it goes and consults google and goes to the first hit returned. Previous netscape browsers would just blithely add ".com" if you gave a non-existent hostname. You remember stories about people typing "whitehouse" in the browser bar and ending up at not what they intended?

          The top google result for "http" is Microsoft's front page.

          Note that while with firefox that link goes to microsoft, with internet explorer you get an error page.

          by fizbin on Fri May 06, 2005 at 07:02:36 AM PST

      •  Actually, they'd quibble over

        whether or not the influence is a substantial part of its activities too.

        In this case, though, I don't think that you can make a case for them trying to influence legislation, or particpating in campaign activity.  What is the campaign/legislation they are participating in/influencing?

        by jhancock on Fri May 06, 2005 at 10:05:42 AM PST

      •  Is this minister a 'leader'?

        Check this, I think this 'Fuehrer' made some really partisan comments. Now, is a sermon an official function?
           
        Political and Lobbying Activities:

        Individual Activity by Organization Leaders

        The political campaign activity prohibition is not intended to restrict free expression on political matters by leaders of organizations speaking for themselves, as individuals.  Nor are leaders prohibited from speaking about important issues of public policy.  However, for their organizations to remain tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3), leaders cannot make partisan comments in official organization publications or at official functions.

        To avoid potential attribution of their comments outside of organization functions and publications, organization leaders who speak or write in their individual capacity are encouraged to clearly indicate that their comments are personal and not intended to represent the views of the organization.

        by heinrich on Fri May 06, 2005 at 12:34:15 PM PST

    •  adfg

      The FEC might be interested.

      by SarahLee on Fri May 06, 2005 at 12:24:19 AM PST

  •  Don't be naive

    Those are the tactics of the right. They are already going after black churches across the USA for being too political.

    The right loves to have us feed their bizarre perscution complex.
    Far better to spend those energies actually doing something good for someone.

    by pHunbalanced on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:33:41 PM PST

    •  Nuh-uh.

      If you are a church you have a tax exemption.

      The reason for this tax exemption is as a part of the deal between churches and the state. That deal, engraved in the First Amendment, was an understanding that as long as churches stayed out of the government the government would stay out of the churches (through tax breaks, among other things).

      If they, as they have here, break their end of the deal then the US government ought not hold up its end of the deal either.

      These people want it both ways. Fred Phelps, for example, launders thousands (if not hundreds of thousands or millions) of dollars through his "church" even though it's basically an extension of his family and a platform for his own personal politics.

      They are breaking the rules.

      This is not just some baseless harassment for revenge. They have crossed a line (either with this act or previously) and do not deserve to be treated otherwise.

      by Shapeshifter on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:50:38 PM PST

      •  Not that I disagree

        but if a church decides to throw out some members, what legal recourse would the excommunicatees (neologism?) have?

        The mistake they made, it seems to me, is doing it in within the confines of a meeting, as opposed to sending them letters and preparing restraining orders. Springing it on these people as a suprise in front of the whole group, that seems like some kind of coercive, threatening, inciteful behavior.

        Don't see how this can't get airplay though. This is one horrendous PR move. GW will have to say something to placate, whereas he prefers utter silence on the subject.

        by mrblifil on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:07:20 PM PST

        •  This isn't a church

          it's a cult (but then I think extreme fundies are all cultists anyway.)

          The church should suffer in its pocketbook - be sued, lose its tax exempt standing, etc. but seriously, why on earth would the "expelled" members want back in to a cult?

          by hopesprings on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:58:54 PM PST

        •  None, or a little...

          Depending on what sort of recourse you refer to.

          The churches are private institutions and can thusly determine who can and there is no legal recourse in terms of forcing them to accept membership from or deny membership to certain people or groups of people. For example, many churches have tossed out GLBT (or at leats: openly GLBT) people.

          However, churches also recieve special favors based on the recognition of the importance of separation of church and state. This is, as i noted, a bargain struck collectively by the state and the churches in which each side promises to stay out of the other's collective business.

          A church that throws out all its Democrats because they are members of the Democratic Party has broken its side of the bargain, in my view*. Thus the one recourse these members have is to alert the government to the fact that this church is no longer uphold its side of the bargain and let the government deal with it as it will.

          Of course, as we saw in the last election, the government itself has been infiltrated by people who flat-out do not "believe" in separation of church and state and furthermore believe in subjugation of state to church. The reason i say we saw that last election is because a number of churches flat-out began endorsing Republican policies and urging their members to vote for Republican candidates and (so far as i'm aware) were not denied their tax exemption even though that was the text-book example of violation of this bargain.

          Springing it on these people as a suprise in front of the whole group, that seems like some kind of coercive, threatening, inciteful behavior.

          That is the modus operandi.

          "Humiliate" and "shame" are the tools used by this sort of church to (purportedly) drive people "out of sin". They wanted to do it publically and loudly because such behavior is coercive, threatening, and inciteful. It was no mistake--i would bet on that.

          And i doubt Bush will say anything. If he can get away with avoiding comment on the threats to the Judiciary (as he has, so far as i'm aware) then he certainly won't address this with anything other than vague platitudes that will be read by the very same people who threw the Democrats out as an endorsement of their actions.

          (*: I am not a lawyer, judge, or formal legal scholar)

          by Shapeshifter on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:21:42 PM PST

          •  Thanks

            If you're not a lawyer, judge, or formal legal scholar, what the hell are you?

            And you're probably right, this will remain small potatoes and Dubya won't be distracted from his golf swing one iota. Shit.

            by mrblifil on Fri May 06, 2005 at 08:04:17 AM PST

            •  A computer scientist :P

              And Bush seems to have a problem doing more than one thing at a time. Much like Nero: he'll be golfing while DC burns.

              by Shapeshifter on Fri May 06, 2005 at 11:38:54 AM PST

        •  The have a lot of legal recourse

          There was a case with the presbyterian chuch that I grew up going to. For twelve years we met in a gym on sunday mornings. There was a legal case that went all the way to the supreme court I believe and we got our building back. Thinking about it, it may have gotten to the texas supreme court. I was a little kid though so i don't really remember it.

          The case went:

          Fundy presbyterians kicked out the other half who were more liberal.
          Liberal presbyterians sued to get thier right to use the building back
          The supreme court threw out the fundies and we got our building back

          That's the cliff note version. I should ask my mom to give me more details.

          Come to think of it, I have been terrorized by religious fundamentalists my whole fucking life. Sheesh.

          by roboton on Fri May 06, 2005 at 04:55:06 AM PST

    •  tactics

      I'm usually all for measured action, but I think you're way off base on this one.  Liberals should feel as safe selecting and going to a church as conservatives do.  The sad fact is, they don't.  By taking this kind of action, that place of "worship" is proving that they are not a church.  They should have their status taken away.

      I frankly hope that other churches that are already unwelcome to liberals will start doing the same thing.  Make these bigots expose themselves.
      

      by tunesmith on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:22:07 PM PST

      •  Liberals not feeling safe: fear hits home

        A liberal shouldn't feel scared half to death to "come out of the closet" to a new fundie friend and "admit" that she is Democrat, and furthermore a liberal, and that while she is Christian, she needs to make it clear that she doesn't share her friend's fundamentalist view that every word of the Bible is the literal and inerrant word of God--but you know what? when I hit the send button on an email to this friend in which I made my startling, scandalous confession tonight, my damn hand was shaking.

        A little while later that spooky feeling left me and I felt pretty silly about it. It would be okay--I just had to clear the air. She hasn't known me long; she'd simply mistaken me for a kind of Christian that I'm not, that's all. It's all straightened out.

        Then I came here and read this diary and I started to tremble all over again. This woman whom I barely know (but who calls, emails, and comes into my shop virtually everyday) goes to a Baptist church right here in Sacramento, and--you got it--her church belongs to the larger Baptist body, the Southern Baptist Convention, the same group that this North Carolina church belongs to.

        You know, this got to stop. All of this crap. I'm creeping around the house wondering what sort of fiery-tailed object is about to come flying through my kitchen window.

        (By the way, what catalyzed my decision to write this fundie friend of mine to disclose to her my politics (etc.) was the comment she made the other day that Democrats are really "leftists," "extremists," and "completely out there, like Jerry Springer. Ugh! And he's running for office-hah hah!")

        by aitchdee on Fri May 06, 2005 at 01:28:02 AM PST

        •  Good for you, AitchDee!

          You are a brave person.

          by Phoenix Woman on Fri May 06, 2005 at 05:53:19 AM PST

          •  Thanks!

            She called today but didn't mention my letter at all. She said she was going out of town, and didn't know how long she'd be gone. At that was it.

            Good.

            by aitchdee on Fri May 06, 2005 at 07:50:57 PM PST

    •  Last Time This Happened

      they went after the Jews.

      by Limelite on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:34:38 PM PST

      •  Maybe those excommunicated should...

        sew Blue 'D's  onto their shirts and turn up next Sunday sitting on the church steps blocking the entrance?
        Then,wait for the police to drag them away infront of the TV cameras.

        by comrade on Thu May 05, 2005 at 10:17:01 PM PST

        •  I LOVE THAT IDEA!!! n/t

          by Lainie on Thu May 05, 2005 at 11:37:54 PM PST

          •  GREAT IDEA!!!

            by Alizaryn on Thu May 05, 2005 at 11:59:11 PM PST

            •  Brilliant!!!

              I hope someone gets this idea to them! Got any ideas, anyone?

              by eddieb061345 on Fri May 06, 2005 at 04:54:49 AM PST

        •  Blue D's

          I love that......You know what this will do is piss off alot of Republicans as well for making them look like idiots.

          by Mikecan1978 on Fri May 06, 2005 at 05:40:44 AM PST

    •  But there's a huge difference

      Churches are allowed to express political viewpoints to their congregations. Most do.

      They are absolutely forbidden, however, from making adherence to a political party, or voting for a particular candidate, a condition of membership.

      For this they should lose their churching license. We should scream to high heaven if they don't.

      This is a battle we MUST fight.

      by OuijaBoy on Fri May 06, 2005 at 07:24:11 AM PST

      •  No they aren't

        "They are absolutely forbidden, however, from making adherence to a political party, or voting for a particular candidate, a condition of membership."

        Simply not true.  If a church views abortion as being moreally/religiously wrong, they have every right to deny membership to those who support such.

        Simply, if candidate A supports abortion, and candidate B does not support abortion, voting for A is voting for abortion and against your religion's views on the issue, and voting for B is following your religion's views on the matter (against abortion).

        Let's look at this from a different position.

        Instead the issue being between Bush and Kerry, let's take anyone and the white supremacist, who advocates eugenics and the like, from Tenn who won a primary.  Would everyone here be so offended had a church kicked out its members who voted for the nutjob?

        by jhancock on Fri May 06, 2005 at 10:18:41 AM PST

        •  As long as they want to pay taxes on tithes

          they can exclude whomever they choose.

          They are specifically forbidden from making political party affiliation - or voting for or against a particular candidate - a condition of membership. By doing so they are in effect engaging in campaign activity.

          chassit posted the IRS link above. Here's the meaty part:

          "In addition, it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate at all in campaign activity for or against political candidates."

          They are allowed to condemn it, they are allowed to make suggestions - but they are not allowed to compel members to vote one way or another in order to remain a member of the church.

          And regarding your last question:

          I would certainly be offended if ANY church kicked out ANY members for ANY political reasons. Period. You made up the double standard, not me.

          by OuijaBoy on Fri May 06, 2005 at 11:22:16 AM PST

          •  Read the IRS info again

            "In addition, it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate at all in campaign activity for or against political candidates."

            Kicking someone out of the church because they voted for a political party that goes against your religious views is different from the above.

            "By doing so they are in effect engaging in campaign activity."

            Oh, who's campaign?  And what benefit is being provided to the campaign?

            What legislation was the church attempting to influence?  What campaign was it participating in?

            " but they are not allowed to compel members to vote one way or another in order to remain a member of the church."

            Sure they are.  They are not allowed to spend the majority of their time trying to influence legislation, nor are they allowed to participate in a campaign.  They are allowed to kick out members that disagree with their religious views.

            "I would certainly be offended if ANY church kicked out ANY members for ANY political reasons. Period. You made up the double standard, not me."

            Well, that's pretty ridiculous.  What exactly is a church to do when a matter is both political and religous?  

            by jhancock on Fri May 06, 2005 at 11:32:40 AM PST

            •  All remaining parishoners

              know the consequences of voting Democratic, so in effect they're participating in future political activity.

              All matters are "both political and religious," but it's a cop-out not to draw the important distinctions between them.

              If your pastor says "I feel strongly that you should vote for Bush, since he is opposed to abortion," that's acceptable, as long as there are no conditions attached to it.

              What if he says "I expect you to vote for Bush, since he is opposed to abortion. If you vote for Kerry, you're going to Hell." This is not as acceptable, but it would be hard to make a legal case that this was de facto engaging in campaign activity. Unless it could be proven that your pastor had, in fact, successfully damned you to Hell because of your Kerry vote. Otherwise no tangible consequences, so no case.

              But if he says "you must vote for Bush or you're not welcome here anymore," that actually violates the statute. Your vote for Kerry means you can no longer worship with your family, friends and neighbors. You have been discriminated against, for one, and the church has held the threat of excommunication over your head to compel your vote.

              Churches are not allowed to participate directly in politics, period. Maybe it is true that one's vote has religious and moral implications, but no organization is allowed to compel you to relinquish that choice.

              Most churches accomplish the same kind of discrimination in much subtler ways. In this instance, however, it is obvious that the mystical line separating church from state has been egregiously crossed.

              by OuijaBoy on Fri May 06, 2005 at 12:22:41 PM PST

              •  ehh...

                "know the consequences of voting Democratic, so in effect they're participating in future political activity."

                Really, who's campaign--and again, what benfits are they providing for the campaign?

                There is a big difference between having an influence on a parishoner's voting in the future and actively participating in a campaign.

                "Your vote for Kerry means you can no longer worship with your family, friends and neighbors."

                Let's be honest here, its not voting for Kerry, its voting for things that are against the Church's laws.  So yes, if you go against the Church's rules, you will be kicked out of the church.  The fact that issues the church is (and has been) interested in have been politicized doesn't mean that the church is unallowed to discipline internally (and yes, getting kicked out is a form of discipline) without losing tax-exempt status.  

                "Churches are not allowed to participate directly in politics, period."

                Ding, ding, ding.  You're the big winner.  You just hit the nail squarely on the head.  Churches are not allowed to DIRECTLY participate.  Direct participation.  This was not direct participation.

                "Maybe it is true that one's vote has religious and moral implications, but no organization is allowed to compel you to relinquish that choice."

                No organization can force you to give up your choice, but organizations can penalize you for your choices.  

                If the individuals in question had a RIGHT to worship at that church you would have a much better case.  But they only have an inherent right to worship in general.

                And its not that a vote has both moral and religous implications, its that a vote has both political and religous implications.

                "Most churches accomplish the same kind of discrimination in much subtler ways."

                Discrimination isn't always bad.

                "In this instance, however, it is obvious that the mystical line separating church from state has been egregiously crossed."

                The mystical line that reads:

                " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"?
                

                by jhancock on Fri May 06, 2005 at 12:53:10 PM PST

                •  "Discrimination isn't always bad"?

                  Nice sentiment.

                  Except that it's ILLEGAL in this case.

                  You want to discriminate? Have a country club. Or a cult. Can't do it if you want legal status as a church.

                  Sorry, you're just wrong. I give up trying to explain it to you.

                  by OuijaBoy on Fri May 06, 2005 at 01:28:00 PM PST

                  •  well,

                    it's not.  Discrimination can have great public value.  Police, fire and the military all discriminate in a physical way--you must meet X standard to get it in.  And that has value, cause if I am ever uncocnious in a burning building I want the firman to be able to rescue me without having to call for help from three of his coworkers (and I am a string bean type fellow).

                    "You want to discriminate? Have a country club. Or a cult. Can't do it if you want legal status as a church."

                    Actually you're wrong.  The Bob Jones precedent does not apply universally, only to things that are against public interest/policy.  So, discriminating against blacks is out, discriminating against people with different religious views is not.  Its really wouldn't make sense if a Catholic church had to provide service to Hindus.  

                    Churches can still legally discriminate against homosexuals, as it has not yet been made illegal-- so a church can currently refuse to marry a gay couple without risking its tax-exempt status.

                    "Sorry, you're just wrong. I give up trying to explain it to you."

                    Well, I still have hopes for you.  I hope that you will realize the difference between direct participation in politics, and indirectly participating in politics (and you seemed so close).  I also hope that you may see the difference between discriminating against someone solely on the color of their skin and discriminating agianst someone who doesn't share your religious views.

                    And while they are extreme, they are still religious.  The "victims" here (or at least one that I've seen quoted in this thread) have stated that the basis for the boot was abortion and gay marriage.  So yes, it happenned to democrats (I assume, although some could have been republicans who voted for Kerry), but its because they were supporting views that are anathema to the church (and by the church, I mean this one specific church).

                    But hey, believe what you will until some expert on TV or whatver tells you that indirect is not the same as direct.

                    by jhancock on Fri May 06, 2005 at 02:37:58 PM PST

                    •  You still don't get it.

                      No worries mate. I think it would be fairly easy to prove in court that the behavior of this particular church violates the IRS rule.

                      You don't think so. But don't condescend to me and try and couch it in semantics.

                      Jebus, the whole effing system is about semantics. You know that.

                      by OuijaBoy on Fri May 06, 2005 at 07:37:12 PM PST

  •  You Mean Call the Republicans?

    The Republican IRS? The Republican courts? The Republican Attorney General? The Republican building code enforcers? The Republican bureau of faith based initiatives?

    by Gooserock on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:35:14 PM PST

    •  Have we really lost that much?

      I'm not naive, but the gears of government haven't all been totally lost. If they have, we would have to take up arms - no kidding. And in any case, it's worth fighting anyway to force such presumed Republican control on the nonpartisan governmental offices out into the open.

      by eugene on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:38:19 PM PST

      •  good advice

        since it will give a good indicator of whether or not things have gotten bad enough to fall back to the last defense line of a free people.

        If it works, great.  If it doesn't work?

        Worry and arm.

        by skippythebox on Fri May 06, 2005 at 01:04:37 AM PST

      •  Then take up arms.

        Right now, their side has almost all the guns.

        by corvo on Fri May 06, 2005 at 07:31:49 AM PST

        •  But of course,

          just practice with them.  Don't shoot, except in self-defense.  :-)

          by corvo on Fri May 06, 2005 at 07:33:42 AM PST

    •  A low-level IRS office

      may not be ideological at all. I don't think the Nazification program has reached that level yet.

      by Smallbottle on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:41:41 PM PST

      •  Also,

        Many workers at the IRS, whatever their politcal views, I'm sure, have a work ethic and are willing to do their jobs.

        I'm a proud liberal and also a history teacher. I don't lie about history to my students to make liberals look better than we are. Likewise, I'm sure even many Republicans working in the IRS will do their job properly when called upon to do so.

        by foxfire burns on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:12:19 PM PST

    •  I think that you are wrong...

      ..about the civil servants. The courts, for the most part are independent (See Schiavo). The Republican attorney General, well, ok.

      by waztec on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:47:15 PM PST

    •  As a federal employee...

      ...let me reassure you that most of the government is not "Republican".  It's neutral, politically, and when it comes right down to it, many (if not most) government employees are Democrats.

      by Jonathan on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:05:03 PM PST

      •  That can't be right...

        So you're saying that Democrats staff many levels of the government? As a great Sicilian once said: "that's inconceivable!"

        Who could imagine a Democrat taking a relatively thankless job for the pure enjoyment of doing a civic duty, working for your fellow citizens?

        Oh, and the dry sarcasm was free of charge.

        by zeitshabba on Fri May 06, 2005 at 07:21:11 AM PST

  •  yes, the IRS!

    YES, call the IRS!  Look folks, most of the people who work at IRS are career civil servants who are not ideological.  They are professionals who are doing a job they recognize is unpopular but necessary, so they are used to taking flak and being tough.

    The chuch in question violated the law.  The law on tax-exempt religious, charitable, scientific, and other "public-benefit nonprofit corporations" states explicitly that these entities are not allowed to support or endorse any candidate for public office, or any piece of pending legislation.  

    The church has established a political test for membership and given an institutional endorsement of a particular candidate for public office.  That's illegal as hell.  According to the law they should lose their tax exempt status for doing that.  This means they will be socked with a large tax bill, and could end up losing their land & buildings as a result.  They could try to seek refuge via bankruptcy, but in doing so would expose themselves as rank hypocrites of the worst order (not that this is as significant a sanction as a financial penalty of course!).  

    Get hold of any tax advisor and ask about this one, and s/he'll tell you exactly the same thing.  Then get an attorney who specializes in tax litigation.  Find one who will take this as a pro-bono issue if possible, because its implications are huge.  Then have the attorney make contact with IRS at the appropriate level.  S/he will know how to inititate the lawsuit and make sure IRS follows through.  

    Once again for emphasis:  you need attorneys for this.  But it can be won.  And a judgement in tax court could be cited as precedent when going after Phelps, Robertson, Dobson, and the rest of the American Taliban.  

    Do it, now!  Don't wait another day!

    by G2geek on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:19:58 PM PST

    •  I reported it to the

      ACLU of North Carolina (they have the lawyers to take this on)

      [e-mail]

      www.aclu.org

      PLEASE ALSO REPORT IT - Let's make sure they get on this right away.

      by JLFinch on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:27:02 PM PST

    •  there's freedom of association ...

      ... meaning that a church can make up whatever arbitrary rules it wants.  However, it only gets a tax exemption if it follows the rules.  Forcing its members to endorse Republicans only means no tax exemption.  If they pay taxes on all contributions they receive, they can carry on.
      

      by Joe Buck on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:55:44 PM PST

      •  It may not be tax exempt

        I have been listening to gun-toting pirate radio in Austin and there are several splinter churches from the south that are gladly paying taxes in order to be more politically active.

        by roboton on Fri May 06, 2005 at 04:58:28 AM PST

      •  Even if the church pays taxes...

        contributions from the flock better not be showing up in the individual congregant's itemized deductions.  

        There's plenty for the IRS to look into.  

        by yamalicious on Fri May 06, 2005 at 06:47:59 AM PST

  •  Plus, now you have the pastor

    alleging that the parishioners were thrown out for "other reasons." Sounds like a big fat case of libel to me.

    by mrblifil on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:25:10 PM PST

  •  A small church like this...

    they can dissolve and re-organize, right? new name, etc., clean slate with IRS. I don't think you can reach out and touch them, even if you wanted to. Don't be distracted by this stuff, imho. They want to tie up the ACLU with this penny ante stuff. Its not worth it.  This is not like Kennedy is gonna order the Guard in.... These folks are exercising their freedom of association, imho. If they do some other shit, maybe its worth it, but the shallow pockets deal holds true here. They got nothin, so they got nothin to lose.

    by seesdifferent on Fri May 06, 2005 at 05:37:21 AM PST

    •  The symbolism is important.

      Plus, they make a new church and invite their old members "back".

      Okay, the Democrats show up again. They are denied membership again.

      Guess what the next step is!

      by Shapeshifter on Fri May 06, 2005 at 11:48:41 AM PST

  •  Oh, I love this!!!

    They are clearly working for one political party now. There is a case to be made!!

    by bella on Fri May 06, 2005 at 02:44:09 PM PST

•  Holy shit

  the rest of the congregation cheered as the Democrats were told to leave?

  That is some scary, Nazi-like behavior from people who supposedly follow Jesus.

  Anyone else think it's actually a good thing that more churches do that and it gets publicized?  People need to see how far we have gone.

  by getmeoutofdixie on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:07:39 PM PST

  •  Oh, lord

    just clicked on your link and, wouldn't you know it, it's in North Carolina.

    Sometimes I am so embarrassed and defensive about living here.  Heck, you could tell that just from reading my name.

    Thank goodness for the local Democratic organizations to let me know I'm not alone here.

    by getmeoutofdixie on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:10:19 PM PST

    •  That is the reason why

      I no longer go to North Carolina for vacation.

      by newfie on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:42:50 PM PST

      •  I hear you

        but, just so you know.

        A large percentage of NC residents are from up north...NY, Chicago and Philly area...and I'm from Cleveland.

        by getmeoutofdixie on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:45:48 PM PST

        •  Yeah I know

          I am very conflicted.  But for now I will boost the economy up here for a while.  And in Canada.  No offense.

          by newfie on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:07:10 PM PST

      •  Lots of progressives in NC

        Just won't find many in the rural counties.  Dirt poor and republican, what a scam.

        by debraz on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:04:19 PM PST

      •  You don't know much

        about North Carolina, then, newfie.  According to the story, 40 members left in protest.  From the look of that church, I'd say that a good percentage of the congregation.  Eh, I guess that's one less condescending yankee we'll have this summer.  Hope our economy can handle it.

        by gogol999 on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:48:40 PM PST

    •  Where in nc...

      Where in NC is this?

      I live in Stokes county, very redneck, but atleast public schools are still teaching evolution and real sex ed

      by Hari Rothstein on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:08:58 PM PST

      •  Its here in the hills

        about 35 miles from me.

        by Redst3 on Fri May 06, 2005 at 03:39:24 AM PST

    •  I have a dear friend in NC

      And she's a native. A very liberal native. I try to be very careful about the stereotypes, because they understandably piss folks like her off.

      by Magenta on Fri May 06, 2005 at 07:04:35 AM PST

      •  adf

        is a native far left liberal...

        by bsmcneil on Fri May 06, 2005 at 07:39:10 AM PST

      •  Crazy things can happen

        as a close friend of mine was raised Southern Baptist in Polk County, NC (very close to Waynesville) and is now a Dem with a biology degree. Just think of it, she believes in evolution and all sorts of other crazy theories like the earth being round! How anti-Christian of her!

        by TexSux on Sat May 07, 2005 at 03:32:28 PM PST

  •  You are absolutely right it's Nazi sh*t

    Its how the Nazi party created a 1 party system, starting with the Socialist Democratic Party.  Demonizing them just like this. Expelling them from various functions, just like this.  And you know how the rest went.
    ~Lissy

    by JessicaDrewSW on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:17:02 PM PST

  •  Who knows the size of the

    congregation?  Are talking 5,000? 20,000?

    by JLFinch on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:28:15 PM PST

    •  About 400 n/t

      by GN1927 on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:52:09 PM PST

      •  All this for 400?

        of which there are now fewer than 350?  

        So does it belong to some bigger Baptist faith or convention or something that we should watch to see whether it has a wider effect?

        by Cream City on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:56:33 PM PST

        •  finally, somebody asked the right question

          The major denomination it's part of is the Southern Baptist Convention, and what we need to watch for is... is this just a single bunch of whackos or the start of a fundamental realignment?
          

          by alizard on Thu May 05, 2005 at 11:01:18 PM PST

          •  still...

            I'm more concerned that 7/8 did not end it.  

            What also bothers me is that the people on the video were OLD.  These weren't young, punk, smartasses like myself.  These were ELDERLY members of the church.  Methinks (but doesn't know) that it was the  younger crowd that ousted them.

            It will be interesting to see what, if any, response the Souther Baptist Convention gives.

            by chassit on Thu May 05, 2005 at 11:08:25 PM PST

            •  Younger crowd is right...

              In my experience, older Southern Baptists are less conservative than the younger church members.  This is certainly true in my mother's church.  At one time they tried to drive her out, and she is a conservative Republican - she just opposed a move to purge female Sunday School teachers.  (!!!)

              by timeno on Thu May 05, 2005 at 11:22:26 PM PST

              •  My Mom did leave

                because of the GOP influence. She didn't like where they were going. She's elderly.

                by Redst3 on Fri May 06, 2005 at 03:46:19 AM PST

              •  The South has a history of Democratic governance

                and not for many positive reasons. The "Party of White Supremacy" still has some holdovers. I'm not saying that these folks from Waynesville are of this ilk, but family loyalties to the Democratic Party, out of tradition if nothing else, tend to reside in the older population.

                by TexSux on Sat May 07, 2005 at 03:39:30 PM PST

            •  This is true.

              This is one thing i think we miss.

              The old conservatives tend to be more "status-quo" types.

              The young ones are the dangerous ones.

              If you listen carefully you can hear people like Dobson and his Radical Cleric friends. One of the things they go absolutely jump-for-joy bonkers about is that more young people are going radical Christianazi style. It's true that overall the next generation is more liberal than the previous, but it is also true that this next generation is more polarized.

              It's the younger crowd that doesn't know better--that doesn't have the lifetime of experience to temper their fanaticism--that starts doing stuff like this.

              It was young revolutionaries in France, Germany, Russia, and (yes) America. Some of our Founding Fathers were only 21 when the Declaration of Independence was signed. Some of them were much older, yes (Ben Franklin was the oldest, if my public education does not fail me, at 70), but certainly it was the young who fought the war.

              It would not surprise me at all if it were the younger members of this church who cast out the old. The Baptists have been more conservative as of late--but they were not always that way. Martin Luther King was a Baptist, for instance, and he was practically a Communist. But the Baptist church has been taken over by radicals with a political agenda...

              by Shapeshifter on Fri May 06, 2005 at 12:03:38 PM PST

              •  Gotta Keep Your Baptists Straight

                MLK was a black Baptist, these folks are white Baptists.  Way way back the white Baptists split into two groups over slavery.  The Southern Baptist Convention formed from those churches that believed slavery was OK/authorized by the Bible/ordained by God.  The northern churches became the American Baptist Convention, anti-slavery, pro-abolition.  As you can guess, the two groups have developed their doctrines in different directions, with the ABC being much, much more liberal (ordination of women is old hat there for example, whereas any church that ordained women in the SBC was eventually driven out).  When the fundies took over the SBC in the 80's, another splinter group, the Southern Baptist Alliance, also formed (those thinking folks who still believed in separation of church and state).  None of these groups, however, is any group that MLK's church would have belonged to, because religion was and still is segregated to a greater degree than almost anything else in this country (albeit largely by choice having to do a lot with worship style).

                by md jeffersonian on Fri May 06, 2005 at 06:17:39 PM PST

                •  Erk... forgot about that (N/T)

                  by Shapeshifter on Fri May 06, 2005 at 07:29:31 PM PST

          •  Thanks -- and it was answered

            elsewhere in this unwieldy thread.  Southern Baptist Convention.  Seems to let its churches go their own way on such things.

            But the even more important question to me is why so many reactions here are against religious freedom -- including by idiot Southern Baptists?

            I'm all for publicizing this idiocy, but some of the reactions are rather frighteningly intolerant for liberals!

            by Cream City on Thu May 05, 2005 at 11:11:14 PM PST

            •  political machine

              I think you'll find the most basic answer in the discussion of its tax status.  Churches are not allowed to be a political machine and be tax-free.  By kicking out the Democrats, the church crossed the line from being a charitable organization to being a political machine for the Republican Party.  

              There's also a general feeling among fellow Christians that liberal Christians are not welcome, and we find this protestable within our own faith.  

              by chassit on Thu May 05, 2005 at 11:25:26 PM PST

  •  outside of

    the research triange, NC is one hell of an armpit.  no offense to those residing there - i've done my time.

    by Cedwyn on Thu May 05, 2005 at 10:20:05 PM PST

•  That's just fine

  It's clear these folks have no clue as to what Jesus Christ was getting at that they should just ride their own hate-wagon to condemnation.

  This same thing is happening in more subtle ways all over Christianity today. In my denomination, it is more often that the right-wing minority are voluntarily walking out and starting their own little churches.

  In the long run, it will all blow over. In the short run, let it be clear that liberal Christians aren't purging conservatives from their congregations. What would Jesus do?

  by pHunbalanced on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:09:43 PM PST

  •  What would Jesus do? Put on a bumper sticker

    thanks to our friends at the incomparably hilarious Landover Baptist:

    

    Not to slight the folks at Objective: Christian Ministries, whose humor is rather less sophomoric but clearly more evil.

    

    by seesdifferent on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:31:13 PM PST

    •  Bad poetry??!!??

      I went to the Objective:Christian Ministries link.  Apparently "certain elements in the anti-Christian movement have decided to launch a character assassination campaign against" the folks that put together this site.  

      Advice to believers, on the site (boldface theirs):  "Any message you read claiming to be from Jim Carlson or any other OBJECTIVE: Ministries member that contains vulgarities, sexual innuendo, bad poetry, or other un-Christian sentiments is to be considered a FRAUD and ignored."

      Bad poetry is an un-Christian sentiment and indicator of evil anti-Christian character assassination attempts?  Who knew?
       

      by RobotsRUs on Fri May 06, 2005 at 04:40:02 AM PST

  •  no doubt...

    jesus' best friend was a prostitute for cryin' out loud!  what the fuck is wrong with these people?!!?

    by Cedwyn on Thu May 05, 2005 at 11:37:46 PM PST

    •  Actually

      Mary Magdaline wasn't a prostitute.  This has been a common misconception for a few hundred years, but the prostitute and Mary were two seperate people.

      Mary was just a cool chick who "got it".  And was the first to see Jesus alive after the resurection.

      by scottincincy on Fri May 06, 2005 at 07:18:39 AM PST

  •  i was looking for a good place to post my snark

    But don't you know that Jesus said unto bush, cast out the democrats from your church, for they want to help the poor and educate the young.

    by ejpoeta on Sat May 07, 2005 at 03:34:53 AM PST

•  Brand Jesus

  Now found on cigarettes, heavy artillery, TV shows, and THE TINY FRIKKIN LETTER ON YOUR VOTER REGISTRATION CARD!

  Welcome to the beginning of the Christian endgame.

  Wait until it starts hitting business.  Hope you have your CERTIFIED Christian credentials when you go and fill out that employment application.  And no, I'm not kidding.

  by Palladiate on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:13:11 PM PST

  •  It happens already

     Here in Utah, tho they would never be so brazen as to do it openly. Not yet, anyway. Many smaller businesses check for your church membership before hiring. Like I said they can be subtle, some have a token Gentile, but many are Morman only.

    by high uintas on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:33:11 PM PST

  •  in 1969 i interviewed for a job

    at cambell college to teach theatre.  the man conducting the interview asked me point blank which church i belonged to.  he stated that all of their faculty attended church every sunday and assumed i would do so as well.

    needless to say, i left the interview and never called back - was so angry i could spit.

    religious is personal, and i'll be damned if i follow the fascist theocrat neonazis!  then or now!

    sadly, i was born in n.c. and am ashamed of the state.  we need to work with liberal organized religious organizations and begin building a power base to fight these domestic terrorists before it is too late.

    jesus, if he came today, would be the first one cast out or put to death!  how very sad.

    by edrie on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:02:55 PM PST

    •  Ha!

      I can top that.  During election season they have profiles of all the local candidates...you know, name, political affiliation, professional experience...AND CHURCH AFFILLIATION!

      Welcome to the South.

      by getmeoutofdixie on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:30:50 PM PST

      •  hahaha

        that reminds me of this crazy-ass pamphlet i got in VA:

        "to vote for bill clinton is a sin against god."

        by Cedwyn on Thu May 05, 2005 at 11:39:37 PM PST

  •  The Mark Of The Beast.

    'Nuff said.

    by Irfo on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:53:41 PM PST

  •  I guess you missed the AP article

    this morning:
    http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=050506&cat=frontpage&st=frontpageworkplac e_chaplain_050506&src=abc

    Where companies are hiring chaplains to minister to their floc.., er employees.

    I've been asked a number of times during job interviews about religion.  Usually it is if I go to church, asked in an off handed manner.

    I'm all for isolating these people right back.  Why on earth a more accomadating christian church doesn't try to take in these people who were kicked out is beyond me.  I'd even form my own church.  Pitch a tent on my front lawn and enjoy the tax exempt status myself.

    by Yankee in exile on Fri May 06, 2005 at 06:01:04 AM PST

    •  Yea

      We had "voluntary" bible study at work.  You know, "completely VOLUNTARY for the MANAGEMENT."

      Yea.  I think that's when I started questioning my views.  I'd be a whore for money.  I wouldn't be a TEMPLE whore for money.

      by Palladiate on Fri May 06, 2005 at 06:12:41 AM PST

  •  Yep

    Not only is it "brand Jesus" but it's exactly the type of thing these people tell their flocks to watch out for in the 'end times' -- that you'll have to have a 666 bar code on your head or some shit so you can buy bread. That They (i.e., the anitchrist and his minions) will check your identity and if you don't have one (i.e., if you're one of the 'saved') you'll be persecuted and shipped off to holocaust-like camps.

    This is the stuff they used to scare the shit out of people with when I was in a wacko Baptist church as a kid.

    by AggieDemocrat on Fri May 06, 2005 at 10:26:32 AM PST

•  Something smells

   off about this story.

  ARE YOU SURE?

  by SFOrange on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:13:14 PM PST

  •  I was extremely skeptical too

    But three separate DUers confirmed seeing it or having someone who saw the broadcast; and one poster called up the station which confirmed the story.

    by georgia10 on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:15:52 PM PST

    •  Interesting tidbit

      WLOS is a Sinclair station.  I'm just sayin...

      by getmeoutofdixie on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:17:54 PM PST

      •  After all the dissing of the media

        on DKos as spreading untruths but then considering your corroboration to be a couple of other people who also heard the media story . . .  and then after saying that you don't know if it's true . . . well, at least update to say that in your diary, not buried here.

        Too many people on DKos still think that Kerry was excommunicated by the Catholic church, or that the U.S. bishops even agreed to the stupid Vatican letter when they did not . . . just because someone said so in a diary, and then had to backtrack down about a hundreds posts, but didn't update the diary.

        by Cream City on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:27:54 PM PST

  •  I smell it, too

    I follwoed the link and didn't see the story. The story sounds so outrageous, that I find it hard to believe. (If I had a better computer, I'd search the internet on this story myself.) It sounds more like something a talk show host made up as a joke and then someone reported it as true. Or something you might read at The Onion. Or maybe there are details missing.

    If the story is true, it's outrageous.

    by foxfire burns on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:18:31 PM PST

    •  The Saddest thing of all....

      Is that we cant automatically say its false... :-(

      by brandon30721 on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:21:14 PM PST

    •  As I said

      The broadcast was confirmed by some senior posters at DU.  Now, notice the question mark in the title? ;)  I don't know if this is a true story, but I am pretty sure the story is reported and this is not an internet dupe.  

      I'm still scavanging for info though, so I'll update accordingly.

      by georgia10 on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:22:23 PM PST

      •  And how did they know how they voted?

        No secret ballot in North Carolina?

        by Cream City on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:34:31 PM PST

        •  Hmmm I wonder

          let's count the ways they'd know:

          -bumper sticker
          -"friends" ratting on friends
          -open discusions of political leanings

          BTW..downthread, the newsroom confirmed it.

          by getmeoutofdixie on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:43:47 PM PST

          •  So I went downthread

            and don't see a link yet, just an anonymous blogger saying they called the newsroom.

            Sorry, this is a huge and inflammatory charge to make without evidence -- just like all the wrong diaries that were posted about the U.S. bishops, Kerry, etc.

            When there is some link to some evidence -- then it deserves a diary, you bet!

            by Cream City on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:54:32 PM PST

            •  My name is Kate

              and I called.  You should too- the extension to the newsroom is 4567.

              by sandblaster on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:57:11 PM PST

            •  OK.

              But just so you know, I'm the type of person that wouldn't post this if it were a dupe.  I think my history on this site proves that I try and do my research before thrusting something out there into the dkosphere. Here, I did my research, found the evidence that the incident actually occured to be corrobated by independent sources, and so I put my name on the line and posted.  I take my credibility here quite seriously, and was researching this for a good hour or so beforehand...besides, I'm a "trusted user."  Trust me! ;)

              by georgia10 on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:03:26 PM PST

            •  Respectfully...

              If you've been around as long as I think you have, I should think you know of georgia10 and her stellar work here, her meticulous research and her trustworthiness.

              She is the very MODEL of a Trusted User, the genuine article.

              But, as someone else suggested, if you need another source, call the number yourself and confirm the story.

              by Maryscott OConnor on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:17:37 PM PST

              •  I know she is, and I know you are

                but I am seeing the posts that suggest others are jumping to conclusions rather than reading her question mark for what it means.

                (Btw, I just hate that technique when used by the MSM -- rather than a question mark on a rumor, I wish they also would wait until they have a solid story.)

                So I think we have to take care, even with diarists of solid repute, to not let a discussion go farther than the evidence takes us.

                And I don't call newsrooms, because I worked in one -- and I've taught others who work in them, and a lot of them answer the phones . . . and they haven't graduated yet, and they're C students.  I wait to see the story posted.  The station has a website; the story isn't there.

                by Cream City on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:31:00 PM PST

                •  HEY, watch it - the president was a C student

                  oh never mind!
                  

                  by xanthe on Fri May 06, 2005 at 04:03:04 AM PST

                  •  You got it! (and you cracked me up) (n/t)

                    by Cream City on Fri May 06, 2005 at 10:30:40 AM PST

              •  Now there's an update with a link to the evidence

                and it's a solid story.  Thanks!

                It stinks, no question about it.

                But I guess this is what religious freedom means.  Darn that Constitution.

                by Cream City on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:37:57 PM PST

        •  Presumably...

          Through intimidation. Not necessarily threats of phsyical violence, but through creating a hostile environment.

          I mean... if my church said "We no longer admit Democrats. If you are a Democrat you must leave." i sure wouldn't stick around.

          I could lie about it, but why? The only reason for which i would stay in a church like that is to infiltrate and sabotage them. Or if leaving was more risky than staying--but we'd have to get much, much worse as a nation before being un-Churched is that dangerous.

          Furthermore, there are those who are publically affiliated with political parties or who are on-record as being affiliated with a political party.

          I, for example, wrote a fairly strong-worded condemnation of the Republican Party during the 2004 elections with respect to the whole Mary Cheney issue. Does that automatically "out" me as a Democrat? No, but do you think they would call me to renounce my "evil"? You willing to bet they wouldn't?

          Here's the question, and consider the implications carefully: Do you have plausible deniability? Can you prove you are not, and never were, a member of the Democratic Party? If not, are you willing to denounce them now and never have contact with the Party or its members again?

          by Shapeshifter on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:59:55 PM PST

          •  I was in a hostile faith environment

            and that's why I'm a former Catholic.

            My church said it banned abortion and birth control, and if I didn't agree, I should leave.  

            So I did.  I don't choose to be one of those pick-and-choose Catholics.  A set of beliefs is a set of beliefs, and religious freedom means faiths get to define themselves by their beliefs just as much as I get to do so.

            I just wouldn't belong to a church that would do this -- or if I did, like these people, I wouldn't have to be asked to leave.  I guess that's what I really don't get: why, if they were liberals, were they still there?
            

            by Cream City on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:03:28 PM PST

            •  Why stick around?

              Well, i can't speak for those who did but let me propose some guesses:

              Perhaps they thought they could change things--that by running off they would be abandoning their church to the proverbial lions. That is, perhaps this was just the end in a long string of clashes between the sides (a microcosm of the Baptist Church as a whole over the last decade or three) in which the liberals were gradually losing, culminating in their removal from the church.

              Perhaps they were confused (or something like that) as to the true natures of their fellows.

              Perhaps they had too much invested in the church (friends, family, reputations, maybe even jobs) to just up and leave.

              Perhaps they just felt too afraid to stand up.

              I'm guessing that most of those who felt like you (or i) had left long ago and only a particular strain remained. The real purge probably took place over a couple years, this was just the last gasp of the remaining Democrats in that church before they were metaphorically suffocated entirely.

              by Shapeshifter on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:31:31 PM PST

              •  Yeh, I do admire

                those who stay in an institution to try to change it from within . . . to a point.

                I doubt, as you do, that this was some sudden change with a new minister or something.  So I would think this church had passed the point long ago for these Dems.

                Then again, maybe they voted for Kerry for reasons of the economy or the war!

                by Cream City on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:35:13 PM PST

                •  After all,

                  Heck, isn't that "changing the system from within" thing the main reason many of us still live stateside?

                  by demandcaring on Thu May 05, 2005 at 11:12:27 PM PST

                  •  Well, that and cash flow. n/t

                    by Heartpine on Fri May 06, 2005 at 10:32:05 PM PST

              •  Another scenario:

                One other possibility occurred to me:

                Instead of being a long, drawn-out conflict it's possible a charismatic leader with a stack of followers was suddenly installed and things went downhill faster than the Democrats could jump ship. As in "You can't quit, you're fired!"

                by Shapeshifter on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:36:15 PM PST

                •  That's precisely

                  what happened to my parents' church in 1990.  Exactly.  And it was the younger members who pushed out the older ones.  St. Peter's UCC in Hilltown, PA is now St. Peter's Reformed Church.

                  by tully monster on Fri May 06, 2005 at 05:26:53 AM PST

              •  Perhaps they follow the teachings of Christ.

                n/t

                by Skylor on Fri May 06, 2005 at 01:29:25 AM PST

            •  For the same reason my guy's grandparents would

              That generation was solidly Roosevelt democrats.  Work programs, Great Depression and all that.

              by sandblaster on Fri May 06, 2005 at 04:52:32 AM PST

            •  I'm not sure they were liberals

              I also assume most true liberals would have abandoned this church long ago. But they didn't kick people out for being liberal, they kicked out everyone who admitted to not voting for Fearless Leader. What are the odds that many of those ejected were conservatives who have realized how horrible Bush is for one reason or another? This does sound a lot like cult behavior, getting rid of the people close to you who cause you to doubt your fanaticism. It's the cult of the Shrubya.

              by srbaxley on Fri May 06, 2005 at 05:12:42 AM PST

            •  Exactly

              If you go to that gathering and you put money in that collection plate, you are supporting EVERYTHING that church does, and you're guilty by association.  True people of faith disillusioned with their church should switch their affiliation and be true to themselves (and not put money in the hands of the bad guys).

              by OrdinaryVanity on Fri May 06, 2005 at 05:27:10 AM PST

            •  I am lucky in that regard

              During election season, our pastor started off a service saying he'd been getting emails saying he needed to talk about same-sex marriage.  He said that he was not going to talk about it, and anyone who didn't like that could leave.

              That's the kind of ultimatum our church has.

              by scottincincy on Fri May 06, 2005 at 07:38:11 AM PST

  •  I Had Lots of Contact With These People

    and while I remain open minded about the particular church per se, the individual behavior falls well within plausibility.

    by Gooserock on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:38:51 PM PST

  •  This story made the morning TV news n/t

    Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshall

    by bronte17 on Fri May 06, 2005 at 05:06:11 AM PST

•  I suppose I'm asking too much--

  but I think if that had happened to me I would have had to be pried out of my seat with a crowbar....Ain't freedom of religion grand!

  by bibble on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:13:59 PM PST

  •  Freedom of religion

    to listen to sermons about beliefs you don't believe?  Why in the world would you stay?

    by Cream City on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:22:04 PM PST

    •  Well, according to most Christians I

      have ever heard speak to that issue, most people who attend church go through all kinds of internal changes, challenges, and questioning of various tenets of their faith--it should be an individual decision to leave, not an imposed one.  Why stay? For the larger principles involved.

      by bibble on Fri May 06, 2005 at 09:47:45 AM PST

•  wow

  I just read about this on LiveJournal before I saw it here.  It didn't include the details.

  I'm going to do a little searching for it.

  by OrangeClouds115 on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:14:00 PM PST

  •  found the link

    LiveJournal.

    There is the link (above).  It lacks substance but says in general that the poster lives near those excommunicated and has 1-2 details about the people themselves who were booted.

    by OrangeClouds115 on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:19:31 PM PST

    •  Yikes, yes, it lacks substance

      like, oh, the name of the church.

      by Cream City on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:29:34 PM PST

      •  typical LJ

        which is why I'm now hanging around dKos.

        by OrangeClouds115 on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:45:06 PM PST

•  It must be happening everywhere....

  Some Churches do not tolerate anything. I went to Church every time the door was opened for 3 years, and then I messed up in my life badly and the one time I needed my Church the most, they abandoned me. They never called to make sure i was comming anymore, kicked me out of the band I started and never invited me to Youth trips again. My dad got sick and was hospitalized and they never even came to see him. It made me even worse than I was for the time being.
  When they all saw the Kerry/Edwards sticker on my truck they told me I need to read my Bible and get right with God!!
  I told my youth pastor that i was going to get into politics when i graduated and he told me before i run for anything I needed to call him because we needed to have a LONG TALK. sigh It just saddens me, I loved everyone there soo much and they just disposed of me because I wasnt perfect.

  Im a Christian and Im saved, I just want to know when God registered Republican.

  Ha, I need a new Church, anyone wanna invite me?! lol.

  by brandon30721 on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:16:35 PM PST

  •  i didn't know

    that the movie Saved wasn't so far off reality.  I was pretty sure it was satire when I watched it.

    by OrangeClouds115 on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:17:45 PM PST

    •  Not so much as it should be...

      It was satirical in its intent.

      But it's hard to satire this stuff. Any satire you can write will be out-done by reality in a month.

      Any satire short of comparisons to Hitler/Stalin and Nazis/USSR or 1984 or similar, anyway. Well, i hope so at least. Ask me again in a month.

      by Shapeshifter on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:03:32 PM PST

  •  Christians?

    No. I don't think so.

    by pHunbalanced on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:24:02 PM PST

    •  It's all very sad.

      Many, many people have very little knowledge of Christianity and still call themselves Christians.

      It seems as though many who say they believe in Jesus are no more knowledgeable of the faith than a child who believes in Santa or the Easter bunny. Churches have turned into clubs or teams and not places to pursue the teachings of Christ.

      I suppose we should have seen it coming when Christmas and Easter became everything but what they are meant to be. Someday, maybe this year, the Super Bowl will be more important to people than religious holidays. Maybe it is now, is it?
       

      by Skylor on Fri May 06, 2005 at 02:03:51 AM PST

  •  Lots

    of mainline, liberal congregations around - I'm not sure what sort of neighbourhood you live in, though.  In my part of the world, it's the fundies whoa re in the minority.

    by fishhead on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:28:13 PM PST

  •  I'll invite you to mine

    But I don't worship anything.  I just try to be as caring as I can in this life and actively question myself to make sure I am not being nice w/ expectations attached.  This is the only life I have for sure, so I want to give out the energy I want the world to share.  No church.  No groups.
    You're welcome to join up, you just have to start your own branch! :)

    ~Lissy

    by JessicaDrewSW on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:30:39 PM PST

  •  Check Out Presbyterians

    if yours haven't been turned evangelical.

    You can get elected elder and help run the friggin thing.

    by Gooserock on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:37:00 PM PST

    •  Will you have to start

      murdering kitties, though?

      by hopscotch1997 on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:55:18 PM PST

    •  Presbyterians

      My local Presbyterian church has men in white robes and hoods coming out of it on Saturdays and those same people you see on Sundays in normal suits.  Klan meetings on Saturdays, church services on Sundays.  

      I assume that's not normal nationwide for the Presbyterians, like not ALL Presbyterians in Northern Ireland are Orangemen.

      by libnewsie on Thu May 05, 2005 at 11:40:09 PM PST

      •  got pictures?

        My local Presbyterian church has men in white robes and hoods coming out of it on Saturdays

        I suggest a long telephoto lens.

        Just where are you, anyway?

        by alizard on Thu May 05, 2005 at 11:50:15 PM PST

        •  Indiana

          This church is in Indiana right across from the library, which is why I don't go to the library on Saturday evenings anymore. I hate to have my son see those guys.

          I don't go to mass on Saturday nights either at my Catholic Church on the otherside of town.  It's safer on Sundays when THEY are in their church.  See one Saturday night after mass let out at our Church, three pick-up loads of the men in sheets drove through our parking lot yelling "filthy papists" and pelting us and our cars with eggs.  One of the leaders of the Indiana klan lives in town, when he's not in jail.

          by libnewsie on Fri May 06, 2005 at 12:09:23 AM PST

          •  If you want to look him up

            The klan guy's name is Berry (Jeff, I think his first name is), you can see him on the Discovery Channel show on the klan, coming out of our town courthouse.  When he's not in jail, you can tell the difference because crosses get burned in the yards of the poor Baptists and they terrorize us Catholics too.  I've gone more than once with a group from our church to help reseed lawns for the Baptists.

            This Berry guy is well-known in town, my son and I were in Taco Bell once when he came in.  The place went quiet and when he sat down with the two men he came in with...everyone else got up and moved away from them.  Growing up my Irish family often told the old stories of the Orangemen...now I live in the same town as some who just now call themselves klan instead.

            by libnewsie on Fri May 06, 2005 at 12:30:54 AM PST

            •  Reminds me

              of all those stories I heard about Martinsville during my Indiana U. days . . .

              by corvo on Fri May 06, 2005 at 07:43:37 AM PST

              •  Indiana, home of the KKK

                My husband is a Hoosier and much happier since he left, long ago. And parts of the state like Indy can be okay . . . but I had to go to the southern part of the state a few years ago, and I was freeked.  They called me "Yankee girl," and there were Confederate flags and little black-boy garden art EVERYWHERE, but not an African American person to be seen until we got back to the outskirts of Indy -- when I saw the first Hoosier of color again in a week and said, "a sign of civilization!"

                by Cream City on Fri May 06, 2005 at 12:45:42 PM PST

                •  Recon for Cream

                  I have a recon report for you, Cream.  I drove by that church this morning, slowly so I could get a good look at their sign.  They don't have "USA" on it, just the name followed by "established 1844".  I did notice that they have a daycare on the side I don't normally see.  I circled their half-block to see if I could find any other signage they might have out.  

                  Does this mean that they aren't part of the mainline church?  Mayhaps an embarrassing breakoff sect like Mel Gibson's family is for us Catholics?

                  by libnewsie on Sat May 07, 2005 at 07:07:36 PM PST

                  •  Interesting

                    Aren't you good to follow through!

                    I would expect that a PCUSA (the main group) church would say so on its sign.  So this may be in one of those that splintered off because of the main group's leadership (among mainline Prots) in tolerance re gender, race, ethnicity, gender orientation most recently, etc., etc.

                    I think the splinter groups are called, all together, Presbyterian evangelicals -- and if you know anything about Presbtyerians, yes, that's quite a contradiction in terms!

                    by Cream City on Sat May 07, 2005 at 07:50:40 PM PST

                    •  No problem

                      I was actually hoping they were mainline just so you could report them and get something done about it.  I had to drive through that area anyway because the YMCA 9-10 year old soccer team I coach had a game nearby.

                      I swear this whole area is infested with bigots, earlier this season I got some flack from parents because I had 4 hispanic kids on my team.  I told it to them straight, it was either that I coached or none of the kids would play because they couldn't get a parent volunteer.  If they wanted to try to remove those kids, I would quit. The hispanics are good kids with good parents and have every right to play.  

                      Last game, we won with three goals scored by little Enrique.  They can either coach themselves and remove the hispanic kids or get used to it.  I know I would pull my child from the soccer program if they tried to be too inclusive.  Makes me want to try to recruit some black kids from Ft. Wayne to come play soccer just to watch these nuts blow a gasket. How about some asian kids? ;)  

                      by libnewsie on Sun May 08, 2005 at 02:09:07 PM PST

                •  Yankee

                  I know how that is, they tell me I have a Canadian accent and pretend not to understand me at times.  I actually have a Michigan accent and am only guilty of just an occasional "eh".

                  One "Ya'll Belle" I worked with was always harping on me because I spoke differently from her Hee Haw accent so I took to either speaking to her in my grandfather's Dublin accent or really boggling her mind with tossing some Polish her way.  She eventually stopped.  

                  by libnewsie on Sun May 08, 2005 at 02:19:35 PM PST

                  •  I could do my great-grandma's brogue!

                    Great idea; thanks.

                    I had to repeat my hometown three times for some of the Hoosiers who said they couldn't understand me.  (Make that "unnurstan" me -- I do miss those middle consonants when down there.)

                    Thanks for the sympathy, sister Yankee, and the great ideas.  I've got to go there in two months and already am dreading the countdown of days.

                    by Cream City on Sun May 08, 2005 at 02:36:33 PM PST

                    •  Hehehehe

                      There ye go!  Give 'em hell like I do.  I used to call "Ya'll Belle" dumbass in Polish and she never knew what I was up to.  ;)  

                      by libnewsie on Sun May 08, 2005 at 03:00:58 PM PST

                      •  Let us be the worst nightmares

                        of those steel magnolias, ugh ugh ugh. . . .

                        by Cream City on Sun May 08, 2005 at 04:21:18 PM PST

                        •  Carly

                          I just tossed in a Carly CD, your tagline made me do it. :)

                          by libnewsie on Sun May 08, 2005 at 07:07:51 PM PST

                          •  The new Jerusalem -- it's coming! (n/t)

                            I picked up a 2 cd set of her best a while ago, which gave me the tagline.  The set is amazing!  (And it was about time to give up on going back to record players -- I still have her on LP's.)

                            by Cream City on Sun May 08, 2005 at 08:46:54 PM PST

                            •  I'm more of a...

                              I'm more of a James Taylor fan but I enjoy some Carly on occasion.  Have you heard their son Ben sing yet?  He sounds just like his Daddy and Sally a lot like her Mom.  

                              by libnewsie on Mon May 09, 2005 at 10:19:39 AM PST

      •  Yikes, where is this?

        Can't be Presbyterians USA!  (The mainline Presbyterians.)

        But there are a bunch of weird spinoffs -- the evangelical types noted above . . . who split because they didn't hold with the tolerance and ecumenism (they call it liberalism) of PCUSA.

        I hope the one near you is one of the weird spinoffs.  But if it says it's PCUSA -- turn 'em in to us, and we'll get on 'em.  Yikes!

        by Cream City on Thu May 05, 2005 at 11:59:20 PM PST

        •  Not Normal

          I agree these people are not normal.  The Presbyterians I knew in Michigan were good people.  

          If you want, I'll try to get the exact affliation off their sign.  I'll just have to pick a good time to do so because I don't like to get too close, since I'm a known Catholic to them.  It's a big beautiful church, one of the stone gothic looking ones.    

          by libnewsie on Fri May 06, 2005 at 12:43:25 AM PST

          •  Sure, libnewsie

            if you can do so without getting too close to the guys in white robes, I'd be interested.

            Frist is a Southern Presbyterian, btw. . . .

            by Cream City on Fri May 06, 2005 at 10:40:10 AM PST

        •  PCUSA

          Thanks for the info. A PCUSA congregation is trying to kick-start in my town; they bought the old first zappity-bap church, after the baps got some new shiny digs north of town, & are holding Sunday afternoon bible studies.

          Mrs. Road & I have both expressed to each other a desire to check 'em out; I'm definitely going to do it now.

          by dirtroad on Fri May 06, 2005 at 11:46:45 AM PST

          •  I hope it works well for you and Mrs. R.

            The PCUSA people in my area are so cool --
            ecumenical as can be, activist for all, and just as welcoming and wonderful as ever one could want. . . .

            by Cream City on Fri May 06, 2005 at 12:41:29 PM PST

      •  Whoa there

         I wonder what PCUSA or whatever governing Presbyterian body would have to say about that. Yeah. Not so normal for the ol' Presbies.

        by chassit on Fri May 06, 2005 at 12:03:08 AM PST

  •  You need a hug?

    Hugs I got plenty of. I'm not perfect either, and I'm a Christian too. When I find a church you can be sure I'll invite you.  

    by Margot on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:37:18 PM PST

    •  Isn't that the reason why

      you're Christian in the first place? Because you're NOT perfect?

      Because if you were perfect, you'd be Jesus, right?

      And if you're perfect, and you're Jesus, can I have a Porsche?

      by mmacdDE on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:14:39 PM PST

      •  a Porsche? shouldn't that be a Mercedes Benz?

        worked hard all my lifetime
        no help from my friends
        oh Lord, won't you buy me
        a Mercedes Benz.

        by TrueBlueMajority on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:32:19 PM PST

        •  I don't want a Mercedes

          I want a Porsche. Or a Crossfire.

          Of course, if all Jesus could manage was a Mercedes, I wouldn't turn it down. ;-)

          by mmacdDE on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:39:01 PM PST

          •  How about a Ford Fairlane station wagon?

            Come and get it, it's yours!  

            by Margot on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:48:12 PM PST

            •  Thank you Jesus!

              by lapin on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:32:21 PM PST

              •  I'm serious

                You want it, you got it. Of course it's the one I crashed 2 days after I got my driver's license (at the advanced age of 32) and then my husband thought it would be cool to rebuild the engine, which now lies on his workbench.  

                by Margot on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:50:09 PM PST

  •  check out

    www.faithfulamerica.org

    by OrangeClouds115 on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:43:35 PM PST

  •  My mother-in-law...

    is very happy with the Episcopalians. All the pomp of Catholism, mostly the same language... and none of the rigid dogma based in fear and hatred.

    by Maryscott OConnor on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:22:31 PM PST

    •  Lutherans: Now with Apostolic Succession!

      They're also a direct offshoot from Catholicism. However, due to the residual effects of the 19th century Pietist movement, worship styles vary from parish to parish.

      Miss Maryscott, I've been reading up on Martin Luther recently, and his rant against the papal bull of excommunication reminded me of you, with its bile and eloquence:

      So then, you impious and insensate papist, write soberly if you want to write. Whether this bull is by Eck or by the pope, it is the sum of all impiety, blasphemy, ignorance, impudence, hypocrisy, lying—in a word, it is Satan and his Antichrist.

      by hamletta on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:00:54 PM PST

    •  My fiance too-

      He's been going to the local Episcopal parish in Ashland for the past year or so. He's happy there, the intellectual climate is good for him (a lot of his co-workers at school attend there) and he's jumped in his his usual energy to a number of their programs and activities. I'm kinda hanging back a bit, given my background I need to be a little more comfortable. But hey- these people are caring for the poor, feeding the hungry, teaching their children to love- and I can't fault them for that!

      by Lainie on Fri May 06, 2005 at 12:15:03 AM PST

    •  Catholicism Lite

      is how I always thought of it.

      I was raised Episcolpalian, and loved it as a kid. But at around age 12, during the big wave of "born again" shite in the early '70s, our wacko priest turned me off religion for ever. Started speaking in tongues, casting out devils (got a cold? get an exorcism!), was anti-feminist, anti-science...

      He finally got transferred out but by that time the scales had fallen from my eyes. Too bad because I have really fond memories of the first church I had attended in San Antonio, until we moved to a rathole of a small Texas town. Couldn't wait to leave! And all the Born Agains were a big part of that sentiment.

      by worried sick on Fri May 06, 2005 at 05:10:50 AM PST

  •  keep the faith

    Stand strong with your faith, Brandon.  

    If your relationships with God and with Jesus are solid in your heart and mind, you don't need the approval of those who have traded "good will to men" for "will to power."  

    A growing number of Christians are fed-up with the Taliban-like behavior of extremists.  They tend to be fairly quiet but if you keep your eyes & ears open, you will find them.  You can build a community of good faith and good will from scratch.  It will take some effort but it is a worthy endeavor.  
    

    by G2geek on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:48:48 PM PST

  •  look in phone book

    for United Church of Christ, Unitarian (non-credal). Even some Presbyterian. Or read PastorDan right here.

    by samddobermann on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:33:52 PM PST

  •  This one's always taking new members

    Disclaimer: I'm not making fun of what must be a painful time for you. I'm just one of those people for whom humor is the preferred method for lessening pain. I thought I'd share, in case you're one too.

    It's the creation of Renee in Ohio's husband:
    

    ... "My husband describes himself as a Humanist--occasionally he says he belongs to the "Church of the Restful Sabbath", and that he honors God by not pestering Him on His day off."

    by mataliandy on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:58:18 PM PST

    •  Props to Renee in Ohio's sig.other.

      As Lenny Bruce sed:
      "Every day people are straying away from the church and going back to God."

      by bartkid on Fri May 06, 2005 at 11:46:56 PM PST

  •  Our San Francisco Hippy Church

    Well... not quite a church but a bona fide religious organization. We got our start a long time ago thanks to the Gentle Brothers and Sisters willingness to ordain lots of people. And let me take this moment to preach some gospel...

    Path to Peace
    A message to be taught prior to any future peace consists of the following three clear and practical truths:

    #1 The Principle of Sharing
    The errors and mistakes of past centuries are the joint errors and mistakes of humanity as a whole. This recognition will lead to the establishing of the principle of sharing, so needed in the world today.

    #2 The Principle of Responsibility
    There is a blood relationship between all men and women which, when recognised, dissolves all barriers and ends the spirit of separativeness and hate. The peace and happiness of each is the concern of all. This develops the principle of responsibility and lays the foundation of right united group action.

    #3 The Principle of Cooperation
    There are no problems or conditions which cannot be solved by the will-to-good. Goodwill nourishes the spirit of understanding and fosters the manifestation of the principle of cooperation. This cooperative spirit is the secret of all right human relations and the enemy of competition.

    by GW Chimpzilla on Thu May 05, 2005 at 10:43:50 PM PST

    •  Commie

      </snark>

      by The Termite on Fri May 06, 2005 at 07:59:16 AM PST

  •  Start your own church

    and enjoy that tax exemption.

    by Yankee in exile on Fri May 06, 2005 at 06:11:41 AM PST

  •  Try the UCC...

    stillspeaking.com -- they will welcome you.

    by Swoosh on Fri May 06, 2005 at 07:11:43 AM PST

•  Re: Update

  WLOS is a Sinclair station.  Don't expect much in the way of "Fair and Balanced" reporting.

  by polecat on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:24:57 PM PST

•  I have to wonder, though

  What they were doing there in the first place.

  Creepy though. Thanks.

  by bdizz on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:26:25 PM PST

  •  Hot Lobsters

    I heard a story once about a woman who was going to cook live lobsters for the first time. She didn't know that you were supposed to drop them into boiling water, so instead she put them in cold water and turned on the heat.

    Made me wonder, if you were the lobster, at what point would you realize you were screwed? When things get bad very gradually, sometimes we don't notice it's happening until things are really bad.

    Lots of things can make a church change, but I can easily imagine that this was a gradual shift. Whenever a person decides to "make a break", whether it is from a marriage, a job, a church, or anything else, there is something of a cost-benefit analysis. In marriage, the longer you have been together, the more "marital capital" you have built up, meaning:

    "Financial and emotional benefits built up during a long-standing marriage, which tend to hold a couple together."

    I imagine there is a similar phenomenon for jobs, churches, and so forth. The longer you've had that connection, the bigger a deal it is to break.

    by Renee in Ohio on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:38:08 PM PST

    •  you are supposed to cook frogs that way

      but not lobsters - as you said.  so if you'd like, you can use the frogs next time you make the analogy (if you put them straight into hot water, they hop out)

      by OrangeClouds115 on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:41:54 PM PST

      •  Can't you just

        give them a nice injection, have them peacefully pass on to the next world, and then cook them?

        by hopscotch1997 on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:53:37 PM PST

        •  but then who would eat them? n/t

          by white blitz on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:27:44 PM PST

          •  Run a knife in the joint...

            ...behind the lobster's head. Basically it will sever the neural cord. Kills 'em dead instantly. Then you drop 'em in the pot without worry about boiling them to death. I have eaten lobster with a clean conscience ever since figuring this out.

            by MamasGun on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:59:11 PM PST

            •  they die in 10 sec if you drop 'em in the pot

              they just keep moving around after they are already dead.  Learned it on food network.  Made me seriously not give a shit about the PETA campaign of "don't hurt the lobsters"

              by OrangeClouds115 on Thu May 05, 2005 at 11:50:13 PM PST

              •  Ten seconds is a long time

                in boiling water.  

                by xanthe on Fri May 06, 2005 at 04:09:40 AM PST

              •  LOL - WTF?

                If you want to eat meat, fine.  I do so with a somewhat conflicted conscience knowing that predation occurs in nature and that I need the protein.  But to call PETA "bullshit" because lobsters only writhe in agony for ten seconds is pretty weak.

                Why don't you stick your feet in boiling water for, say FIVE seconds and then go run a mile.  What's that you say?  You're in pain?  What a bunch of bullshit.

                by guyute16 on Fri May 06, 2005 at 07:35:36 AM PST

                •  compare a human nervous system

                  to that of a lobster.  we're not exactly crustaceans.

                  by OrangeClouds115 on Fri May 06, 2005 at 07:54:12 PM PST

                  •  Your statement contradicts

                    ...the actions of the Waynesville Baptist Church.

                    by bartkid on Fri May 06, 2005 at 11:42:58 PM PST

          •  Someone on death row in Texas,

            in his last meal before lethal injection?

            by hopscotch1997 on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:15:43 PM PST

          •  what kind of a person

            eats a poor frog!!

            by kentclark on Sat May 07, 2005 at 07:18:42 AM PST

      •  Funny, this reminds me of a quote

        by William Brann: "The trouble with our
        Texas Baptists is that we do not hold them under water long enough." Maybe that ought to apply to NC Baptists as well...

        by The past is over on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:18:49 PM PST

        •  J-O-K-E (n/t)

          by wont get fooled again on Fri May 06, 2005 at 12:08:44 AM PST

      •  Regarding boiled frogs...

        by technopolitical on Fri May 06, 2005 at 12:43:46 AM PST

•  Taxes

  Shouldn't they lose their tax-exempt status for these actions?

  by MyPOV on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:29:08 PM PST

  •  Absolutely.

    Absolutely.  If they expel Democrats for being Democrats, there's no doubt left whatsoever that it's a political club.  

    I think it's time the not-so-catholic church started paying its fair share of taxes too.

    by Bob Love on Fri May 06, 2005 at 02:29:49 AM PST

    •  The Catholic Church's nuns

      educated thousands of working class kids who wouldn't have gotten the education they got because of the sacrifice of these women. This lessened the burden on many of my city's public schools. I was educated by Catholic nuns during the 40s and 50s thanks to my parents' financial sacrifice, and it's thanks to them and these women that I can think independently, especially during this climate.  I have to bear witness to this.  I owe it to my good teachers.  I'd like to see corporations start paying their taxes before churches - but understand the sentiment among many people.  

      These women never got paid really, so they are not eligible for SS -- we are supporting our own retired teachers now - as it should be.    

      by xanthe on Fri May 06, 2005 at 04:21:09 AM PST

      •  Quite right.

        You're quite right (& my spouse is a [very liberal] Catholic).  I just wish there were a way to enforce these laws in such egregious instances where high-level religious authorities demand compliance in the name of the Creator.  It rather undermines the idea of a secret ballot.

        by Bob Love on Fri May 06, 2005 at 02:55:01 PM PST

•  Tax exempt status hits them when it hurts

  I've never been more proud to be a liberal dem!

  by groggy on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:29:47 PM PST

  •  You can't even call them a cult

    A cult is a religious group without political support.

    by groggy on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:33:29 PM PST

•  There are a lot

  of weird, loose-cannon type (relatively) little churches out there.  I hope this was one of them.

  Of course, there are some pretty sick large churches too...

  by larryrant on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:30:16 PM PST

•  Now just imagine that this didn't happen

  in just a church, but that it happened in this entire country. What would await those who were kicked out? Would it be prison? Reeducation camps? Forced labor? A firing squad?

  I don't know if this particular example is true or not, but I can tell you the sentiment is very real. If you disagree with these folks, these folks who have gotten a grip on at least some of our country's government, then you will be eliminated.

  by Heartpine on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:31:53 PM PST

  •  First...

    First it would be small rights.

    Then it would be the right to vote or hold office.

    Then the right to hold a job or own a business.

    And perhaps property.

    Then the government would initiate a "clean up our streets" program to get the last few who haven't "converted to The Party" off the streets... and yes, then into prison or forced labor or wherever.

    Just like in certain other nations History Classes should have taught you about.

    by Shapeshifter on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:08:43 PM PST

    •  Jesus Fucking Christ!

      How many times do I have to say this?

      They've already started:  10 June, 2003!

      People...held without rights...indefinitely...condemned...without recourse to law...then put to death.

      There is nothing more anti-American than the current Executive and its anti-American actions!

      by zentiger on Fri May 06, 2005 at 01:43:22 AM PST

      •  Shh...

        They're hoping we don't notice those connections...

        That makes a good follow-up to my Yom Hashoah diary from yesterday, though.

        by Shapeshifter on Fri May 06, 2005 at 01:43:28 PM PST

  •  you don't have to imagine . . .

    just look at how Palestinians are treated, in Palestine . . .
    

    by Deward Hastings on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:32:55 PM PST

    •  Yes, there are some real world examples.

      Those folks in Africa and Afghanistan who disapprove of certain behaviors in women (like self-determination) are not the only ones who believe in stoning. If things went wrong enough, it could happen here.

      by Heartpine on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:39:06 PM PST

•  Folks, you can take

  the political angle all you want (and I'm not denying this is plenty bad), but in the end, this is not a political story.

  Anytime a congregation conducts a purge like this, it's a sign of a deeply unhealthy group of people. Trust me on this: the pastor's a whackjob, and there's a Church Council that's enabling him.  Within 1-2 years, if not sooner, there will be massive conflict within the congregation, the pastor will walk or be fired, and the trouble will continue for many years.

  These people are fucked, and they did it to themselves. Hope or pray the best for them.

  by pastordan on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:33:36 PM PST

  •  you're telling us

    Anytime a congregation conducts a purge like this, it's a sign of a deeply unhealthy group of people. Trust me on this: the pastor's a whackjob, and

    that expelling people from a Christian church by political party is not unprecedented?

    by alizard on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:49:20 PM PST

    •  I'm sure it's not,

      though I can't bring any examples to mind immediately.

      But that wasn't my point. (Sorry if I was unclear.) I was trying to say that churches do this kind of thing occasionally: could be politics, could be theological doctrine, could be for or against building the new fellowship hall. But churches are almost by definition in the business of bringing people in, not casting them out. So if they're expelling members, as this congregation is, it's a sign of some pretty deep-seated dysfunction.

      by pastordan on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:58:24 PM PST

      •  i stopped going to church at age 12

        when the wonderful presbyterian church we attended suffered from a major dysfunctional split that caused the pastor to be forced from the church - he was wonderful and made such a difference with the young people.  

        the matriarch that wanted power caused the church to split in two parts - and the congregations split and friendships ended.  people who had shared love and joy became bitter and disenfranchised.

        pastordan is right.  this congregation is so totally screwed - and they did it to themselves!

        btw, the church i mention was also in n.c.  ironic, isn't it.

        by edrie on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:04:36 PM PST

    •  It isn't unprecedented...

      See: Fred Phelps.

      His church may not be much of a church, but it does have tax exemption.

      Even if it is precedented it's still bad, it still violates separation of church and state issues (WRT tax exempt status).

      It's still political.

      by Shapeshifter on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:10:33 PM PST

    •  Amen, brother!

      If the church lasts at all, it will be generations before it heals.   <shudder>

      I'm betting many of those out of power will now leave the church as well....with their pledges.  Most know, in their hearts, it's no longer Christian....and that what happens to others can and will happen to them.
      

      by revsue on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:16:19 PM PST

  •  I'd look for fraud, too

    
    This kind of dominance of an organization is a huge red flag for fraud.

    by Ottnott on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:53:39 PM PST

  •  The question is

    Since they belong to the Southern Baptist Convention, can we get anyone from there to make a comment on the record?

    Here's a chance to make them (the Convention) put up or shut up, or better yet, make their own people shut up.

    by polecat on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:01:03 PM PST

    •  It might be difficult,

      since Baptists put the primary responsibility for congregational discipline on the congregations themselves. (That is, each church is essentially an independent operator.) That gives the Convention room for plausible deniability.

      But hey, it's worth a shot.

      by pastordan on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:09:46 PM PST

      •  I say this below, fits here better...

        but there was a "dog-whistle", throw-away comment at the end of the video report.  In effect, the church by-laws haven't been fully vetted to see if the 40~50 can even be "kicked out" yet.

        Though sola scriptura is the basis of Baptist life, in the end it is the Church Constitution and its by-laws that determine how church polity (including excommunication) gets done.

        I've gone to big and small SBC churches.  In the older ones, the language in the by-laws is quite clear on what happens when a schism happens - who gets the building, etc.  (the Campellites might come back, you know)  You have to be that clear, because the land, building, pastor's care, etc. is all local - the county association, state association, and the actual Southern Baptist Convention really don't have power except to kick your church out.  

        In the case of these 40 to 50 Democrats and sympathizers, there would be many more layers of appeal and possibilities for healing within a hierarchcal church.  I predict that they will most likely just find a sister Baptist congregation and "wipe their feet" of the old church.  Smaller ebbs and flows between congregations happen all the time.  

        by LetsGoVandy on Fri May 06, 2005 at 12:16:15 AM PST

  •  That church is more political than religious...

    The basis upon which the expellation was conducted was along political party lines. Of course it was (and is) political. That's like saying the Terri Schiavo case had nothing to do with religion because Tom Delay is an egotistical nut who went to far with the support of his Republican cadre.

    I doubt you'd argue with my proposing that, w/ facts at hand and their alleged actions and motives, these people are clearly far more political than they are religious. And so, it naturally follows, this is a political story presaged by the GOP's political posturing on the subject of religion and the exclusively GOP stranglehold on "true" religion.

    But even if you're right, which you absolutely aren't, it is a political story now so who cares if it wasn't to begin with? I just don't get your point.

    by Addison on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:10:16 PM PST

    •  My point is that

      while the "presenting issue" here is political--and again, I don't want to minimize the awfulness--there's something deeper at work.

      Your analogy to the Schiavo case is an apt one. I don't think it had much to do with religion; it was a piss-poor family situation that was politicized by religious ideologues and opportunistic elected officials. The first half of that formula is exactly what we're seeing here.

      by pastordan on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:17:38 PM PST

      •  True

        No doubt we both agree that there are forces at work in that church operating off a most unhumble power trip that's being fed from many troughs -- to include the political right and religiously hateful...

        by Addison on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:21:09 PM PST

    •  Also,

      we shouldn't work ourselves into a fine lather over an impending religious war because of what happened with this congregation. They're in trouble, bad, and very soon, they'll be struggling to survive, much less threaten anyone's political convictions.

      by pastordan on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:19:15 PM PST

      •  Well

        I don't think there's going to be a religious war, I think that's pretty silly and merely apocalyptic extremist fantasy coming from both sides, religious and secular.

        But we should push this story as it encapsulates everything that's wrong with the politicization of religion, especially by the intolerant right-wing. It's a modern-day political and religious parable.

        by Addison on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:23:54 PM PST

        •  Sorry,

          didn't mean to imply you in particular thought there was going to be religious/culture war. It's late, what can I say?

          Parable, yep. I guess the way I'd approach it is to say that this represents what happens when you turn your religion into an ideology, rather than a way of life...

          by pastordan on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:34:20 PM PST

      •  pastor dan

        you seem pretty calm about this.  I am hoping you have some soothing words to calm my racing heart.  somehow today I was just inundated with religion stories -- now that the networks and npr have seized on the religious wars as the story of the minute (at least until the next bride runs away).  I think shedding some light on all of this is probably good --but it is starting to feel so acute, so catastrophic.

        HELP!!!

        by sophiebrown on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:10:52 PM PST

        •  Yes, I agree--

          and I'm feeling it too. The tension. It's hitting critcal mass or something.

          by aitchdee on Fri May 06, 2005 at 02:05:57 AM PST

  •  sorry, but I can't hope or pray for the best

    Not for them.

    They bring it on themselves.  I hope only and exclusively bad things happen to people like that.  I'm sorry, but when you are active in seeking out all forms of discrimination against people you aren't just like you, you deserve the worst life has to offer.

    by kineticdissent on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:23:15 PM PST

    •  No one deserves the worst life has to offer.

      No one.  

      by weeping for brunnhilde on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:32:30 PM PST

      •  Agreed.

        They don't deserve it, and it's our responsibility to offer better.

        by pastordan on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:36:18 PM PST

        •  It's statements like this...

          that prove to me and others that you are a great pastor, and more importantly, a true Democrat of the highest order.

          Almost makes me want to get back into that whole god nonsense. 0:)

          -Faux

          by faux on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:12:48 PM PST

          •  *Grin*

            "Almost makes me want to get back into that whole god nonsense. 0:)"

            And that's why the true "evangelizing" of the Church is done through example and not coercion.

            by Shapeshifter on Fri May 06, 2005 at 01:51:33 PM PST

  •  I think the lesson of this event, provided it

    is genuine, is that this is the mindset of the fundamentalists in general, that they will exclude you if you are a Democrat.

    It is now at least conceivable, given the blatant pandering of the leadership of the House, Senate and White House to these kinds of people, that the fundamentalists may gain even more influence. That being the case, the actions of this church serve as a good object lesson of what could be expected under a theocratic government were that to come about.

    In other words, the folks who would like to gain control of this country, (the Dobsons, the Terrys, the Falwells, the Robertsons) believe exactly what this church believes, even though they are better at hiding it, at least for now. They believe that the Democrats and liberals should be kicked, not out of the church, but out of the country, and perhaps out of the world. And if they gain enough power, this is exactly what they will try to do.

    The conduct of this church in North Carolina, therefore, serves as a real world example for those who aren't familiar with the deepest recesses of the fundamentalist mind.    

    by Heartpine on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:33:47 PM PST

    •  I don't agree.

      The correct lesson to draw from this is that fundamentalists (and I haven't seen anything to indicate that that's what these folks are) will attempt to keep refining their definitions until they're satisfied they have a group that is in perfect agreement with one another.

      They'll eat their own, in other words, and that doesn't lead to political success in the long run.

      by pastordan on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:41:27 PM PST

      •  Are you talking about this partucular church

        or the national level fundamentalist political movement of Dobson, Robertson, et al?

        by Heartpine on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:45:52 PM PST

        •  I'm talking about

          this particular church, and I think it's dangerous to draw broad conclusions from one data point.

          by pastordan on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:51:45 PM PST

          •  But it's not one data point. Coulter, Terry,

            Limbaugh, Cheney, Rove, DeLay: go down the list of people who are on the side of those currently in power, and you see statement after statement after statement that either suggests, or outright claims that liberals and Democrats are treasonous, dangerous, godless...

            Do I believe that this particular church is a threat? No. But they are representative of a dangerous mindset, a mindset that is garnering more and more power in this country.

            And I don't think that this particular church and it's actions would get this much notice here on Daily Kos if it weren't for the "culture" of Democrat and liberal bashing that has become  pervasive in this country over the past few years, particularly post 9-11. In other words, the concerns being expressed in the comments are not about this church per se. They are in response to the "kill the liberals" mindset that is being met with far too much approval by the leadership of this country.

            by Heartpine on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:08:50 PM PST

            •  I think the kill the liberals mindset

              is actually waning.  religious fervor seems to be on the increase -- maybe because they are loosing their control over the big vacuous middle.

              by sophiebrown on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:13:39 PM PST

              •  I get the impression that the religious fervor

                and the anti-liberal fervor are the same thing. In other words, liberals are godless anti-christians because they approve of sodomy, of killing babies, of removing god from the schools and government, etc.

                by Heartpine on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:21:10 PM PST

                •  from 9/2001 to the enf of 2003

                  the "liberals are traitors" riff played to a much wider audience.  

                  now its pretty much limited to the "judges killed terry schiavo" crowd.  They are getting madder because they seem to be getting more marginalized.

                  That doesn't mean they aren't terrifying.  The Sunnis are only 20% of Iraq's population, but they sure have stirred things up....

                  by sophiebrown on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:51:06 PM PST

                  •  So it's your impression that it's losing steam? nt

                    by Heartpine on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:55:03 PM PST

                    •  I doubt it's currently growing in size

                      I don't think people join these churches to get into the eye of a political hurricane.  I think they join for for a pleasant experience -- for friends and community.  I think the appeal of the mega church for middle america will dissipate when they are perceived as ugly and overreaching and political.  

                      Just my opinion.

                      by sophiebrown on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:16:19 PM PST

                      •  I think you're right in that it likely

                        will happen, but I'm not sure it's happening yet. And will it happen before irreversable damage to the country is done?

                        Perhaps the negative reaction the Republican/fundamentalist handling of the Schiavo issue is a sign of things to come. I sure hope so.  

                        by Heartpine on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:39:28 PM PST

      •  Now that's true

        My husband grew up near a church of snake handlers.  By time they were all done arguing punctuation they almost had to divide up the snake.

        by sandblaster on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:46:14 PM PST

        •  This is one of the funniest lines

          I have read in a long time.  Thanks!

          by Cream City on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:19:47 PM PST

      •  As Peter Gabriel once sang......

        Not One Of Us

        It's only water
        In a stranger's tear
        Looks are deceptive
        But distinctions are clear
        A foreign body
        And a foreign mind
        Never welcome
        In the land of the blind
        You may look like we do
        Talk like we do
        But you know how it is

        You're not one of us
        Not one of us
        No you're not one of us
        Not one of us
        Not one of us
        No you're not one of us

        There's safety in numbers
        When you learn to divide
        How can we be in
        If there is no outside
        All shades of opinion
        Feed an open mind
        But your values are twisted
        Let us help you unwind
        You may look like we do
        Talk like we do
        -But you know how it is

        You're not one of us
        Not one of us
        No you're not one of us

        by ChurchofBruce on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:56:28 PM PST

      •  The run only needs to be long enough to

        seize power, then electoral politics will die and the one party faithful will control.  See the twentieth century for examples.
        

        by hestal on Fri May 06, 2005 at 03:30:39 AM PST

  •  So...

    maybe they are better off looking for another church.

    by kredwyn on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:47:42 PM PST

    •  You got it. n/t

      by pastordan on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:52:45 PM PST

    •  Exactly

      what the Constitution protects:  religious freedom -- whether by individuals or by congregations.

      So they defined themselves in such a way that no liberal would want to stay, anyway.  

      Imagine the sermons.

      by Cream City on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:09:03 PM PST

      •  And how much fun/use

        will those sermons be when everyone in the joint already agrees 100% (after all dissenters are gone)?

        What's the point?  

        by JLFinch on Thu May 05, 2005 at 10:23:48 PM PST

        •  The point is to avoid cognitive dissonance

          because they don't want to be challenged about their beliefs.

          Hard to understand for some folks from faiths that test beliefs by discussing them, but there it is.  Some don't.  Not in their church, anyway.  (But I would bet they don't read DKos or other things that would challenge them away from church, either -- also their right. . . .)

          by Cream City on Thu May 05, 2005 at 11:16:26 PM PST

          •  I love that

            Carly Simon song!

            by JLFinch on Fri May 06, 2005 at 11:00:06 AM PST

            •  Yep, it makes me get up and GO! (n/t)

              by Cream City on Fri May 06, 2005 at 12:39:24 PM PST

  •  Yes, I do hope and pray for the best for them.

    I'm not particularly religious, but spiritual's a fine word.  

    I hope for the best for them because we are all bound inextricably together.  

    When a sorry fate befalls (or is chosen by) another somewhere, it may eventually affect me or those close to me, or other innocent people in the wider human family.

    by by foot on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:19:34 PM PST

  •  This is political

    Rove's entire strategy was to radicalize his 'base', and now we see that it is definitely radicalized.

    The story here is that the GOP's political strategy is tearing apart the institution that they say they want to protect.

    by permanentE on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:57:34 PM PST

  •  Pastor Dan

    Isn't it really up to the larger Church-- that is, other Christians-- to reach out to people like those who were ejected?  You guys aren't just going to let the ones who left go without support, are you?  Isn't somebody or some congregation going to reach out to them?

    OTOH, in Amherst, during Emily Dickinson's lifetime, when the revivalist craze was at its peak, every congregant who had not been "born again" (or whatever their nomenclature was, "accepted the living Christ" or some such phrase) had to get up and leave at some point. Which is why ED stopped attending services.  Also, when she was at Mt. Holyoke, classmates and teachers kept coming into her room to sermonize and try to sway her-- which is why she only stayed there one year.  In the end, every member of her family, including the sister with whom she shared the family house, gave in.  She never did.

    Two steps forward, one step back.
    

    by Tulip on Fri May 06, 2005 at 05:11:02 AM PST

    •  I'm sure they'll find a home.

      In many parts of the country, the UCC serves as a "church of refuge" for people who have been wounded in other denominations. Many congregations in New England, for example, have a contingent of people who have left the Catholic church for one reason or another. In the South, it's Methodists and Baptists.

      The sad thing, from a Christian perspective, is that this is exactly the kind of thing that convinces people that church just isn't worth it. (One survey listed "Christians fight too much" as the number one reason not to attend church.) So while these 40-50 people will most likely find a place to land--or start their own congregation--who knows how many more will simply leave the church, never to return.

      by pastordan on Fri May 06, 2005 at 06:43:59 AM PST

      •  Yep...

        As i mentioned elsewhere: the ones who were given the boot may well have been the ones too stubborn and ideologically tough to be driven out by other means. It's quite likely that other members left on their own (due to hostility from the Church) prior to this event.

        by Shapeshifter on Fri May 06, 2005 at 02:06:03 PM PST

  •  He's right

    It is a political story to a degree, but pastordan's right -- this stuff happens all the time in churches across America. Not to this degree of ridiculousness or overtness, but ostracism of all kind happens.

    Churches are made up of humans who make mistakes and sin and all that. Who are petty and bitchy etc. Some more than others. And sadly, things like the episode mentioned above about the guy who was asked not to return when he needed the church the most -- sadly, that happens a lot.

    It's like your parents kicking you out of the house when you fuck up -- the last thing you need is to be out on your own; what you need is parents!

    What we have here is a group that is so consumed with its own shit that it will probably implode. Those D's probably would have left sooner or later but stuck it out because it was their church home and they had a right to be there.

    Sorry this is rambling but I'm still flabbergasted by this story.

    by AggieDemocrat on Fri May 06, 2005 at 10:21:12 AM PST

  •  God Bless You

    for a truly Christian response to these people.  Not to say I'm not absolutely appalled by the whole thing (I'm horrified!), but having seen  Baptist church politics at work in a dysfunctional church, I am sure you are absolutely 100% correct in your analysis of how it happened.  
      Of course, Baptists are great at schism in general, which is one reason I'm now an Episcopalian - the Episocpal church culture puts a heavy emphasis on tolerance of different viewpoints and the need to remain in communion with each other if at all possible.  Baptists on the other hand are always convinced they're right (each and every one of them).  I think it's partly the church structure (completely democratic believe it or not, with no larger organizational oversight on most matters) together with the traditional Baptist belief in the priesthood of all believers, so my opinion is always just as valid as yours (by definition), and there's no one to say "Wait a minute and cool down" or "your church has become dysfunctional and needs some counseling" or "we're kicking your pastor out because he's leading you down the wrong path."  The fundy takeover has now eliminated the requirement that there actually be any spiritual discernment on the part of the believer - now people are just supposed to follow their leaders blindly - but the schismatic culture remains, so it's the worst of both.

    by md jeffersonian on Fri May 06, 2005 at 07:10:47 PM PST

•  So the Dems should start another Church

  one that is more in line with their liberal (read: generous) beliefs.

  This does not get me too upset, mostly because I am a Catholic who has been told (by the Pope and other old men in Rome) since I first broke church rules that I am excommunicated anyway. I ignore them and do what I want - faith is personl to me, you don't want me in your Church, I will go and give my money to a church who appreciates me and my beliefs.

  by adigal on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:34:38 PM PST

  •  We'd appreciate you.

    Check out a few of your local Episcopalian congregations. We're losing far-right members lately over the gay bishop and same-sex union blessing isses and could use a few good Anglo-Catholics in the pews to replace them. You will have a hard time finding a church where the liturgy seems so familiar and the dogma (or lack thereof) so different.

    by pHunbalanced on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:39:59 PM PST

    •  I will do that this weekend

      Thanks for the suggestion.  I just hope I don't find a wingnut Epicopalian church!

      by adigal on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:45:35 PM PST

      •  Beware

        There are some, no doubt. If you live in the south, it's even likely. If you live in New England, northern Cali or the Great Lakes, it's rare but possible.

        by pHunbalanced on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:08:52 PM PST

        •  There are a few

          "Anglican" churches that still use the 1928 Prayer Book...or as my mom-in-law calls it, "the 1492 Prayer Book". ;) (One group is taking over a Catholic chapel that was closed by the local diocese; I have fond memories of the place because it's where my sister got married.)

          by Cali Scribe on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:22:54 PM PST

      •  Ask the priest

        if the church is "inclusive". Inclusive churches welcome all to the eucharist and include gay members in all activities.  Don't tell the priest you know what it means. He or she definitely knows what it means and if s/he hedges, find another church.  Generally inclusive Episcopal churches are progressive on all issues.  I say "generally" to cover my butt.  I've never actually found it to be otherwise.

        by tikkun on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:40:12 PM PST

    •  Indeed

      My mother, in her late 50s, use father used to be a Deacon in the Catholic Church, and was raised a devout Catholic, recently walked away from it. And joined an Episcopalian congregation.

      It's kind of strange...she's a fairly staunch Republican, hawkish on war, anti-choice...but was absolutely convinced the Catholic Church was offensively regressive. She couldn't stomach their stance on women, the pedophilia scandals, or, to a lesser extend, gays. She's all for equal rights (including marriage) for gays.

      Not surprisingly, she lives in the Northeast.

      by Nim on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:32:37 PM PST

  •  There are certainly options

    PastorDan's UCC, for example, or the even-more-liberal Unitarian Universalists.  Either would welcome your presence and appreciate you for who you are.

    I'm a UU, personally, and it's the first religious organization I've ever felt comfortable in.  (Though I'm sure PD's church is very nice, and yes, they have cookies too.)

    -AG
    

    by AlphaGeek on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:31:10 PM PST

    •  I am uu too.

      I forget my jihad name.  but its a great community -- for those who are not attached to a particular faith tradition, and for those who are attached to one faith but feel that theirs is just one among many.

      by sophiebrown on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:54:28 PM PST

    •  UUs are Good People

      I am proudly a UU, as well. They have a strong commitment to Social Justice.

      And, not many churches have a "Same Sex Wedding Planning Guide" on their home page :-)

      by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 06, 2005 at 01:17:11 AM PST

•  I just called the newsroom

  and yes it is true.

  They did not know how large the church is, but will have a follow up tomorrow.

  by sandblaster on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:35:33 PM PST

•  Redumption camps!

  Salvation camps?  

  Have to learn the GOP catechism?
  

  • Disagreeing with the government is blasphemy
    
  • Patriotism is blind faith in the Preznit

  This could be fun if it wasn't so scarry.
  

  by groggy on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:37:38 PM PST

  •  its kind of like the inquisitions!

    The catholic church sent goons out through the countryside to round up any non catholics and reprogram.  they were tortured and then asked if they had changed their minds.  but the torturers would wait awhile to ensure that the tortured weren't just saying that to stop being tortured.  

    the reformed had the opportunity to have a full life after that and some became successful.  but during the spanish inquisition, the king wanted the money all these converts had, so he claimed to the pope that they were secretly performing old rituals!  there were things these folks were doing... but they were not religious rituals!  but any excuse to steal their money and possessions for himself.

    the pope sanctioned this crap.  but the king got to be in control of the process and punishment.  Frighening stuff!

    by ejpoeta on Sat May 07, 2005 at 04:15:18 AM PST

•  Btw, about "excommunicated"

  I don't know about Baptists/Catholics/etc. and the terminology used.  The word is in quotation marks because that was the term used in the original post.  As more details come, we can change the title to reflect the exact action that was taken.

  by georgia10 on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:38:08 PM PST

  •  Churched

    The Southern term and it probably applies to Southern Baptist Convention churches is that so and so got "churched".

    "Asked to leave" would be an accurate English statement.  Baptist churches are congregational in polity.  The congregation controls everything, even the hiring of the preacher.  The doctrine, the Sunday School curriculum.  Everything.

    by TarheelDem on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:51:56 PM PST

    •  I grew up Southern Baptist and I haven't heard

      the term "churched" before. Wonder if it's denominational or regional.

      by Heartpine on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:32:54 PM PST

      •  Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee SBC

        and no knwledge of being "churched."  Then again, I only saw it happen once, to a youth pastor who was "let go" for reasons we were not told as a congregation (though we still had to vote on it).  

        by LetsGoVandy on Fri May 06, 2005 at 12:23:58 AM PST

      •  Maybe regional

        I've heard in the Carolinas and South Georgia.  Could be a Piedmont term.

        by TarheelDem on Fri May 06, 2005 at 08:29:46 AM PST

  •  Probably

    "asked to leave"

    CLEARWATER - Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge George Greer left his church last week after the pastor wrote him a letter suggesting "it might be easier for all of us" if he leave.
    [...]
    Greer, whose orders on the Terri Schiavo case have brought him criticism, is a Southern Baptist who attended Calvary Baptist Church in Clearwater.

    Though he had other unrelated problems with the church, Greer's attendance faltered after a Baptist publication the church supported criticized his decisions in the Schiavo case. He stopped his donations to the church, but remained a member. He briefly discussed his relationship with the church in a March 6 St. Petersburg Times article.

    Four days later, Calvary Pastor William Rice wrote Greer a letter: "I am not asking you to do this, but since you have taken the initiative of withdrawal, and since your connection with Calvary continues to be a point of concern, it would seem the logical and, I would say, biblical course."

    Rice's letter became public when he sent a copy to the Clearwater courthouse. Rice also said the church supports keeping Schiavo alive, though he said he was "truly saddened and embarrassed by the level of harassment and vitriolic nature of so many comments that purportedly come from people of faith."

    by Madman in the marketplace on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:00:11 PM PST

•  The Final Solution

  I noted this exchange today on a very popular mainstream discussion board:

  cc08: Liberals need to be monitored/tracked
  The FBI should be monitoring & tracking all Liberals. We can not tolerate sedition. When sedition is suspected by Liberals, they must be punished severely, quickly, and publically. We can not tolerative suspected subversive acts.

  atlantga90210: Re: Liberals need to be monitored/tracke
  agreed

  unflgburner168: Re: Liberals need to be monitored/tracke
  we need to round them up like FDR rounded up Japanese-Americans and German-Americans. Suspected traitors must be put in camps.

  eurotrsh1934: Re: Liberals need to be monitored/tracke
  It's sad that liberals put us in a position where we will need to start doing this. But I agree. They are aiding the enemy at this point. Liberals are the enemy within.

  atlantga90210: Liberals need to be monitored/tracke
  There's nothing sad about it. This is an issue of security/survival and Liberals are the enemy. We need to keep them under the thumbs of the government.

  Sure these are just a few right-wing jerks jerking off, right? Maybe, but this stuff is starting to be heard more and more. Exactly how far is the United States away from concentration camps and death squads for the political left?

  by krag on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:38:15 PM PST

  •  Which Board, krag? (NT)

    by Hoffmania on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:43:37 PM PST

    •  The usernames have been changed to protect

      the guilty.

      But it was on Yahoo!

      by krag on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:45:11 PM PST

      •  Why...

        are you PROTECTING... the guilty?

        They said it on a public message board, open to all. If you said what their screennames were and where they were posting, you would merely be quoting someone by name and referencing your comment with a link to the particular board where you the comments.

        Absolutely no protection needed or merited.

        by Maryscott OConnor on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:28:16 PM PST

      •  if you expect us to believe this...

        the usernames have been changed to protect the guilty

        They don't deserve protection.

        How about giving us the information we need to find them and the rest of their discussion, so we can figure out whether or not we need to protect ourselves from them?

        Without identifying information, all you've done is spread FUD under circumstances where we've already got enough on our hands in terms of figuring out what the hell is really going on.

        by alizard on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:39:35 PM PST

  •  Doesn't take much, does it?

    Seems like humans are just chomping at the bit to become a rabid, McCarthy-esque mob.

    by Jensequitur on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:44:38 PM PST

    •  never underestimate the power of a mob

      by ejpoeta on Sat May 07, 2005 at 04:18:29 AM PST

  •  Where did you find this?

    Got a link?

    by Smallbottle on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:45:48 PM PST

  •  This is why the Coulter's are

    so FUCKING dangerous

    by ETinKC on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:46:43 PM PST

  •  wtf?!

    Are there really people who think like that??
    

    by starkness on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:47:33 PM PST

  •  Oh Well

        There's always the 2nd Amendment.

        Heh.

    by angry blue planet on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:48:33 PM PST

  •  Great argument for the Second Amendment, no???

    I think this is still rare here.  I always tell my wingnut family and few friends I still have who are wingnuts, "When they put me in camp, I hope you will be satisfied."  They say, "Oh, that will never happen; you are nuts."  Or my personal favorite, "I'll be the first to break you out."  Hey, numb-nuts, I want to say, how about voting against the people who might put me in a camp???

    Still, though, I do think this is unusual.  But I am  not getting rid of my mother's old rifle just in case these nutjobs ever do come marching up my driveway because they think that I, wife, mother, teacher, businesswoman, taxpayer and supporter of the troops stuck in Iraq, am the enemy.

    Nutjobs.

    by adigal on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:53:13 PM PST

    •  Sho'nuff is...

      ...which is why, when the "assault weapons ban" was passed, I immediately went out and bought myself an AK and plenty of ammo.

      I live here in the home of Terry Nichols - sunny Michigan. On one hand, we've got the cops; on the other, the militia - types. And actually, they wind up being the same damn people. Like FUCK I'd wanna be unarmed.

      by RabidNation on Fri May 06, 2005 at 01:32:13 AM PST

  •  I think it's a little ridiculous

    to start worrying about a purge of Liberals in the United States.  Sure, things are ugly...and this event is obviously troubling, but don't forget that half of this country voted for Kerry...
    I think these fanatics would be hard pressed to isolate half the country without a serious fight..

    Today is Yom Hashoah - Holocaust Rememberance Day, by the way...

    by bongojones on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:57:13 PM PST

    •  But if it comes to that, are we willing to fight?

      Will we even recognize that we need to fight? I'm not trying to say that these folks are even close to being able to achieve what they want, but these things happen gradually.

      It seems to me to be in our best interest to take these things seriously, in the same way that say the secret service takes every threat seriously. In other words, we need to closely monitor and agressively counter this mindset before we wake up one day and realize that they do have power.  

      by Heartpine on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:52:58 PM PST

    •  They don't want them purged from the US

      just the United States Government.

      by georgia10 on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:56:33 PM PST

      •  Also want 'em purged from the voter rolls

        ...but not the tax rolls.

        by bartkid on Fri May 06, 2005 at 11:37:36 PM PST

    •  Minimizing the threat sure worked well

      for the Jews. And labor unionists. And communists. And socialists. And gays.

      This will all blow over. You'll see.

      by Smallbottle on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:17:00 PM PST

      •  Democrats haven't been persecuted for 2000 years

        It's really not the same thing, and you're doing a disservice to history to forget that.  It was much easier for Hitler to dehumanize Jews, Gays, etc., than it would be for Republicans to do that to Democrats.  
        Yes, if there's some kind of military coup or whatever, I'm sure half the country will stand up and fight...
        But it ain't gonna happen..
        Did you watch the video? 40 members of that congregation left out of protest for the 9 that were kicked out.  Gimme a break.

        by bongojones on Fri May 06, 2005 at 05:04:00 AM PST

        •  The Republicans are equating Democrats with

          Jews, gays, etc. So in demonizing Democrats, they are demonizing Jews, gays, etc. and vice versa. To the Republicans, they are all the same thing.

          by Heartpine on Fri May 06, 2005 at 10:46:46 PM PST

  •  Wow...

    "cc08" reads like a troll. A failed attempt at a troll (indistinguishable from real comment).

    by Shapeshifter on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:12:48 PM PST

  •  WTF

    Do you mean, mainstream?  Please tell me you're being ironic or otherwise qualify your use of the term because if that's really mainstream (whatever that means) I'm very afraid or rather, more very afraid.  

    by weeping for brunnhilde on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:41:20 PM PST

  •  Something about this isn't right

    I seem to recall some of these names appearing on Free Republic - a Eurotrash definitely posts there. (hardly Yahoo or mainstream)

    If you were going to change the names methinks you wouldn't have picked these names and numbers

    Refusing to link doesn't make any sense.

    No problems with a bit of healthy agitprop but this won't cut it.

     

    by stevej on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:31:47 PM PST

  •  How far? Zero.

    See my comment above.

    by zentiger on Fri May 06, 2005 at 02:30:26 AM PST

  •  Excuse me...

    ...but I think it's incumbent upon you to produce a link.  Otherwise what you've posted here is a rather useless piece of inflammatory nonsense.

    Go back to your browser history, dig it up, and post the link.  Do it.  Please.

    by The Termite on Fri May 06, 2005 at 08:05:27 AM PST

•  I'd rather be out of that church anyway!

  I couldn't hang with a church that excluded people with a slightly different value set.  Whatever happened to the Biblical values of accepting difference and loving your neighbor as yourself?

  I think this is frightening.  But it shows me how extreme some of the Christian churches have become.  As the woman who got excommunicated said, it's reaching cult status.  Speaking in tongues, mass hypnosis, faith healings...  

  As frightening as it is, it's even sadder that there are people out there who need this kind of church.  

  by Jensequitur on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:42:35 PM PST

  •  that's the old bible.

    the new and improved bible is all about hate and intolerance.  oh and persecuting anyone who thinks differently.  sorry i respond so snarkily, but i have a disdain for 'religion' that causes me to rant on end.  so i snark.  its easier.

    by ejpoeta on Sat May 07, 2005 at 04:22:16 AM PST

•  Contact info for the church

  East Waynesville Baptist Church
  175 Woodland Drive
  Waynesville, NC
  828-456-6841

  from ncguide.com

  Most of us are well-balanced, nice people.  Not sure what's going on in Waynesville.  They probably are against fluorinating the water, too.

  by polecat on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:42:44 PM PST

  •  23423432

    They probably are against fluorinating the water, too.

    as well they should be...

    by Cedwyn on Fri May 06, 2005 at 09:31:09 AM PST

•  Obligatory with religion threads

  

  by I disagree with the GOP on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:43:06 PM PST

  •  that BK guy is freaky

    slightly freakier than his Quaker Oats cousin.

    by georgia10 on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:53:04 PM PST

    •  I know what you mean

       I have to scroll past really fast, if I look at him I get the heebies.

      by high uintas on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:14:48 PM PST

    •  That is one of the truly creepiest ad campaigns

      ... ever.

      It certainly does not entice me (or, I suspect, many others) to want to go to Burger King.

      Too weird...

      by Bob Johnson on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:37:40 PM PST

      •  Very creepy

        There's that one where the BK guy is standing outside the guy's window.  Trying to appeal to the stalker demographic?

        by DaveOinSF on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:19:07 PM PST

        •  As a...

          ...woman who's been on the receiving end of quite a number of creepy stares in her time, it actually somewhat amuses me.  See what it feels like, guys?  P.S. we KNOW you're looking even when you try to play it off.

          by OrdinaryVanity on Fri May 06, 2005 at 06:15:24 AM PST

          •  Nuthin' wrong with lookin'

            But yeah, there's a line, and sometimes we cross it even if we don't mean to or even want to.

            Tell ya what, you turn off the "nag" gene and we'll turn off the "look" gene. :-D

            by dirtroad on Fri May 06, 2005 at 12:08:18 PM PST

            •  Nag?

              Who's a nag.  I have no idea what you're talking about *polishes halo*  Now go take out the garbage like I told you to do five times already :P

              by OrdinaryVanity on Mon May 09, 2005 at 11:10:32 AM PST

    •  He scares the heck

      out of my five year old when he's on the tube

      by Militarytracy on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:17:54 PM PST

      •  Heck...

        The BK King Demon scares the hell out of me, and I'm not about to let Medium (my 4-year-old) catch a glimpse of this freak.  Large (the 7-year-old) has gazed upon the strangely fixed face of evil and refuses to look at the TV when BK commercials come on now.

        -AG
        

        by AlphaGeek on Thu May 05, 2005 at 11:32:59 PM PST

  •  Buddy Christ

    

    by starkness on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:10:08 PM PST

    •  Great f'n movie

      George Carlin as a Catholic Cardinal?  Genius!

      by SleepyG on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:55:35 PM PST

  •  Reminds me of artist Paul McCarthy

    Every time I see one of those ads.

    Link to his work here and here.

    Creepy but really cool too, in the sense that these people have become exactly what McCarthy has been parodying, and it's like they don't even know it. sometimes I wonder if the ad agency creatives actually really hate Burger King and the whole thing is a gross inside joke at the expense of the client.

    by eugene X on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:52:03 PM PST

  •  Here's religion I can get behind...

    

    "From the FETAL ATTRACTIONS series"...you owe it to yourself to check it out. here<

    by RabidNation on Fri May 06, 2005 at 01:39:47 AM PST

•  I have a dream

  Earlier this week I woke up and stayed in bed for about a half hour fantasizing about CA withdrawing from the US and us putting up a very big fence.  I think we'd be better off.  We are having a financial crisis right now, but we pay a lot in federal taxes.  If those funds were kept here, we could probably solve our financial problems.  It's getting really scary "out there."  It's getting to be too much of a "them" and "us" thing.  We're not trying to kill "them" or prohibit their speech or beliefs, or life style, but they sure seem to be trying to do that to us.  

  by elveta on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:43:08 PM PST

  •  Orange County...

    is full of evangelical nutjobs, too.  

    by jbou on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:14:42 PM PST

  •  Don't forget Fresno

    The home of Free Republic, and the rest of the central valley.  Haven't lived there since 91, but it had a lot of scary people then, and I'm sure it's worse now.

    by snakelass on Fri May 06, 2005 at 10:46:27 AM PST

•  In the 90's

  Were we treated this badly? I wasnt old enuff to actually pay attention then.

  Also, what about our Soldiers that are Dems or Liberals? Do they think that their traitors? Even the ones that are out there dying right now? But they support the troops and we dont, so i dont suppose there are any Democratic Soldiers. Because we all know Democrats have never served this country at all. rollseyes

  by brandon30721 on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:43:51 PM PST

  •  yes

    In the 90's Were we treated this badly? I wasnt old enuff to actually pay attention then.  

    Yes, only in the nineties we got it from both sides.  It was called triangulation.  

    by weeping for brunnhilde on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:48:05 PM PST

  •  in the 90's? NO!

    All this batshit crazy partisanship is courtesy of the great "Uniter", George W. Bullshit and Company. Amerikan history is colliding with a satanic confluence of Korporate greed and Jesus H. Christ...(a truly wicked combination) Throw in 9-11, a dash of Rapture, a pinch of "Gone With The Wind" and a short fucking memory and Voila!
    It's all rather "exciting" isn't it?

    by sooner on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:08:16 PM PST

    •  Yeah, I think this is much worse than the 90's,

      if for no other reason than these people have so much more control over government.

      by Heartpine on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:36:27 PM PST

  •  yes, there are soldiers who...

    Yes, there are members of the Armed Forces who are progressive -people who believe in the ideals of America and in the tradition of service.  

    If you look at the polling numbers, you find that about 60% of the military are Republicans and about 40% Democrats.  However, of the Republicans, probably a decent plurality are reasonable individuals, i.e. moderate Republicans and responsible conservatives, rather than extremists.  

    I have it on first-hand account, that there have been, over the past few years, informal discussions going on at both the enlisted level, and the officer level, of the following issue:

    What do you do, as a professional warrior, when the part of your oath of service that commits you to following the orders of the President of the United States, comes into conflict with the part of your oath of service that commits you to protecting & defending the US Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic...?  

    What is going on here is that a growing number of members of our military are becoming concerned that the present Administration has been acting in a manner that is inimical to basic Constitutional principles.  Implicit in the discussions mentioned above, is the concern that there could come a time when the system breaks to the point where soldiers will be faced with that stark choice.  Also, explicit in the discussions has been talk of the importance of the Second Amendment.  You can draw your own conclusions.

    The US military takes seriously the historic principle that it is a professional and nonpartisan entity.  To be crass about it, this is why we haven't had a military coup in the United States: that would run contrary to the entire military culture here.  Any involvement by the military as an institution, in politics as such, would be an absolutely enormous break with one of its central traditions.  This gives you an idea of how significant it is that members of the armed forces are discussing issues related to how they would respond in the event our own government willfully and undeniably threatened or transgressed the Constitution in a manner that closed off all other avenues of redress.  

    Meanwhile, yes, progressives ought to give second thoughts to the value of the Second Amendment.  In a worst-case scenario, sympathetic civilians would be counted on to volunteer as auxiliaries under the command of regional officers who were opposing an outlaw regime.  This is not a troll, nor is it a forecast of some kind of apocalyptic scenario, nor is it a call to insurrection.  

    It is simply the recognition of the fact that our system of checks and balances has another "layer" that, thankfully, we have never had to use.  The fact that this additional layer exists, is something you should take as protecting your ability to participate vigorously in the conventional democratic processes.  Speak out, organize, petition, vote; do it without fear for your own wellbeing; and know that you will be protected and defended in the event that real mass repression ever rears its ugly head.  

    by G2geek on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:46:21 PM PST

    •  The American Military Coup of 2012

      The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012
      CHARLES J. DUNLAP, JR.

      From Parameters, Winter 1992-93, pp. 2-20.
      

      
      The letter that follows takes us on a darkly imagined excursion into the future. A military coup has taken place in the United States--the year is 2012--and General Thomas E. T. Brutus, Commander-in-Chief of the Unified Armed Forces of the United States, now occupies the White House as permanent Military Plenipotentiary. His position has been ratified by a national referendum, though scattered disorders still prevail and arrests for acts of sedition are underway. A senior retired officer of the Unified Armed Forces, known here simply as Prisoner 222305759, is one of those arrested, having been convicted by court-martial for opposing the coup. Prior to his execution, he is able to smuggle out of prison a letter to an old War College classmate discussing the "Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012." In it, he argues that the coup was the outgrowth of trends visible as far back as 1992. These trends were the massive diversion of military forces to civilian uses, the monolithic unification of the armed forces, and the insularity of the military community. His letter survives and is here presented verbatim.

      It goes without saying (I hope) that the coup scenario above is purely a literary device intended to dramatize my concern over certain contemporary developments affecting the armed forces, and is emphatically not a prediction. -- The Author
      

      http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/1992/dunlap.htm

      Presented here as a cautionary tale.

      by Benito on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:35:33 PM PST

      •  Fantastic link, thanks! (n/t)

        by AlphaGeek on Thu May 05, 2005 at 11:41:54 PM PST

    •  I wish the military could be counted on

      to support and defend the constitution against a tyrannical goverment on U.S. soil. Unfortunately, there is not much independant thinking done by military leaders IMHO.

      During my 4 years at the USAF Academy, and 5+ years on active duty, I met very few officers or enlisted personnel inclined to think critically like Wesley Clark or perhaps Dwight Eisenhower back in the day.

      The Air Force had been infiltrated by religious nutjobs by the time I left in 1994. My last base had lots of cars with bumper stickers like "Rush is Right!" and "Liberalism is a social disease" but none offering an opposing viewpoint.

      I understand that now Rush is the only commentator offered on Armed Forces Radio and the Pentagon Channel. You may have read of the overzealous fundamentalists that currently reign at the Air Force Academy.

      The situation is grim and I don't have an answer. I'm trying to generate ideas and currently working with a peace action group and the democratic party in my home town.

      by nuttymango on Fri May 06, 2005 at 05:14:47 AM PST

      •  I was run out of the Air Force

        by religious righties.

        Now I'm in the Army. It's not like that here. It's more working class, alot of "Roosevelt" Democrats I guess. This is more of a frog in boiling water situation IMHO. People in the service have supported Bush because they do not fully understand what he is about and because of the wildly successful demonisation of liberals, homephobia plays a part also.

        But Bush has lost a good deal of support amoung grunts because of social security "reform". Many of us depend on Social Security for our retirement plans. It is probably his dumbest idea to date.

        Don't worry about the Air Force, they're all a bunch of broke dicks anyway. Total pussy boys ;)

        by tricky dick on Fri May 06, 2005 at 05:41:27 AM PST

        •  I'm reminded

          of that scene in Dr. Strangelove where the Army Chief of Staff says to AF Gen. Buck Turgidson that "his boys" can sweep aside Ripper's base security troops pretty easily.

          It's amazing that we've gotten to this point where we're discussing which military service would "protect us" if events spin out of control.

          by Benito on Fri May 06, 2005 at 06:46:50 AM PST

      •  Canoe U

        just as bad.  I've cut all ties with the place.  Class of 72.

        by Anglico on Fri May 06, 2005 at 05:43:31 AM PST

        •  Moi,

          USAFA class of '88. Best to date. At least so I was told by some Colorado Springs chicks.

          Kidding aside, I'm very happy to hear from another service academy grad who is not a diehard Reagan/Bush supporter. I see Reagan on a continuum with Bush, just a little less dangerous.

          Although I graduated in '88 I was 4 years older than most (but not all) of my classmates. Age-wise I'm class of 84. I guess that makes us about 12 years apart.

          I spent little time with squids and did a short stint at the pentagon. It sucked.

          by nuttymango on Fri May 06, 2005 at 04:48:53 PM PST

      •  join the Army...

        Nuttymango, I was about to say "join the Army, you'll find the progressives & responsible conservatives there," but TrickyDick beat me to it:-).

        Not to disparage the Air Force of course, or the Navy or Marines; people of good will should try to stick it out in whichever branch they join and stand up for what they believe in.  

        Re. Rush-only policy: Try raising an equal-airtime issue, to get what's-her-name from Air America on there also.  

        Re. homophobia:  

        My friend tells me that the folks he works with don't give a hoot who you sleep with, as long as you've got your warrior skills and your honor.  Apparently this is a growing attitude.  

        I've been advocating a slightly different twist to the "gays in the military" issue:  Adopt the NSA policy!  NSA does not discriminate, does allow gay folks to serve openly (on the civilian side, where they have control over this issue), and does require that gay employees come out of the closet with their families and close friends.  You could call this, "Don't discriminate, do tell the truth."  The point of insisting that gay employees come out of the closet is so they can't be blackmailed by foreign hostiles, which is perfectly reasonable.

        If this is good enough for an agency whose entire mission involves handling the most highly classified material, it's gotta' be good enough for the regular armed forces.  

        And, a "Don't discriminate, do tell the truth" policy will also solve the recruitment & troop shortage issues overnight: patriotic gay folks will sign up and will also recognize that, as the first wave of a newly integrated force, they have got to be on their absolute best behavior.  This in turn will set a precedent for those who follow, and the supposed behavior & cohesion problems cited by the homophobes will not occur.

        by G2geek on Fri May 06, 2005 at 08:52:46 PM PST

•  I wish they would go hogwild

  and kick us out of all of the red states into the blue ones.  I would like it to be the northeastern states, because then I wouldn't have to move.  Once all the blue states are filled with Democrats, I would like them to kick the blue states out of the Union.

  We would then finially have our own wonderful, liberal, Democratic country.  I know this would be a hardship for Red State Democrats, but it would be worth it in the end.

  Why just stick to churches?  I can't wait!

  by hopscotch1997 on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:45:57 PM PST

  •  And then they would invade us

    nt

    by George on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:54:14 PM PST

    •  Nah

      They wouldn't have the money to fund an Army. That takes taxes, and they wouldn't want any.

      And none of them want to fight anyway.

      by mmacdDE on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:22:23 PM PST

      •  We'd soon have an illegal immigration problem

        They'd be scampering across the border for our jobs.

        by Ascendent on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:10:40 PM PST

    •  And kill our leaders...

      And convert us to Christianity*.

      (*: Their particular brand of Dominionist Christianity, mind you.)

      by Shapeshifter on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:03:31 PM PST

  •  No, as appealing as it is

    I was born in this country and I love this country with all my heart and Im not going to let some religiously fanatic fascists destroy Our country and tar my religion. I will fight with all i have to keep this country together. They have no right, Non whatsoever, to so casually destroy the integrity of the America that all our relatives fought for so long and gave their lives to obtain. We will not be here forever, I will not let them make this the America my children will inherit.

    by brandon30721 on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:56:11 PM PST

    •  think of it...

      as paving over a disease-infested swamp in your country.

      by Maryscott OConnor on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:31:46 PM PST

      •  That's a disease-infested wetland. :) n/t

        by Heartpine on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:24:28 PM PST

      •  Ironically...

        That's what Washington DC was when we decided to locate our nation's capital there.  It could be argued at times that certain portions of DC are still swampland (the House, for example) and need redevelopment.

        -AG
        

        by AlphaGeek on Thu May 05, 2005 at 11:44:52 PM PST

  •  I do wonder how we are ever going to heal

    these differences and work together as one country again?  I wonder how far we progressives are going to let this go before we start to get really worried about our safety, and if we will see it ahead of time, or if we will be like those in Europe who didn't or couldn't leave to save themselves, either because they didn't see it, didn't want to see it, or saw it and couldn't get out.

    If the wingnuts have their say, we will have one religion, prayer shoved down our throats everywhere we go, no birth control at the pharmacies, evolution thrown on the trash heap, censorship in literature, movies, and print, crushing taxes for the middle and lower classes, no safety net for us, and be living in a complete and total theocracy.  And?? Then what?  I don't want to live like this.  Do we all just leave?  Where do we go?? Do we allow our children to live like this?

    All of this extremism has to stop - and it has to stop in the next few years or our country will be destroyed.  

    by adigal on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:59:39 PM PST

    •  as one country again?

      First of all, adigal, I agree with you entirely.  This question

      I wonder how far we progressives are going to let this go before we start to get really worried about our safety, and if we will see it ahead of time, or if we will be like those in Europe who didn't or couldn't leave to save themselves, either because they didn't see it, didn't want to see it, or saw it and couldn't get out.

      is just so painfully apt and my wife and I ask it ourselves periodically.  Where would we go?  How do we quantify the breaking point?  It's a valid if insoluable question.  

      But as to the question when are we going to work as one country again, that's the wrong question.  We've never worked as one country.  The legacy of racism alone has assured that we've never worked as one country.  Don't mean to be snide, but the one country thing is (for the most part) a myth.  Now, maybe it's a necessary or pious fiction, fine, but it's just that.  

      by weeping for brunnhilde on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:55:50 PM PST

      •  It's sad, but I think you're right. n/t

        by Heartpine on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:26:35 PM PST

      •  Yes. You are right.

        We have never really been one country.  The south has always been outside of the beliefs of most of the rest of the country, favoring slavery and then wanting to leave the union.

        We should have let them go.

        by adigal on Fri May 06, 2005 at 04:55:38 AM PST

    •  If Safety Becomes an Issue

      outside of isolated geographic areas, then by definition the country will be in a profoundly, profoundly unprofitable revolt.
      

      by Gooserock on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:21:07 PM PST

  •  hogwild

    amazing thought...that in the end, Cultures have their way. Should Amerika have even bothered fighting the Civil War?

    by sooner on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:12:40 PM PST

•  Why am I Reminded of This Line?

  I don't want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member.  Groucho Marx
  

  by angry blue planet on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:46:25 PM PST

  •  Thank heaven for a 'search' feature

    Or I would have duplicated this!

    by escapee on Fri May 06, 2005 at 07:04:50 AM PST

•  Here is the church identified above

  EAST WAYNESVILLE BAPTIST CHURCH
  136 WOODLAND DRIVE, WAYNESVILLE NC 28786

  If the name cited above is correct.  It would make sense because the church is a member of the Southern Baptist Convention.  According to their directory it has 405 members.

  This area is in the tourist area close to the Great Smoky Mountains

  by TarheelDem on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:48:08 PM PST

  •  And now-

    According to their directory it has 405 members.

    The count is now 355? 360? Wonder how many weren't there who will be horrified, or who were there and were horrified.

    I've been through church splits (left one church when I refused to sign a loyalty oath), they're neither quick nor clean. Pastor Dan is right- that's a church that is in deep trouble.

    by Lainie on Fri May 06, 2005 at 12:54:19 AM PST

•  These images are all authentic.

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  No, we're not in Kansas anymore. Kansas is gone. The 2nd and 3rd images are from a paramilitary recruitment night at a church near Knoxville. Notice  the projection of a still from Mel Gibson's "The Passion" on a large screen in the upper right hand of the 2nd image and also the men on stage wearing confederate army uniforms. The narrator who photographed these images claimed that the soldiers - whom he said were wearing US military uniforms with nametags - arrived in army or National Guard helicopters and Humvees.    

  Lock 'n load.

  by Troutfishing on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:56:28 PM PST

  •  Now we have completely lost our minds

    by Militarytracy on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:00:48 PM PST

  •  Stone Cold Killaz 4 Christ! (nt)

    by Addison on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:01:31 PM PST

  •  I did a diary on recruiting in churches

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/17/181118/965

    It simply took away my words, just reading about it.  

    by Margot on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:13:48 PM PST

  •  FWIW

    There's also a man in a Union Civil war Uniform.

    Either way these are some scary ideas.  I don't recall Jesus ever being a soldier.  Maybe that was in the book of Armaments.

    "Thou shalt count to three..."

    by gillmp on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:26:32 PM PST

  •  okay, so where do I find this Prince of Evil....

    the guy mentioned in the bottom poster...so I can sign up. Will we be getting guns; I do like guns. I would like, actually, a flamethrower. Seems kind of appropriate. I do like to work in hot weather, so that part of things shouldn't be a problem. I do enjoy cursing, so that should fit in. I know some of the other stuff won't be too pleasant, but when you consider the alternative, well....

    by seesdifferent on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:41:15 PM PST

    •  Couldn't you just

      Infiltrate and kill them from the inside instead of killing us? I know it's a lot to ask, but I'm just asking.

      by Militarytracy on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:25:25 PM PST

  •  Put this up as a diary

    with more text for background.

    by Steven D on Fri May 06, 2005 at 04:46:44 AM PST

•  if true, wave bye and run the other way

  So there are some nuts out there. These are the kind of folks who will end up with their sleeping bags on the front lawn waiting for the flying saucer to pick them up. When it doesn't come they will excommunicate another 40% of their members for failing to believe hard enough, etc etc.

  If they belong to a major organized church they will be booted from the fold for this trick.  

  Either way they are marginalized. Probably inbred as well, ha ha.

  Either way, they are "short bus" people.

  by seesdifferent on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:57:18 PM PST

  •  i was just thinking the same thing.

    all hail hail bop............god save their cult. the people i mean.

    by cognitive dissonance on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:17:30 PM PST

  •  Get out much ?

    [ LA Times, late April 2005 ]

    "Non-Christian Air Force Cadets Cite Harassment

    
    
    By David Kelly, Times Staff Writer
    DENVER -- The Air Force Academy, still recovering from rape and sexual harassment scandals, is facing charges that some Cristian cadets have bullied and berated Jews and students of other religious backgrounds.

    School officials said Tuesday they had received 55 complaints over the last few months and were requiring students -- and eventually all employees -- to attend a course on religious tolerance.

    "Some complaints had to do with people ... saying bad things about persons of other religions or proselytizing in inappropriate places," said academy spokesman Johnny Whitaker. "There have been cases of maliciousness, mean-spiritedness and attacking or baiting someone over religion."
    About 90% of the academy's 4,300 cadets identify themselves as Christians; the school's commandant, Brig. Gen. Johnny A. Weida, describes himself as a born-again Christian.

    Mikey Weinstein, an academy graduate and a lawyer in Albuquerque, said that his son Curtis -- a sophomore at the academy -- had been called a "filthy Jew."

    "When I visited my son, he told me he wanted us to go off base because he had something to tell me," Weinstein said. "He said, 'They are calling me a ... Jew and that I am responsible for killing Christ.' "
    

    by Troutfishing on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:18:04 PM PST

    •  Now this is a publicly funded institution

      and this is thus illegal.

      by Cream City on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:33:14 PM PST

      •  the Air Force is responding to this

        Air Force brass are apparently responding vigorously to this issue.  They understand what is going on, and they have made it clear that they have no tolerance whatsoever for religious indoctrination or persecution within the institutions of the Air Force.  

        Air Force culture is a bit more like that of a high-tech private corporation than the rest of the military, so we are less likely to see courts martial and suchlike.  But the problem is being addressed forcefully.  You can expect to see a decrease in the number of incidents fairly quickly, and possibly a few resignations and/or downward reassignments.  
        

        by G2geek on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:03:18 PM PST

        •  sources?

          the account (I think somebody else provided the cite) I read gave me the impression that the brass was trying to spin-control the news and they were making some ineffectual gestures.

          Got sources?

          by alizard on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:17:44 PM PST

        •  Define "vigorously"

          Kinda like the way the Air Force responded to their  raped female cadets, huh? Excuse my skepticism...

          by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 06, 2005 at 01:36:04 AM PST

  •  booted from the fold?

    If they belong to a major organized church  they will be booted from the fold for this trick.

    What part of SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION did you miss?  

    Either way, they are "short bus" people.

    Try a majority of "short bus" people . . . led by a small group of very bright, very sociopathic people.

    by alizard on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:51:49 PM PST

    •  my bad

      I keep forgetting that the Southern Baptists can't even get along with each other well enough to form a central authority.

      by seesdifferent on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:45:23 PM PST

      •  No, that's not it

        There is a Southern Baptist Convention, and it's a huge organization. (They own several blocks of downtown Nashville.) But I believe the Baptist faith has as one of its tenets the "priesthood of all believers," which means that there is no real central theological council with absolute authority over church doctrine, as in Roman Catholicism.

        SBC is the largest group, but there are tons of smaller Baptist denominations/groups.

        by hamletta on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:58:33 PM PST

•  You Can't Fire Me

  I Quit!

  by Militarytracy on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:58:27 PM PST

  •  Heh

    That didn't work very well for Ajai Raj.
    

    by starkness on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:15:06 PM PST

    •  Well then they can arrest me too

      Bring Em On!

      by Militarytracy on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:30:01 PM PST

      •  Truly

        I'm not afraid of going to jail for my beliefs.  I'm afraid of being jailed by someone else's!  I think I'm just about to the point of being sure that I will die for my beliefs, otherwise I'm just living someone else's idea of what my life ought to be and that's not living and I'm already dead.  I have nothing to lose anymore.

        by Militarytracy on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:32:49 PM PST

•  WOW! Recommended and passed on...

  Oh my God! I never really thought that this sort of thing would happen so blatantly. I figured it would be a gradual urging out of Dems with sect-wide votes against certain candidates or platform planks. But this is one of the more visibly and damningly abhorable and, dare I say, anti-Christian tolerance things I've heard about in a while. The bigger this story becomes:

  • The more Americans who will naturally recoil at it (as they did during the overpoliticization of private and religious matters in the Schiavo case). Very few Americans will support this churches action, and none who are persuadable will.
    
  • The more Americans who will sympathize with the victimized Democratic and faithful members of the church in question.
    
  • The more Republicans will have been seen as attempting to hijack religion and using it brutally and oppressively for means that only divide Americans.

  We need to trumpet this news because it perfectly encapsulates what is happening in this country in an easy to grasp parable form. Republicans hate religion so much that they're trying to make it just another wing of the GOP.

  Write Olbermann, this is right up his alley, get it on the Countdown tomorrow!

  by Addison on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:59:33 PM PST

  •  even worse

    Republicans hate America  so much that they're trying to make it just another wing of the GOP.

    by sooner on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:23:01 PM PST

•  Understandable

  They are, after all, of the "other faith."

  by mrblifil on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:00:14 PM PST

•  Silver lining?

  Radical republicans are showing their true colors more and more.  Maybe, the sooner they show themselves for what they are, the sooner people who are going to wake up will wake up.

  Most of the churches around here have changed.  Gone are days when ministers circulated among local churches every few years.  Now they put down roots and form what are really personality cults rather than churches.  They think bigger is better.  I don't.  I miss the community of a small church.

  by Molly McRae on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:02:02 PM PST

  •  Different denominations, different styles

    one are days when ministers circulated among local churches every few years.

    Baptist churches tend to have preachers for very long times, sometimes a preacher's entire life after seminary is at one church.

    by TarheelDem on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:09:17 PM PST

    •  now

      Maybe now.  But not when I was growing up in a Southern Baptist community.  

      by Molly McRae on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:40:18 PM PST

•  I'm probably naive

  but I would hope seeing this is type of behavior would produce a nation-wide head slap:

  duh, maybe we DO need to keep church and state separate.

  nah, that'd be hoping for too much....

  by pvjeff on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:02:32 PM PST

•  This is terrible, but an old U.S. tradition

  A little historical perspective on this in our country:

  These actions aren't new. Beyond the Reformation, our churches have split and disfellowshiped and excommunicated and shunned a lot.

  Churches split because of slavery, including virtually every main line Christian denomination. The Presbyterian Church divided because of this, and only "rejoined" within the lives of most of us reading & writing here.

  Churches split over who was considered a Christian. This included Baptists, Disciples of Christ, & many others.

  In the earlier days of our nation, churches split over whether members could go to war or vote. A lot of Quakers were attacked verbally and sometime physically because they would not fight during the American Revolution. Some of these families moved to North Carolina, where some members decided that they wanted to vote & defend their rights, so there were more disfellowshiped/excommunicated as Quakers and they became Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, etc.

  Churches split over whether children could marry outside the faith. Daniel Boone had two siblings who were shunned/excommunicated from the Quakers because they married non-Quakers.

  In more recent years, churches split over pacifism. Some churches that tolerated or advocated pacifism in WWII, completely changed their viewpoint during the Cold     War.

  Sometimes the splits involved groups of people leaving. Other times it has involved people being told they weren't welcome, individually or as a group.

  Although being driven out of a church is undoubtedly upsetting to the people involved, I think it actually helps people who are leaving (or told to leave, or who are uncomfortable with such actions. How? It helps them clarify what they believe and what the implications are of those beliefs. It also helps them and those who see it happen decide whether they are willing to have someone else - a priest, pastor, preacher, whoever - tell them what to believe.  I think a lot of people don't think these issues through until they are made uncomfortable or are faced with a crisis.

  by Kidspeak on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:06:54 PM PST

  •  Rove : "I put churches in schools"

    "You're not such a scary guy," joked his guide. "Yes, I am," Rove replied. Walking away, he muttered deliberately and loudly: "I change constitutions, I put churches in schools ..." Thus he identified himself as more than the ruthless campaign tactician; he was also the invisible hand of power, pervasive and expansive, designing to alter the fundamental American compact.

    by Troutfishing on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:24:56 PM PST

    •  hold up a minute..hold on a minute.hold the fuck

      on one minute ,rove said he put churches in schools.w.t.f w,t,f, can you say hitler youth....................

      by cognitive dissonance on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:48:42 PM PST

    •  I choose to laugh at Rove's comments

      The early public schools were largely an outgrowth of religiously motivated teaching. In fact, Sunday schools were originally started to teach children to read. Kids had to work all other days. Only on Sunday could they be taught, when they had to be free of work  because the scriptures cite the first day of the week as a "day of rest".

      And I'm comforted by the fact that among people in this community who attended religious schools, we have some of those most vehemently opposed to infusing religion in education.  

      by Kidspeak on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:04:38 PM PST

      •  i thought about the early pub.schools too.

        just saying this could be very bad for the next gen.  a whole army of manchurian canadates...hitler youth...to easy to do. to much power in the hands of a few. its happend before.

        by cognitive dissonance on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:17:45 PM PST

    •  Drinking a little of his own kool-aid, huh?

      "Never get high on your own supply" - classic drug dealer's adage.

      I love it when powerbrokers start actually believing the cynical shit they spew to hustle others.  Rove's little zealot-warmonger-profiteer alliance is already busting at the seams and the GOP is facing a backlash not only in the general population, but within its own party.  

      by GN1927 on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:03:37 PM PST

      •  Thanks for making me laugh

        Because this is so not funny for me!

        by Militarytracy on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:20:35 PM PST

  •  Yup

    And Baptists are the most schism-prone denomination out there.

    by hamletta on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:24:11 PM PST

    •  A Quaker once told me-

      that he'd always heard that Baptists were like cats- you hear them fighting and biting and scratching and yowling and screaming out in the yard at night, so that you fully expect to see cat bodies littering the place in the morning. Thing is, in fact, there are... soon to be MORE CATS!

      I forget, are we the Judean People's Front? Or the People's Front of Judea?

      by Lainie on Fri May 06, 2005 at 01:09:10 AM PST

  •  Thank you

    for being someone who knows his American history!  Slavery split many churches, including mine, the Presbyterians.  So we finally got together with the Southern Presbyterians again twenty years ago.  And it has been a mess over gays ever since.  They weren't ready to rejoin, really -- nor were the Northerners, from their perspective, I suppose.

    Martin Luther was just the first.  Churches have been splitting about their beliefs ever since.  And why not?  Beliefs are what define them.

    Including bad beliefs.

    by Cream City on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:25:22 PM PST

    •  Actually

      The Great Schism between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholicism pre-dated Luther by 1000 years.

      It was about the order of the Holy Trinity.

      by hamletta on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:40:47 PM PST

      •  That's why I said American history

        because I'm lost before that.  Wish I'd had more non-American history, like about this.  Thanks.

        by Cream City on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:51:28 PM PST

    •  god bless the great fractious church of Man

      by sooner on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:32:24 PM PST

  •  Church politics not usually about religion.

    Individual churches have been known to split over all kinds of things, from use/mis-use of church funds to who the pastor was sleeping with on the side. Cults of personality arise. Personal differences escalate into full-blown feuds. Pet projects and grievances get blown out of proportion. The choir director and minister get into playing power/popularity games, and people take sides, resentment builds, and soon, there's nothing that church as a body can do but split -- it's like a marriage gone bad, the emotional fallout simply gets to be too much.

    Sometimes it's religious/doctrinal issues, but usually it's something far more mundane. Most churches are at their heart voluntary associations, and are thus vulnerable to the same factional politics as any other association. The religious angle simply raises the emotional stakes -- especially if one side or the other is using righteousness as a weapon.  

    The people who left that church are probably better off finding a new church -- the distortion of secular politics was probably just the tip of the iceberg when it came to the problems here.

    by JanetT in MD on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:50:37 PM PST

•  what we need now is a jeff foxworthy

  rendition of

  you know Jesus was a democrat when....

  and supply the appropriate bible verse, doctrine, etc.

  i am actually serious on this folks - we can fight fire with brimstone here!

  we need to throw the hypocrisy back at them and do it in a very public way!  perhaps the good libs in n.c. would like banners, signs and picket the area of the church.  there is nothing that the south hates more than what the neighbors think....so maybe the "neighbors" should tell them.

  i know, i grew up with that phrase "what will the NEIGHBORS think!?!"  [my comment was - are they so bored they have nothing to do but watch me all day???????]

  sheeesh!

  by edrie on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:11:51 PM PST

  •  Don't look to Foxworthy for help...

    That clown runs with the Wingnuts.  Arn't you happy you contributed to the Republician Victory with your hard earned money?

    Disillusioned yet?

    by NevDem on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:23:55 PM PST

  •  No

    It's in extremely poor taste. It just turns off reasonable people of faith.

    by hamletta on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:25:48 PM PST

    •  we're not dealing with people

      of "reasonable" faith here.

      the real offense they should be feeling is the one perpetrated by this group.
      

      by edrie on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:45:19 PM PST

      •  I know that

        But we're not going to get to the unreasonable ones, and this kind of thing is a turn-off to the ones we can win over.

        Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

        by hamletta on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:47:56 PM PST

    •  "reasonable people of faith" =

      oxymoron, IMO.

      Doesn't mean that Christians can't be nice, good, generous, kind, and and otherwise intelligent...but, when you talk "reasonable", things get kinda shaky.

      Here I go, being offensive again, as I was born to do. But come on already: It's the 21st century now. We have empirically established that:

      • santa claus does not exist
        
      • nor does the easter bunny
        
      • the earth is not flat
        
      • evolution/natural selection are facts, not fiction
        
      • earth is a TAD bit older than 6000 years
        
      • ditto universe
        
      • sun doesn't revolve around earth

      similarly, concepts such as "past life regression," "imaginary friends," "demonic possession," and the efficacy of witch burning, voodoo spells, and the lighting of gas station novena candles have been called into question by scientific means.

      so why does all this christian hooglety-pooglety get a pass? I DON"T GET IT.

      Less'n we want to afford equal 'lectual veracity to concepts such as wood nymphs, elves, leprechauns, and unicorns, I don't see what rationale there is for continuing to accord anything but mockery, scorn, and derision to Xtian mythology when it publicly manifests itself. It's cut from the same insubstantial cloth as all of the above. Yeah, we're all gonna be RESURRECTED and MEET THE LORD IN THE AIR on the DAY OF JUDGEMENT. And MOSES PARTED THE WATERS. And EVE WAS MADE FROM ADAM'S RIB. And on and on...

      ...please. "The Wizard of Oz" is more scientifically credible. And if watching "Wizard of Oz" a thousand times brings you personal peace, comfort, happiness, whatever...more power to you, and I wish you well. And when it comes to Thou Shalt Not Steal/Kill/Bear False witness...yeah, I'm down with that (leaving "adultery" and "lust" off the table for the moment). But let's stop pretendending that this happytalk crapola has any place in the shaping of public policy, or should be afforded any position of influence whatever in public life. When kept to oneself, it's a private personal addiction, kinda like eating too much ice cream or watching soaps. Harmful only to self, if anyone. But in the public sphere, it's pure anti-intellectual, anti-scientific, ANTISOCIAL poison. And it should be treated as such: clean it up, clear it out.

      Intolerant of me? Yes. And with good reason, I think. Society cannot afford to let itself be influenced, let alone governed, by unreason. The results are plainly visible in the historical record, from the Crusades to Germany in the '30s to, most recently, the Lord's Resistance Army and abortion clinic bombings. Seems that wherever Christianity is allowed to gain a toehold, this kinda shit takes root.

      by RabidNation on Fri May 06, 2005 at 02:15:02 AM PST

      •  That's the biggest load of crap

        I've ever heard.  You're confusing culture with religion.
        For example, You forget that it was people of faith who proved that the earth isn't flat, etc. and that, for some, it doesn't contradict their faith.

        Also, reason clearly has its limitations too.  Like Hume said, there's nothing reasonable about the sun rising every morning, it's just that you assume it does because it's done so for millions of years.  Your "reason" requires a good deal of faith in underlying forces as well.

        And lastly, "But in the public sphere, it's pure anti-intellectual, anti-scientific, ANTISOCIAL poison. And it should be treated as such: clean it up, clear it out." Clean it up, clear it out?  That sounds a lot like the Nazi rhetoric you attributed to religion, but was more obviously the result of reason gone awry.

        Am I calling you a Nazi? No.  But one can kill a lot of people in the name of reason, just like religion.  

        The problem is neither reason nor religion, but the human condition.  I know, it's not reasonable to be empathetic (especially in the public sphere), but I suppose reason can only take you so far...

        by bongojones on Fri May 06, 2005 at 04:37:46 AM PST

        •  Oops!

          There goes Godwin's Law!

          by OrdinaryVanity on Fri May 06, 2005 at 06:29:33 AM PST

          •  Aw come on...

            Rabidnation started it, what with all the talk of cleaning it up and clearing it out....

            by bongojones on Fri May 06, 2005 at 10:15:38 AM PST

        •  Another big load

          Well then Hume was also full of it.  Rotating planet orbiting relatively stationary star = daily sunrises!

          Reasonable in every sense of the word.

          And reason requires a different kind of faith than the religious does.  When reason (read: scientific method, I guess) is faced with new evidence, the reasonable mind is changed.  Religious faith doesn't allow for the concept of new evidence, much less mind changing.

          All that said, bashing believers is counter-productive (and talk of "cleaning them out" is psycho.)  Try engaging them instead.  Confront cognitive dissonance for the disease it is, don't round up and punish those who are unfortunate enough to suffer from it.

          by Disenfranshit on Fri May 06, 2005 at 07:16:55 AM PST

          •  I disagree...completely

            I think you miss my point about the sun rising - even the phrase "planet orbiting relatively stationary star" is not precise, correct? It's just an approximation, we might say, for what we assume is reality.  See what I mean?  
            It's not objectively true, it just appears to be because experience tells us.  But if you think about it, there's nothing fundamentally true about it.  There's no 100% guarantee that our assumptions about the sun are true, probably 99%...but who knows?  But still to move from 99% to 100%, that requires a degree of faith in something.  Not God, per se, but some underlying force that gives structure to the universe.

            On the other hand, I would say that religious faith can be incredibly flexible.  Think about the vocabulary that Christians and Jews use for God.  At one point, it was Father, King, etc.  Nowadays, people concieve of God in entirely different ways, including more feminine conceptions, non-gendered conceptions, etc.  The relationship between humanity and God is constantly being rethought and renegotiated.

            What do you think?

            by bongojones on Fri May 06, 2005 at 10:04:35 AM PST

            •  *sigh* OK. In E-Prime:

              The evidence I am able to collect with my instruments of perception seems to demonstrate to me a reasonable consistency of physical phenomena from day to day.  I find it convenient to place faith in this apparent consistency because it seems to me that not being able to do so would lead me to question every piece of evidence measured by my instruments of perception anew beginning with each sunrise and I'd rather not inhabit a head that would seem to be headed toward such perceived incipient madness.
              -----------------------
              I think religious faith does not (seem to) allow for the concept of new evidence the way that reason/science does.  That's what I still think.

              by Disenfranshit on Fri May 06, 2005 at 06:56:07 PM PST

      •  Um....

        i am a complete, total, unapologetic atheist, but this is a bigoted rant and it doesn't accurately represent christian faith. religious faith is about more than anti-evolutionist, flat earth wackos.  there's a lot in it about good works like feeding the poor and protecting the weak.  i don't believe in the divinity of christ, but i can get behind a lot of his teachings.

        i thought liberalism was about being inclusive.  realize that you sound a lot like a fundamentalist of the atheist stripe.  there are liberal christians, and i'd like for them to feel welcome here.  i can understand if you are angry about this story, but seriously, you sound really intolerant.

        by spacebaby on Fri May 06, 2005 at 07:07:28 AM PST

        •  Thank You

          by md jeffersonian on Fri May 06, 2005 at 07:34:00 PM PST

        •  liberalism IS inclusive

          but it needn't be inclusive of irrationality.

          are we making room at the policy-forming table for Rasputin? for Zoroaster? For Zeus? No? Well, what makes YOUR faith so special, apart from strength of numbers? How DO you explain the tens of millions of dead your faith has managed to rack up over the past two millennia? was god on your side during the childrens' crusades...? any of the wars fought between the faith's sub-fiefdoms...? the wars against the incas, the aztecs, the maya...? christian history is drenched in blood, and in many corners of the world, continues to be. And here in the Yoo Ess Aye, we're seeing right here, right now how many who claim the christian mantle are just itching to get their fingers on the trigger and a queer or a muslim or an abortion doctor in their crosshairs.

          lots of defensive hiddle-piddle above in response to my post. nothing that refutes anything that I said on a factual basis.

          accusations of "bigotry" and allusions to nazism...ah, riiiiggghhht. I SO said christians should be rounded up and put in camps, didn't I? Read what I fucking said: there ain't no room at the inn in the REALITY BASED universe for subjective "faith"-based BS - not yours, not mine, not anyone's.

          note I never said I was an atheist. but damned if you'll ever catch me so much explaining, let alone advocating, for what I personally believe, religion-wise. my belief(s) such as they exist are wholly SUBJECTIVE, and are useful no further than my own damn nose - they shouldn't be influencing the laws that affect your body, your mind, or your life. nor yours mine. belief is by its nature unreasoning. and we have NO room for unreasoning in the shaping of public policy in an era where the assholes in charge can, with a flick of a finger, launch weapons that will tear us all to pieces.

          by RabidNation on Fri May 06, 2005 at 09:06:10 PM PST

          •  assf

            you're are being accused of bigotry because you said:

            'reasonable people of faith' == oxymoron.  

            pardon me, but i parsed that to mean that people of faith cannot be 'reasonable'.  then you went off on santa claus and the easter bunny.

            your comment was dismissive, rude, and offensive, not to mention that it over-the-top stereotyping.  i've begun reading a lot of blogs by religious liberals lately, and they write a lot about concern for the poor.  they speak out against the war.  

            in fact, i would have to say that religious liberals are doing their part to reclaim the 'values' meme from the GOP.  there have been few things they've said that i can disagree with on the values front, save abortion, and religious liberals are not of the same stripe on that issue.
            i haven't seen any of them advocate for state-sponsored religion.  on the contrary they have made good arguments as to why that is a horrible idea, based on scripture and democratic values.

            you can't do politics without dealing with people's beliefs.  in fact, it is my personal opinion that most of human behavior and decisions have as much to do with emotion and belief as they do about 'reaon.'  my anti-war stance is about a belief in the value of human life.  does that make it illegitimate?  because it's a belief? because i can't objectively prove the value of human life?

            i didn't say that you were an atheist.  i said i was because i wanted to make it clear that i wasn't criticizing your comment based on personal religious identification.  if you wanted to condemn wanna be theocrats, you should have limited your criticism to them.  

            your comment really came off as a blanket condemnation of all religious people, not to mention a really unfair representation of their beliefs.  i don't know a single christian, liberal or conservative, who bases their religion on santa claus and the easter bunny.

            by spacebaby on Sat May 07, 2005 at 03:46:11 AM PST

•  Rapture, take them away!

  Every day I say a prayer of gratitude that I don't waste my Sundays in church.  I wish the rapture would hurry up and get here and take all those hypocritical sanctimonious self righteous Fristians and leave us sinners alone.  Then we can live in peace and harmony on this sacred planet.

  by rlharry on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:13:09 PM PST

  •  Yeah, like my siggy says.

    by Mariposa on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:29:13 PM PST

•  Victims

  Stories like this and the one about the Catholic Church are painting Dems as victims.  I am not saying that these stories are not true or important, but I, for one, refuse to accept the label of "victim."
  I used to practice Family Law and I found out that "victims" tend to remain victims, over and over again.  I'll never forget the woman who came to me with two black eyes inflicted by her husband.  She came came three months later with two more black eyes inflicted by her new boyfriend.  I don't know about all of you, but that is not me.
  So, there are some nutcases out there. Yep, there always have been and always will be.  I have faith in our country because the majority of Americans believe that the Repugs are running the country into the ground.  We will overcome.  We'll pick up more seats in the house and senate in 06 and we will have a democratic president in 08.  I have two friends who voted for Bush twice.  Both of them are totally repulsed by the repug party today.  Of course, it took a lot of "hard work" on my part, but it has been effective.  So, instead of feeling like a victim, do something positive -- go out and convert all the repugs you can.  Hint: Find issues you agree on and keep hammering them home.  It works!  As someone, I think it was Kos, recently said, "This is not your father's Republican party," and they know it too.  Onward brave Kossacks!  
  

  by elveta on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:21:03 PM PST

  •  I think this story makes

    the average Joe Republican look like a victim.  It proves to him, look, your party is overrun and hijacked by these radical, irrational, Unchristian people.  It's an excellent springboard for debate not about Democrats as victims, but rather, the manipulation of the GOP by the radical religious right.

    by georgia10 on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:24:05 PM PST

    •  Average Joe Republican

      Yep, I think they are getting it.  Doesn't mean that they will vote for Dems, but they might at least stay home.

      by elveta on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:30:33 PM PST

  •  learned helplessness

    "victims tend to remain victims ..."

    In behavioral psychology it's called learned helplessness.  I don't think the term applies to most kossacks, however.  Kossacks rouse rabble.

    by Bob Love on Fri May 06, 2005 at 02:33:30 AM PST

•  If the right-wing spent 1% of the time

  that they spend going after liberals on going after terrorists, we'd have captured Osama 10 times over. There is no war on terrorism. There is a war on liberalism.

  by jfern on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:24:12 PM PST

  •  no...

    It's a war on freedom.

    Freedom from religion. Freedom to write, to think, to express one's self without fear of going to prison or to execution because of a repressive religion embodied as a religious theocracy. Freedom to do good science without having to look over one's shoulder or watch what one says.

    Liberals are just one of a long list of targets. Are you gay? Wiccan? A member of a non-fundy Christian church? A Democrat? A scientist?

    Basically, it's being free to live in a place that is not run by Taliban, whether Christian or Muslim.

    by alizard on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:49:39 PM PST

•  I think I hear what you're saying--

  but just hearing someone report on this story, and hearing others'comments on the implications, does not make me feel in the least victimized--far from it.

  by bibble on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:26:31 PM PST

  •  Er, that was a comment to elveta (n/t)....

    plus, what georgia10 just said.

    by bibble on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:28:02 PM PST

•  this is not a threat

  but I will kill anyone who tries to impose their religious beliefs on my or my family.

  That is not a threat since it is not directed at any one person, group, etc.

  I am merely stating that a boundry line around me has been drawn and I will defend myself against any whacko who tries to cross that boundry with hostile intent, such as imposing their whacked out religious beliefs upon me.

  I will not accept this anymore.

  by jackemoe on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:28:43 PM PST

  •  oh come on you know you want to believe.

    just a little sip . its christian grape flavor today  come on. just kidden. i agree 100 percent with you and i am a christian.

    by cognitive dissonance on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:01:08 PM PST

  •  This wasn't imposing beliefs, though, was it?

    It was saying, this church has different beliefs.  You don't have to change yours, unless you want to stay in this church.

    A lot of us have left churches with which we don't agree, from all the former Catholics on DKos.

    by Cream City on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:28:55 PM PST

•  Nighmare

  Nightmare of the living trailer trash.

  Wake me up!

  PS Some of my best friends are GOP sycophants.  Just kidding!  I KID the redneck morons who worship the Koolaid Khrist!

  by super simian on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:31:57 PM PST

  •   I KID the redneck morons who worship the...

    Now that's funny. That has always been my favorite Bill Maher catch phrase....let's one off the hook, kinda like the "I'm just SAYIN'"

    by Limabean on Fri May 06, 2005 at 12:17:26 PM PST

•  Let's try and get as

  much attention to this story as possible.

    Inflame the passions of reasoned people.  These kinds  of terrorist acts by relgious extremists cannont be tolerated.

         Feet to the street

     start shouting out loud and clear this is out of bounds.

     Let's read the US Constitution over and and over; one individual at a time, until this insanity stops.   A chain of people that goes from one coast to the other, reading the constitution. With justice and liberty for all

  and a prayer or two might help too.

  Thanks Georgia for staying on top of things.

  by missliberties on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:37:17 PM PST

  •  Georgia is one person, and this story is legion...

    As regards your Constitution reading chain : such an event would be very good. But as far as public displays go, I do not believe that shouting will help.

    The religious right has been hard at work at ground level politics for two decades : towards the achievement, and now consolidation, of absolute political power.

    Marches and shouting will not help.

    Organizing will.

    by Troutfishing on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:46:27 PM PST

    •  okay

      I agree about the shouting. And thanks for the response..

        What if...

          spontaneously small groups of people got together  in public places, like city centers, or parks, armed with copies of the constitution, and read it out loud. And asked curious bystanders to join in, or start discussing in a peaceful way.

      It could even be fun. Sort of like a live blog based on preserving the liberties guaranteed in the constitution.

        We could call it Random Acts of Liberty  just popping up willy nilly around the country.

        I agree about the power of organizing!! But this would not be super complicated  to put together. It would just take one or two people to be brave in pulic speaking and inspiring others,

      by missliberties on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:31:41 PM PST

  •  But that darn Constitution

    includes the religious freedom for this church to do exactly as it did.

    I will defend their right to do exactly as they did to the end.

    Just as I defend your church's right to define itself by its beliefs, and to determine who belongs to your church by who agrees with its beliefs.

    Terrorism and extremism would be to demand that your church do what I want it to do, when I am not a member of it.

    This is not to say I don't think what they did stinks.  It does.  But it's their right to be stupid . . . as long as they don't misread my Constitution.

    by Cream City on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:17:47 PM PST

    •  Not correct

      As you can read above, you and I paid for this church to do what it did, because they are tax-exempt.

      by Smallbottle on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:28:26 PM PST

      •  Now, that I agree with

        and would pull a lot of like tax exemptions.

        But I still would defend their right to religious freedom, to hold these beliefs and enforce them on members.  And pay taxes, which is different.

        by Cream City on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:37:03 PM PST

•  Waiting for the link

  I know everyone is waiting on the link, but I've already written some stuff that I will pass around LOUDLY to EVERYONE I KNOW.  

  IF this is true, THIS HAS GOT TO STOP.

  by chassit on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:42:25 PM PST

  •  THIS HAS GOT TO STOP?

    Who's going to stop them, and what with?

    by alizard on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:28:38 PM PST

    •  My mom.

      This will sound silly, but people like my mom.  

      We attended the same church for the first 17 years of my life, but at 17 I walked.  We had brought on a new pastor.  He was an arrogant, fundie, asshole.  I walked out of church and was grounded each Sunday until I turned 18.  

      Halfway through my first semester of college I got an e-mail from my mom.  She is one of the most passive women you've ever met, but she has a quiet strength. She is a TRUE Christian. She rallied a majority of the congregation, stood up in front of God and everyone, said "my daughter left this church family because she felt this man was not a Christian. I punished her for it.  She was right." The congregation voted him and his arrogant fundie ways out of the church.  I still think my original church is one of the most amazing bastions of true-Christians.  I don't live there anymore, so I haven't been back.

      I believe there are a lot people people like my mom who are active in churches, and when pushed by such evil WILL stand up.  My mom is the first person who I will show this to when it is verified tomorrow.  She will stand up to this evil in ways that I cannot.  

      by chassit on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:07:26 PM PST

      •  I wish you, her, and the rest of us

        the best of good luck with this.

        I suspect that the rot has gone too far into any given fundamentalist Christian church for stubborn decency to have much of a chance, and that the change in her church is going to be. . . the last decent human beings in that church will leave with her.

        Please let us know how this works out. Even bad news out of this kind of scenario could be useful, and if the news be good, we can use all the hopeful news we can get.

        by alizard on Thu May 05, 2005 at 10:33:44 PM PST

        •  will do

          I sent her the link to the video tonight.  I should hear back from her by tomorrow afternoon or shortly thereafter.  I'll make sure to post her response here.

          by chassit on Thu May 05, 2005 at 10:40:04 PM PST

•  Just for the record: I called station

  ... and station newsroom confirmed the story as soon as I said "you ran a story about a church..."  The woman who answered said they've been getting a ton of calls on it.

  by ThatTallGuy on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:42:35 PM PST

•  Rapture

  

  jc's designs

  by jaysea on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:43:28 PM PST

•  This is why

  I've started telling people I'm from D.C., rather than Georgia.

  by TerranceDC on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:49:55 PM PST

  •  hey terrance :)

    just saying hi.

    I'm trying to retain my Virginian pride... its hard lately.

    by wclathe on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:32:35 PM PST

•  Wake-up call for Christian Progressives

  Christian Progressives have recently begun to find their own voice.  Honestly, I hope it is not too late.  

  by A Citizen on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:51:55 PM PST

•  Wow

  This has to be the beginning of the end, right?

  There has to be a point where people wake up to what's going on here, right?

  If this doesn't do it, what in God's fucking name will?

  I barely know what to do with this anger.  The Daily Show can only calm me down so much.  Is there gonna be another Civil War?  Is that what it's gonna take?  I try really, really, really hard not to be alarmist, but Christ almighty, WHAT THE FUCK?  

  by loopster on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:55:19 PM PST

•  It's time to go after the church's tax exemption

  Hit them hard.  If they want to mix religion and politics, we need to burn them while we still can.

  by soonergrunt on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:05:56 PM PST

•  Just watched WLOS segment

  They interviewed some of the folks "excommunicated".  Anyone who was a democrat or who voted for John Kerry was kicked out. Supposedly their beliefs were incompatible with the church.
  BUT, I think I heard that 40 members of the church resigned in protest!!

  by roonie on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:06:25 PM PST

  •  from DU

    someone was able to get a video capture up already. here is the link: http://www.spiffarino.completelyfreehosting.com/images/...

     

    by roonie on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:21:52 PM PST

    •  correction

      It is here.

      by silence on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:25:03 PM PST

  •  Silver lining

    BUT, I think I heard that 40 members of the church resigned in protest!!

    That's a silver lining. Fourty people decided to take a stand.  I wonder what percentage of those who walked out were Republicans?  I hope they find a more progressive church - they are out there.

    by A Citizen on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:29:35 PM PST

    •  Amen

      My second thought when I read this — I'm sure we all know what the first thought was — was that there are 40 people in North Carolina today of whom I am tremendously proud.

      by Ray Radlein on Fri May 06, 2005 at 12:16:45 AM PST

  •  But they could repent and vote for Bush and remain

    Jesus H. Christ...

    Now THERE'S Christianity for you!

    by Bob Johnson on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:32:34 PM PST

    •  This threw me because...

      George Bush can't run again.  Do they know something we don't?

      by sandblaster on Fri May 06, 2005 at 05:17:55 AM PST

•  Unbelievable!

  Although not really, given everything. Which is about the saddest statement of all.

  Thanks for getting the word out on this. These people just get crazier and crazier and crazier!

  by cookiebear on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:20:05 PM PST

•  Time to contact

  some of those who resigned in protest. The interviews with the people thrown out saddened me greatly. I had the impression that the church in that community had been a part of their families for generations. How dare they rob from people their sense of community?

  How gratifying that the pastor already can't take the heat. Where's his fire and brimstone now in defense of God almighty's raging truth?

  by mrblifil on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:29:07 PM PST

•  If they had kicked me out...

  I would have stood up and shouted...

  "You are not true christians! You are not true Americans! You are hypocrites, you follow false prophets, who Jesus warned us about, you do not follow the Bible's teachings! You are ignorent fools and you will have a corner in Hell! Those are more than Christians In Name Only, who actually follow Jesus's teachings, let us leave these poor souls, they cannot be saved."

  Fortunatly I'm a stuanch Secular Humanist.

  by Disgusted on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:30:13 PM PST

•  And the church spokesperson said...

  "It was not political."

  Ignorance, irony or lies?

  Those are the only three choices.

  by Bob Johnson on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:31:09 PM PST

  •  Gotta say...

    ... I don't think "irony" is an option.  Maybe "sarcasm."

    by ThatTallGuy on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:35:15 PM PST

    •  Maybe

      an attempt to besmirch and cast doubt upon the members who were thrown out, so as to imply they brought it on themselves.

      It's a legal maneuver to avoid liablity.

      by mrblifil on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:21:58 PM PST

      •  No way in hell

        will it work. You can't be caught on videotape yelling, "Die you SOB" while shooting someone, and say, "It wasn't murder."

        Well, you can, it just won't do you any good.

        by Smallbottle on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:31:47 PM PST

    •  I somehow doubt

      any pastor foolish enough to throw out all Democrats from his pulpit is smart enough to muster up any sarcasm.  Stupid, fu-king, dangerous, sanctimonious, self-righteous, bigoted idiot comes to mind... but not sarcasm.

      by Spencer10 on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:33:14 PM PST

  •  McSweeney's sed it best

    "6.  Let's ruin irony for everyone."

    by bartkid on Fri May 06, 2005 at 11:15:14 PM PST

•  If it were me

  "Drag me from this church, then, in front of God and these people, and let them see who a true Christian is.  A true Christian never orders someone to vote for a candidate or be kicked out of their church.  A true Christian stands up for what he believes in.  You are all Pharisees and blasphemers, and you shall have your day in hell!"

  Furthermore, this church should immediately lose its tax-exempt status, since it just advocated full-blown political positions in the name of God.

  Oh, wait, this is Dubya's America.  It'll never happen.

  Bastards.

  by wolverinethad on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:34:31 PM PST

•  Probably won't be necessary...

  But mirrored:

  http://www.christopherbair.com/dailykos/wlos.wmv

  by Christopher Bair on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:35:05 PM PST

  •  also mirrored at:

    http://www.a-horizon.com/wlos.wmv

    (if possible, it'd be great if those with the raw tape could run a .mpg, a .rm, and a QuickTime version, to make the video accessible to the widest spectrum of viewers)

    by by foot on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:29:10 PM PST

•  And folks from the South wonder why folks from

  ... the blue states make fun using the redneck stereotype.

  Ahl tal ya one thang, them coloreds sure iz good dancers!

  by Bob Johnson on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:35:08 PM PST

  •  now, now, bob (nt)

    by weeping for brunnhilde on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:55:45 PM PST

    •  You're right...

      No area of this great country has a corner on ignorance.

      by Bob Johnson on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:53:50 PM PST

•  den of vipers w.w.j.d.

  by cognitive dissonance on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:36:22 PM PST

•  Holy, Holy

  shit. Beyond this I'm speachless!

  by nicky on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:36:48 PM PST

•  I'm laughing hilariously.

  Either this is a joke or someone needs to take me away to the funny farm.

  But how can I be surprised after what the catholic church did to Kery.

  by gandalf on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:38:47 PM PST

•  Transcription of

  news report:

  Reporter: 9 members of East Waynesville Baptist say their minister spearheaded an effort to get them excommunicated.  They say the dividing issue is abortion and homosexuality.  They say that the Pastor, Chan Chandler, believes if you supported John Kerry or the Democratic party, you were against the church.

  Former church member: "He told us that uh, we needed to, if we didn't support George Bush, we need to resign our positions and get out of the church or go to the altar and repent and agree to vote for George Bush."

  Reporter: About 40 other church members have left in protest.  The minister declined an interview with News13 but told us that the actions were not politically motivated.  There are questions whether the bylaws were followed when the members were thrown out.
  

  by GN1927 on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:43:52 PM PST

  •  this is a blatant

    501(c)(3) violation

    by JLFinch on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:04:44 PM PST

  •  vote for George Bush?

    what, like for a third term? Or retroactively, or vote for him for some other office, or...????

    by Elizabeth D on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:05:23 PM PST

•  The last word...

  The last word in the video of the TV report is "the Pastor said that it was not politically motivated"... Oh give me a break!!

  by younggoodmanB on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:49:53 PM PST

  •  yes, and

    Freedom is Slavery

    War is Peace

    Ignorance is Strength

    by JLFinch on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:03:08 PM PST

  •  I caught that too...

    "All Democrats leave. Oh, and this isn't about your political party, even though we're excommunicating you based on it."

    by EsnRedshirt on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:16:38 PM PST

  •  That's an opening

    to a slander accusation, since the implication is the reasons stemmed from the behavior of the expelled members. This piss ant preacher needs to be very careful before he says something he really regrets.

    by mrblifil on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:18:12 PM PST

    •  Lets hope the preacher isn't careful at all...

      ...and says many things that will cause him all sorts of regret.

      I'd hate to see this nasty creature slither back beneath his rock before everybody else gets a chance to see him for the worm he really is.

      by martianchronic on Fri May 06, 2005 at 06:50:19 AM PST

•  The best way for churches to tell if someone

  is a democrat is tie them up and thrown them into the water. If they drown they were innocent and deserve a decent burial.

  by muledriver on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:53:14 PM PST

  •  But if they float?

    They might be a very small rock!

    Or made of wood!

    Or....

    A Duck!

    Sorry. This is all so surreal it almost seems like Monty Python.

    Would that it were.

    by mxwing on Thu May 05, 2005 at 11:04:51 PM PST

    •  If they float...

      they are indeed Democrats and should be burned at the stake.

      by muledriver on Fri May 06, 2005 at 08:28:39 AM PST

•  This kind of stuff

  makes being a heathen much more appealing

  jc's designs

  by jaysea on Thu May 05, 2005 at 08:59:03 PM PST

•  Will someone remind

  these jackasses that the Pope opposed the war!

  I guess they are not too concerned about an illegal war, dead Iraqi citizens, or poor Americans with no healtchare...

  by JLFinch on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:01:42 PM PST

  •  these jackasses

    hate Catholicism. They don't care what the Pope thinks.

    by Elizabeth D on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:06:47 PM PST

    •  The Pope

      recently experienced excommunication as well.

      by mrblifil on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:19:06 PM PST

    •  Supernova

      The Religious Right is like a very large star.  In star, the fusion reaction at the core exerts an outward force which balances that gravity of the star.  Once the core can no longer sustain nuclear fusion, the star collapses upon itself.  If it is a large star, this implosion is strong enough to fire one last burst of fusion, exploding the star into a supernova.

      It's like that with the religious right.  The only thing keeping them away from each other's throats is their hatred of everyone else.  Here's some lovely anti-Catholic tracts:

      http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0071/0071_01.asp
      http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0074/0074_01.asp

      You can see the whole list here:
      http://www.chick.com/catalog/tractlist.asp

      There are people who go into Catholic churches and leave these tracts there.  The Chick tracts are very popular with the Religious Right, they are mainstream by the standards of the Religious Right, it that makes any sense.

      But what we are seeing more and more is that what was once considered a fringe element that we could ignore reaches the point of being mainstream.  I think it is safe to expect that if things continue, what is considered fringe today will be considered mainstream.

      by A Citizen on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:35:33 PM PST

      •  Where do priests come from?

        From one of your links "The term 'priest' was taken from the Jewish religion, along with the altar, incense, etc. Heb(8:4)"

        It should be noted that "the Jewish religion" also give Christians Jesus, the 10 commandments, and the first half of the bible.

        by white blitz on Fri May 06, 2005 at 05:36:37 AM PST

•  Time to take a very deep breath,

  gather facts, develop a strategy and then lay seige.

  But not on Waynesville Baptist Church, but rather on the likes of Sen. John Warner, R-Va, who pivotally can stem the tide of a Republican nuclear assault on the filibuster.

  Is this outrageous? Yes. Is it the battle to pitch today? No. But tomorrow, after the filibuster battle is won, absolutely!

  by towit on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:10:22 PM PST

•  So what?

  That church has nothing to do with true divinity anyway. And if it's God's will for them to behave this way then fine. Anyway, they'll never win, because their agenda doesn't fit in America.

  Liberals, Democrats, Progressives are good natured, big hearted, loving people.

  We care about all people, not just Americans.

  We honor all traditions, not just our own.

  We seek to care for other people, animals, the earth, plants, trees...

  We wish to understand different people and different opinions and then seek out higher, common ground.

  Let these others have their little fundamentalist paradise. Let them pray for the day when the rapture comes and God spirits them away to a better place. All they'll have to do is step outside their church and see, because we liberals will be busy making this earth, our home, a better place, right now!!!

  I'm tired of all the outrage here in the Kos community. I'm tired of the dire warnings and the "Oh my God can you believe they did that" posts...

  What are we doing? to implement our enlightened agenda of human upliftment, of good schools, clean water, safe food to eat, strong communities with dedicated neighbors?

  What are we doing? to foster an enlightened society where everyone feels free to experiment, to try new vocations, to live any kind of life they wish to live? Because, this is what America is all about; this is why people still immigrate to this country. Our pluralistic society provides the opportunity to be who you want to be... and then to change your mind and start all over if you wish.

  How fitting it is that our Party honors Senate tradition and allows the Republicans to drive the agenda. It perfectly symbolizes what has happened to the progressive movement. We are stuck letting conservatives drive the agenda. We are stuck in "outrage mode". We are stuck on defense.

  Enough already! Let's get back to the loving task at hand... making this country and the world a better place. It is the progressive's job to uplift society, let's get busy.

  God bless everyone.

  by Dmitri in San Diego on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:24:10 PM PST

  •  Problem: we are out of power

    You make it sound as though our opposition were a tiny minority that can safely be ignored. And by suggesting that it's "God's will for them to behave this way," you dismiss free will and remove responsibility from all of us.

    I'm not saying we shouldn't be trying to do all the wonderful things you mention. But right now the levers of power are firmly in the hands of people with the opposite agenda. Any attempt to seize the lead in forming the agenda runs up against the fact that we don't have the power to make it a reality. At the same time, those in power are actually undoing decades of progress on the environment, the social safety net, international relations, civil rights, in a matter of months. This is real, and wishing won't make it go away.

    Outrage is entirely appropriate in my opinion, and it can be a spur to action. Right now the action most called for is principled opposition. You can disagree and take a different approach, but you're wrong to trivialize those who are fighting against this hostile takeover.

    by wont get fooled again on Fri May 06, 2005 at 12:58:18 AM PST

    •  No, we are not out of power

      We have money, we have health, we have ideas.

      Government doesn't have the ability to achieve what we want to see in the world. What's the plan? To elect John Kerry or Al Gore or Hillary Clinton and then beg them to fight for the progressive agenda, and then come here and bitch about them when they don't vote our way?

      Anyway, so many years of work have been rolled back since 1994. Why? Because laws and public programs are subject to politics and greed and stupidity.

      The next wave of reform and good work isn't going to happen in government, it is going to be driven by people and our choices.

      We can start non-profits, conscious communities, cooperatives, organic farms, our own green businesses. We can get out and talk to people. Talk to rich people. Talk to poor people. Talk to our neighbors. We can invest in land like the NRDC and keep it safe in perpetuity. Maybe we could even buy the national parks and keep them out of the hands of good and bad politicians forever!  What if the Artic National Wildlife Refuge was owned by a bunch of liberals like us?

      This is what I'm saying.

      Outrage is good to a point and it has gotten us busy and forced us to communicate with eachother. However, what I see is that we are reactive, always on the defensive. We can do both! Fight for as much as we can get from government and then create the rest on our own.

      by Dmitri in San Diego on Fri May 06, 2005 at 01:27:45 AM PST

  •  U make some goof points

    and I was just thinking about, what do we really have to Fear?

    For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction!

    When they Push we will push back......

    When it is time for Blood to Spill whether it be mine or those who consider themselves my enemies I will be content that I died for the worthy cost of Freedom, Liberty and The Rights of all people!

    Will the folks on the "Right" be able to say the same? I don't think so.
    

    by Northstar on Fri May 06, 2005 at 11:23:05 AM PST

•  Video

  I have posted the video here.
  

  I hate to admit it but I live close to this community and first viewed this earlier today.

  Come on over and visit DEMBLoggers

  by Brian Hopkins on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:25:27 PM PST

  •  Video

    I'm not getting it at any of the links, which probably means it's Windows Media Player. Anybody know of Quicktime or Real Player posting?

    by 4fx on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:34:54 PM PST

•  Unbelievable

  Really, I mean, we have all speculated that it could go this far, but to have it REALLY happen?? And more mirculously - to have a news outlet report on it??

  Please please let this be the beginning of the end of the power granted to the Fundies!!! I am sending this video to everyone I know to get the word out.

  by SanDiegoDem on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:29:50 PM PST

•  pardon if it has been mentioned before...

  You can go to USAChurch's website and leave a comment about this wonderful church.

  http://www.usachurch.com/north_carolina/asheville/churches/church_182864.htm

  Bring it on.

  by skwimmer on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:32:50 PM PST

  •  Sigh

    It won't let me register.

    by chassit on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:42:32 PM PST

    •  That's me

      posting as "LiteralTruth"

      by SFOrange on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:57:04 PM PST

      •  Not helpful...

        Sorry to say, the phrase "American Taliban" and other hostile comments aren't going to help our cause; it's much better to express sorrow than outrage, as their indignant responses (which have already started to pop up) appear much more ludicrous when they're in response to a careful post talking about loving thy neighbor.

        by EsnRedshirt on Thu May 05, 2005 at 10:22:53 PM PST

•  Something from my blog in reaction:

  Jesus Loves You, but only if you are a Republican. If you do not bow to the altar of Bush, the gates of Hell await. Here's a 411 for my peeps on the right: your "Christianity" goes against everything I was taught to hold dear. Yours is a "Christianity" that is alien to me, and to my understanding of the Bible. Yours is a "Christianity" that is largely irrelevant to me in my day-to-day life: your only relevance to me is with regards to the damage that your fanatics can do to the very fabric of not only our society but of our species. In that regard, your "Christianity" is truly an abomination. I want nothing to do with it.
  

  by James Benjamin on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:43:25 PM PST

  •  Went to a funeral tonight

    at a Catholic church in the Los Angeles area. The deceased, a woman who was truly a pillar of the church, was extolled by all who spoke. The pastor noted that, among her many other community involvements, she was a life-long Democrat. The entire packed congregation broke into prolonged applause.

    by murphy on Thu May 05, 2005 at 11:11:24 PM PST

    •  I just love the obits

      because I'm weird and morbid. . . .

      No, I mean, I just love the obits that state that the deceased's last wish was to vote against Bush, or ask that donations be given to the Democrats in lieu of flowers, etc.

      There were quite a few of them for a while in fall, and each one just made me wish I had met each one of them before they were gone.

      But not forgotten!

      by Cream City on Thu May 05, 2005 at 11:47:12 PM PST

      •  Yeah, those were great

        I'm thinking of putting similar instructions in my packet, along with my other living will info, in case I die unexpectedly.

        by murphy on Thu May 05, 2005 at 11:58:05 PM PST

•  Southern Baptists and Discipline....

  ....found a review of Gregory A. Wills "Democratic Religion: Freedom, Authority, and Church Discipline in the Baptist South 1785-1900", written by Bill Leonard.

  It looks like casting out the congregations sinners, in a very public way, was commonplace centuries ago.... note this passage:

  He writes that "As Baptists saw it, both the preaching of the gospel and the exercise of church discipline served the vision of the pure church by separating the righteous from the unrighteous." (17) Likewise, they were primitive and "pure" democracies, peoples' churches, in which laity and clergy fought vehemently and cooperated energetically in fulfilling the gospel commands. The reputation of gospel churches were at stake when impure church members went unchallenged. Discipline was necessary to redeem the fallen and preserve the integrity of the congregation. Wills writes: "When churches encountered troubles, ecclesiastical detectives could be counted on to round up the usual suspects-- first among them being neglect of church discipline." (35) And discipline they did. Baptist church records from this period are filled to overflowing with accounts of persons warned, rebuked, excommunicated and restored for a wide variety of offenses. Excommunication was a particularly powerful moment when, "in the presence of the Church," an individual was given "expulsion from its fellowship & privileges."

  Looks like East Waynesville Baptist still engages in the practice.  The sins that will get you excommunicated there include not voting for the False "Dubya" God- guess they ran out of drunks to kick out.

  Just this past week, I was informed by some wing nut that I just "didn't get it"-    the "it" being how "Christian Americans" felt about things.  Funny thing is...I'm a Christian and I'm an American.  Well, maybe not so much funny as it was scary.

  This has got to stop.

  by cici414 on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:49:51 PM PST

  •  Church discipline...

    ...is supposed to lead to repentence and restoration, not callousness and condemnation.  Where's the love from the 350?  

    For me, voting Democratic is not a sin.  Voting without weighing the candidates and issues against one's personal knowledge of Christ is a sin.  And in the Baptist church in particular, where the priesthood of the believer was once a cherished value, the individual responsibility of making these decisions was once respected.  Respected, because we were endowded with the responsibly to make decisions while living reverently.  Church polity was congregational, and we all voted on important issues of the church (budget, calling pastors, etc.)  Votes were not always unanimous, but no one was asked to leave.    

    This of course leads to a "rich" Baptist history, ripe of examples of 50 vs 350 fighting over a scrap of doctrine.[1]  It's a vital part of forming new churches[2] and forming new denominations[3].  Nevertheless, I have faith that the Holy Spirit corrects his church, is mindful of our fragile humanity, and leads us to make the decisions that serve Him best.  

    Then we have this.  I had never heard of such political considerations ripping a single church apart.  I weep for this congregation, all 400 members, and disavow the actions of their majority.  

    [1]  Example: many major Baptist churches lay out explictly what happens to the property should the congregation split.  See, the "throw-away" line at the end of the video about checking the by-laws is important (a "dog-whistle" to other Baptists).  One could say that local Baptist churchs are "franchisees" of the universal and catholic church - one could say that each branch is independently "owned" and operated by that local congregation.  The by-laws of the individual church constitution may not give this pastor what he wants.
    [2] Mild attempt at humor.
    [3] Southern Baptists were formed in the doctrinal belief that slaveowners could be missionaries.  The SBC formally apologized < 10 years ago.  I apologize informally every chance I get.              

    by LetsGoVandy on Fri May 06, 2005 at 12:00:14 AM PST

  •  Fundy Church "discipline"

    The sins that will get you excommunicated there include not voting for the False "Dubya" God- guess they ran out of drunks to kick out.

    Modern evangelicalism reinvented itself in the mid 20th century after decades in decline.  One of the tricks they have used to achieve the huge memberships they now claim is to emphasize their "accepting" attitude towards "sinners".  In fact their appeals often specifically target people with messed up lives.  "Come to the altar all you drunks, dopers and fornicators, Jesus loves you too!".

    In practice, these people don't reform after getting "saved".  The fundies even have a word for this - backsliding.  They also have a process, akin to the Catholic's confession ritual (but don't tell them that) in which you make a public and histrionic show of repentance (think Jimmy Swaggart crying on TV) and this buys you one free backsliding pass.  You will backslide again, everyone knows this, but it's OK since Fundyism isn't really about being morally "pure" but talking about the immorality of the "others".  This is really just code for an attack on those "others" (Jews, GAYS, intellectuals, atheists, scientists, blacks and other minorities) themselves.  That is, modern fundyism isn't really moralism but crypto-fascism already.  

    If it were about morality they would be as hard on the randy kids in the youth group who get loaded, stoned and laid every weekend as they are on that one kid with a lisp and the nicely tailored shirts...  Being a Democrat or an "other" has always been a bigger sin than porking Susie May in the back of dad's Ford or getting wasted at the Beer 'n Brawl every night.  They are finally getting around to the purge, that's all.

    by Event Horizon on Fri May 06, 2005 at 07:14:04 AM PST

•  They should loose their tax exempt status....

  This is a clear violation. CONTACT THE FORMER MEMBERS AND TURN THEM IN!

  by mcmahon4house on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:52:03 PM PST

•  Cult

  Sounds like the behavior of a cult.  That church needs deprogrammers.  

  by pacifica on Thu May 05, 2005 at 09:54:44 PM PST

•  And if you haven't seen it before now

  how far a stretch is it for the day coming very soon that Gays will be hunted down, rounded up, killed, imprisoned or more.

  I doubt that they will go looking to kill many democrasts, but I have no doubt they won't mind killing some queers.

  Step, by step we seem to be following the path that Hitler and his Germany laid out before us.

  by shirlstars on Thu May 05, 2005 at 10:00:26 PM PST

•  umm...

  This did happen in a church.  I'd rather it happen there than a state supported school, or somewhere else you can't legally judge someone's doctrine.

  by barista88 on Thu May 05, 2005 at 10:06:45 PM PST

  •  Agreed. It's religious freedom.

    It's stupid, but the Constitution didn't protect against stupidity.

    by Cream City on Thu May 05, 2005 at 10:36:00 PM PST

  •  But they are part owners too.

    Shouldn't they be allowed some sort "divorce" settlement so they can continue their worship as they see fit without having it taken away from them?

    by white blitz on Fri May 06, 2005 at 05:40:36 AM PST

•  NOW can we satrt saying....

  that THESE FOLK ARE NOT CHRISTIAN.

  I really think accusing them of being "not Christian" is the only thing that would get under these people's skin.  By these actions, they "reject Christ."  

  I know many don't like using any religious terminology, but to those who understand what I mean, we have to use these terms at long last.

  It's time to call them out.  

  All these folk that approve of these actions, they "excommunicate" themselves.

  There is no Christ in their midst.
  

  by HadIt on Thu May 05, 2005 at 10:08:40 PM PST

  •  Can you say...

    Christian extremists?

    by millennialpaine on Fri May 06, 2005 at 11:12:10 PM PST

•  Something tells me that Christ

  would have joined the 40 other members who resigned in protest

  after overturning a few pieces of furniture

  jc's designs

  by jaysea on Thu May 05, 2005 at 10:20:05 PM PST

  •  Well if the story's true

    Then they'll get what's coming to them.

    If not, then their house is built on a pile of bullshit.

    I think this story is good news; people so affected will eventually become sick of both their church and their party at once. It's as if society is a primitive organism that shits by budding off vesicles.

    Careful where you step, though.

    by peeder on Thu May 05, 2005 at 11:38:38 PM PST

    •  It's the story they claim to live by

      but they always manage to forget the inconvenient parts

      jc's designs

      by jaysea on Fri May 06, 2005 at 08:36:42 AM PST

•  It Begins?

  That part ("It Begins") seems redundant, or maybe just unnecessary.  What begins here that hasn't been happening already?

  by repeat on Thu May 05, 2005 at 10:47:17 PM PST

•  Folks, settle down...

  this has been going on for a long time.

  In 1992 at the Republican National Convention, Pat Buchanan declared "there is a culture war going on in America" and proceeded to worry about gay people vs people of faith.

  In 1987 Bill Moyers did a three and a half hour program called God and Politics, in which Moyers, himself a Baptist, mourned the Southern Baptist Synod's takover by the "reconstructionists" who hold that "the Bible should be the basis of all government, laws, and economic systems".  (http://www.pinespby.org/rc/videos_efgh.html - scroll down or search "moyers")

  In Salem, Massachusetts in the 17th century they were burning women at the stake, calling them witches.  Casting out unbelievers from their towns.

  The religious ancesters of these people caused a string of civil wars and the overthrow of the English monarchy.  Oliver Cromwell figured heavily in this, became Lord Protector of England, and "Cromwell's army slaughtered over forty percent of the indigenous Irishmen, who clung unyieldingly to Catholicism and loyalist sentiments; the remaining Irishmen were forcibly transported to County Connaught with the Act of Settlement in 1653."  (http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon48.html)

  We have to fight it with everything we have, including history and the understanding it can bring.

  by Jim Hill on Thu May 05, 2005 at 10:48:51 PM PST

  •  And Martin Luther

    got kicked out of his church (the Catholic church) for not holding to its beliefs.

    Thank heavens he did, as one of his beliefs was that people didn't need an intermediary -- a priest -- to read the Bible to tell them what to believe.

    And that gave rise to the spread of literacy that led to . . . well, lately, blogs! (and a lot of other good things, like self-determination, and thus democracy).

    So let the idiots keep kicking people out because they made up their own minds -- or to make up their own minds even more.

    It has been going on for a long time. . . .

    by Cream City on Thu May 05, 2005 at 11:33:18 PM PST

  •  Cromwell

    Cromwell also deported tens of thousands of Irish women to Jamaica as mates for the slaves, which is why Reggae has a bit of an Irish accent to it.

    by wytcld on Fri May 06, 2005 at 07:32:57 AM PST

    •  Milton

      I should also add: Milton ran Cromwell's propaganda ministry. This is the same Milton who wrote Paradise Lost, which is a brilliant poetic tract about the serious loss to humanity when monotheism displaced the old Greek and Roman gods. Milton, like Shakespeare before him, was on the side of those old gods - although Milton had to cloak it a bit given the political climate.

      Cromwell, it should also be pointed out, was resisting the imposition of religious orthodoxy by the Church of England (as well as by the Catholic Church in Ireland and what remained of its influence in England, too). His action against the Irish Catholics foreshadows the sort of solution that may become appropriate for the American Dominionists: put them all in Kansas or Oklahoma, and put a wall around it.

      by wytcld on Fri May 06, 2005 at 07:40:22 AM PST

  •  and how do you figure

    that church practices/issues from the dark and middle ages are somehow relevant or comparable to a post-enlightenment, post-industrial sensibility?  you know...this country was founded to avoid shit like that.

    please don't tell us that because this has been happening for centuries, its occurence in 21st-century america is not problematic.  i mean, hey...people have been beating their children for centuries - i guess we shouldn't be * too * concerned about it happening here and now?

    by Cedwyn on Fri May 06, 2005 at 11:09:28 AM PST

    •  Not saying that at all.

      I'm saying there's a direct religious and cultural lineage from the Roundheads (17th century England, caused this series of civil wars and actually overthrew the government) to the present day Baptists foaming at the mouth to take over the government and make everybody accept their god and their morality.

      I'm saying that there is at least some understanding that this history can bring us about the current crop of bible thumpers.

      I'm saying "Oh, shit, here they come again!  Red alert!  Battle Stations!"

      by Jim Hill on Fri May 06, 2005 at 11:49:14 PM PST

•  it would be a nice irony

  if the ones they kicked out turned out to be the biggest financial contributors.

  Maybe we should invite them over for a lobster fest.
  God Hates Shrimp.com

  And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: Leviticus 11:9-12  
  

  by mm201 on Thu May 05, 2005 at 10:59:01 PM PST

•  the clincher for me

  is those religio-military dudes up there..
  can i just remind some folks the Nazi party in Germany was a tiny, inane distraction at the beginning as well?

  Ah, let em be, they said. We'll check them if it gets outta hand. Man..
  you HAVE to read this article to grasp the scope of this new violent development brewing...

  When Democracy Failed - 2005
  The Warnings of History

  http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0222-22.htm
  

  by Dazy on Thu May 05, 2005 at 11:01:00 PM PST

  •  He concludes with the Constitution

    bless him, writing that "to the extent that our Constitution is still intact, the choice is again ours."

    And these Southern Baptist idiots exercised their Constitutional right to religious freedom -- to define their beliefs and to ask those who don't agree to leave.

    So we have to defend that, hard as it is, if we truly believe in religious tolerance.

    It doesn't mean a religious group has to tolerate anybody who feels like being in their church if they don't hold the same beliefs.

    It means we have to defend their right to do so.

    Hard as it is, it was harder for me to uphold the right of the American Nazis to march in my city recently.  

    We just marched against them.

    That's what's important: keep marching against them -- and for the Constitution.

    The choice IS ours.  Everybody has religious freedom, whether to handle snakes or tell people how to vote, or nobody does.

    by Cream City on Thu May 05, 2005 at 11:26:46 PM PST

    •  True, they should have their religious freedom...

      ...but their tax-exempt status should now be revoked, no question about it.

      by OrdinaryVanity on Fri May 06, 2005 at 06:39:57 AM PST

      •  Agreed

        as I've repeatedly said elsewhere.  Just trying to get some to see, as you do, that taxation differs from the tenet of religious freedom.  For one thing, only one is a Constitutional right.:-)

        by Cream City on Fri May 06, 2005 at 10:38:42 AM PST

•  Un-bleepin'-believable

  Its getting worse everyday.

  by Prince Escalus on Thu May 05, 2005 at 11:05:36 PM PST

•  Whatever happened to......

  "Judge not Lest you be judged?"

  I thought Christians weren't supposed to hold judgement of other people, because according to the bible all people are sinners.

  People getting kicked out of thier church due to thier political affilation is just bizarre.

  by LeftistIndependent on Thu May 05, 2005 at 11:13:43 PM PST

•  Crooksandliars will host the video

  We'll host the video Friday morning if anyone missed it. www.crooksandliars.com

  by Jamato on Thu May 05, 2005 at 11:18:46 PM PST

  •  I have a copy online

    http://www.topdog08.com/wlos.wmv

    I've got about 900 GB to spare this month, with the hosting package I'm on.  That's almost 5 million downloads of 225 KB, but feel free to mirror.

    It looks like the free site is down, but we've still got to get this video out there.

    by topdog04 on Fri May 06, 2005 at 05:42:18 AM PST

•  Well , I think they excommunicated THEMSELVES

  for their tax free status with that political directive to their constituents. What fine representatives of Christ's words.

  by Alizaryn on Thu May 05, 2005 at 11:23:38 PM PST

•  Keep this diary up

  It's too important to miss for the folks not reading tonight. Jesus H. Christ, what is going to happen? I'm really afraid. Not kidding.

  by Liberaljentaps on Thu May 05, 2005 at 11:24:56 PM PST

•  Statement from Church of Mammon in America

  For many years we have been proud to have East Waynesville Baptist as an affiliate. Their recent actions have called this into question, as such measures can harm the Sacred Bottom Line. Proceedings are scheduled before the Congregation for the Preservation of the Vigorish. If EWB is found deficient, they are subject to repossesion.

  by ben masel on Fri May 06, 2005 at 12:03:09 AM PST

•  I just want you all to know...

  ...  
  I'm not drinking or anything right now.
  But I love you guys.

  I've been one of those severely conservative religeous types.  Or should I say I almost was one.  I've been (I am?) born again.  It was in the third grade.  Profound impact on my life.  But even more of a profound impact was growing up very poor with a single mother in a very wealthy conservative county (and school district).  

  I'm not going to get into all that now.  I just want everyone to know how warming this group is to me.  That there are others who "left the church", or are not so welcome in the church, or were (are?) born again and yet understand science is our friend too, and understand that there are other documents that we need to refer to as human beings when our faith isn't so strong in order for all of us get along (the constitution, or other great pieces of literature).  That there is a great sea of real human experience out there.  Real people brave enough spiritually and intellectually to say "that doesn't make any [damned] sense!".  

  That it is possible that the same people will listen and discuss with me open mindedly if today I say "I don't know if I believe in God" as the people when I say "I believe jesus is my savior".

  That is such a great thing.
  Thanks everyone.

  by d3n4l1 on Fri May 06, 2005 at 12:19:19 AM PST

  •  Back at 'cha. To meet up with those of like mind

    is a blessing (whether divine or earthly). It would be terrible to be alone in seeing all this!

    by wont get fooled again on Fri May 06, 2005 at 01:03:44 AM PST

    •  Good point.

      I think thats the thing.  It would scare the shit out of me if I didn't have a way to see there are like minded people out there that are just as upset as I am.  Instead, I feel part of something.

      It really ain't all that bad.

      by d3n4l1 on Fri May 06, 2005 at 01:34:12 AM PST

  •  Congratulations! You have freed your mind.

    My father was a militant atheist, and my mother was largely indifferent to religion, so I was never burdened with religious indoctrination. I was, however, subjected to the pathological racism of my parents, which in my father's case was neo-Nazi in its scope and intensity, so I know how difficult it can be for a young person to reject the irrational beliefs of his or her parents. In my case, my rejection of my parents' odious racial bigotry was an act of rebellion that has led me to question every kind of authority, a critical event in my progress toward intellectual maturity.  

    by chimpwatch on Fri May 06, 2005 at 06:20:29 AM PST

•  Well, you know

  Wacka-maniacs have been running people out of churches for a variety of reasons for... ever.

  We've got polygamist Mormons -- a splinter group -- marrying off 12-year-old girls in Utah/New Mexico. (Source: NPR piece.) We've got churches with dress codes. Schools with dress codes.

  Churches which won't let slightly over half the human race hold positions of authority. (Women.) Churches that want to toss out people based on sexual orientation.

  Historically -- churches burning people at the stake, branding people, murderous wars. Curently, burying in sand and stoning them.

  Wacka-maniacs and churches. What won't they think of next?

  by AllisonInSeattle on Fri May 06, 2005 at 12:22:29 AM PST

•  shocked but then again not

  Georgia10, once again you have done a wonderful job.  I saw the diary earlier and came back and saw the video.  I think your integrity was never in question as some may have suggested.  I applaud your efforts to get this story out.  Thank you for doing this!  Those that say we are not under assault by the dominionists(lets call them what they really are), are deluding themselves.  

  It started so slowly in Germany.  Go back and research and learn some history!  It took many years, I just hope some more people start to notice the insidious nature of these so-called "christian groups"  

  by pilotweed on Fri May 06, 2005 at 12:53:23 AM PST

•  Liberals will need to...

  start their own organizations, and churches if necessary. I do believe we outnumber them, the "we" being those who see and are waking up to the debacle in the white house.

  This "purge" is mean spirited and desperate. Liberals, don't look back. Start your own local, community groups.  

  by scorpiorising on Fri May 06, 2005 at 12:55:00 AM PST

•  435 threads to this diary and I will admit that...

  this morning I am too lazy to read through them all.

  When will the demonstration take place outside the church in support of those members who were excomunicated?

  Nothing violent, nothing Fred Phelps, but something simple, maybe hymns being sung, a counter church service across the street, surely there is a minister in town who would be more than happy to do this and then invite new members into his/her church.

  I'm just asking.

  by p a roberson on Fri May 06, 2005 at 03:25:37 AM PST

•  Good - these people should have left

  this church ages ago rather than support it anyway.

  It is a shame they didn't have the self respect to voluntarily leave.

  by tiponeill on Fri May 06, 2005 at 03:37:59 AM PST

•  Jesus is a Liberal

  At least in every Bible I have every seen. Then again... we are talking about Repubs here. To be a Republican in this day and age... oh well... Just leave it at this.... Jesus is a Liberal.

  by Random Excess on Fri May 06, 2005 at 03:43:31 AM PST

•  Religion

  is for the mind dead

  by defjef on Fri May 06, 2005 at 03:56:41 AM PST

•  Pastor Chan Chandler

  One of the linked articles quotes the pastor of the church by the name of Chan Chandler.  I googled a bit on this and found contact info for one person by that name in Waynesville:

  Chan Chandler, [phone], 61 Forest View Dr, Waynesville, NC 28786

  There appears to be at least two Chan Chandler's in that part of North Carolina so if you try contacting him, be nice (at least until you make sure which one you are talking to).  The 'other' Chan Chandler is a retired doctor.  Not sure which one this is.

   

  by APeacefulDisposition on Fri May 06, 2005 at 04:30:08 AM PST

•  All I can say is WOW. holly WOW

  Is that not a case over stepping your tax exce status. Maybe the IRS should look into this, a church that large would be crushed if that were pulled.

  by Ioo on Fri May 06, 2005 at 04:41:06 AM PST

•  Tax status?

  doesn't this mean that church loses it's tax status? That would be funny. One thing talks with republicans--more than God and that's money.
  

  by CrazyDem on Fri May 06, 2005 at 04:41:11 AM PST

•  Christian on Christian Persecution

  This country was founded by Separatist Christians from England who were seeking freedom of religion because they had been oppressed by ... the Christian Church of England!

  The right wing nuts are doing the same, and their leader is President George Bush.  What makes this all the more sad is that three ancestors of George Bush were Seperatists who came over on the Mayflower and signed the Mayflower Compact.

  by nathanrudy on Fri May 06, 2005 at 04:47:06 AM PST

•  I just sent this link to buzzflash

  http://www.spiffarino.completelyfreehosting.com/images/wlos.wmv

  If there's a better one, please send it to them.

  http://www.buzzflash.com/contact/newstip.html

  by Timbuk3 on Fri May 06, 2005 at 05:05:41 AM PST

  •  I decided to host it, too

    There are too many messages here to read them all this morning, but I saw that there were some bandwidth issues.

    If spiffarino's link gets saturated, I put it on my site, too. It's not linked on the index, yet, but this link works.

    http://www.timbuk3.com/wlos.wmv

    by Timbuk3 on Fri May 06, 2005 at 05:18:57 AM PST

  •  second mirror

    http://www.topdog08.com/wlos.wmv

    by topdog04 on Fri May 06, 2005 at 05:43:28 AM PST

•  Church member trys to deny Florida judge communion

  WEST PALM BEACH -- An employee of the Diocese of Palm Beach said Thursday that Palm Beach County Juvenile Court Judge Ronald Alvarez, a Catholic, should be denied communion for allowing a 13-year-old foster child to have an abortion.

  Don Kazimir, who works for the diocese's Respect Life Office, which opposes abortion and the death penalty, called Alvarez's office Wednesday to ask which church the judge attends. Kazimir said he wanted to speak with Alvarez's priest, who he said might have a problem with a Catholic judge agreeing to an abortion.

  Alvarez was angry about the call. It is wrong, he said, for the church to try to intimidate a judge into putting his faith above the law.

  http://tinyurl.com/aa7e7

  by route66 on Fri May 06, 2005 at 05:09:22 AM PST

•  About Waynesville, NC...

  ...trust me, this is no big surprise for this crowd.

  The major objection of that congregation of KKK refugees is probably predicated on the Democratic insistence on racial equality.

  I wouldn't pay those hillbillies a whole lot of attention.

  However, should someone here decide that paying them a visit would be the thing to do, let me just tip you off-the area between Waynesville, Bakersville, and Spruce Pine, NC is the most beautiful place on earth. If you don't know what the term "mountain cathedral" means, you will before you leave there. Plan to spend at least a week camping.

  by NCYellowDog on Fri May 06, 2005 at 05:12:01 AM PST

  •  But bring yer gunz

    cos these muthas'll slit yer throat quicker'n shit.

    by Anglico on Fri May 06, 2005 at 05:51:54 AM PST

  •  "Mountain cathedral".

    You're right; it's an incredibly beautiful area.  I've lived in both Bakersville and Spruce Pine.  I'm not even sure how to describe it, but I've never anywhere else felt the kind of spiritual elevation I felt there when out alone cupped in the hands of the mountains.

    Politically and racially, however, it was like living in a 20 or 30 year timewarp.  There's a strong progressive contingent with the many, many artists who live in the area but, overall, it's very regressive, or at least it was when I lived there.  The craft school I attended actually had an incident of the locals barricading the access roads with burning tires.  I came up on the barricade suddenly at about two o'clock in the morning and almost drove off the side of the mountain.

    by martianchronic on Fri May 06, 2005 at 07:23:14 AM PST

    •  Gawd, I know

      Beautiful there-but best to live as a hermit.

      by NCYellowDog on Fri May 06, 2005 at 02:17:08 PM PST

•  fresh thread & action items

  here.

  by georgia10 on Fri May 06, 2005 at 05:51:51 AM PST

•  East Waynesville

  Is East Waynesville next to Waynesville (next to Clyde, outside of Asheville, just north of the Smokie Mtn. Park)? I lived in Clyde for a year and worked the 1980 census. Nice people if you talked slowly to them, dedicated to moonshine, fishing, and of course the Baptist Church. Just about all white, and literally half of them named Ferguson, the descendants of a couple centuries of Scotish immigrant dirt farmers. The ones who'd got the flat land were well off, but their cousins just up the hollow would be in tar paper shacks because their land sloped so they could only plow with horses to plant their tobacco. Beautiful countryside though - a couple hundred species of desiduous trees. And some great fiddlers. Very little sense among most people there that time passes at all.

  It's such a detached part of the world, wouldn't imagine that what happens there in one little church represents much of a trend in anything. Still, this is a great propaganda piece for us.

  by wytcld on Fri May 06, 2005 at 06:03:49 AM PST

  •  Truth is stranger than fiction

    "wouldn't imagine that what happens there in one little church represents much of a trend in anything. "

    You are naive.

    Ohio and now Kansas have laws explicitly permitting lies to be taught in science class. Twenty other states -that's right, twenty other states - are considering similar laws.

    Apparently, you have forgotten Schiavo, Jerry Boykin, Michael Donohue of the Catholic League, Falwell, Robertson and the demonizing of the Democrats during the campaign as anti-Christian.

    And that is just scratching the surface. Not only is this a trend, but it very well may be an irreversible trend.

    by tristero on Fri May 06, 2005 at 06:54:31 AM PST

    •  Just not a representative sample

      I'm not naive; I'm a scientist. There are representative samples, and samples which don't represent. The people up in the hallows around Waynesville don't represent much since they are a largely-disconnected population. Linguists go there to study what Scottish and English accents were like centuries back, since those accents survive in purer form there than anywhere in Britain. If this were happening in a typical town of Ohio or Kansas that would be more representative of a social trend, since towns in Ohio and Kansas really are typical of a whole lot of towns across the Midwest and Plains, with millions of residents. The people in the hollows of Western North Carolina and Eastern Tennesses, however, resemble only themselves (those accents change markedly if you travel even 15 miles from one hollow to another), and what happens in a single church there - like the accents - says more about the culture in Scotland in the 1700s than about American culture today. It's really that backwards.  

      by wytcld on Fri May 06, 2005 at 07:28:49 AM PST

      •  Yup.

        You're right.

        by NCYellowDog on Fri May 06, 2005 at 02:23:55 PM PST

    •  The New Pope Demonized Kerry & Dems Too

      Don't forget... he directed that JK not be given communion, and intentionally politicized the race for Catholics.  The new pope may have helped GW steal the election be ensuring it was closer than it would have otherwise been... thereby allowing those various fraudulent techniques to be extremely successful.

      I don't mean to suggest the new Pope would approve of stealing an election... but he did get involved in a very political way... and suggested that Catholics that voted for pro-choice candidates were collaborating with "evil".  This is not that different of a position as this small church.

      Many Dems are very naive about all of this.  "Mainstream" right-wing Christian orgs are now going after Planned Parenthood by suggesting that they are protecting child molestors by ensuring that young girls have the right to choose.  I believe the Kansas AG is following their lead.  Watch.  The American Taliban is loose and they have no intention of stopping until they win everything.  For them, this is a battle of good vs evil, to the end, and into the after-life.  The dolts chewing cud on the Democratic side of the aisle, completely oblivious to these angry forces, are standing in the way of a runaway train originating from the heart of the GOP's most fascist elements.

      The ONLY answer is to make people aware - because most Americans don't know.  And the media are completely compliant with these people, as evidenced by ABC's broadcasting ads by Focus on the Family, while refusing to broadcast the UCC's pro-tolerance ads as "too controvercial."

      by BigBite on Fri May 06, 2005 at 02:38:50 PM PST

•  All part of a larger strategy.

  Lets say 90% of the population would find this action by this church outrageous and wrong, but when the second church does it, only 84% will, and many of those will not be so vocal because this type of thing happens and it's best not to get involved.

  I do no want to see investigations into Tax Exempt Status start during this administration, as the NAACP and many other organizations would be next in line as soon as this church goes down.

  Sencondly, the media, under it's current editors would make an attempt to ensure there is no liberal bias, by offering some sort of justification for this church's actions, which would be gobbled up as the equally valid contrary viewpoint on the issue of Democrats being allowed to go to church.

  I don't see a winning scenario in this becoming a national story at this point.  Give it a month or so and then hit the media with the 40-50 people in their new church who were seeking donations from Christian Democrats that were also Southern Baptists.  After the money flows in from Democrats of all denominations, run a follow up story on the church, and how they are allowing members from the old congregation in as it is a "big tent" Southern Baptist Church.

  by jandrewmorrison on Fri May 06, 2005 at 06:07:33 AM PST

•  This church

  seriously needs to have its tax exempt status trashed.

  I'm waiting for that to happen with the Catholic Church.  Can I volunteer to be excommunicated?

  by Bulldawg on Fri May 06, 2005 at 07:14:05 AM PST

•  Jesus,

  who cares. Those "kicked out" should be rejoicing they are finally free. Rescued from a cult of evil. Rejoice my brothers and sisters, rejoice. Embrace life.

  I would have been the one clapping as I was told to "get out". And I'd be wearing my "banishment" as a cloak of honor.

  by waynorth on Fri May 06, 2005 at 07:19:39 AM PST

  •  Plenty of better churches out there.

    Matthew 10:14 - And if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town.  

    I don't see any sense in begging permission to stay in a church, when there are plenty to choose from.

    by A Citizen on Fri May 06, 2005 at 10:14:21 AM PST

•  Are we being overly alarmist?

  On the one hand, this is disgusting.  But on the other, it is a single, tiny, backwoods church.  It is not a major denomination or even a large number of people.

  Someone above described the church as "cultlike" and  I think before we start trying to turn this into a World News Tonight story, we should ascertain whether that is accurate.  There are a lot of cult-like churches out there that require bizarre affirmations and practices of their members.  For the most part, there are no legal ramifications to that, but there are also no political ramifications.  These groups are small, fringe-y and largely inconsequential.  

  I believe we would need to know a lot more about this church and the extent of this kind of practice before we decide it represents a major threat to mainstream civil liberties.  

  by true blue on Fri May 06, 2005 at 07:28:11 AM PST

  •  We are NOT being "overly alarmist."

    No, it is not alarmist. These Dominionist-types are pushing way too hard, and I am SICK of taking it. I am one who wants to push back. I take actions like in NC seriously.

    If you think it is alarmist, you are not thinking of the long-term. These pseudo-Christians want to take over the United States - OUR United States! I do not want to take this lying down.

    It is akin to the behavior of the spineless DINOs in Congress who are letting the Republicans steamroller over them.

    Angry Ariel in TX

    by Ari Mistral on Sun May 08, 2005 at 12:43:36 PM PST

•  'Liberal' media still asleep at the switch

  So far, Google News still turns up nothing on this.  We need to keep badgering the usual suspects until somebody decides to cover it.  

  by Tom Hilton on Fri May 06, 2005 at 08:23:57 AM PST

•  soo

  "quote" On the one hand, this is disgusting.  But on the other, it is a single, tiny, backwoods church.  It is not a major denomination or even a large number of people. "quote"

  Sooo, you play it up anyway. THIS IS HOW WE BEAT the right and the Republicans. Sure its a little non story BUT you play it up to show once again how NUTS and Dangerous and DIVISIVE the REpublicans have become.  It's as much about marketing hype, as it is about ideas.

    Stop being rational, thats the dems problem.

  by threecents on Fri May 06, 2005 at 08:28:57 AM PST

  •  asdf

    There is a lot of truth to this.  Just think we should do our due diligence.  Because if this church really is basically a cult, then we will end up looking bad, like we didn't do our homework.  

    by true blue on Fri May 06, 2005 at 11:42:08 AM PST

•  To inject some flippancy into the thread:

  

  by jknevitt on Fri May 06, 2005 at 10:04:14 AM PST

•  seeking interviews

  [double-posting this from the newer thread...] I am a freelance journalist working on a book about Christianity and politics in the American South. If you or someone you know is a member (or ex-member) at East Waynesville Baptist Church, I would love to talk to them. Email me ASAP at [e-mail] for details.

  Thank you!

  Tess Gadwa

  by Andimini on Fri May 06, 2005 at 10:06:09 AM PST

•  Why isn't this getting promoted to front page????

  547 comments and 425 recommendations on this thread over 265 comments and almost 200 recommendations on the follow-up call-to-action post, and a baclink from Eschaton - yet we can't get this promoted to the front page?

  How many Blair threads so we need anyway?

  by Cy Guy on Fri May 06, 2005 at 10:06:12 AM PST

•  It's not just one back-woods church.

  I hate to admit that I was listening to Jerry Springer on my beloved Air America radio 'cause I watch his show and thing it's one of the right-wings biggest assets.

  So anyway, he tells this story about his hero, former Gov of Ohio, who's daughter is current Guv of Kansas.  Both the current Guv and her sister graduated from a Catholic academy and the Guv had been invited to speak at graduation.  And you guessed it.  They uninvited her because she's pro-choice.

  Check out a guy named Rod Paysley.  He's on TBN(The Christian Broadcasting Network) a lot. Screaming, "Dominian Now!"  His Clarity of Mind Institute just had a conference featuring Alan Keyes and the chaste Ann Coulter.  He's leading an "Ohio Reformation".  They're vowing to take over Ohio.

  by tribalecho on Fri May 06, 2005 at 12:40:54 PM PST

  •  Rod Parsley

    His website is advertising Sunday's upcoming appearance of Former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore - the one that fought to keep the 10 Commandments stone statue in the public building

    http://www.breakthrough.net/

    jc's designs

    by jaysea on Fri May 06, 2005 at 07:21:18 PM PST

•  Someone needs to revoke their tax exempt status

  Immediately.  

  They're entitled to associate with who they want, but they are not allowed to promote politics on my dime.

  by stephdray on Fri May 06, 2005 at 01:48:33 PM PST

•  quite right

  You're quite right (& my spouse is a [very liberal] Catholic).  I just wish there were a way to enforce these laws in such egregious instances where high-level religious authorities demand compliance in the name of the Creator.  It rather undermines the idea of a secret ballot.

  by Bob Love on Fri May 06, 2005 at 02:52:26 PM PST

•  ALERT (with sirens): Unintended Consequences!!

  P.S (PreScript) Jeez Loueez everybody - georgia10 has a new diary, also on the Rec list, about this. Go over there to continue the discussion. Meanwhile, here's a copy of what I said there.

  I am not a church goer, but I know many people who are. Some of them are bigoted ignoramuses. Some of them are fairly decent folk but not very well informed and thus likely to "go with the flow" wherever it might be flowing. Quite a few, however, feel compelled by their faith to take political action of some sort - like attending peace marches and rallies; or spending countless hours camped in State Houses to see that laws protect rather than victimize abused women and children. I even know one group of upper-upper- middle-class, middle aged w.a.s.p.'y types that I would peg as Republicans if I saw them in the grocery store (and maybe they are, I don't know how they vote). However, their Bible study group is taking action at the local level because they strongly believe it is unconscionable that there are laws against sleeping in public if the homeless are offered no other safe place to sleep.
  Non-profits or 501(c)3 does not automatically mean "faith-based" or religious. Think SPCA, Sierra Club, the ACLU Foundation. All of these walk a fine line to maintain their tax exempt status and still have an impact on political decisions and legislation that have enormous positive or negative consequences on their respective missions. When you go barging in with metaphorical torches and pitchforks calling for an overhaul of the tax code you may find that you've brought great harm to your like-minded friends.

  So when everybody gets hot and bothered about this one jack-ass in North Carolina and starts demanding action from the IRS please remember that you are also threatening many churches and faith based organizations who support your political views; as well as many organizations that don't have a faith/religion component at all.

  You may end up doing direct, grievous and irreparable damage to your friends this way. Then there's the collateral damage, when your "opponents" take the fiscal and legal tools you are demanding and use them against the groups and causes you hold dear.

  by Catte Nappe on Fri May 06, 2005 at 04:40:00 PM PST

•  i missed the diary

  but knew someone must have posted about this when i read the story.

  My question: what school did the young paster attend? I suspect an indoctrination machine at work, and I'd like to know what school or organization is doing the indoctrinating.

  by agoldnyc on Sat May 07, 2005 at 08:41:55 PM PST

•  Politically Exclusive

  I had the misfortune once of attending an extremist church here in San Diego once back in the late 1980's. I believe this is the same church run by Dorman Owens, who went to jail for fire bombing an abortion clinic.

  At any rate, I was invited by an old friend, who in turn was invited by a student at UCSD to go to a "Bible Study" at a church (in Santee, Ca). I went with my friend, and it turned out to be nothing more than a rally against abortionists, gays, liberals, the government, the secular school system, courts, democrats, etc. The pastor even casually mentioned the execution of gays and the jailing of liberals, by the way.

  Of course, I was just a little bit flabergasted by what I was hearing. I argued with the student who had invited us by saying Jesus never advocated executing people, and his response was "it's in the Bible".  I never went back to that place again. It goes to show that this sort of extremism has been growing, and isn't the domain of the fringe anymore.

  I doubt seriously a Democrat would have been allowed in this church, let alone anyone that challenged the pastor. It appeared there was an effective thought control going on. The congregation was being told what to think, with no discussion.

  by Darrin on Sun May 08, 2005 at 12:36:16 PM PST